Dept of Labor Releases Bogus Unemployment Numbers, LIES

[Mark B. Morrow]

I won't take a bow because anyone could have done it. I see on the business channel, so called economists talking seriously about the stock market with their charts and formulae. They are no different than people who study the racing forms to bet on horses. People who gamble against the house are suckers. They are gullible. The Emperor has no clothes. I am just the kid saying it. Nobody wants to admit that he has been had. Billions of people are also being had by religion. Stupidity is pandemic in this world.

 

I am not saying that I am smarter than presidential advisors or economists; quite the contrary. It takes a lot more talent to sell bullshit than it takes to sell the truth.

 

Or the far more likely explanation is that your simplistic answer is just wrong. The calculation of the BLS jobs report is more complicated than you have surmised.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[FiredMotorCompany]

Bogus numbers? Cooked books? Pollster being intimidated for possible federal violations?

 

Did Obama "get to" Gallup and make it clear they SHALL adjust their methodology in time to effect the Vice-Presidential Debate and/or the election?

 

Since about the beginning of President Obama’s tenure, the Gallup poll has generally been one of the least positive polls for the Democratic party. This has prompted outrage and pressure from the left--even from presidential advisor David Axelrod.

 

Over the summer Mark Blumenthal of Huffington Post wrote a critique of Gallup’s daily presidential job approval poll. The point of which was that Gallup was over-sampling whites and thus understating President Obama’s position in the adult population. I responded by arguing that Blumenthal’s case was underdeveloped and less-than-met-the-eye, and that was basically where things stood.

Until, that is, this week. President Obama enjoyed a bounce in his Gallup job approval number after the Democratic National Convention, as was to be expected, but there was a twist: it did not disappear. And while Gallup on average had found Obama’s job approval around 47 percent with adults through most of 2012, for the last five weeks it has been regularly above 50 percent. Yesterday, it stood at 53 percent, a number we have not really seen since 2009.

[Trimdingman]

Or the far more likely explanation is that your simplistic answer is just wrong. The calculation of the BLS jobs report is more complicated than you have surmised.

 

I just gave a ballpark number based on simple logic. It can't be off by more than 10%. Truth is simple. It takes a lot of complication to lie that much. 0.3% of the workforce is over 400,000. How can you get that with 114,000 jobs created? Maybe both sides use the same bullshit, so they are loathe to call each other on it.

 

Bullshit is everywhere, from TV commercials to religious sermons to political ideologies. How could statistitions ever put out misleading information? Only someone who is naive to the bone would even ask such a question.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Trimdingman

[goinbroke2]

Over 80% of people killed in WW2 were wearing combat boots. This is proof that combat boots kill!

 

Makes me wonder, if obama met the japanese emperor, would he of said, "you didn't bomb that"?

[Langston Hughes]

Over 80% of people killed in WW2 were wearing combat boots. This is proof that combat boots kill!

 

Makes me wonder, if obama met the japanese emperor, would he of said, "you didn't bomb that"?

 

Wow, that's complete and utter nonsense.

[Trimdingman]

Wow, that's complete and utter nonsense.

 

So is the jobs report. The more complicated it is, the easier it is to get the results you want.

[Versa-Tech]

Here is a good article about your "source":

 

http://www.politicususa.com/job-destroyer-jack-welch-quits-fortune-jobs-conspiracy-shot.html

Your source, not mine. Your reference to Welch was actually the first reference I'd heard to his tweet. You see, when you actually know what you're talking about, and your argument is based in reality, you don't need a source to back you up. Anytime I post links, it's only because this is the internet and you don't have the slightest clue who I am.

 

Oh, btw... What happened to california's job data. Somehow, the BLS was able to make the report with only 90% of the data. So, statistically speaking, the report is erroneous. Unemployment could have actually gone up! :D

Edited October 15, 2012 by Versa-Tech

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

Or the far more likely explanation is that your simplistic answer is just wrong. The calculation of the BLS jobs report is more complicated than you have surmised.

