Quantcast "economists Were Surprised" (and The Times Was Pissed)
Search by tag or site Login to my blog ? Start my own blog














TheMoneyBlogs
Home
About
Create your own blog
Contact us
Vote for this blog!

Poor and Stupid

How big government, big business, big media and big academia block your road to financial freedom- and tell you it's for your own good.

"economists Were Surprised" (and The Times Was Pissed)

Posted on 04/07/2007 11:50 AM | Link | Post Comment
Our monetary policy correspondent "Irrational Exuberance" points to a blog posting at FelixSalmon.com criticizing the New York Times for having come up with a graphic that manages to make Friday's big upside surprise in payroll jobs creation into a negative.
The NYT has an interesting chart accompanying its payrolls story today. While the text is as upbeat as you'd expect given the excellent figures...someone on 43rd Street seems to have decided to run a graphic showing payrolls going down.

The chart violates a basic rule of charting, which is that a bar chart like this should be used to show how quantities change from month to month. Looking at the bar chart, you expect the March bar to refer to March figures, the February bar to refer to February figures, and so on. But in fact they refer to a year-on-year differential, which is better displayed with a line chart.

Still, that's a quibble: A line chart would still be going down, even as everybody is talking about the payroll numbers going up. What gives? To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Year-on-year figures obviate the need for seasonal adjustment, so maybe the real trend is down but is being hidden by the seasonal adjustments. Alternatively maybe the enormous revisions that the BLS has been doing to the time series of late make the year-on-year figures less useful than they otherwise would be.

In any case, it's not immediately clear to me why year-on-year figures should be charted when all of Wall Street concentrates solely on the month-on-month number. If you're going to use these figures, you should at the very least somewhere explain why.

Reader Jerome Schmitt wonders why economists were so surprised by the surge in jobs:
Another media cliche -- "economists were surprised..." After 20 straight quarters of being ?surprised? by strong economic growth and job growth, when are they no longer allowed to call themselve economists?

In my field of engineering, being consistently ?surprised? about work topics quickly results in job loss.

Stock Quote or
Examples
ATM Wallstreet - Mon Oct 06, 2008 03:39PM
Made several great trades today. Traded the QID, QQ [read more]
ATM Wallstreet - Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:41PM
When I first started Day Trading I traded anything that [read more]
LearningMarkets.com - Fri Oct 03, 2008 03:14PM
Written by S. Wade Hansen Why Should You Care About O [read more]

PREMIER SPONSORED LINKS

Most Visited Blogs | Most Popular Blogs | Most Recent Blogs | Contact Us | Terms and conditions | Privacy Policy

The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on TheMoneyBlogs.com are provided for personal finance, education and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of TheMoneyBlogs.com and there is no implied endorsement by TheMoneyBlogs.com of any advice or trading strategy. The analysts and employees or affiliates of TheMoneyBlogs.com may hold positions in the stocks or industries discussed here. Your use of this and all information contained on TheMoneyBlogs.com is governed by the Terms and Conditions of Use. Please click the link to view those terms. Follow this link to read our Editorial Policy.

Copyright © 2008 The Connors Group, Inc.