Economists predicted 235,000 new jobs for July, it was 32,000

Ok, I admit I’m not an economist, the beef I have here is that a blind orangutan, throwing darts at a list numbers, had just as good a chance of beating these current crop of economists. (I think I remember someone did set up an ape with a dartboard, and the ape did beat the market!) But, what happens when the people that are supposed to have better tools screw the prediction so bad?

That last paragraph deserves a: :confused:

Considering that the report of July had only a 32,000 ( :eek: ) increase, this sounds to me like an Enron forecast.

I have some questions here:

If even pessimistic economists were talking of more than 100,000, what happened here? Can we really trust larger investment companies if they have this kind of economists?

Do you think the Republican’s point that jobs are getting better and plentiful suffered a mighty blow today?

Why it seems that economists are not getting better at this? You would think that with better computer models and data, that modern economists could be better now, so why did they get it so wrong?

Finally, a mini rant from the super:

[sub][Super cynical mode]
IMO we should outsource the jobs of these economists to India, they are better at math there, and I think they will be less biased with the data, (Reagan’s mourning? A good reason not to hire people? Give me a break)…
[/Super cynical mode][/sub]

Don’t worry, I’m sure Sam Stone will be along any minute to tell us how these figures are meaningless, that the corporations are making bucketloads of money, and we should all re-elect Bush so he can make those tax cuts permanent and ensure four more years of the same. :rolleyes:

The unescapable fact is that, barring a major miracle, by November 2004, George W. Bush will have presided over four years of a 1 million-plus net job loss. And, if cornered, he’ll blame it on Clinton…

In my personal experience, jobs are not getting better. I went from a rather nice job, to one that barely pays my mortgage, utilities, food, insurance, etc.

John Kerry says that the new jobs that are being created pay an average of $9,000 less than the jobs that were lost. The “new job” that I got pays $22,000 less than I was making before. (And this is after my recent raise.)

Nothing substantive to add, except Paul Krugma had this nice chart a few months back.

Out of curiosity, what would Comrade Kerry do to create more high-paying jobs? Submit a new 5-year plan to the Politburo? Miracle them into existance? Tax them into existance? Inquiring minds want to know, and so do I!

Back in March-April-May, jobs were increasing much FASTER than economists predicted. I imagine they all boosted their estimates to jumbo levels to compensate.

This isn’t a matter of “bad as opposed to good” but rather “decent as opposed to super-amazing”.

And yes, I misspelled ‘existence.’ Will that create a new high-paying teaching job, perhaps?

Faster in May SPOOFE?

It did not take too long to get “Blow” in a headline:

Take a look at the revised figures for May and June! As I said before: I am not an expert. But, do remember that it is common to revise the figures of these reports down after they are released. So, I am suspecting even this 32,000 number is not accurate and the makers of this report just prevented an even worse headline: Negative job growth for July.

(It is unrelated to this news, but this is funny: the Reuters link has Bush getting his blood pressure checked!)

So far, August is looking just as bad.

Glad you asked! These questions are usually best answered at the source. (Wanna know Bush’ plan? Compare it at: http://www.georgewbush.com

(Note that Kerry’s plan does include tax incentives for job creation, but doesn’t seem to mention any miracles. The other guy’s plan however… let’s just say it matches that “faith based” agenda we’re always hearing about.)

Trust them to do what? Predict the future? My friend who is a trader says that people ask hime all the time what the markets will do. His reply is “if I knew that, do you think I would be working or sitting at home buying and selling stock?”

Maybe I erred by mentioning the stock market, but I was referring to the members that are economists, not the traders exclusively; for that, I do agree there is no way to predict the future. (Your friend should get the ape :wink: )

However, the job report is a different history, there are ways to get a good preview of the report by doing good research, this was a case were data was there (The ISM’s nonmanufacturing employment index for example) and if one bit of news I remember was right, the problem here is that many economists are not spending more time and money in research to get better forecasts. (Forecasts that were used to influence public opinion and business decisions). I have the feeling many of these fellows will continue to keep their jobs, I wish I could have the capability to just say “oh well, back to the drawing board” after several mayor blunders and still be trusted.

Like the way you equate Kerry with a Communist style command economy and Congress to the Politburo. Since Congress is Republican controlled it so ipso facso the Republicans are actually commies. Thanks for the clarification

I think the cause of the drop in the jobs number is pretty obvious - Oil prices, a series of terrorist warnings, culminating with the election.

When the election is over, no matter who wins, the heated atmosphere will die down, people will get back to business as usual, and then hiring will pick up again. The fundamentals are all strong. Factory growth reached its highest rate in 30 years last month. This is a temporary pinch driven by current events.

I get it. Kerry is really a Communist! You right-wingers really crack me up! :rolleyes:

SS: I think the cause of the drop in the jobs number is pretty obvious - Oil prices, a series of terrorist warnings, culminating with the election.
When the election is over, no matter who wins, the heated atmosphere will die down, people will get back to business as usual, and then hiring will pick up again.

I don’t follow. Why should we expect high oil prices or terrorist warnings to “culminate” with the November US elections? Seems to me that if tight oil and terrorist danger are real problems that are having significant effects on the economy, there’s nothing about the outcome of a presidential election that will automatically make them go away.

Are you suggesting that tight oil and terrorist danger are not really significant problems and their impact on the economy is the result of hyping them for campaign purposes, which will stop once the campaigns are over? Don’t know that I could really go along with you on that.

Actually, you don’t get it. Not even close.

You can’t be f*ing serious. Can’t be.

Inserts post calling Bush a Nazi for reasons of fairness, balance and tradition

It’s either that, or Sam thinks that all those Islamic fundamentalists just won’t have the appetite for terrorism next year what with their being no election in the US. It must be that. Surely not even he could suggest that the current terror alerts are just a politically motivated scam??

The August job figures come out the day after Bush accepts the nomination at the republican convention. I bet Rove was just sure that the August job figures would be good. Now they face the prospect of having poor job growth, or worse - negative job growth, the day after the convention. If I were Rove that would have me quivering in my boots.