Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Political Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Unemployment Numbers are Bogus (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1447276)

DonGlock26 10-11-2012 09:21

Unemployment Numbers are Bogus
 
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/11/un...rices-rise-hou


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...low-lowest-exp

Basically, one large state didn't turn in their figures yet. Why weren't we told this????

series1811 10-11-2012 09:29

So BLS put out there figures knowing the data from one state was missing? Wonder why they didn't wait on them, or publicize the fact that it was incomplete data, instead of putting out as accurate what would have to be inaccurate data?

So, let's here from the truth squadders who were calling us all nuts for saying it was easy for government agencies to fudge the numbers when they needed to.

DonGlock26 10-11-2012 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by series1811 (Post 19506858)
So BLS put out there figures knowing the data from one state was missing? Wonder why they didn't wait on them, or publicize the fact that it was incomplete data, instead of putting out as accurate what would have to be inaccurate data?

So, let's here from the truth squadders who were calling us all nuts for saying it was easy for government agencies to fudge the numbers when they needed to.

:popcorn:

Apparently, the incomplete nature of the numbers was kept from the American people. This is an administration in meltdown.

Rabid Rabbit 10-11-2012 10:03

I can only think of two "large" states that could have that kind of impact, CA and TX.

JMag 10-11-2012 10:09

What's NOT bogus with this administration?

jeanderson 10-11-2012 10:17

What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

GWSHARK 10-11-2012 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeanderson (Post 19507001)
What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

Don't mind them... its already established that here

Any bad news= must be gospel.
Any good news = must be tainted.

Folks here actually are hoping for bad news and rooting against economic recovery. Damnedest thing I've ever seen. :dunno:

series1811 10-11-2012 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeanderson (Post 19507001)
What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

If you don't see the problem, then you are the problem.

Sorry.

Goaltender66 10-11-2012 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWSHARK (Post 19507100)
Don't mind them... its already established that here

Any bad news= must be gospel.
Any good news = must be tainted.

Folks here actually are hoping for bad news and rooting against economic recovery. Damnedest thing I've ever seen. :dunno:

You don't think it's slightly odd that the BLS dropped a report, without a big disclaimer that would keep the otherwise unbiased and scrupulously detail-oriented MSM from drawing the wrong conclusion, that did not include the data from "one large state" a mere month before a major election?

It's de rigeur for the BLS to release a report with incomplete data? That's not "tainted" in your mind?

Because I don't think it's normal and I can only think of one reason why the BLS would release such a thing. If you can think of another, by all means share with the group.

GWSHARK 10-11-2012 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507290)
You don't think it's slightly odd that the BLS dropped a report, without a big disclaimer that would keep the otherwise unbiased and scrupulously detail-oriented MSM from drawing the wrong conclusion, that did not include the data from "one large state" a mere month before a major election?

It's de rigeur for the BLS to release a report with incomplete data? That's not "tainted" in your mind?

Because I don't think it's normal and I can only think of one reason why the BLS would release such a thing. If you can think of another, by all means share with the group.

Why are you accepting these two questionable links as gospel?

Goaltender66 10-11-2012 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWSHARK (Post 19507410)
Why are you accepting these two questionable links as gospel?

Well, OK:

http://nation.foxnews.com/jobs/2012/...ate?intcmp=fly

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/...reaming_stream

Is it only a "questionable link" when it doesn't foot with the "happy days are here again" narrative the Administration is trying to fool people into believing?

W420Hunter 10-11-2012 12:39

I am sure this is not shocking to any one. The truth of the matter is if you keep your eye open they have been doing for a while now. Look at the job #'s at the end of every month and then look at them again a week after. You will find that the # become higher every time.

IvanVic 10-11-2012 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507290)
You don't think it's slightly odd that the BLS dropped a report, without a big disclaimer that would keep the otherwise unbiased and scrupulously detail-oriented MSM from drawing the wrong conclusion, that did not include the data from "one large state" a mere month before a major election?

