"The ABS stood by its report. Acting chief statistician Peter Harper said the bureau had thoroughly investigated the survey and not found any evidence of problems.
“The August numbers were compiled in accordance with our high professional standards,” Mr Harper said. “There were no methodological changes made in August that would explain the significant increase in part-time employment.”"
Mmmm... but total hours worked went nowhere at all. Surely that must have put up a red flag?
We have had two months of data that show a couple of biggish moves in the unemployment level. One went up and the next went down.
When it went up you had no issue with cheering the economy down as you continue to do. Despite most data showing the economy is plodding along just fine like it normally does.
Quote:
Typically, you grab at the slight apparent fall in WA unemployment numbers and try and spin it into a boom that is going to lead to greater things and ultimately higher house prices.
I never said that, you are very good a creating myths. You are the one saying this not me.
Quote:
You claim to have your finger on the pulse of the WA wider economy yet I doubt you have ever set foot inside any of those big offices in Perth. You borrow money to build units Mike. You are hardly one of the movers and shakers in the WA economy.
Dow do you know I build units? How do you know I borrow money money? Never said I have my finger on the pulse of the economy. I merely stated that my observations prior to data being released are in line with what the data shows and im not just talking about unemployment figures.
You make the classic bear mistake, you talk about a set of circumstances you want to happen in terms of economics, rather then dealing with what is actually happening in reality. This is why your own personal observations fail to be correct time and time again. You are out of step with what is really happening and the data proves this.
Quote:
You contradict yourself as well. Some bloke called guest says that 25% of fitters pulled out of interviews because they were a bit slow dealing with applications and you cite that as evidence that I am wrong? One job, one employer and you see that as all the proof you need.
Who should I believe, you who continuing talk as the sky is falling despite official data proving otherwise. Or should I believe another person on a forum who's own comments tend to match what I see happening in the economy and is represented by data which also reflects this.
I notice you don't respond to other people who directly counter you're observations, who claim to be in the industry you are talking about. You ignore them as it shoots down your claims.
Quote:
Yet you accuse me of using limited observation to draw conclusions?
You need to broaden your view and accept the possibility that the economy is doing much better then you expected.
I factor in a slowdown in mining investment into my own calculations, that is for all to see in the data. You ignore it your peril. However where we differ is on its impact. The slowdown in mining investment is having a far less impact then bears would like, it is not the Australia or WA ending event you would like it to be. It will be a drag on the economy that is not in doubt, but it is only one sector of a very large economy.
Try to be a little more unbiased in your views, as they are not supported by any data. Nearly everyone on this forum is posting their own observations which do not support you're own view. Either you live and work in a location hard hit by a slow down in mining investment or you're observations offer a very limited view point on the overall economy of WA and the nation.
I don't claim the economy is booming, I claim its is growing, jobs are being created. This is a slow transition away from mining investment with bumps and bruises along the way.
Also stop putting words into my mouth which I never say, just talk about the truth, reality of what I actually say and others.
ThePauk
12 Sep 2014, 12:35 PM
"The ABS stood by its report. Acting chief statistician Peter Harper said the bureau had thoroughly investigated the survey and not found any evidence of problems.
“The August numbers were compiled in accordance with our high professional standards,” Mr Harper said. “There were no methodological changes made in August that would explain the significant increase in part-time employment.”"
Mmmm... but total hours worked went nowhere at all. Surely that must have put up a red flag?
What happened to the participation rate, seems most bears don't want to talk about that figure either.
That must be a red flag of optimistic people looking for work in a growing economy.
When it went up you had no issue with cheering the economy down as you continue to do. Despite most data showing the economy is plodding along just fine like it normally does.
I never said that, you are very good a creating myths. You are the one saying this not me.
Dow do you know I build units? How do you know I borrow money money? Never said I have my finger on the pulse of the economy. I merely stated that my observations prior to data being released are in line with what the data shows and im not just talking about unemployment figures.
You make the classic bear mistake, you talk about a set of circumstances you want to happen in terms of economics, rather then dealing with what is actually happening in reality. This is why your own personal observations fail to be correct time and time again. You are out of step with what is really happening and the data proves this.
