Who Would Have Thought? Sept Job Data Downgraded

[Kathianne]

D'oh! Like the deaths in Benghazi, just a bump in the road.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49620569?tw_i=263697435845607424&tw_p=tweetembed


New ADP Count Slashes Job Creation for September
Published: Wednesday, 31 Oct 2012 | 12:54 PM ET

Revisions to the way payroll data firm ADP counts private sector job creation have resulted in a sharp drop in the September employment count.


<tbody>
http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__EMPLOYMENT/unemployment_1.jpg

</tbody>

ADP's new calculations put the monthly job creation at just 88,200, down from the 162,000 the firm originally reported earlier this month.


The firm recently has entered into a partnership with Moody's Analytics that will change the way the private payroll count is calculated.


The new private payroll count now is actually under Labor's September job creation (http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718/?Jobs_Growth_Rises_114_000_as_Rate_Slides_to_7_8_P ercent) household survey net total of 114,000, 104,000 of which came from the private sector.


The unemployment rate dropped last month to 7.8 percent. Separately, as the government's establishment survey said the total number of new private-sector workers swelled by 873,000. (Read More: Consumer Prices Rise on Energy Surge; No Pay Gains (http://www.cnbc.com/id/49429035/))


Economists expect Friday's report to show 125,000 new jobs and the jobless rate to hold steady.


When the Labor Department revealed its September job count, it sparked criticism from some quarters that the numbers were being manipulated for political purposes as the November presidential election drew near.


The soft ADP count could add credence to those who believe the pace of job creation is slower than the government's numbers indicate.


"It's huge, no doubt about it," said Todd Schoenberger, managing principal at the BlackBay Group in New York. "Their changing the methodology tells me that if the number is cut in half with that revision, then the revision we're going to see Friday is going to be a disaster."


Moody's economist Mark Zandi did not return a request for comment.


Former General Electric <script type="text/javascript">cnbc_comboQuoteMove('popup_GE_ID0E1IAC15839609');</script>[GE 21.06 http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/CNBC_Images/componentbacks/watchlist_down.gif -0.05 (-0.24%) http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/CNBC_Images/backgrounds/realtime_icon.gif] (http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/GE)<script type="text/javascript"> cnbc_quoteComponent_init_getData("GE","WSODQ_COMPONENT_GE_ID0E1IAC15839609","WSODQ","true","ID0E1IAC15839609","off","false","inLineQuote"); </script> CEO Jack Welch caused a skirmish after the September jobs report was released when he said on Twitter, "Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can't debate so change numbers." (Read More: Jack Welch Defends His Jobs Report Comments (Again))

(http://www.cnbc.com/id/49358414/?Jack_Welch_Defends_His_Jobs_Report_Comments_Again )

ADP will announce its October count on Thursday, with the Labor Department to follow on Friday.


ADP usually releases its report on the Wednesday preceding the first Friday of the month, but held off because of damage from Hurricane Sandy. The firm is expected to announce a further revision to the September count along with its October totals. (Read More: Damage From Sandy? What About Potential Economic Boost? (http://www.cnbc.com/id/49617715/))
In announcing the partnership Oct. 24, the two firms said the partnership will help align the private sector job count with the Labor numbers.


At the same time, the new reports will provide a more detailed breakdown of the numbers while expanding the total of businesses that participate.


ADP occasionally has come under criticism for releasing data that is often widely disparate with the government's final count.

[Anton Chigurh]

"Hide the decline."

But they can't hide it forever, the numbers are what they are. Can't really stall it until after the election, either.

Or, can they?

It was earlier reported that the new jobless claims numbers for September were inaccurate as well, some 35,000 new claims were mysteriously found at a unemployment office of a major city, although the exact city wasn't revealed. This was reported quietly, 2 weeks ago.

[aboutime]

How long does it take Americans who follow Obama to recognize when they are being played like a Fiddle?

If those Americans who voted for Mister Obama are still as uninformed as they were before voting for him.

It's a sure bet. Those same Americans who did it once, will do it again on November 6th.

That will be the one sign that proves how Democrats, and Mister Obama have managed to LIE to those Americans again.

Lying is the One, Sure Thing we all know.. OBAMA DOES BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE.

[KarlMarx]

You pump 750 Billion dollars to stimulate the economy.. how is it paid back? By higher taxation or higher borrowing, both which hurt the economy

Why not cut taxes? Because, as our liberal friends would tell you, it will cause deficits to grow. Well, if you cut tax revenue, I suppose that would be true, but we're not saying that. We're saying cut tax *rates* which is not the same thing.

Think about it.. tax rates are measured in percentages and tax revenue is measured in dollars.. the units of measure aren't the same... so they aren't the same thing.

Let's suppose GDP is the Gross Domestic Product and T is the tax rate as a percentage of the GDP... GDP x T = revenue to the government.. roughly speaking

if GDP x T = what's left (let's call it L) then GDP = (what you take out in taxes) + what's left .. OR GDP = GDP x T + L...

that "L" is what businesses and investors will use to MAKE money...

Let's suppose taxation occurs in a regular cycle, i.e. once a year, once a month, etc.

So, the first cycle leaves us with L... the 2nd cycle be L x T leaving L2 (i.e. what's left after the 2nd cycle of taxation)..... L2 x T leaves L3 (i.e. what's left after the 3rd cycle of taxation).... etc

There exists a value of "T" (let's call it Tx) such that the value of each "L" will remain the same after each taxation cycle... i.e. L = L2 = L3 = .... above that value of Tx the value of each L will decrease ... i.e. L3 < L2 < L.... if the value of T is below Tx... the value of each L will increase....

In other words, the economy (i.e. L, L2, L3.. etc) will grow...

In system science, the Tx value is called the harmonic of the system.. its natural frequency if you will...

[KarlMarx]

As a follow on...

If there is an optimal Tx for an economy... what happens if the economy contracts (i.e. goes into a recession)? Then, the value of Tx must decrease in order for economy to stabilize... If the tax rate is not decreased, the economy will continue to shrink.

Therefore, if Obama understood this (and he doesn't.. nor does any Democrat).. no stimulus would have helped the economy... what he should have done was to cut tax rates below the point of Tx so that the economy would continue to grow....

Hopefully this makes sense....

[KarlMarx]

Now, let's revisit the question of revenues to the government

If lowering the tax rate below the critical value Tx for an economy causes the economy to grow, what effect does that have on government revenue? The answer is.. government revenue actually increases over time.

Remember that GDP = GDP x T + L and L will increase with each taxation cycle if the value of T is below the critical value of Tx. This means that for the next cycle, "GDP" will be larger, than the current cycle, therefore the value of GDP x T will also be larger...

Therefore, decreasing tax rates has a two prong effect, it increases the size of the economy and increases revenue to the government.

This is runs against our intuition, since we tend to think that decreasing tax rates would shrink the revenues to the government. However, I've shown that the opposite is true.

[SassyLady]

The underlying tenet that I learned in economics is that the more people that are working the higher the tax base. The higher the tax base the more revenue for the government. The more people who are working, the less people who need assistance and the less assistance needed, the less the government has to spend. Makes staying on budget easier.

Wow.......is it really that simple?

[fj1200]

The underlying tenet that I learned in economics is that the more people that are working the higher the tax base. The higher the tax base the more revenue for the government. The more people who are working, the less people who need assistance and the less assistance needed, the less the government has to spend. Makes staying on budget easier.

Wow.......is it really that simple?

Not really, government isn't just about assistance and we've done a poor job at staying on a budget no matter the economic circumstances anyway, outside of the late 90's that is. The main problem that we're going to be facing in a few years is more and more non-workers (read SS and Medicare recipients) and relatively fewer workers supporting them.

[Abbey Marie]

Unions, China. Double barrel attack on jobs. Let's add in the cost of healthcare due in large part to unrestricted lawsuits and the fear thereof, while we're at it.

[aboutime]

The underlying tenet that I learned in economics is that the more people that are working the higher the tax base. The higher the tax base the more revenue for the government. The more people who are working, the less people who need assistance and the less assistance needed, the less the government has to spend. Makes staying on budget easier.

Wow.......is it really that simple?



SassyLady. Actually, and Honestly? Yes. It really is that simple, in many ways. Which is why so many, such as Obama, and Democrats refuse to accept it, and call it hogwash so often.

Ever heard the expression K.I.S.S.? Keep It Simple Stupid. Not you SassyLady, but those who must always make everything so much more difficult with their excuses, and lame attempts to always deny....such things actually work. If they allow themselves to learn the HONEST facts, rather than always listening to those who DO NOT WANT THEM TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

[Robert A Whit]

You pump 750 Billion dollars to stimulate the economy.. how is it paid back? By higher taxation or higher borrowing, both which hurt the economy

Why not cut taxes? Because, as our liberal friends would tell you, it will cause deficits to grow. Well, if you cut tax revenue, I suppose that would be true, but we're not saying that. We're saying cut tax *rates* which is not the same thing.

Think about it.. tax rates are measured in percentages and tax revenue is measured in dollars.. the units of measure aren't the same... so they aren't the same thing.

Let's suppose GDP is the Gross Domestic Product and T is the tax rate as a percentage of the GDP... GDP x T = revenue to the government.. roughly speaking

if GDP x T = what's left (let's call it L) then GDP = (what you take out in taxes) + what's left .. OR GDP = GDP x T + L...

that "L" is what businesses and investors will use to MAKE money...

Let's suppose taxation occurs in a regular cycle, i.e. once a year, once a month, etc.

So, the first cycle leaves us with L... the 2nd cycle be L x T leaving L2 (i.e. what's left after the 2nd cycle of taxation)..... L2 x T leaves L3 (i.e. what's left after the 3rd cycle of taxation).... etc

There exists a value of "T" (let's call it Tx) such that the value of each "L" will remain the same after each taxation cycle... i.e. L = L2 = L3 = .... above that value of Tx the value of each L will decrease ... i.e. L3 < L2 < L.... if the value of T is below Tx... the value of each L will increase....

In other words, the economy (i.e. L, L2, L3.. etc) will grow...

In system science, the Tx value is called the harmonic of the system.. its natural frequency if you will...

Why won't Romney simply talk about the growth in revenues to the Feds when Bush cut taxes and be done with it?

All he has to do to prove the point is state year by year the actual increases in revenue to the Feds.

Face it, Democrats want not only your first born, but their first born.

Damned shame the public is so ignorant of facts.