It's de rigeur for the BLS to release a report with incomplete data? That's not "tainted" in your mind?

Because I don't think it's normal and I can only think of one reason why the BLS would release such a thing. If you can think of another, by all means share with the group.

Just out of curiosity:

1) What would you say if the report that is due to be released just days before the election shows that the unemployment rate has gone up to 7.9 or 8%? Will you still claim conspiracy?

2) Were you questioning the unemployment numbers under Obama when they were above 9%? If it's all a conspiracy, why were you not complaining then?

3) Were you questioning the numbers during his entire administration, minus the last week, when they were above 8% when he promised that the stimulus would prevent that from happening?

All of those scenarios I have listed above are bad for Obama. Even the current 7.8% number is still dismal. If you are consistent in your position of the numbers being bogus, and are not just complaining whenever they don't go your way (despite the fact that every American should be happy about a falling unemployment rate), why were you not bringing this up in the past?

ChuteTheMall 10-11-2012 12:50

Pretty strange to leave a large state out, expecially if it's California, the so-called 8th largest economy in the world.

Name one good reason for releasing the report at this time with only 49 of the 50 states included.

It's dishonest.

Goaltender66 10-11-2012 12:51

In order:

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanVic (Post 19507434)
1) What would you say if the report that is due to be released just days before the election shows that the unemployment rate has gone up to 7.9 or 8%? Will you still claim conspiracy?

But it hasn't has it?
Quote:

2) Were you questioning the unemployment numbers under Obama when they were above 9%? If it's all a conspiracy, why were you not complaining then?

3) Were you questioning the numbers during his entire administration, minus the last week, when they were above 8% when he promised that the stimulus would prevent that from happening?
These are really the same question. I never said it was "all" a conspiracy, but it certainly is odd that right when it serves Obama's purpose, weird outliers and statistically significant errors start creeping into the BLS numbers, isn't it? Particularly when the inevitable corrections will come later and buried in the back half of a word-wall report.

The logical error you're committing is thinking that just because something didn't happen before means it isn't happening now.

Lastly, I've been questioning the unemployment rate calculations since I graduated from college, for reasons given below.
Quote:

All of those scenarios I have listed above are bad for Obama. Even the current 7.8% number is still dismal. If you are consistent in your position of the numbers being bogus, and are not just complaining whenever they don't go your way (despite the fact that every American should be happy about a falling unemployment rate), why were you not bringing this up in the past?
Actually, high reported unemployment in the first two years serves Obama's narrative just fine...as the steward of an inherited mess that he must take increasingly severe actions to clean up. Saying that's "bad" for him doesn't entirely ring true, not from a political standpoint. He got elected exactly because of a bad jobs climate.

On the larger point, the unemployment situation in this country is not getting better. The unemployment rate only lists a percentage of people who cannot find work desipte their actively seeking it. When people drop out of the labor force (aka the labor participation rate) they no longer are counted in the unemployment rate. And the labor participation rate is decreasing. So no, contextually this "falling unemployment rate" is not cause for happiness.

ETA:

I was going to put this into a second post, but I might as well keep it all together. Apologies for the length.

Here's why I'm questioning the unemployment numbers, and sorry for the background but it's important. There are two surveys done every month. The first is one done of businesses, and the survey is done of 410,000 businesses. The second is the household survey done by phone to 60,000 homes. Now the thing is, the household survey has lots of ups and downs, but this latest unemployment number is questionable because the big spike is even bigger than usual. But it's that household survey that is used for the actual unemployment rate. The business survey is used to calculate net job creation/month.

And when you look at the household survey, it's saying 873,000 jobs were created last month. Almost a million jobs. In one month. And that's a lot.

However, to put this number into context, let's look at the last time we got a million jobs created in a month. It was 1983. We were coming off the Carter Recession and Good Time Were Here. We were getting flush. So flush that we even put up with Wham!. So flush that our GDP growth rate was 9.3% In that economy, it was so hot that you could play hardball with your boss vis a vis raises and promotions. You could leave your job on a whim and know you'd have a new one in a month or two when you got tired of the Sally Jesse Raphael show.