No shit. That's the problem. The federal government has made it a point to try and puree economics into baby food for the increasingly intelletually lazy constituency. If people aren't motivated enough to learn economics and sociology, they don't deserve an opinion. If they aren't motivated enough to study the metrics, they don't deserve context. If they care enough to know, they'll make decisions to gain knowledge. All this spoon-fed bullshit only incentivises ignorance, and quite frankly, dependence.

[partsisparts]

Your source, not mine. Your reference to Welch was actually the first reference I'd heard to his tweet. You see, when you actually know what you're talking about, and your argument is based in reality, you don't need a source to back you up. Anytime I post links, it's only because this is the internet and you don't have the slightest clue who I am.

 

Oh, btw... What happened to california's job data. Somehow, the BLS was able to make the report with only 90% of the data. So, statistically speaking, the report is erroneous. Unemployment could have actually gone up! :D

You may want to start doing some research. Welch's tweet was all over the news.

 

California missed the new jobless claims data not the national unemployement data.

[cal50]

The state of California was omitted from the BLS report so the results are not valid results and likely higher because California is sitting at 10.6% unemployment ( using BLS numbers) and is the 3rd worse state for unemployment only surpassed by Rhode Island and Nevada.

 

Accident? Oversight? Stupidity? Bad timing?

 

If we had 57 states the numbers would be worse than using 50 and subtracting one.

[partsisparts]

The state of California was omitted from the BLS report so the results are not valid results and likely higher because California is sitting at 10.6% unemployment ( using BLS numbers) and is the 3rd worse state for unemployment only surpassed by Rhode Island and Nevada.

 

Accident? Oversight? Stupidity? Bad timing?

 

If we had 57 states the numbers would be worse than using 50 and subtracting one.

You do understand that their is two different reports, and that the monthly unemployment report is not affected by California not reporting, don't you?

[cal50]

You do understand that their is two different reports, and that the monthly unemployment report is not affected by California not reporting, don't you?

 

 

I know that the current BLS report that's released is not right based on different sampling base and the numbers used.

[partsisparts]

I know that the current BLS report that's released is not right based on different sampling base and the numbers used.

Which current BLS report are you referring too? Edited October 16, 2012 by partsisparts

[Langston Hughes]

I know that the current BLS report that's released is not right based on different sampling base and the numbers used.

 

You don't know anything because much more serious conservative economists and financial analysts have scoffed at the claims that the numbers are cooked.

[FiredMotorCompany]

How about we stop redefining "Unemployment" every time the numbers make the administration look bad.

 

Let's do the same that we do for inflation....

 

The unemployment number is_______in 1970* calculations vs. 2012 calculations

 

*-Whatever benchmark precedes the two most recent administrations or more.

 

 

There was a time that unemployment was reported in toto. Now we have "underemployment", "no longer looking", "not in workforce" and their ilk in an effort to dilute the number of people who are not working. And when the numbers get bad enough, shazam!, a new category of people excluded from the calculations.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 17, 2012 by FiredMotorCompany

[the asphalt rv'er]

A household survey ... sure ... if I'm doing the surveying, I'll mark down that at least 1 member in that house is working, maybe more than one so it makes the Obama admin look good. :wacko:

[Trimdingman]

People are so easily brainwashed. They see the price of everything going up, but because the government puts out a statement that inflation is only 1 percent based on an extensive survey done by really smart people, too complex for our simple brains to fathom, they believe it.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Trimdingman

[Versa-Tech]

You may want to start doing some research. Welch's tweet was all over the news.

 

California missed the new jobless claims data not the national unemployement data.

The majority of the work I do is research. I've never met a research analyst that basis a hypothesis solely on another persons opinion, or popular belief for that matter. I could care less about most people's opinions. Fools love a fool. Granted, I do have advisors, but I rely on them for opinions on method and execution more than anything else.

 

As far as your symantecs about california's data goes, I can only assume that you're aware that jobless claims are used to calculate unemployment, and you are conceiding defeat.

