Jack Welch was right, sort-of.... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Jack Welch was right, sort-of....


.264 magnum
10-26-2012, 06:21
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/10/25/data-points-to-calif-as-jobless-claims-culprit/

Looks like California made a reporting error a couple of weeks ago leading to that week's surprisingly good initial claims number and the U3 number thus looks suspect.


ETA - looks like a number of people in the media owe Welch an apology. He wasn't precisely right, the books weren't cooked they were wrong.

ETA II - apparently Cali has been producing really bad numbers, as in significantly incorrect, consistently for at least a couple of years.

TheJ
10-26-2012, 06:59
The problem is he could have gotten the same point across much better if he had framed it a little differently. He should have stuck more with alleging the number was simply wrong (which most of us know it was upon scrutiny) versus implying actual manipulation by the administration, which he should have know would be incredibly unlikely to be proven true (even if it happened).

kensb2
10-26-2012, 07:15
So then, what were the 'real' U-3 numbers for last month? Probably still over 8%? I'm sure the error, and the subsequently adjusted % will get far less media coverage than the fact that Obama had suddenly gotten the # under 8%.

.264 magnum
10-26-2012, 07:30
The problem is he could have gotten the same point across much better if he had framed it a little differently. He should have stuck more with alleging the number was simply wrong (which most of us know it was upon scrutiny) versus implying actual manipulation by the administration, which he should have know would be incredibly unlikely to be proven true (even if it happened).

Agreed. Apparently, California will offer up an explanation later today.

I can already hear, "computer glitch" in the wind.

.264 magnum
10-26-2012, 07:31
So then, what were the 'real' U-3 numbers for last month? Probably still over 8%? I'm sure the error, and the subsequently adjusted % will get far less media coverage than the fact that Obama had suddenly gotten the # under 8%.

That's a good question. The BLS will fix the numbers and publish them likely today. I'll check now.


ETA - nothing yet.

Bren
10-26-2012, 07:34
ETA - looks like a number of people in the media owe Welch an apology. He wasn't precisely right, the books weren't cooked they were wrong.

So, by not "cooked" you mean it was pure coincidence that, (1) at this point before the election, (2) a very liberal state (3) and an agency headed by an Obama contributor (4) provided "incorrect" information that made Obama look good?



Yeah, could be.:whistling:

Dragoon189
10-26-2012, 07:39
November 2nd, the oct numbers will be out and maybe even right

.264 magnum
10-26-2012, 07:51
So, by not "cooked" you mean it was pure coincidence that, (1) at this point before the election, (2) a very liberal state (3) and an agency headed by an Obama contributor (4) provided "incorrect" information that made Obama look good?



Yeah, could be.:whistling:



It looks bad but intentionally fudging the numbers one week is a career ender and a crime. Moreover it's a crime that is guaranteed to be noticed. The weird looking numbers by economists within hours and by the BLS within a couple/three weeks at worst. I'd argue that the BLS types should have noticed immediately.

Oddities:
1. I need to know what happened and WHY the Cali UE office didn't simply know the numbers were wrong by just looking at them. I heard a labor economist at BC IIRC who is on record sending an email to Cali within an hour of the numbers being released. He simply knew they were wrong.

2. Why didn't the BLS protest immediately.

3. How in the heck did the press miss this almost entirely until now.

4. The timing. This looks really bad.


I can't wait to find out what's up.

.264 magnum
10-26-2012, 07:52
November 2nd, the oct numbers will be out and maybe even right


I'm thinking the BLS may have to run a, "right now" correction today.

G36's Rule
10-26-2012, 08:18
So, by not "cooked" you mean it was pure coincidence that, (1) at this point before the election, (2) a very liberal state (3) and an agency headed by an Obama contributor (4) provided "incorrect" information that made Obama look good?



Yeah, could be.:whistling:

Yeah, just an error. :faint:

Z71bill
10-26-2012, 08:54
I thought Jack was claiming the last jobs report was wrong - 800K jobs created - drop in unemployment rate to 7.8% --

This article seems to be talking about the initial jobless claim numbers - that showed a drop.

Still aren't these two completely different things?

One is jobs created - total employment - work force participation -unemployment rate -

The other is number of (new) people filing for unemployment compensation.

.264 magnum
10-26-2012, 09:34
I thought Jack was claiming the last jobs report was wrong - 800K jobs created - drop in unemployment rate to 7.8% --

This article seems to be talking about the initial jobless claim numbers - that showed a drop.

Still aren't these two completely different things?

One is jobs created - total employment - work force participation -unemployment rate -

The other is number of (new) people filing for unemployment compensation.

I made a booboo in my open post I'll fix that.

I saw Welch on TV (MSNBC I think) the day after his claim. He thesis was an increase of 115K jobs (or whatever the precise number was) didn't jibe with the U3 rate falling roughly 3/10 of a point. He clearly understood that the metrics are linked weakly but trend out over time.

I've got to say. Given that Cali's. initial claims were off and initial jobless claims nationally haven't looked good. The U3 number form last month does look weird.



ETA - you are right the UE rate is complied from 60,000 households every month - it's called The Current Population Survey. I'm wondering if there might be a significant revision on Nov. 2?

aircarver
10-26-2012, 11:25
Y'know what 'Occam's Razor' says about this ... :upeyes:

.

cj5mrt
10-26-2012, 12:25
"It looks bad but intentionally fudging the numbers one week is a career ender and a crime."
Since when has something being a crime been a deterrent to anyone in Oblamer's administration?:tongueout: