"Michigan #1 in Nation in New Hires" <-Huh? Did I Just Read That?

I caught this headline on DeadlineDetroit [from Bloomberg via Crain's - Such is the world of news aggregation that it ends up here!]

Here is a breath of spring for a wintery day....

Quote:

---

Michigan led the way as payrolls grew in 34 states in January, a month before employment gains accelerated nationally.

Michigan led with a 26,500 increase in hiring, followed by Washington state with 24,100, according to figures Monday from the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington. The jobless rate climbed in 25 states and fell in eight.

Broad-based progress in employment even amid fiscal policy changes indicates that consumer spending, which makes up about 70 percent of the economy, may continue to help sustain the expansion. Payrolls grew by 236,000 workers in February, almost twice the 119,000 increase a month earlier, figures from the Labor Department showed this month.

By Michelle Jamrisko
Bloomberg News

---

Ha!

This could be from Dan Gilbert's hiring practices alone!

10 hires for every four positions, or something like that, in the "sales" slots.

But throughout the company, their throughput is reportedly enormous...I'd like to see specific statistics on jobs which last past the 90-day evaluation period.

Just comparing that to the 'jobs created' figures might yield some useful corrections to skewable data. Wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't one worshipped so much. Never put a number on a pedestal, heh, until you know what derived it.

New Hires ain't shit until they stick around a while.

There is a potential cavern between "Jobs Created" and those kept...the only indicator is the so-called Unemployment figures, which due their definitions do not contain those who have recently lost their jobs without having the time or inclination to use governmental offices to find more work, or get aid and support available. At least in my economic strata, families take the bulk of the brunt of that initial cost, and people use their networks and public jobs postings to get their next job...not go to the Unemployment office and suffer their abuses for next-to-nothing.

Where are these people reported and tracked? I'm guessing it is even that much worse in a so-called right-to-work state. More like right-to-get-fired-for-no-cause...


Ugh. need more caffeine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannon

Ha!

This could be from Dan Gilbert's hiring practices alone!

10 hires for every four positions, or something like that, in the "sales" slots.

But throughout the company, their throughput is reportedly enormous...I'd like to see specific statistics on jobs which last past the 90-day evaluation period.

Just comparing that to the 'jobs created' figures might yield some useful corrections to skewable data. Wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't one worshipped so much. Never put a number on a pedestal, heh, until you know what derived it.

New Hires ain't shit until they stick around a while.

---

It all depends on what they are making. If it's $10.00 per hr, what good is that? Most of these companies pat themselves on the back, when they hire people, until you find out what they are paying them. I know Quicken probably has positions that require a degree or higher level of education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannon

There is a potential cavern between "Jobs Created" and those kept...the only indicator is the so-called Unemployment figures, which due their definitions do not contain those who have recently lost their jobs without having the time or inclination to use governmental offices to find more work, or get aid and support available. At least in my economic strata, families take the bulk of the brunt of that initial cost, and people use their networks and public jobs postings to get their next job...not go to the Unemployment office and suffer their abuses for next-to-nothing.

Where are these people reported and tracked? I'm guessing it is even that much worse in a so-called right-to-work state. More like right-to-get-fired-for-no-cause...


Ugh. need more caffeine...

---

Need more knowledge about unemployment stats too. There are two methods to figure unemployment. One is a household survey. The other uses the employer's payroll numbers. Neither has anything to do with unemployment offices, unemployment compensation, etc. Google it. Common misconception.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "It isn't so much that [Gannon is] ignorant. It's just that [he] knows so many things that aren't so." ;)

No matter how you slice it, it's better than saying there was a decrease in jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Need more knowledge about unemployment stats too. There are two methods to figure unemployment. One is a household survey. The other uses the employer's payroll numbers. Neither has anything to do with unemployment offices, unemployment compensation, etc. Google it. Common misconception.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "It isn't so much that [Gannon is] ignorant. It's just that [he] knows so many things that aren't so." ;)

---

How, exactly do they perform this household survey? What is the procedure? Land line telephones?! Knocking on doors?

Your attempt at teaching, alongside the underhanded offense, falls flat.

And what is the LAG time before these payroll figures are collected, analyzed, and published?! Then later seasonally-adjusted...nah, still doesn't close the gap that I see in true reporting.

Plus, has anyone ever participated in an employment or unemployment survey?! Other than the census, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zug

No matter how you slice it, it's better than saying there was a decrease in jobs.

---

Of course, and I'm not arguing for such either...just more accurate reporting on the figures before we put anyone on an altar to worship for helping the growth of the city. Yanno, since the governor made growth the goal. Without defining what he meant by it. When I say Grow Detroit, it means an entirely more organic thing than most consider.

I'm not an economist, but I take the phrase "payrolls grew" to mean that it nets out increases and decreases to create a measure of the difference in payrolls from time period A to time period B.

For a simple example, suppose payrolls are 100 and 10 people are hired and 5 people are fired. Now we have 105 people, and I would say "payrolls grew by 5 people."

Is this correct? That is my understanding of the statistic, and if so, it's great news for our state.

mostly due to auto-related hires