Congratulations on posting a meaningless number on the internet. IQ really has little to do with whether someone can think critically or not. Lots of smart people believe lots of specious things. IQ basically tests 3 things, verbal skills, math skills and spatial skills. One can be a genius in one of the 3 areas and average in the other 2 and still have an IQ of 125. The last time I had my IQ tested it was 22 points higher than yours if you really want to know.
I have 30 years of market watching and trading.
So you deride IQ testing.
And then you brag about yours.

(and your tests were obviously some online 'Test Your IQ' nonsense)
My tests (several of them) were by/for the government.
(though - granted - I cannot prove it without showing my name)
And what is your education I asked?
Not 'how long you have been watching CNBC'.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.htm#concepts
About halfway down is a table comparing the household survey with the employment survey. Look at the line titled
Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level The requirement for the change to be significant under the CPS is 500,000. You are claiming a change of 466,000 is significant when statistically it clearly isn't based on the methods of the numbers you are using. This is the people that produce the numbers saying 466,000 is not a significant change. You have also ignored the fact that the number for November is less than 50,000 different than the August numbers.
STRAWMAN!!!
See?
You either deliberately posted a strawman?
And/or you did not understand my question.
Your answer and your link have almost, NOTHING to do with my question.
The BLS is a government agency.
It is NOT...Wall Street (i.e. the major, US, private business sector).
I will ask again:
Post a link from an unbiased source that proves that 2 months of macroeconomic data is NOT considered a 'very good' trend - by Wall Street standards?
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.htm#concepts
About halfway down is a table comparing the household survey with the employment survey. Look at the line titled
Approximate size of over-the-month change in employment required for statistical significance at the 90-percent confidence level The payroll survey is statistically significant with a change of 120,000 compared to the 500,000 for the household.
I said from an
'unbiased' source.
The BLS is STAGGERINGLY biased.
They are under the Department of Labor.
Headed by the Secretary of Labor.
Obviously, the Secretary puts pressure on the BLS to put out statistics that put the POTUS/economy in the best possible light (without lying).
That is why in 1994, Clinton got the BLS to change the unemployment rate (today's 'U-3') to not include 'discouraged workers'...to make the UR look far better than it really is.
https://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/...nd-create-americas-nilf-island/#ixzz29UY5x2Ns
He, obviously, DELIBERATELY got the BLS to manipulate the data to make the economy look healthier than it was.
Surely, you are not so INCREDIBLY naive at your age (and experience?) to actually believe that the Department of Labor's, BLS is 'unbiased' about their
OWN statistics...

.
Or do you automatically believe, everything a company/government entity says about the exactitude of their OWN statistics?
Post a link to an UNBIASED source that factually proves that the Establishment Survey is significantly, more accurate than the Household Survey?
You confuse emotional reaction trading (betting) with trading based on a careful examination of the data. When data comes out in the morning the market will often jump one way or the other based on the headline number but then when the numbers are examined more closely it will often swing back the other way. Buy on the rumor, sell on the news can often be a big part of this. Stocks are bought or shorted based on the prediction of a number and then the positions are closed on the news.
STRAWMAN!!!
I confused nothing (in this regard).
ALL, human-instigated trades are at least, partially based on emotion.
And even the trading computer programs are written by humans to take emotional responses, to various data, into account.
If you have not learned that - you know little/nothing about equity trading.
It is a simple question.
Requiring only a one word answer.
True or False - does Wall Street often move significantly, STRICTLY on ONE, BLS/other data point?
True or False?
If you go read your original link to birth-death it nowhere mentions birth-death of companies so I assumed it was talking birth-death population. I already explained that to you once. If that is too hard for you to understand since you only have an IQ of 125, let me know and I will simplify it for you.
'Currently, the CES sample includes about 131,000 businesses and government agencies drawn from a sampling frame of Unemployment Insurance tax accounts which cover approximately 670,000 individual worksites.'
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm
Surely, even
you cannot believe that 'businesses and government agencies/individual worksites' applies to a 'household survey'?!?!?
I will ask again:
'Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the BLS uses their CES Birth-Death Model on the Household Survey?'