- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,779
- Reactions
- 18,686
if ASX goes down it means it is a good news, nowadays, market goes up on bad news as the key factor has become government stimulus, not economic factors
Unemployment 6.2% - that's good yes ?
Callam Pickering, the Asia-Pacific economist at jobs website Indeed, said if there were jobs for people to look for, encouraging participation, unemployment would be closer to the Reserve Bank and Treasury forecast of 10 per cent.
"Had the size of the labour force held steady, with everyone losing employment shifting to unemployment, then the unemployment rate would have spiked to 9.6 per cent," he said.
Underemployment — those with a job who wanted more hours of work — surged by more than 600,000 to 1.8 million people, taking the rate to a record high of 13.7 per cent, up nearly 5 per cent in just a month.
Underutilisation, which adds unemployment and underemployment together, also jumped to a record high of 19.9 per cent.
if ASX goes down it means it is a good news, nowadays, market goes up on bad news as the key factor has become government stimulus, not economic factors
The number is meaningless actually. It measures the participation rate so all those who are not actively looking for work are not counted. Let's face it, in this climate what is the point in looking for work?Unemployment 6.2% - that's good yes ?
I think the number's so far from expectations and "real" reality that it won't be seen as credible by many.On today's unemployment number ... the job keeper numbers are masking what is the actual number.
No point in changing the factors if you want to compare apples with apples.
I think a distinction needs to be made as to the detail there.If they are not working, they are unemployed.
I disagree with that last paragraph. If people don't NEED to work they shouldn't be considered as unemployed. It says zip about the state of the economy and is therefore a pointless indicator.
I find it very hard to believe the ABS would survey 50,000 people every month about their employment for the sake of spurious reporting.
If people want to change how it's measured, go right ahead. If their alternative modelling is better than the current one then presumably the ABS would adopt it. Why wouldn't they ?
But they haven't changed it for more than 20 years. Maybe they know something about labour force surveys that we don't ?
I think a distinction needs to be made as to the detail there.
If someone is not working then they are unemployed in a literal sense that is true.
Suppose though that someone has a few $ million in liquid assets and earns an above average income through their investments in shares, property etc plus a bit of active trading.
Would you seriously count them as unemployed? That they aren't working is because they've no need to not because nobody wants to employ them - odds are they could get a job pretty easily if the money's self-made (as distinct from inherited or won the lottery etc) since they must have some ability at something to have become wealthy by their own means.
Why are you asking me this question when I didn't make that statement?huhhhh?
You think participation going down is from a bunch of people not needing to work?
Yep, just like last time.The vast majority of participation going down is from people who have given up on finding work. The ABS very usefully calls this "hidden unemployment".
Sounds good to me.To me, employment is a simple measure: how many people are working.
Unemployment is therefore just as simply the inverse, how many people are not.
Regardless of how many people the ABS feels deserve to be in the "work force".
Would you rather they said the economy was going down the toilet instead ?Gee you're right, there is no way the Government would want to paint a rosy picture of the economy...
Wage growth stinks because this country has been slipping further to the right on workers' rights for the last decade or more. When you have someone like Sussan Ley telling workers to hand back their last payrise before scabbing off the public purse you know you have a Govt that doesn't support wage growth - so it doesn't happen.They follow the international standard, which as I said, I hate and think is dumb.
Participation matters. That's why as recently as Feb you simultaneously have the Prime Minister goofball and his Treasurer goofball on TV saying how great the economy is while wage growth continues to stink.
How many of those am I worried about seriously counting as unemployed because they might be all people who suddenly became millionaires with property portfolios and quit their jobs?
Come on dude.
"The ASX isn't really going up or down a lot these days" yesterday 1.8% variation in a day?: today similar.....Any actual evidence for this?
The ASX isn't really going up or down a lot these days, but I don't see it going up on bad news and going down on bad news.
As I have mentioned before, it's about surprises relative to participants pricing models, be they implicit or explicit. If there is bad news, but it isn't as bad as participants had priced, then that is marginally good news and you should expect prices to rise.
Nothing to do with Government "stimulus".
"The ASX isn't really going up or down a lot these days" yesterday 1.8% variation in a day?: today similar.....
What can I say @InsvestoBoy, post GFC generation no doubt..
This is NOT normality by any standard, unemployment rising means stock market boost in the US..why if not because this means more gov money..under a form or another used to prop the market
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.