Morning Report: Terrible jobs report 10/2/15

Stocks are lower after the jobs report disappointed. Bonds and MBS are up big

Jobs report data dump:

  • Change in nonfarm payrolls +142k vs. +201k expected
  • Two month revision -59k
  • Unemployment rate 5.1% (in line with expectations)
  • Average Hourly earnings 0% month over month +2.2% YOY
  • Labor force participation rate falls to 62.4%

Very disappointing jobs report. No wage growth, and the labor force participation rate has fallen all the way back to Oct 1977 levels, which was the time when Reggie Jackson earned his nickname Mr October.

Stock index futures reversed a strong rally on the news. The 10 year bond yield dropped 12 basis points as well. It certainly looks like the decision to stand pat in September was the right one. For all the Fed’s discussion of October being a “live” FOMC meeting, consider it dead.

In other economic news, factory orders fell 1.7% in August and the ISM New York index fell to 44.5 from 51.1.

Yesterday, the House Financial Services Committee passed a bill to bring a bit of accountability and control to the CFPB. The director will be replaced with a 5 member commission, and there will be an inspector general. The CFPB is currently under the Fed, and gets its funding there. Congress has no say over their operations. This was intentional, to prevent a more conservative Congress from de-fanging the agency.

Finally, it looks like Hurricane Joaquin is going to miss the East Coast.

28 Responses

  1. Frist! Glad that Joaquin Phoenix is finally getting some hurricane love.

    Like

  2. BTW, I thought we were in for longer hurricane seasons and more severe hurricanes over the past 10 years. What happened?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/nearly-3500-days-since-major-hurricane-strike-despite-record-high-co2/

    Yet, many people tend to anthropomorphize everything that happens in nature. Changes in nature are seen as an extension of changes in human behavior, specifically our use of fossil fuels. It really isn’t much different from medieval witches being blamed for bad things that happened.

    Ditto.

    From March 2006: Warmer Seas Create Stronger Hurricanes!

    http://www.livescience.com/642-warmer-seas-creating-stronger-hurricanes-study-confirms.html

    Yet the global ocean temperature has been going up (not as much as the models predicted, of course, but still):

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/2015-will-be-record-warm-in-surface-temperatures-but-still-below-model-forecasts/

    Why do hurricanes hate science?

    Like

  3. Brent, what does “under the Fed” mean here? Do both Houses and the POTUS have to agree to change the nature of the CFPB?

    Is GE moving its corp office out of CT? Is that a big deal? I thought GE’s bosses were in offices in Rockefeller Center. What were they doing in CT?

    Like

    • Mark:

      Is GE moving its corp office out of CT? Is that a big deal?

      As far as I know, the move has not been finalized, but is being discussed. See this:

      http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/General-Electric-Move-Could-Hurt-Connecticut-326514001.html

      I think it would be a pretty big deal, at the very least symbolically. GE’s move would not be undertaken lightly, and would be a very high profile slam on the business environment in CT. Plus CT’s finances are a shambles, the result of years and years of one-party, liberal rule. The loss of jobs, and the resulting decline in both the corporate and the individual tax base, is the last thing CT needs (although exactly what it deserves, given who the people keep voting into office).

      Like

  4. How to invite an antitrust investigation.

    “Amazon Will Stop Selling Google and Apple Streaming Devices at the End of the Month
    By Alison Griswold ”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/01/amazon_blocks_sale_of_apple_tv_and_google_chromecast_to_boost_its_own_prime.html

    Like

    • jnc:

      How to invite an antitrust investigation.

      While you are probably right that it will, I can’t see why it ought to. Surely there are other suppliers of Google and Apple devices.

      Besides, I thought neither Apple TV nor Google’s streaming devices included Amazon Prime. Is that not right?

      Like

  5. Wonder if Democrats will make Gun Control a campaign issue in 2016?

    Like

  6. @Scottc1: “Besides, I thought neither Apple TV nor Google’s streaming devices included Amazon Prime. Is that not right?”