Who should I believe, you who continuing talk as the sky is falling despite official data proving otherwise. Or should I believe another person on a forum who's own comments tend to match what I see happening in the economy and is represented by data which also reflects this.
I notice you don't respond to other people who directly counter you're observations, who claim to be in the industry you are talking about. You ignore them as it shoots down your claims.
You need to broaden your view and accept the possibility that the economy is doing much better then you expected.
I factor in a slowdown in mining investment into my own calculations, that is for all to see in the data. You ignore it your peril. However where we differ is on its impact. The slowdown in mining investment is having a far less impact then bears would like, it is not the Australia or WA ending event you would like it to be. It will be a drag on the economy that is not in doubt, but it is only one sector of a very large economy.
Try to be a little more unbiased in your views, as they are not supported by any data. Nearly everyone on this forum is posting their own observations which do not support you're own view. Either you live and work in a location hard hit by a slow down in mining investment or you're observations offer a very limited view point on the overall economy of WA and the nation.
I don't claim the economy is booming, I claim its is growing, jobs are being created. This is a slow transition away from mining investment with bumps and bruises along the way.
Also stop putting words into my mouth which I never say, just talk about the truth, reality of what I actually say and others. What happened to the participation rate, seems most bears don't want to talk about that figure either.
That must be a red flag of optimistic people looking for work in a growing economy.
"What happened to the participation rate, seems most bears don't want to talk about that figure either. That must be a red flag of optimistic people looking for work in a growing economy. "
Really good point. Without really good age data to match to the PR it is very hard to tell why it increased. More old people staying in the workforce perhaps as this shows up in youth UE rate. We do know that the ageing demographics point to a lower PR, that is certain and inevitable.
The labour force rollercoaster continued in August, with the largest monthly increase for employment in the history of the series. Despite an extensive investigation, the Australian Bureau of Statistics was unable to find a root cause or explanation for the remarkable surge in employment.
Last month analysts were left speechless after the unemployment rate spiked to 6.4 per cent. I flagged at the time that it may simply be a ‘rogue’ number, more noise than signal, and it might take a few months to get a good read on the labour market. Now it might take a few more months.
On a seasonally-adjusted basis, the unemployment rate fell to 6.1 per cent in August to be 0.3 percentage points higher over the year. The result beat market expectations for a more modest decline.
On the other side of the ledger, the participation rate surprised everyone by surging to 65.2 per cent in July -- its highest level since May 2012 -- to be 0.4 percentage points higher over the year. One potential reason for the recent surge in participation (as opposed to employment) is that it reflects renewed job searching efforts following the federal budget. The more likely reason, though, is simply excessive sample volatility.
The participation rate faces an uphill challenge to maintain these recent gains. Obviously the labour force data will correct at some point towards a more plausible number, and that likely means that the participation rate will be downgraded. On a longer-term basis, the participation rate is widely forecast to fall further on the back of widespread retirement among the baby boomers.
But it was the employment data that stole the show this month. Employment rose by a staggering 121,000 in August, its greatest monthly gain on record, following relatively modest growth over the past year. Remarkably, the total number of hours worked across the economy was unchanged during August.
Part-time employment rose by 106,700 in August (also a record) and it was hardly surprising that the ABS decided to investigate the outcome further. There have been some minor adjustments to its methodology in recent months, but based on its investigation the new methodology is unlikely to have caused such a surprising result.
Often these ‘rogue’ results are driven by sampling issues since the ABS relies on a monthly sample rotation that sees one-eighth of the total sample rotated out each month. When the outgoing and incoming samples have different characteristics there can often be volatile results. However, in this case the sample rotation actually lowered the estimates.
At this point, I’d normally spruik the more sensible trend estimates over the volatile seasonally-adjusted data. The trend remains your friend, but I should also offer a word of warning: the recent volatility is so great that it actually changes the interpretation of the trend data.
For example, the graph below shows the most recent data for August against what the trend would be if the data stopped in June. Trend estimates smooth through the monthly volatility but they also suffer from an ‘end-point’ problem because there is insufficient data to calculate a centred trend. Basically the ABS’ trend estimates place a disproportionate weight on the most recent (and in this case questionable) data.
