Revision economics

Billmon has an article out today that answers my earlier post's question: What about those revisions?

But there is a mystery to the revisions that I can't, off the top of my head, explain. While employment rose in the third quarter -- at least according to the revised BLS numbers -- the aggregate number of hours worked didn't budge an inch. ...

What's going on? My first guess was that employers used the new hires to take some of the strain off their existing employees, resulting in a reduction in the average hourly work week, but leaving aggregate hours unchanged. But no, average weekly hours also didn't budge during the third quarter, remaining stuck at 33.7 (seasonally adjusted.)

So it appears employers hired more workers, presumably paid them, but didn't get any work out of them. This is not, at least in my experience, normal capitalist behavior.

...I see the bureau uses a seasonal adjustment process that is constantly being updated on a rolling three-month basis -- meaning that changes in the normal seasonal patterns observed in any given month can also result in revisions to the previous two months.

Perhaps that's what happened here. We did have that big blackout in the Northeast in August, which may have led to a spike in layoffs, resulting in some distortions in the seasonal adjustment that are just now being ironed out. But that's only a guess.

And here's the important part, of course:

If the administration can persuade the voters the corner has been turned, and that job growth will continue to improve, even if only gradually (the modern day version of pie in the sky, by and by) they may be willing to forgive his truly abysmal economic record to date.

...Which means that next year, "it's the economy, stupid," may simply mean that the stupid candidate is likely to end up the winner.

At any rate, if we are so stupid that we can't look around us and see our neighbors losing their jobs, businesses closing down, laying people off, taking their businesses overseas, people working more hours for less disposable income, more two-family incomes required to keep a household going, and all the other things that are right there in front of our faces, then we deserve the stupid candidate who fools us.

Somebody recently said something to me about underestimating people. I saw Jerry Springer (well as much of it as I could bear to look at) last night for the first time, and I don't think that's possible.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.