![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
damn, people, what
May. 7th, 2010 07:37 amLooks like another exciting day is on tap: DJIA -258.08 (-2.45%), NASDAQ -65.48 (-2.82%), S&P500 -21.74 (-1.93%) despite a genuinely positive report on jobs (full report), despite the spike in employment rate.
And in the time it took to type that we spiked up to pare off about 20% or so of those losses. Exciting! Follow the bouncing ball...
eta: ...or maybe that number is a little less awesome than I'd hoped. +188,000 non-seasonally-adjusted jobs added via the birth/death model, the highest number in some time. Given the "adjustments" made in January, I think we can throw out the new birth/death model as being not really better than the old birth/death model. So, well, hell. But even taking that out of the non-seasonally-adjusted numbers, the unadjusted U6 number is improved nontrivially. Subtracting it out, about 12.5% of the non-seasonal-adjustment employment growth gets deleted. It looks like that's getting amped by the seasonal adjustment changes, which is annoying, but it still looks like a pretty decent report on the whole.
eta2: I'm waiting for Mish's take-apart, but here's Zero Hedge's; I'm disappointed in him, because he's conflating seasonally-adjusted numbers with non-seasonally-adjusted numbers and you really can't do that; that's bad math. You wrote a bad song, Hedgie! (He thinks he can do it because the seasonal adjustment of the headline number is pretty tiny this month. But you can't do that against the prior month, so it's not meaningful.)
And in the time it took to type that we spiked up to pare off about 20% or so of those losses. Exciting! Follow the bouncing ball...
eta: ...or maybe that number is a little less awesome than I'd hoped. +188,000 non-seasonally-adjusted jobs added via the birth/death model, the highest number in some time. Given the "adjustments" made in January, I think we can throw out the new birth/death model as being not really better than the old birth/death model. So, well, hell. But even taking that out of the non-seasonally-adjusted numbers, the unadjusted U6 number is improved nontrivially. Subtracting it out, about 12.5% of the non-seasonal-adjustment employment growth gets deleted. It looks like that's getting amped by the seasonal adjustment changes, which is annoying, but it still looks like a pretty decent report on the whole.
eta2: I'm waiting for Mish's take-apart, but here's Zero Hedge's; I'm disappointed in him, because he's conflating seasonally-adjusted numbers with non-seasonally-adjusted numbers and you really can't do that; that's bad math. You wrote a bad song, Hedgie! (He thinks he can do it because the seasonal adjustment of the headline number is pretty tiny this month. But you can't do that against the prior month, so it's not meaningful.)
