tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post934190647558042048..comments2024-02-20T19:58:27.733-06:00Comments on Jake's Wisconsin Funhouse: Strong Wisconsin jobs continue for December. Is it real?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post-66713800559119677662015-01-23T12:08:56.539-06:002015-01-23T12:08:56.539-06:00Geoff- And by "flat" wages, that means 0...Geoff- And by "flat" wages, that means 0% BEFORE inflation , if I'm doing the math right. It would match Levine's research that the only jobs being added are low-wage ones.<br /><br /> Or else the job gains are overstated. Neither makes the current situation seem as sunny as the jobs numbers would seemJake formerly of the LPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15660401299391001751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post-4852384359548199062015-01-23T00:42:57.011-06:002015-01-23T00:42:57.011-06:00Looking at the QCEW total jobs and comparing them ...Looking at the <a href="http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ENU5500010010" rel="nofollow">QCEW total jobs</a> and comparing them to <a href="http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/uistats/" rel="nofollow">the change in UI claims</a>, the from December CES reference week to December CES reference week:<br /><br />Dec 2008 - Dec 2009: -119,175 jobs, continued+initial UI claims +34,276 (-3.48 jobs/UI claim)<br />Dec 2009 - Dec 2010: +33,660 jobs, continued+initial UI claims -46,566 (r-0.72 jobs/UI claim)<br />Dec 2010 - Dec 2011: +21,662 jobs, continued+initial UI claims -20,404 (-1.06 jobs/UI claim)<br />Dec 2011 - Dec 2012: +33,353 jobs, continued+initial UI claims -8,155 (-4.09 jobs/UI claim)<br />Dec 2012 - Dec 2013: +28,095 jobs, continued+initial UI claims -11,243 (-2.50 jobs/UI claim)<br /><br />Dec 2013 - Dec 2014, continued+initial UI claims fell by 17,918. CES suggests a total job gain for 2014 of 53,300, which would imply a jobs/UI claim ratio of -2.97. That's plausible looking at the UI claims, although they don't do a very good job of nailing it down.<br /><br />Unadjusted CES agrees almost perfectly with QCEW for the first six months of 2014 (+57,600 vs +55,929), so the second half bounce is not obviously a correction to a first half undercounting.<br /><br />53,100 total jobs in 6 months though would be without precedent, a big shift from recent history and hence more than slightly implausible.<br /><br />Regardless of what the exact case may be, going by withholding tax receipts if jobs gains are actually as great as 50,000 then wages are flat.GeoffThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17317722272565026078noreply@blogger.com