I don’t understand what you are arguing. The last month’s job numbers have nothing to do with this month’s job numbers except to change the relative unemployment level. The previous month’s unemployment dropped by 0.3%. Full stop. This month’s unemployment went up to 7.9%. Full stop. They are both impacted by the number of jobs created that month as well as the number of people entering the workforce that can be counted as actively seeking jobs. Saying that this month’s even stronger job numbers should not have raised the unemployment number is not taking into consideration the massive number of people who entered the job market.
No, last month’s numbers have a lot to do with this month’s numbers in that they’re calculated the same way. If two jobs numbers that are roughly comparable had such disparate impacts on the unemployment numbers, that suggests that something very different was happening on the other part of the equation, i.e. the number actively looking for work. Which would imply that last month’s drop was primarily caused by a decline in the number looking for work rather than the jobs created.
Can you demonstrate that, or are you just speculating that the drop in unemployment last month was due to a large number of workers leaving the job market rather than an increase in jobs? Because if you’re just speculating that it’s the reason, great. Have fun. If you have some sort of evidence that is the case, you should provide it.
It’s not my own speculation, a drop in labor force participation is frequently put forth by economists as the reason for drops in unemployment that are inconsistent with the number of jobs created. Conversely, increases in labor force participation are put forth as the reason for increases in unemployment that accompany positive jobs created numbers.
You seem to like the idea when it’s used to explain the increase in unemployment today, and don’t seem inclined to just dismiss it as speculation, and you should accept it just as well when it works the other way.
ISTM that it is also supported by the data provided by RadioWave in post #59, which show the broader unemployment rate remaining the same in September as in August.
The raw numbers show that the number of discouraged workers actually dropped by 210k between August and September. The broader underemployment rate stayed the same because there was a spike in part-time employment which has since abated and the measurement is now following the same trend as the U3 rate.
I’m not arguing that its not possible. But in this month’s report we have actual numbers indicating that the number of people returning to the job market exceeded 500,000. Do you have similar information indicating that a corresponding number of people left the job market that month?