Creative math in jobs numbers

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. g8orbill

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    70,510
    Likes Received:
    4,413
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,051
    why do we do this crap?

    From the article:

    http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2014/02/08/
    If you don’t have job creation, apparently, you can just create jobs arithmetically and then hide them in a footnote to a revision*.

    I knew immediately upon seeing the labor force participation rate creep up (from 62.8 percent to 63 percent), while unemployment crept down (from 6.7 percent to 6.6 percent) that there was a BIG revision somewhere to the jobs numbers.

    “The total nonfarm employment level for March 2013 was revised upward by 369,000 (+347,000 on a not seasonally adjusted basis, or 0.3 percent),” says the
    BLS in the situation report.

    And none of this stops the mainstream media for saying that unemployment has reached a new five-year low.

    “Despite last month's sluggish job growth,” says the LATimes, “the nation’s unemployment rate again edged lower, to 6.6% in January from 6.7% in December! That is the lowest since October 2008!! The jobless figure has dropped sharply since October when it was 7.2%!!!”**
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Anyone in the working world outside of metro DC knows the economy remains sluggish and in some rural areas is more like a depression. The media folks know in their hearts, this is the case from watching their coworkers get $hit canned weekly. Virtually all media companies whether print or broadcast are under financial pressure. But they are liberals and cannot admit the truth.
  3. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,782
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,778
    Aren't those types of adjustments made all the time? And why would adjusting the March 2013 numbers push the January 2014 unemployment figures down?
  4. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    At no time in recent history after recessions have we had the "drop out" numbers from discouraged workers that we have under Obama. But everything is wonderful. Just ask Baghdad Jay.
  5. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,782
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,778
    That has nothing to do with the claim that the administration is cooking the books by revising year-old numbers upward.
  6. dangolegators

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,348
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +612
    It's hardly a footnote. The report spends 5 full paragraphs explaining the revision and also includes a table showing the differences. Revisions like this are made yearly. But the regressives have an interest in seeing the economy do poorly. Thus they question any good reports as 'fixed', but hold up any bad reports as the ultimate truth.
  7. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    That is not the point. The point is that there is no way in hell the "real" unemployment rate is in the 6.6% range. There is an army of unemployed discouraged and dejected that are on the sidelines. They've temporarily tossed in the towel. I see it weekly on resumes. People applying for jobs that haven't worked for 2, 3 and even 4 years. And does anyone really believe these people are part of the count of unemployed?

    And a big part of the problem for many of these is that the Obama administration has made it so damn easy for some people not to work. But then again, if they found a job it would likely be part time or "beneath them".
  8. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Nobody has an interest in seeing the economy do poorly. Many of us have pointed to "bogus" statistics since Obama became president. Can we really trust anything coming from this guys administration? Can we trust any information prepared by federal government workers? I'm beginning to think NOT.
  9. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,782
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,778
    What did the Obama administration do to make it so much easier not to work?
  10. asuragator

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,081
    Which stats? I've seen claims about it during the election but of course there was absolutely no evidence, just squawking.
  11. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,782
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,778
    Two questions:
    Are you guys really under the impression that adjusting job numbers even a year later started with Obama?
    Second, how does adjusting March 2013 numbers up put January's unemployment stats down? I'm not saying it doesn't, I honestly don't know. Answers?
  12. asuragator

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,081
    No, their illogical argument is somewhat different. They are claiming that because they alleged bogus numbers at some unspecified point in the past, this is now evidence that the numbers were manipulated. Savvy? :D
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  13. ThePlayer

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,509
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,976
    Sounds like a few folks at BLS don't wish to become part of their own statistics.
    Nothing quite like a 'transparent' Administration....is there?
  14. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,782
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,778
    which question did you answer? I can't tell.
  15. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    The Commies are great at lying about anything just to win a vote. See Putin and his ilk.
  16. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    1. Changes in welfare/work requirement
    2. Recruited "ambassadors" to sign up people for food stamps and other federal programs (48 M now on food stamps)
    3. 13 extensions of unemployment benefits
    4. Subsidies in Obamacare and subsequent rhetoric from regime regarding freeing Americans not to have to work

    I could dig up a few more
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Boring Boring x 1
  17. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
  18. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,672
    Likes Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,584
    If there's "tons of articles," why couldn't you find one better than a post on a blog about small government in Indiana complaining about why unemployment numbers under Obama are reported using the exact same U3 measure that they have been for everyone else too?

    The claim that they have "manipulated statistics" by not changing which unemployment measure is used as the primary reporting statistic seems a tad dubious.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  19. surfn1080

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +173
    They are going to tell you most of those are due to the great recession even though we have been out of it years now. On top of that, all of those have expanded each year!
  20. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,782
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,778
    1. I don't think he did that.
    2. The program to encourage food stamp signups existed before Obama.
    3. Extensions are an act of Congress, aren't they? I also don't believe Obama is the first president to sign them.
    4. That theoretically could, but can't be blamed for those who have already the left the workforce.

Share This Page