The Economy

[ll74]

My post included the objective data and context from an expert. As he stated, a smaller increase in jobs is still a “very healthy growth rate”.

Again - that does not answer my question.

If that’s not to your liking, you can always rely on Fox Business News to tell you the sky is falling.

I asked YOU to explain how smaller job growth than originally reported is a good thing.

I didn't ask for a source or a quote from someone.

I'm asking you to tell me.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Again - that does not answer my question.

I asked YOU to explain how smaller job growth than originally reported is a good thing.

I didn't ask for a source or a quote from someone.

I'm asking you to tell me.

It’s a smaller increase, but still a healthy growth rate. Is a healthy growth rate a good thing? Yes. It would be better if the estimate was still higher, but growth is objectively good.

You seem to be determined to be upset.

 

[Lazaran]

My post included the objective data and context from an expert. As he stated, a smaller increase in jobs is still a “very healthy growth rate”.

If that’s not to your liking, you can always rely on Fox Business News to tell you the sky is falling.

Only an insufferable pedant looking for an argument wouldn’t understand the point of your original post and your subsequent replies to criticism of that original post.

 

[ll74]

It’s a smaller increase, but still a healthy growth rate. Is a healthy growth rate a good thing? Yes. It would be better if the estimate was still higher, but growth is objectively good.

Again - I'm not asking whether growth is a good thing

You seem to be determined to be upset.

No, I'm determined to get you to address what actually occurred rather than spinning it. And I'm enjoying watching the pretzels you create to avoid it

 

[lessOHmo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1826318520357191783

 

[MajorRewrite]

Again - I'm not asking whether growth is a good thing


No, I'm determined to get you to address what actually occurred rather than spinning it. And I'm enjoying watching the pretzels you create to avoid it

I addressed what occurred in my original post and repeatedly in reply to you.

The estimate of job increases was revised to 174,000 from 242,000.

I’m sorry that quoting an expert who put the raw data in context makes you so upset. Maybe you need a nap?

 

[ll74]

I addressed what occurred in my original post and repeatedly in reply to you.

No, you didn't.

The estimate of job increases was revised to 174,000 from 242,000.

And is this revision a good thing?

I’m sorry that quoting an expert who put the raw data in context makes you so upset. Maybe you need a nap?

Quoting someone providing spin, and agreeing with them to the point of avoiding a simple question is quite a thing.

 

[MajorRewrite]

And is this revision a good thing?

Ah, I see where you went wrong. You want me to say the numbers are “bad” but obviously I can’t do that because that would be “spin”.

 

[ll74]

Ah, I see where you went wrong. You want me to say the numbers are “bad” but obviously I can’t do that because that would be “spin”.

I'm not discussing the numbers. You are. The story is not about the numbers.

And you are avoiding that

 

[Lazaran]

Insufferable pedants are insufferable.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I'm not discussing the numbers. You are. The story is not about the numbers.

And you are avoiding that

WTF? Of course the story is about the numbers. The story is the revision of the job estimates (numbers).

 

[KnotMore]

WTF? Of course the story is about the numbers. The story is the revision of the job estimates (numbers).

The story is about deception, at best and lies at worst. Usually the numbers get revised, but not by this much. So which is it, Lies, Incompetence or Misinformation or what?

 

[ll74]

WTF? Of course the story is about the numbers. The story is the revision of the job estimates (numbers).

Yes, I see you failed English class. The subject of the story is the revision, not the numbers. Maybe diagram it to assist your comprehension.

So again - I'm asking you whether the negative revision was a good thing.

 

[ll74]

The story is about deception, at best and lies at worst. Usually the numbers get revised, but not by this much. So which is it, Lies, Incompetence or Misinformation or what?

You apparently also need to diagram the sentence. Revision is what the story is about.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Yes, I see you failed English class. The subject of the story is the revision, not the numbers. Maybe diagram it to assist your comprehension.

So again - I'm asking you whether the negative revision was a good thing.

You are exactly like Harpy — obstinately wrong.

Let’s review what’s happened in this thread:

1. I posted a quote from an article that provided the jobs data as well as context from an expert.
2. You lashed out at me because you didn’t agree with the context the expert provided.

That’s it.

As I said above, it would be better if the jobs estimates were higher but a healthy growth rate is objectively a good thing.

You want me to say that the downward revision is terrible and the sky is falling. But that’s not true so I won’t say it.

 

[ll74]

You are exactly like Harpy — obstinately wrong.

You responded to a story about the revision of job numbers. (Not about the numbers)

You provided a quote about how positive numbers are good. That expert also did not address the revision

Let’s review what’s happened in this thread:

1. I posted a quote from an article that provided the jobs data as well as context from an expert.
2. You lashed out at me because you didn’t agree with the context the expert provided.

That’s it.

As I said above, it would be better if the jobs estimates were higher but a healthy growth rate is objectively a good thing.

You want me to say that the downward revision is terrible and the sky is falling. But that’s not true so I won’t say it.

I asked you specifically whether the revision was good and you have not yet answered the question. I didn't ask you anything about the sky falling or attempt to get you to freak out.

I simply asked - is the negative revision good?

You spent how many comments twisting the question ?

Why?

 

[KnotMore]

Revisions? Lies? Incompetence? What?

https://hotair.com/headlines/2024/0...harging-stations-only-off-by-499-992-n3793427

 

[KnotMore]

The Kobeissi Letter

@KobeissiLetter
Subscribe

You can't make this up:The US Labor department just revised 12-month job growth lower by a whopping 818,000 jobs.To put this in perspective, that's a larger drop in jobs than the entire population of San Francisco.It's also ~160,000 MORE jobs than the entire population of Boston.In fact, the 12-month downward revision is larger than the population of all but 16 cities in the United States.The worst part?This revision is just for the 12 months ended March 2024, let alone the last decade of data.At what point is the data simply unreliable?

 

[KnotMore]

They did the same in the 2012 election,

https://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/index.html

 

[Rightguide]

Here’s real reporting on the adjustment:





US Employment Preliminary

I’m sure you’re upset that the US economy is strong.

I get upset when Democrats lie about job numbers for political gain. I gave you the corrected reporting on the job numbers. You can also take note that the downward revision is the largest in 15 years.

 

[MajorRewrite]

You responded to a story about the revision of job numbers. (Not about the numbers)

You provided a quote about how positive numbers are good.

I asked you specifically whether the revision was good and you have not yet answered the question.

Revisions of job estimates are normal. They are not “good” or “bad”.

The numbers provided by the revision (that’s what revisions do, provide numbers) are not as high as the previous estimates.

But they are still positive.

Neither of these statements are debatable. They are simple facts.

You know, instead of trying to get me to write something, you can just write it yourself. That’s allowed.

 

[ll74]

Revisions of job estimates are normal. They are not “good” or “bad”.

So negative revision is not good nor bad.

Yet you have spent the majority of responses telling me how things were good
Got it

The numbers provided by the revision (that’s what revisions do, provide numbers) are not as high as the previous estimates.

But they are still positive.

Neither of these statements are debatable. They are simple facts.

You know, instead of trying to get me to write something, you can just write it yourself. That’s allowed.

When I asked a specific and simple question and you spend multiple threads not answering it, that is not about me.

Major revisions dilutes confidence in the economy, especially when they are negative.

The story was about that revision, not about positive job growth.

 

[jaF0]

You are exactly like Harpy — obstinately wrong.

Dude just likes to argue. Anybody. Any time. Any thread. Any post. Any topic.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Major revisions dilutes confidence in the economy, especially when they are negative.

Do you have a source for that contention, or is it just your personal spin?

 

[ll74]

Do you have a source for that contention, or is it just your personal spin?

I would expect a person who seems to enjoy researching the economy would I understand how confidence impacts it, but....I guess not

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-confronts-million-us-jobs-100000224.html

“A large negative revision would indicate that the strength of hiring was already fading before this past April,” Wells Fargo economists Sarah House and Aubrey Woessner said in a note last week. That would make “risks to the full employment side of the Fed’s dual mandate more salient amid widespread softening in other labor market data.”

https://recruitonomics.com/revisions-to-the-job-numbers-may-trouble-the-fed/

However, if the negative streak of revisions continues, the labor market might cool faster than what policy makers actually desire, surprising the Fed and ruining the soft landing.