That's contrasted with 1.4ish% today. Does today feel like 1983 to you?

That isn't to say we haven't had similar jumps with lower growth rates. Other times GDP growth has been at the 5-5.5% level and job creation jumps were close to 1983 levels. But there's never been a job jump with such an anemic growth rate like we have today.

So here, I kind of reject the premise that to believe this number is faulty is to necessarily believe in some grand conspiracy. You don't have to cotton to the thought that someone is deliberately cooking the books to think this looks very odd. OTOH, as I said to you in the other thread, this is an administration that is illegally telling contractors to ignore the WARN act and promises taxpayer money will be there to satisfy any law suits.

As simply and plainly as I can put it...there is no way this economy created 873,000 jobs last month. There is no independent data confirming it (hey, did payroll tax collection jump by a similar margin?) and the payroll survey directly refutes it. So you can believe it's true (in which case you're wrong), you can think it's wrong but there was an error somewhere (in which case it seems awfully convenient), or you can think someone took a more active hand in massaging the data (in which case you're probably a cynic.).

Pick one. :)

IvanVic 10-11-2012 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507463)
In order:


But it hasn't has it?

No, but it certainly could. The number has gone up plenty of times over his administration. The chart below is from the BLS' website. If the number is bogus, why does it continually increase, then decrease, then increase again etc? If they're in the tank for Obama, why has it been over his magical 8% for so long? Was the number also bogus when GW was president? What about before him?


http://imageshack.us/a/img253/1545/chartr.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507463)

These are really the same question. I never said it was "all" a conspiracy, but it certainly is odd that right when it serves Obama's purpose, weird outliers and statistically significant errors start creeping into the BLS numbers, isn't it?

Since I have not researched the history of this "error", I can't comment on that in earnest. This weekend when I've had some time to do that, I could give you a better answer. If it turns out that the data was released missing a state, and that has never happened before, or only happened once or twice, then yes, it would be suspicious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507463)
In order:
The logical error you're committing is thinking that just because something didn't happen before means it isn't happening now.

I'm not saying that it's not possible, what I am saying is that if it is occurring, the pattern it has followed makes absolutely no sense. This is where conspiracy theories fall flat. Almost always, as soon as you start to dig a little deeper, you find things that are at complete odds with the entire theory - some of which I have already pointed out: the increasing and decreasing and then increasing again, the fact that it's been over 8% his entire administration minus the last week, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507463)
In order:
Lastly, I've been questioning the unemployment rate calculations since I graduated from college, for reasons given below.

Can you point me to any actual threads or posts that show you specifically questioning the rate when it does not suit your political agenda?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507463)
In order:
Actually, high reported unemployment in the first two years serves Obama's narrative just fine...as the steward of an inherited mess that he must take increasingly severe actions to clean up. Saying that's "bad" for him doesn't entirely ring true, not from a political standpoint. He got elected exactly because of a bad jobs climate.

Then why didn't they bring it under 8% some time after the stimulus was passed? The stimulus is about the only thing other than Obamacare that he can point to and say "I did that." The entire premise was that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8%. That didn't happen - if they truly had the ability to rig the numbers, that would be the first thing they would have done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19507463)
In order:
When people drop out of the labor force (aka the labor participation rate) they no longer are counted in the unemployment rate.

Right, because a person who is not looking for work can't possibly be helpful in understanding how hard it is to find a job. There is no perfect way of doing it, but that is certainly the best way. You can't include people who are not seeking work in a stat that tries to define how hard or easy it is to find work.

herose 10-11-2012 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeanderson (Post 19507001)
What? Number of people employed increased by 114,000 and number unemployed decreased by 456,000.