The difference might not seem like a big deal but it fundamentally changes the interpretation of the estimates. Growth of almost 20,000 jobs per month (the August trend) is considered reasonably strong; by comparison, growth of 12,000 jobs per month (the June trend) points to a struggling economy.
Eventually the trend estimates will absorb the recent volatility but for the next few months the trend will be less reliable than usual.
Interpreting this month’s labour force data is obviously more difficult than usual. The noise-to-signal ratio is through the roof. How can we possibly square away the rise in employment against the estimates for hours worked? The only safe conclusion to reach is that the Australian economy did not create 121,000 extra jobs in August, but who knows what the real result was.
As for the Reserve Bank of Australia, it is firmly in wait-and-see mode. They won’t have to make any major decisions using this data. After the initial confusion and a few frustrated calls to the ABS, I expect that the RBA will simply write this month off and hope that the data returns to normal soon.
By business reporter Michael Janda Fri 12 Sep 2014, 8:31am
The largest monthly increase in jobs on record has pushed the unemployment rate back down to 6.1 per cent.
An estimated 121,000 jobs were added in August, which is well ahead of any previous monthly jobs gain recorded in ABS figures that go back to 1978.
Economists had expected the unemployment rate to fall back from a 12-year high of 6.4 per cent reached in July with many, including the Reserve Bank, viewing that month's steep rise with scepticism and believing it may be a statistical quirk.
However, most were not expecting such a large decline - the median forecast was for just 15,000 jobs to be added and unemployment to sit at 6.3 per cent.
The Bureau of Statistics estimates that 121,000 jobs were added last month, but only 14,300 of them were full-time, with the remainder part-time positions. We asked you what you thought about the jobs figures. Read the comments.
In a positive sign, the fall in unemployment came despite an apparent steep rise in the proportion of the adult population in work or looking for it.
The participation rate jumped from 64.9 to 65.2 per cent - the highest level in around one-and-a-half years - in a strong reversal of a trend towards lower participation seen over recent times.
Take figures with 'a grain of salt'
Looking through the volatility of the seasonally adjusted figures, the more stable trend data shows unemployment rising from 6.1 per cent in July to 6.2 per cent last month, although participation also rose to 65 per cent.
JP Morgan's chief economist Stephen Walters says the trend figure is a better guide of what is going on.
"The trend rate is going up, it's been drifting up for quite a few months now, so maybe that's the signal that the economy is still not growing at its potential and therefore unemployment is drifting up," he told Reuters.
The ABS figures are based on a survey of part of the population and subject to statistical errors - the ABS says it is 95 per cent sure actual job creation was between 63,400 and 178,600 and unemployment between 5.7 and 6.5 per cent.
New survey participants in August had a higher proportion of part-time workers than those they replaced, and the record surge in jobs was also assisted by seasonal adjustment, with August usually a weak month for hiring, but not this year.
The unreliability of recent employment figures month-to-month appears to be amongst the only things the Federal Government and Opposition can agree on.
"Today's figures are encouraging, but the volatility in numbers show that the labour market is soft and employers still have concerns about taking on new employees," noted Employment Minister Eric Abetz in a statement.
"Of course any reduction in unemployment and any increase in employment is welcome, [but] you can't put too much store in one month's figures - I said that last month when the unemployment rate shot up and I say it again today," agreed Opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen.
In both seasonally adjusted and trend terms, the number of hours worked was fairly flat in August.
However, while most measures of the labour market stabilised or improved last month, a quarterly measure of underemployment jumped.
The ABS says the proportion of employed people who wanted more hours of work was 8.5 per cent, up 0.7 percentage points from May.
Added to the unemployment rate, that meant 14.6 per cent of adult Australians were "underutilised" in the labour market.
The Australian dollar rose more than half a cent on the data to 92.1 US cents by 11:45am (AEST), as traders cut bets of a further interest rate cut.
UBS interest rate strategist Andrew Lilley says, like July's weak result, the strong August figures should be taken "with a grain of salt".
He says it is important to look at other labour market indicators, such as job ads and vacancies, when the official employment figures are this volatile.
"The alternative indicators say that the labour market is improving but not strong enough for the unemployment to fall in a sustained way and only when it does fall in a sustained way, will the RBA hike. I have rates on hold until May 2015," he told Reuters.
