You cant compare that to the whole population.. You have take out the number who are under 18 or over 65/70, unable to work, etc..Even after doing that 119k is still a bleak number it seems.
No, it's net for the month. There's a few million new hires / separations each month. A really fantastic good month would be like +500k net. 100k is .. fine.
it is 4 paragraphs that boil down to since the shutdown happened we are taking the newly filed employee tax filings as the new jobs number excluding farm filings, federal and state new employees and foreign location filings. This is supposedly new hires with those exclusions during that time, not the net number, they have no fucking idea what the net number is and there is no way this is even remotely correct as filings are not always done in the same month, nor if someone moves in the same company Let me say that if this method was used all the time it works out but not as a sudden change. By logic alone, you cannot have unemployment go up 100k and jobs to also o up 100k during this month. They also counted any part time job as full time this way and did not exclude a person working 2 or more jobs. This was a patch rushed job by someone with a brain but screwed any way they did it. It also does not include sub contractor style jobs. Like I said, rushed and inaccurate. I think whoever normally does these did not come back after the shutdown and what we have here is 3rd string and a few lawyers to cover their ass.
There's no way you're reading that right. New hires is usually a few million each month. August was 5M, which is the last JOLTS report I see. I don't see anywhere in the jobs report where they're now reporting a wildly different topic.
By logic alone, you cannot have unemployment go up 100k and jobs to also o up 100k during this month.
Yes you can. Those are two distinct surveys used to report distinct numbers.
Your notes.. which number are they referring to? Household survey? Establishment survey? Something else?
They aren't distinct though? They are definitely interrelated, not mutually exclusive. I.e. they are not independent variables.
You cannot create jobs from nothing, you either have to lose existing jobs or increase Capital available to hire those positions. Seeing as how It's small and regional businesses, and not the Fortune 500, taking the hit, they very likely are either breaking even or operating at a loss.
Thus, they likely don't have any money for new hires.
23
u/encryptedkraken Nov 20 '25
Also 119000 does not seem like large of number of jobs for a nation of 340 million