I don't see anything wrong with these numbers. What's this thread all about anyway? :shocked:

Uh don't know where you get your information but... actual unemployment requests WITHOUT California reporting increased by 26,000 but after the numbers were "adjusted" they showed a decrease of applications of 30,000. According to Business News Weekly

herose 10-11-2012 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWSHARK (Post 19507100)
Don't mind them... its already established that here

Any bad news= must be gospel.
Any good news = must be tainted.

Folks here actually are hoping for bad news and rooting against economic recovery. Damnedest thing I've ever seen. :dunno:

The only people rooting against the economy is the present administration who has been doing all it can to destroy the economy, and those who follow Obama like sheep.

A good economy means a powerful USA and that is exactly what Obama and his liberals dont want. Damnedest thing I've ever seen!

michael_b 10-11-2012 13:31

Alternate Unemployment-Charts


-On mobile

Goaltender66 10-11-2012 13:34

IvanVic, you are taking my comments vis a vis the BLS new jobless claims report and extending them to the calculation of the unemployment rate as a whole. I think you should be clear that they are two different things.

That said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanVic (Post 19507585)
No, but it certainly could.

So you are taking a hypothetical and casting it as a factual occurence.

Quote:

Since I have not researched the history of this "error", I can't comment on that in earnest. This weekend when I've had some time to do that, I could give you a better answer. If it turns out that the data was released missing a state, and that has never happened before, or only happened once or twice, then yes, it would be suspicious.
I posted two links (and not of the "questionable" sort) where a Labor economist is quoted as saying exactly that a state was left out. If you find another instance of that happening I'm all ears.

Quote:

I'm not saying that it's not possible, what I am saying is that if it is occurring, the pattern it has followed makes absolutely no sense. This is where conspiracy theories fall flat. Almost always, as soon as you start to dig a little deeper, you find things that are at complete odds with the entire theory - some of which I have already pointed out: the increasing and decreasing and then increasing again, the fact that it's been over 8% his entire administration minus the last week, etc.
But again, you're assuming that chicanery isn't happening now if it hasn't happened before. I'm saying that's a faulty assumption.

Quote:

Can you point me to any actual threads or posts that show you specifically questioning the rate when it does not suit your political agenda?
Um, GlockTalk wasn't even invented when I was in college. :upeyes:

You know, I'm of the opinion that murder is bad, yet you're suggesting that if I don't have any posts specifically saying that then my opinion can be questioned.


Quote:

Then why didn't they bring it under 8% some time after the stimulus was passed? The stimulus is about the only thing other than Obamacare that he can point to and say "I did that." The entire premise was that it would prevent unemployment from going above 8%. That didn't happen - if they truly had the ability to rig the numbers, that would be the first thing they would have done.
And again, you're assuming whomever would have even hit on a good way to game numbers back then, or even thought to do it. And you're also suggesting that if it didn't happen (as you assume) that necessarily implies an inability to do so. That's a shaky logic chain there.

Quote:

Right, because a person who is not looking for work can't possibly be helpful in understanding how hard it is to find a job. There is no perfect way of doing it, but that is certainly the best way. You can't include people who are not seeking work in a stat that tries to define how hard or easy it is to find work.
It is a statistic, and like all statistics it has to be taken in context with complementary data. The rate is intended to describe how many people who want a job have one. However, it fails because it assumes that people who aren't actively looking day in and day out don't want jobs, and that is turning out to be a weak assumption in this economy. Perhaps the job market is such that someone wants a job but can't find one so he goes back to school. Perhaps someone stopped looking and moved in with his parents and is waiting for things to turn around before looking again. I'd call them unemployed, but the BLS wouldn't.

So while there may not be "a better way" to calculate it, it's a serious mistake to look at the number in a vaccuum. The best complementary data is the labor force participation rate. It serves to really tell you how many people out there are working. When that rate declines in concert with an unemployment rate decrease (or one that's static), that gives you all kinds of insights that you wouldn't get by looking at the unemployment rate alone. In fact, if you confined yourself to the unemployment rate you'd be seriously misled as to the true state of the economy.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:37.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.