State-by-state
NSW: Unemployment down from 5.9 to 5.7 per cent; participation up from 63 to 63.6 per cent. Vic: Unemployment down from 7 to 6.8 per cent; participation up from 64.8 to 65.2 per cent. Qld: Unemployment down from 6.8 to 6.7 per cent; participation up from 66.3 to 66.8 per cent. SA: Unemployment down from 7.2 to 5.9 per cent; participation up from 62.4 to 62.8 per cent. WA: Unemployment down from 5.2 to 5 per cent; participation up from 68.3 to 68.5 per cent. Tas: Unemployment down from 7.4 to 7.3 per cent; participation up from 61.1 to 61.2 per cent. NT: Unemployment up from 4.6 to 4.8 per cent; participation down from 74.1 to 73.5 per cent. ACT: Unemployment up from 4.3 to 4.6 per cent; participation up from 71.3 to 71.4 per cent.
We have had two months of data that show a couple of biggish moves in the unemployment level. One went up and the next went down.
Typically, you grab at the slight apparent fall in WA unemployment numbers and try and spin it into a boom that is going to lead to greater things and ultimately higher house prices.
You claim to have your finger on the pulse of the WA wider economy yet I doubt you have ever set foot inside any of those big offices in Perth. You borrow money to build units Mike. You are hardly one of the movers and shakers in the WA economy.
You contradict yourself as well. Some bloke called guest says that 25% of fitters pulled out of interviews because they were a bit slow dealing with applications and you cite that as evidence that I am wrong? One job, one employer and you see that as all the proof you need.
Yet you accuse me of using limited observation to draw conclusions?
Just to show you some more data, employment data for WA from July. The same time you are spruiking doom and gloom.
Western Australia • Seasonally adjusted employment in Western Australia increased by 0.1% to 1,364,357 during July. • Full-time employment increased by 13,672 persons during the month, whilst part-time employment declined by 12,427 persons. • Employment rose by 3.2% over the year and grew by 1.0% over the three months to July 2014. • Full-time employment contributed 1.9 percentage points to annual growth, whilst part-time employment contributed 1.3 percentage points. • In less volatile trend terms, employment increased by 0.2% between June and July, and rose by 3.0% over the year.
13,672 new full time jobs created. 12,427 part time jobs lost. Im sure most people prefer full time work, maybe this is why we see increased activity in the property market with so many more people in full time work.
Why are so many full time jobs being created and this is when the National Figure increased to 6.4%, WA was creating thousands of full time jobs. Augusts numbers should be interesting when we get them.
You starting to get the picture Jimbo as to why I say you're limited observations have no bearing on actual reality of what most people in WA are experiencing. Where is the slow down you say you see, as all I see is more people in work and a hell of a lot of activity around Perth. The data supports what I see, it does not support you're stated view point.
See the employment growth rate, 3.2%. Population growth rate from the last ABS data shows WA growing at 2.9% so job creation appears to be outpacing population growth even though population growth remains very high although has decreased from its all time high.
This may have been posted already as I'm not following this thread closely - wake me up in a couple of months time. The article might help people with little knowledge of stats.
I would not be staking the farm on the notion that unemployment has decreased and is going to decrease further Mike. The latest labour force data is strongly at odds with just about all other related data that I'm aware of. You typically don't just have the mother of all employment booms in the space of a few short weeks and even if you did, it seems difficult to imagine that most of those people who found new jobs only worked about 10 minutes a week. Notwithstanding that these things don't usually match up neatly - but they should be roughly similar, not wildly divergent.
Just as there is truth in what Peter said yesterday, it is equally true that when something looks too good to be true.....that's usually because it is.
I don't think the employment numbers will get much better for WA, very hard to improve upon 5% it is very close to what economists call full employment.
Also the response from the ABS about those who say its figures are wrong.
[/quote]The ABS are a highly professional body who I take no umbrage with. But if we assume that this figure and other related data are all correct, then the situation becomes virtually impossible.
The point that those arguing that this result is valid and chastising the disbelievers are missing is that many of them - including myself - would find it much more believeable if there had been strong rises in related data such as change in hours worked and job vacancy numbers.
