Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Al French" <alfrench@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Worley's Weekend Weeview - Unemployment reports
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 12:22:22 -0400
Next Article (by Date): [CANSLIM] Re:CANSLIM CHECKLIST E2moskow@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
It is confusing, but it is not so much inaccurate surveys as it is measuring different things under different influences. Unemployment is not a measure of people without jobs (37.1% -the reciprocal of the 62.9% Employment/Population ratio); it is a measure of people without jobs who are actively seeking work, which is a much smaller number (5.8%). If, as recently occurred, unemployment benefits were increased in the same month as more people were hired, both unemployment and employment would increase. Last month, the extended unemployment benefits for 9/11 passed by Congress ran out for some workers. This probably caused for some of the drop in unemployment in May and may account for more in June but it won't affect the creation of new jobs. Unless one follows these numbers closely, I believe the easiest way to evaluate these reports is simply to watch the market's reaction to the news. The reaction shows up in the index futures markets in seconds. (The unemployment reports are issued at 8:30 AM, when futures are traded but prior to the opening of the equities markets.) Al French - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@bellsouth.net> To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Worley's Weekend Weeview > Hi Patrick, > > That's because the jobs creation # comes from a poll of businesses, while > the Unemployment # comes from a survey of households. So if either survey, > both separate and independent, are inaccurate then you can see results like > this. > > I do not expect to see next month's report decline further, rather more > likely it will be back to 6%, but may also show more substantial addition of > jobs at the same time. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick Wahl" <pjwahl@attbi.com> > To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com> > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:48 PM > Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Worley's Weekend Weeview > > > This seems a little confusing to me, probably some odd way the feds count > workers > and so on, maybe you can clear it up - how can expectations be for more jobs > added than actually were, with a rise in unemployment, while in fact we had > a fewer > jobs added with a decrease in the unemployment rate. Something doesn't add > up > there. > > On 8 Jun 2002 at 20:27, Tom Worley wrote: > > > EMPLOYMENT > > Friday's report surprised with positive news, overall unemployment > dropping > > to 5.8% from 6% instead of rising as expected to 6.1%. New jobs were well > > under expectations, with 41K added instead of 75K. Revised new jobs in > April > > ended up only 6K. > > > > - > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or > -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. > > > > > - > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or > -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email.
Next Article (by Date): [CANSLIM] Re:CANSLIM CHECKLIST E2moskow@aol.com
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]