    Chrome Cast is an issue of the app supporting it on the phone or tablet. I don’t know if Amazon’s streaming video supports in on the iPhone (i think it does) but I’m sure it does somewhere. AppleTV includes Amazon Instant Video as well (thus access to Amazon Prime free videos, if you have Amazone Prime).

    Like

  7. @jnc4p: “How to invite an antitrust investigation.”

    It’s Amazon trying to force Google and AppleTV to better integrate Amazon Instant Video into their offerings.

    BTW, I thought AppleTV had built-in Amazon support in the latest (coming) model, but maybe not. It might strictly be mirroring from iPhone or iPad. So Amazon is singling them out for not fully integrating Amazon into their device (why this matters, I don’t know; in the latest AppleTV, Amazon would be able to write their own App as they have for iPhones and iPads).

    Like

    • I don’t know Amazons motives and I don’t know whether it is a good idea or not. All I do know is that there is no reason for the government to involve itself.

      Like

  8. Mark, yes the CFPB is funded by the Fed, so Congress can’t play games with their appropriations. I guess it is similar to the NSA.

    Like

  9. @mcwing: “Wonder if Democrats will make Gun Control a campaign issue in 2016?”

    It’s always a big winner from them, especially when they talk about how much they love hunters, they just want a few rules . . .

    Liberals who complain how the Republicans will not compromise and it’s now “all or nothing” on every issue never mention Bill Clinton getting a gun bill filled with restrictions and wouldn’t compromise on it because it was missing something he wanted (trigger locks or fingerprint sensors or magical bullets of peace or something) … and so no gun bill. Who knows how many lives would have been saved over the past decade-and-a-half if Clinton had swallowed his pride and compromised.

    Like

  10. Fuck ’em.

    Wish it was more.

    Like

  11. They made a deal with the devil. Suck on it.

    Like

  12. Exceeded the budget for the risk corridors.

    Like

  13. Kevin – Far too many far too often confuse the difference between weather and climate. Mind you, any discussion of hurricanes exhibits paralochialism. Just because hurricanes aren’t hitting CONUS, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Along those veins, consider the off repeated claim that there has been no global warming since 1998 (or whatever year it was). Take a blip and claim it’s the norm. It’s like claiming the number of deaths in the U.S. from terrorism is down 99% since 2001. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

    BB

    Like

  14. You fail to mention that a dramatic increase in the number and severity of hurricanes which would be hitting the U.S. at this time was unequivocally predicted by the prognosticators of climate doom and gloom ten years ago—and promoted along with numerous other falsehoods by Al Gore and his ilk. In light of their being completely wrong, a bit of skepticism is called for.

    Like

  15. Like

  16. This is wild, Planned Parenthood apparently gives mammograms to trannies but now biological women.

    Like

    • Wouldn’t trannies who are now biological women need mammograms as much as biological women?

      Do women-who-become-men need prostate checks?

      ‘Goose?

      Like

  17. @gbowden41: Apparently, Planned Parenthood offers testicular cancer and prostrate exams for women (uh, non-cisgendered, of course).

    “Cisgendered”. Ugh. I weep for the language.

    Like

  18. @fairlingtonblade: “Kevin – Far too many far too often confuse the difference between weather and climate. Mind you, any discussion of hurricanes exhibits paralochialism. Just because hurricanes aren’t hitting CONUS, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
    Along those veins, consider the off repeated claim that there has been no global warming since 1998 (or whatever year it was). Take a blip and claim it’s the norm. It’s like claiming the number of deaths in the U.S. from terrorism is down 99% since 2001. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
    BB”

    I realize weather and climate are not the same thing (though they share some features in common, such as an inability to predict the state of both in the future with any significant accuracy), and they clearly relate to each other. However, I was addressing the prognostications (of doom, naturally) made around 2005/2006 when we had a number of hurricanes. They were explicitly blamed on AGW, by people like Nature and LiveScience (who trade on their credentialed pedigree to put themselves forth as the Mouth of Science) and more and severe hurricanes were predicted (in some cases, the AGW Gods could be appeased with carbon credits, carbon taxes, and new CAFE standards; other times, it’s too late, and this is just our inevitable, unstoppable doom).