You cannot have the biggest rise in employment on record running concurrent with no significant rise in hours worked and only a modest rise in job vacancies. If the August labour force job numbers data is right then all the other data must be wrong. And if this does turn out to be the case, then something amazing has occurred and it would be truly facinating to learn what it is that has caused a result like no other on record (as well as how other important data series can all have gone wrong at the same time).
But I'm presently about 99% certain that it is the labour force figures that are amiss and tend to think that coming releases will see a very large hand-back.
If the root cause of this result cannot be found then it would leave me concerned that all ABS labour force data good or bad cannot be relied upon to be reasonabley or even roughly accurate.
Government must stop cutting funding to important statistical institutions like the ABS otherwise they will not have the resources to give us an accurate picture of how we are travelling.
When it went up you had no issue with cheering the economy down as you continue to do. Despite most data showing the economy is plodding along just fine like it normally does.
You make the classic bear mistake, you talk about a set of circumstances you want to happen in terms of economics, rather then dealing with what is actually happening in reality. This is why your own personal observations fail to be correct time and time again. You are out of step with what is really happening and the data proves this.
I am not cheering the economy down. I have kids. I would love to see the last five years go on forever.
Unfortunately that is not going to happen. I am not a bear waiting for prices to drop so that I can buy a house for $150 k whilst the investors get burned. I am just bearish on Perth property right now and for the immediate future.
I really think you underestimate the scale of resources contribution to the WA and Australian economy.
House building, retail, F.I.R.E. etc are all by products of the dominant force in any economy.
In South Wales, it used to be coal mining and steel, in Glasgow and Newcastle it used to be shipbuilding. In Detroit it used to be cars. In London it is financial services and in China it is manufacturing.
Everything else feeds from those main drivers.
WA's main economic driver is resources.
You can't create an economy by building houses for eachother or by selling imported stuff in shops.
Quote:
Dow do you know I build units? How do you know I borrow money money?
I notice you don't respond to other people who directly counter you're observations, who claim to be in the industry you are talking about. You ignore them as it shoots down your claims.
WTF is a fitter? Pipe Fitter? Mechanical Fitter? Fitter and turner? Sock Puppet?
I am a Construction Engineer specialising in industrial construction. I don't call myself an Engineer because that could range from the bloke who comes around to fix your Foxtel to Isambard Kingdom Brunel and I am neither of those. So what is a fitter? Does he work in my industry? I don't know, because neither Guest or the other fella who claim to be fitters actually specified what kind of fitter they were?
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be rising.
I am not cheering the economy down. I have kids. I would love to see the last five years go on forever.
Unfortunately that is not going to happen. I am not a bear waiting for prices to drop so that I can buy a house for $150 k whilst the investors get burned. I am just bearish on Perth property right now and for the immediate future.
I really think you underestimate the scale of resources contribution to the WA and Australian economy.
House building, retail, F.I.R.E. etc are all by products of the dominant force in any economy.
In South Wales, it used to be coal mining and steel, in Glasgow and Newcastle it used to be shipbuilding. In Detroit it used to be cars. In London it is financial services and in China it is manufacturing.
Everything else feeds from those main drivers.
WA's main economic driver is resources.
You can't create an economy by building houses for eachother or by selling imported stuff in shops.
You over estimate the impact and the reliance of WA on resources, this is why the data does not support your view point no matter how many times to squirm. Those are the facts. 5% unemployment is extremely good, no wonder people are buying, building and renting properties. 95% of the working population have jobs, much of the world would kill for that.
Never said I build units hence my point. Stop trying to tell other people what they do when you don't know anything about them.
Quote:
WTF is a fitter? Pipe Fitter? Mechanical Fitter? Fitter and turner? Sock Puppet?
I am a Construction Engineer specialising in industrial construction. I don't call myself an Engineer because that could range from the bloke who comes around to fix your Foxtel to Isambard Kingdom Brunel and I am neither of those. So what is a fitter? Does he work in my industry? I don't know, because neither Guest or the other fella who claim to be fitters actually specified what kind of fitter they were?
Ok lets play you're game and use how you respond to most others against you.
I don't believe you are a Construction Engineer, you are full of BS. You could not engineer a pile of Lego into a building let alone anything else. You are just a sock puppet.
How am I doing, that is typically how you respond to others who disagree with you, which is most of us.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy