同意或不同意?对2008年至2020年美国非农就业人数变化的预测以及covid - 19劳动力冲击的影响

Tony Klein
{"title":"同意或不同意?对2008年至2020年美国非农就业人数变化的预测以及covid - 19劳动力冲击的影响","authors":"Tony Klein","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3929635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We analyze an unbalanced panel monthly predictions of nonfarm payroll (NFP) changes between January 2008 and December 2020 sourced from Bloomberg. Unsurprisingly, we find that prediction quality varies across economists and we reject the hypothesis of equal predictive ability. In an error decomposition, we find evidence of significantly biased forecasts. Participation rate in the survey is affecting this bias. We find that survey participants under-predict job losses in times of market turmoil while also under-predicting the recovery thereafter, especially during the COVID19 labor shock. For prediction of NFP changes, autoregressive models are outperformed by a deep learning long short-term memory network. However, the consensus forecast yields better forecasts than model-based approaches and are further improved by combining the forecasts of the best performing economists. The COVID19 labor shock is shown to have adverse effects on the prediction performance of economists. However, not all economists are affected equally.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agree to Disagree? Predictions of U.S. Nonfarm Payroll Changes between 2008 and 2020 and the Impact of the COVID19 Labor Shock\",\"authors\":\"Tony Klein\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3929635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We analyze an unbalanced panel monthly predictions of nonfarm payroll (NFP) changes between January 2008 and December 2020 sourced from Bloomberg. Unsurprisingly, we find that prediction quality varies across economists and we reject the hypothesis of equal predictive ability. In an error decomposition, we find evidence of significantly biased forecasts. Participation rate in the survey is affecting this bias. We find that survey participants under-predict job losses in times of market turmoil while also under-predicting the recovery thereafter, especially during the COVID19 labor shock. For prediction of NFP changes, autoregressive models are outperformed by a deep learning long short-term memory network. However, the consensus forecast yields better forecasts than model-based approaches and are further improved by combining the forecasts of the best performing economists. The COVID19 labor shock is shown to have adverse effects on the prediction performance of economists. However, not all economists are affected equally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20373,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3929635\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3929635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们分析了2008年1月至2020年12月间来自彭博社的非农就业人数(NFP)月度预测。不出所料,我们发现经济学家的预测质量各不相同,我们拒绝预测能力相等的假设。在误差分解中,我们发现预测存在显著偏差的证据。调查的参与率影响了这种偏见。我们发现,调查参与者低估了市场动荡时期的失业人数,同时也低估了市场动荡之后的复苏,尤其是在2019冠状病毒病劳动力冲击期间。对于NFP变化的预测,深度学习长短期记忆网络优于自回归模型。然而,共识预测比基于模型的方法产生更好的预测,并通过结合表现最好的经济学家的预测进一步改进。新冠肺炎疫情对经济学家的预测效果产生了不利影响。然而,并非所有经济学家都受到同样的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Agree to Disagree? Predictions of U.S. Nonfarm Payroll Changes between 2008 and 2020 and the Impact of the COVID19 Labor Shock
We analyze an unbalanced panel monthly predictions of nonfarm payroll (NFP) changes between January 2008 and December 2020 sourced from Bloomberg. Unsurprisingly, we find that prediction quality varies across economists and we reject the hypothesis of equal predictive ability. In an error decomposition, we find evidence of significantly biased forecasts. Participation rate in the survey is affecting this bias. We find that survey participants under-predict job losses in times of market turmoil while also under-predicting the recovery thereafter, especially during the COVID19 labor shock. For prediction of NFP changes, autoregressive models are outperformed by a deep learning long short-term memory network. However, the consensus forecast yields better forecasts than model-based approaches and are further improved by combining the forecasts of the best performing economists. The COVID19 labor shock is shown to have adverse effects on the prediction performance of economists. However, not all economists are affected equally.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Legacy of COVID-19 in Education The Gender Effects of COVID-19 on Equity Analysts Impacts of the COVID Lockdown on Consumption: Household Data from India Status Externalities in Education and Low Birth Rates in Korea Did Precious Metals Serve as Hedge and Safe-Haven Alternatives to Equity during the COVID-19 Pandemic: New Insights Using a Copula-Based Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1