[partsisparts]

The majority of the work I do is research. I've never met a research analyst that basis a hypothesis solely on another persons opinion, or popular belief for that matter. I could care less about most people's opinions. Fools love a fool. Granted, I do have advisors, but I rely on them for opinions on method and execution more than anything else.

 

As far as your symantecs about california's data goes, I can only assume that you're aware that jobless claims are used to calculate unemployment, and you are conceiding defeat.

You do realize the weekly jobless claims report that California missed came out in October and the monthly jobs report was from September. Edited October 18, 2012 by partsisparts

[cal50]

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase marks a rebound from the previous week's sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/weekly_unemployment_aid_applications_WAM0QPS0OtlcVPylyuQANJ

 

 

 

The only thing going down is Obama in the polls.

[Langston Hughes]

The only thing going down is Obama in the polls.

 

And Frazier!

Edited October 19, 2012 by Langston Hughes

[Marginal Economist]

Interesting article on CNN Money - looking at employed as a % of total population - LINK

 

Along with the official unemployment rate, the Department of Labor also calculates something called the employment-population ratio, which measures the percent of the U.S. adult population that has a job.

The rate currently stands at 58.7%. While it jumps around slightly from month to month, it has essentially been stuck there for three years -- close to the lowest level since the 1980s.

That paints a much bleaker picture of the job market than the unemployment rate, which has fallen considerably in the last year.

 

 

 

Here is the BLS data - LINK

 

 

Edited October 19, 2012 by Marginal Economist

[retro-man]

Let me quote a little more from that article:

Another problem with the ratio is that it can be just as politicized as the unemployment rate. Many Republicans cried foul when the unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped two weeks ago. Likewise, the employment-population ratio is also subject to political rhetoric and has been used to blame the incumbent leadership for underlying economic weakness.

"The ratio makes the employment problem look worse, and in that sense is bad for Obama," Cowen said. "A deeper look, however, shows the ratio has been declining for many years, and that its ongoing decline predates Obama and most likely represents longer-run trends about the world of work.

As I have often argued on here with grbeck, producing more with less labor (i.e. marking more and more of your fellow humans as expendable) doesn't mean squat if there's no equitable way to distribute the gains in productivity (which has tripled over the last 40 years). As I have also said (and some on here will recall me beating this drum more than 10 years ago), the housing bubble was symptomatic of a hollowing out of the economy: people (at that time) working more and more hours per household per year - something like 30% more than 40 years earlier - putting the wives to work, creating financial instruments and leveraging the real estate market in order to falsely sustain a standard of living that was no longer possible. The chickens have come home to roost, and the foolish wonder why Obama hasn't fixed it in 42 months. Laughable.

Edited October 19, 2012 by retro-man

[cal50]

Interesting article on CNN Money - looking at employed as a % of total population - LINK

 

 

 

 

Here is the BLS data - LINK

 

 

 

 

 

4 more years of Obama's help and you can expand that chart.....downward.

[Marginal Economist]

Let me quote a little more from that article:

[/background][/size]

As I have often argued on here with grbeck, producing more with less labor (i.e. marking more and more of your fellow humans as expendable) doesn't mean squat if there's no equitable way to distribute the gains in productivity (which has tripled over the last 40 years). As I have also said (and some on here will recall me beating this drum more than 10 years ago), the housing bubble was symptomatic of a hollowing out of the economy: people (at that time) working more and more hours per household per year - something like 30% more than 40 years earlier - putting the wives to work, creating financial instruments and leveraging the real estate market in order to falsely sustain a standard of living that was no longer possible. The chickens have come home to roost, and the foolish wonder why Obama hasn't fixed it in 42 months. Laughable.

 

I'm not arguing against improved efficiency - but I think that the decline shown in the graph does not represent a giant improvement in efficiency. I don't think we sudenly needed 4% of our population to stop working. And I don't think wives and others want to stay home and stop working because their homes were foreclosed. If anything, the market decline and low rates of return on investment would force more people back into the workforce.