Anonymous #1 7w

its simply a wrong legend title but otherwise correct. data labeled in green: change in native born workers m/m, red: change in foreign born workers m/m. both in thousands

0

Anonymous OP 7w

why should I trust a graph with wrong legend titles?

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Maybe I’m stupid but I don’t even understand the argument are you just saying there’s less foreign born people working and more native people working?

0

Anonymous #1 7w

because zerohedge pays for a bloomberg ($30k/yr) and imported the data to excel. usually bloombergs data involve the price changes of equities, bonds, etc. simply replace “price change” with “employment change” and everything else is correct.

0

Anonymous #2 7w

Month over month for the past 4 months foreign born workers have net losses, while native born workers have net gains.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

What does that have to do with the original post? Adding less jobs to the economy is bad irrelevant to who they’re going to.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

It is relavent who the jobs are going to because in the past like 5 years foreign born workers have grown at a rate that far exceeds native born. This is where the “They are taking our jobs” comes from. Because all the job growth in the economy has gone to foreign born workers

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Ideally for the most part you would want both to grow. Probably with some exceptions.

2

Anonymous OP 7w

so the other part of this equation is, that graph dates to July 3. Got one that accounts for the labor adjustments?

3

Anonymous #1 7w

This includes revisions if that’s what you’re asking

0

Anonymous OP 7w

It doesn’t include today’s revisions because that graph dates from July 3, and the revisions came out today.

3

Anonymous #2 7w

Yeah look at the second chart. all the job growth in the economy for the past 6 years has gone to foreign born workers.

0

Anonymous #1 7w

Dates *to* july 3, which is what the data just counted. it always lags by a month

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Ok do you have a link to the actual article? Bc unfortunately I waded through a bunch of shit on that site and the article I found about “native jobs” etc was from July 4.

3

Anonymous #1 7w

from zerohedges X account: https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1951273383594779011?s=46

0

Anonymous OP 7w

and the article from today: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/jobs-shocker-july-payrolls-far-below-estimates-follow-massive-revisions-lower

0

Anonymous OP 7w

ok thanks

1

Anonymous OP 7w

That still doesn’t make less jobs a good economic indicator. I would be curious to what we could attribute the foreign employment to.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Again that doesn’t make less jobs good

1

Anonymous #2 7w

Deportations. Border closed.

-1

Anonymous OP 7w

Obviously, no, but what you really dont want is Fed chair yesterday saying they’re not going to cut rates because the labor market is strong. All for this morning’s print. Should’ve cut.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

The fed isn’t just looking at employment there’s multiple things the fed is balancing.

2

Anonymous OP 7w

That’s fine if that’s your take been then you have to concede we’re getting rid of a significant labor force that’ll have negative economic effects.

3

Anonymous #2 7w

It’s dual mandate is employment and inflation. Inflation has been largely cold, and employment ticking up means the economy is cooling. Which is when the fed should cut. And no, it’s an adjustment, rather than pure “negative economic effects” because you have to ask “for whom” in which case the labor market is better for native borns than foreign borns right now.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

I think there’s some fear over an inflation spike I generally trust our non political fed, although they obviously aren’t perfect like every other institution. That doesn’t make sense why is the labor market better for foreign borns?

1

Anonymous #2 7w

Better for native borns

0

Anonymous OP 7w

That’s not my question you said it was an adjustment why are they adjusting why would someone employ a foreign born worker?

1