Stockman's Contra Corner covers last week's BLS jobs report. Phil covers it and comments, "in fact, people in the prime working age group (25-54 years old) lost 35,000 jobs in October." Zero Hedge notes, "the most disappointing data point in today's report is that while overall labor growth was solid, the participation rate for workers 25-54, was 80.7%, far below its peak of just under 85%…" And Lee Adler writes, "Day after day, week after week, month after month, the Wall Street establishment media buries us in horseshit and there’s no pony in the manure pile."
Now The Nattering One ferrets out how much worse last week's BLS jobs report really is, as in a crap-tacular BS report…
A Disingenuous Jobs Report?
Summary
- Discussion, examination and analysis of Nov 6, 2015 BLS jobs report data.
- Erosion of higher paying, prime earner jobs with benefits.
- Analysis of declining payroll tax revenue growth.
- Discussion of effects on the dollar, commodities, global equities and bond markets.
Excerpt:
A cursory probe of the BLS or BS report, finds an increasing YoY work population +2.9M, decreasing YoY participation rate -0.4% and 1 million added to the NILF (Not In Labor Force) category, and with all disenfranchised or discouraged considered, real un- and under-employment is at 25%, but that data was cheerfully ignored.
The cheerful headline was +271K new jobs; so we are on the mend, right? Dead wrong. Unfortunately, +145K, or 54% of the +271K new jobs, are jobs arbitrarily added to the number by the birth-death model, which BLS utilizes. If you neutralize the birth-death model's contribution, new jobs were a paltry +126K.
But it gets even better, or worse actually. Non-seasonally adjusted, looking at 55+ age, +468K, which is substantially more than the net +271K claimed in the report. However, prime earners were male 25-54 – 179K. So, the prime earners got laid off and the part-time seniors took over and this erosion in prime-earning jobs is seen as beneficial? And no doubt the part-time non-prime earner jobs have the same benefits and are at the same wage level, right? No way!!
As you can see from the chart above, YoY RoC (year over year, rate of change) or 'growth' in Federal Payroll Withholding Taxes is in a steady contraction from +20% to 'zero' since mid-2013. So, if withholding is declining, and their "growth has contracted to zero, so are the wages those taxes are based upon.
Note: The Nattering Naybob, as a contributor at Seeking Alpha, can be found here. He notes that if you register for a SA account, "you can exert control by unchecking a box of two over your communications settings in your SA profile, so your email inbox will not be polluted with one bit of spam (not even the cured pork shoulder variety)." Phil can also be found on Seeking Alpha here.
