824,000 jobs will disapear from "revision"

[slackjawed]

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis - Bloomberg.com

It seems I might have been to hard on Neubarth. He has aparantly been right all along.
The recovery.org website isn't the only place there have been 'data entry errors'. It seems the fed has been over reporting on employment.

It looks like the unemployment rate might be higher than reported, just as Neubarth has claimed all along.

Now I wonder why the fed would want to over report the number of jobs......I wonder.

(note to those who do not recognize sarcasm, the last sentance was sarcasm. Please don't tell me why the fed would lie for Obama, I already have my suspicions.)

 

[RodISHI]

It is not the only misinformation being put out. I checked a site someone put up here the other day for census information in our county. For this county it is bogus as can be for employment figures and pay scale on the averages. The federal figures do not match the states.

 

[slackjawed]

I should thank the inaccurate reporting of the administration for my signature line, and for my own brand new congressional district as well.

I think I need to apologize to neubarth for all the times I accused him of crying wolf.
It looks like, in this case anyway, he was right on target.

 

[uscitizen]

Neubarth must actually be working. How did you beat him to the post on this anyway?

Yes Neubarth is right on about the govt massaging the data. But this is not a new thing, we have been doing it for years.
It is not a recent Obama plot.

 

[Dr.House]

More 0bama magic...

824,000 jobs - gone!

Can he saw Pelosi in half?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't argue with Nubarth on his stats. He has been right all along. I do think his unholy glee at bad news is in bad taste, especially given the struggles I am going through.

 

[mascale]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Upcoming Changes to The Employment Situation News Release |
| |
|Effective with the release of January 2010 data on February 5, 2010, |
|the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will introduce several changes to |
|The Employment Situation news release text and tables. Two new sum- |
|mary tables--one for the household survey and one for the establish- |
|ment survey--will replace the current table A. In addition, three new |
|household data tables will provide information on the employment sta- |
|tus of veterans, persons with a disability, and the foreign born. Al- |
|so, the establishment data tables have been largely redesigned to in- |
|clude information on all employee hours and earnings, women employees,|
|and production and nonsupervisory employees. The ordering and format |
|of some tables also will change. Additional information is available |
|at Changes to the Employment Situation News Release on February 5, 2010. |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Revisions in the Establishment Survey Data |
| |
|With the release of January 2010 data on February 5, 2010, the Current|
|Employment Statistics survey will introduce revisions to nonfarm pay- |
|roll employment, hours, and earnings data to reflect the annual bench-|
|mark adjustments for March 2009 and updated seasonal adjustment fac- |
|tors. Not seasonally adjusted data beginning with April 2008 and sea- |
|sonally adjusted data beginning with January 2005 are subject to revi-|
|sion. |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Revisions in the Household Survey Data |
| |
|Effective with the release of data for January 2010, revisions will |
|be introduced into the population controls for the household survey. |
|These changes reflect the routine annual updating of intercensal popu-|
|lation estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau. |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[pinqy]

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis - Bloomberg.com

It seems I might have been to hard on Neubarth. He has aparantly been right all along.
The recovery.org website isn't the only place there have been 'data entry errors'. It seems the fed has been over reporting on employment.

"The Fed" usual refers to the Federal Reserve Bank. I assume you just don't which agency reports on unemployment and are just referring to "the federal government."

It looks like the unemployment rate might be higher than reported, just as Neubarth has claimed all along.

Not sure how you're getting that....the employment data, which the article is about, comes from a completely different survey and has nothing to do with the unemployment data.

Now I wonder why the fed would want to over report the number of jobs......I wonder.

And where are you getting the idea it was on purpose? Do you know nothing at all about surveys? When you do a statistical survey, you have an assumption about the universe you're surveying. If that turns out to be wrong, then your numbers are off.

So...Employment levels come from the Current Employment Survey; a monthly survey of approx 160,000 businesses (approx 400,000 worksites). The businesses are asked how many people worked for them during the pay period that contained the 12th of the month. From these 160,000 businesses (of all sizes), it is extrapolated how many total jobs there are in the entire country. This has to be based on how many total businesses there are in the country and their sizes etc. One problem is that companies go out of business and new companies are formed all the time. That's hard to catch up to. The BLS uses a birth-death model of businesses to account for assumed birth and death of businesses. And also, every March, the full UI records are pulled from the states to get a comprehensive look at total jobs. So from April to January, BLS reviews the full records which give the true number, and sets that as the benchmark for all changes, meaning the numbers for the year are revised. Sometimes the revision is upward, sometimes downward.

This year, it looks like the March 2009 employment level was off by 824,000 jobs: the number was 133,000,000 and that looks like 824,000 too many, so it will be revised down 0.6%. That's a little bit more than the average adjustment but it is less than 1% difference.

And if it was deliberate and lying, why revise and give the true numbers? What's the point of that? And why do you assume lying when no one would reasonably expect numbers from a survey to precisely match a census?

 

[Neubarth]

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis - Bloomberg.com

It seems I might have been to hard on Neubarth. He has aparantly been right all along.
The recovery.org website isn't the only place there have been 'data entry errors'. It seems the fed has been over reporting on employment.

"The Fed" usual refers to the Federal Reserve Bank. I assume you just don't which agency reports on unemployment and are just referring to "the federal government."

It looks like the unemployment rate might be higher than reported, just as Neubarth has claimed all along.

Not sure how you're getting that....the employment data, which the article is about, comes from a completely different survey and has nothing to do with the unemployment data.

Now I wonder why the fed would want to over report the number of jobs......I wonder.

And where are you getting the idea it was on purpose? Do you know nothing at all about surveys? When you do a statistical survey, you have an assumption about the universe you're surveying. If that turns out to be wrong, then your numbers are off.

So...Employment levels come from the Current Employment Survey; a monthly survey of approx 160,000 businesses (approx 400,000 worksites). The businesses are asked how many people worked for them during the pay period that contained the 12th of the month. From these 160,000 businesses (of all sizes), it is extrapolated how many total jobs there are in the entire country. This has to be based on how many total businesses there are in the country and their sizes etc. One problem is that companies go out of business and new companies are formed all the time. That's hard to catch up to. The BLS uses a birth-death model of businesses to account for assumed birth and death of businesses. And also, every March, the full UI records are pulled from the states to get a comprehensive look at total jobs. So from April to January, BLS reviews the full records which give the true number, and sets that as the benchmark for all changes, meaning the numbers for the year are revised. Sometimes the revision is upward, sometimes downward.

This year, it looks like the March 2009 employment level was off by 824,000 jobs: the number was 133,000,000 and that looks like 824,000 too many, so it will be revised down 0.6%. That's a little bit more than the average adjustment but it is less than 1% difference.

And if it was deliberate and lying, why revise and give the true numbers? What's the point of that? And why do you assume lying when no one would reasonably expect numbers from a survey to precisely match a census?

God loves you Pinko. We know that the government would never lie to us. Don't you just love the total truthfullness of the Obama administration. It is like a breath of fresh air in Newark, New Jersey. Amen. Que Viva El Presidente Por Vida.

Regardless of what the conservatives say, the stuff that Pinko writes is not deliberately discombobulated bullshit and balderdash. Pinko is earnest and serious and totally believes what he writes even if it has the outward appearance of being phony and beyond belief. So give him a hand.

 

[uscitizen]

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis - Bloomberg.com

It seems I might have been to hard on Neubarth. He has aparantly been right all along.
The recovery.org website isn't the only place there have been 'data entry errors'. It seems the fed has been over reporting on employment.

"The Fed" usual refers to the Federal Reserve Bank. I assume you just don't which agency reports on unemployment and are just referring to "the federal government."

Not sure how you're getting that....the employment data, which the article is about, comes from a completely different survey and has nothing to do with the unemployment data.

Now I wonder why the fed would want to over report the number of jobs......I wonder.

And where are you getting the idea it was on purpose? Do you know nothing at all about surveys? When you do a statistical survey, you have an assumption about the universe you're surveying. If that turns out to be wrong, then your numbers are off.

So...Employment levels come from the Current Employment Survey; a monthly survey of approx 160,000 businesses (approx 400,000 worksites). The businesses are asked how many people worked for them during the pay period that contained the 12th of the month. From these 160,000 businesses (of all sizes), it is extrapolated how many total jobs there are in the entire country. This has to be based on how many total businesses there are in the country and their sizes etc. One problem is that companies go out of business and new companies are formed all the time. That's hard to catch up to. The BLS uses a birth-death model of businesses to account for assumed birth and death of businesses. And also, every March, the full UI records are pulled from the states to get a comprehensive look at total jobs. So from April to January, BLS reviews the full records which give the true number, and sets that as the benchmark for all changes, meaning the numbers for the year are revised. Sometimes the revision is upward, sometimes downward.

This year, it looks like the March 2009 employment level was off by 824,000 jobs: the number was 133,000,000 and that looks like 824,000 too many, so it will be revised down 0.6%. That's a little bit more than the average adjustment but it is less than 1% difference.

And if it was deliberate and lying, why revise and give the true numbers? What's the point of that? And why do you assume lying when no one would reasonably expect numbers from a survey to precisely match a census?

God loves you Pinko. We know that the government would never lie to us. Don't you just love the total truthfullness of the Obama administration. It is like a breath of fresh air in Newark New Jersey. Amen. Que Viva El Presidente Por Vida.

Yep the same amount of truthfulness on the job situation as the last president had.
They both used the same methods.

Now I am not saying that the method should not changew, I am just saying that Obama did not modify the method to make himself look better. That had already been done years before.

 

[Douger]

They mean 824,000 PER MONTH . Right ?
Ya see. When a locomotive falls off a cliff there is really no way to soften it's landing.
It was the biggest empire ever and will be the biggest crash ever.

I'll just sit here in the ' thoid woild", tend to my animals, ponds, and groves, and watch the credits run on this horrible movie.

 

[uscitizen]

Inertia.

An economy has intertia when slowing down and spinning back up.

Newtonomics.

 

[Truthmatters]

you have begun to come arround over the years OP

 

[slackjawed]

Actually this has been true under the last several adminstrations. Go back further and find the threads where I bitched about BOOOOOOOSH, they are there.

Still holds true today. Unemployment is intentionally underreported, used as a political tool and every report is revised later when it will not cause loss of political capital.

aside from that, you do realize a kitten dies everytime someone necroposts..........kitty killer!

 

[pinqy]

Still holds true today. Unemployment is intentionally underreported,

Please show your evidence. And explain how it's being done and why the career civil servants at BLS would do it. Keep in mind that no one in the administration has any access to the data until the report is finalized.

used as a political tool and every report is revised later when it will not cause loss of political capital.

Ok, what is your evidence that the revisions are not due to late reporting, updating of seasonal adjustment, or rebenchmarking as claimed but are instead political? The revisions have no pattern and are about equal up or down in the longer run.

Or, to keep it simple, just give a quick rundown of precisely what you think happens from collection to publication to final revision.

 

[pinqy]

For the record: I don't actually expect slackjawed to even try to present any actual evidence (especially since there is none, but he won't even make the attempt), nor do I expect even an attempt at a full rundown or any coherent explaination/defense of his claims.

But hope springs eternal.