    And while discussion of hurricanes may exhibit some parochialism, the reality is we’ve had far fewer hurricanes than informally (but urgently) predicted. Which, to my point, doesn’t speak to the reality or lack there of of AGW, but our very limited skills at predicting the future of complex systems. We lack both the mental prowess (and, thus far, the computing power and AI modeling) to accurate predict the future of systems with thousands, much less millions, of complex and varying inputs. Not saying it won’t happen, but I don’t think it will happen until we have radical AI actually writing the modeling software.

    Also, I prefer to distinguish between climate stasis (i.e., taking a “blip” and claiming it’s the norm) and anthropogenic climate change, which posits not that humanity has some effect on global climate, but that humanity is a prime mover and via emissions regulations and, of course, new energy taxes we can materially change the future of our climate. I tend to suspect this is the hight of narcissism—to see climate (and, let’s be honest, often the weather) and see humanity as the prime mover and, essentially, the “reason” for the state of climate is not unlike see the sun rise in the east and set in the west and determining that the earth is in the center of the universe (emotionally).

    Which is (I am often at pains to reiterate) not to say that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not a good idea. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned with CO2’s apparent staying power in the atmosphere, and it’s ability to accumulate in the atmosphere the way zinc or lead might accumulate in the body. Reducing pollution, cleaner renewables, electric cars, etc: all good ideas. Solar power? Love it! A revolution in battery storage? Want it! Wind power? Hey, whatever floats your boat. I am in no way married to fossil fuels, and would love to see us weened from them. I love energy efficiency. Want us to live on a cleaner planet.

    At the same time, I put predictions of climate doom in the same camp as Paul Erlich’s predictions of population doom by the early 1980s. It will never arrive, but there will always be an explanation as to why the apocalypse has not come on time that doesn’t invalidate the fundamental tenets of the belief system. If I’m not mistaken, Erlich still maintains he was correct, he was just off on the dates for worldwide famine and cannibalism.

    Like

  19. @markinaustin: “Wouldn’t trannies who are now biological women need mammograms as much as biological women?”

    I don’t know if there are stats, but if they are on HRT and developing breast tissue, I’d assume they would at least be at risk. Men can get breast cancer in any case, and men suffering of gynecomastia are at greater risk.

    Like

  20. @Brentnyitray: “They made a deal with the devil. Suck on it.”

    Well, I’m not sure what else they expected. I’m sure they will find a way to pass it on to the consumer. In this case, the employers, who will pass most of it on to the employees. Or arrange to have less employees to insure.

    My problem is ultimately the sales pitch. Even if the ACA will ultimately be a better system, covering more people more cheaply, the chances of reforming a long-established market and putting a number of new requirements on said market and having everything work out swimmingly without numerous expensive corrections was effectively 0%. But nobody wants to say: “There will be a lot of problems at the outset, and some of you are going to be hit with huge, unexpected expenses. There are going to be lots of problems, because you don’t make radical alterations to complex systems without lots of problems.”

    Nope. “It’s awesome! 11 million people who weren’t insured, mostly young people who don’t need insurance, are now insured! The chances of this effecting healthcare outcomes are extremely low, but they are insured! And it’s only cost a few billion more than predicted! Yayyyyy!”

    Given a choice between the proposed ClintonCare and the ACA, I will take the ACA gladly, however. I would prefer that we never got into our 3rd party payer system in the first place, and only carried health insurance for catastrophic care and emergency care. But it’s too late for that!

    Like

  21. Mark, my question is why can trannies get mammograms from PP but not women?

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: