• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The NC GOP Recovery

I'm just jumping in here at the end. I've got nothing to add that 923 hasn't covered already.
 
Deacon923 said:
I have got to stop playing around with BLS charts and do some work. Here is a chart showing the percentage change of actual non-farm payroll jobs nationally, in NC, CA, TX, GA, and VA since 2011. What you see is CA and TX beating the national average, NC and GA tracking the national number or lagging, and VA sucking.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Rather than getting into slap fights with Ph, care to comment on this jh?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
What percentage of people on UI actively choose to stay on it because it's easier than working? I know there's no real answer but I can't imagine the number is very high while I would guess JHMD thinks it's very high. I think it's a complete boogeyman which is why I have such a disconnect with JHMD's views.

As usual 923 kills it on this thread with actual facts.
Click to expand...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/why-denmark-is-shrinking-its-social-safety-net/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
 
lbE08 said:
if you're engaging in this conversation and have to ask this question...
Click to expand...

"payroll" seems like an odd qualifier, as does "non-farm". Why factor them out?

Also, either I'm going colorblind or I can't tell which shade is supposed to be NC and which one is GA. A little help?
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
"payroll" seems like an odd qualifier, as does "non-farm". Why factor them out?

Also, either I'm going colorblind or I can't tell which shade is supposed to be NC and which one is GA. A little help?
Click to expand...

dude, seriously?

Nonfarm Payroll is a catchall group that includes basically all business/manufacturing jobs (and about 80% of the workforce), but excludes government positions, home business (like farms), and aid-providing non-profit jobs. it gives a much better read on the true economic condition and is the monthly statistic that's taken and used for policy making/adjusting.

you factor them out because they're going to dilute the stats.

Say there are 100 eligible workers and 20 of them are nonfarm payroll (NFP) exempt. That leaves 80 people who really comprise the bread and butter of employment stats.
If 10 people are unemployed, 10/80 is a better (and higher) stat to use to actually show how things are going out in the real world, rather than the 10/100 you might want to use.

**deleted analogy because it was not working; was meant as an example for the sake of explaining the different measures.**
 
Last edited:
lbE08 said:
dude, seriously?

Nonfarm Payroll is a catchall group that includes basically all business/manufacturing jobs (and about 80% of the workforce), but excludes government positions, home business (like farms), and aid-providing non-profit jobs. it gives a much better read on the true economic condition and is the monthly statistic that's taken and used for policy making/adjusting.
Click to expand...

And as such, it's the most readily available Fed statistic that can be used to compare jobs apples to apples between states. It also has the benefit of being kept on a monthly basis, so you can get more recent data that some other stats, for example state GDP which is only available through the end of 2011 right now.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Also, either I'm going colorblind or I can't tell which shade is supposed to be NC and which one is GA. A little help?
Click to expand...

GA is the lighter shade of bluish - teal maybe? Starts out lower than NC, ends just a hair higher, but they track pretty close in that chart.
 
Deacon923 said:
And as such, it's the most readily available Fed statistic that can be used to compare jobs apples to apples between states. It also has the benefit of being kept on a monthly basis, so you can get more recent data that some other stats, for example state GDP which is only available through the end of 2011 right now.
Click to expand...

I imagine Virginia constantly trails the national average since you're not counting government positions. I hear there is one or two in North Virginia. Surprised California is doing so well given that farm employees don't count in the figure. I guess you can factor them "out" on the theory that those jobs represent inelastic demand, but the Indianas, Iowas, and Kansas's of the world probably get quite a skew on that basis.

Texas seems to have everyone else clipped by a good margin.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I imagine Virginia constantly trails the national average since you're not counting government positions. I hear there is one or two in North Virginia. Surprised California is doing so well given that farm employees don't count in the figure. I guess you can factor them "out" on the theory that those jobs represent inelastic demand, but the Indianas, Iowas, and Kansas's of the world probably get quite a skew on that basis.

Texas seems to have everyone else clipped by a good margin.
Click to expand...

...you remove them out of the whole percentage equation, though. not just the numerator. you get that, right? the whole point of the NFP stat is that it removes the skew created by high numbers of govt/farm/etc employees.
 
lbE08 said:
...you remove them out of the whole percentage equation, though. not just the numerator. you get that, right? the whole point of the NFP stat is that it removes the skew created by high numbers of govt/farm/etc employees.
Click to expand...

It's not a partisan point; it just seems weird to me that you could purport to measure an accurate picture of the economic climate of Iowa and Kansas (for this "apples-to-apples" comparison with say, Conn. or Rhode Island) and not count the corn and wheat.
 
lbE08 said:
Well there ya go. That's news to me; I feel like in discussion/application it was always excluded, or at least isolated.
Click to expand...

It would be unkind to respond, "dude, seriously?", so I won't. We're all learning here.
 
jhmd2000 said:
It would be unkind to respond, "dude, seriously?", so I won't. We're all learning here.
Click to expand...

To an extent, it would be fair if you did.

Regardless, to respond to you above- I'm not saying it is anything partisan. Just that across states/areas, you get a better basis of comparison by looking at NFP data.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top