EDITORIAL: Obama’s bogus jobs data

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Stephanie, Feb 5, 2012.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    links in article at site.

    SNIP:

    Congress should investigate cooked employment books


    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    -

    The Washington Times

    Friday, February 3, 2012


    The White House hyped the news Friday that January payrolls had risen by 243,000. The hitch is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) also dropped 1.2 million from the calculated workforce. Somehow this net loss of a million workers in a single month was transformed into an improvement in the unemployment rate. As the old saying goes, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

    “Job growth was widespread,” the BLS reported, but most Americans sense that something isn’t quite right with the numbers. The most important change was the deep decline in the workforce. While the overall population jumped an 1.6 million in January, the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration or for other reasons have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool. They are worse than simply unemployed; they are both jobless and hopeless.

    The good news for Obama administration statisticians is that these unfortunates don’t factor into the official unemployment rate, which only counts those thought to be looking for work. So while five people drop out of the system in despair for every new job created, the official unemployment rate declines and the White House enjoys a good news day.

    read it all here.
    EDITORIAL: Obama's bogus jobs data - Washington Times
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2012
  2. samjones
    Offline

    samjones Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    585
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    No. It does not. U4 - U3 represents that. Now I'm sure you'll put just as much energy into ensuring that the source of your information has a more accurate understanding of how the BLS calculates statistics as you did posting they're inaccurate information here on this board.

    You're welcome.
     
  3. DSGE
    Offline

    DSGE VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Which is why people should be looking at the employment-to-population ratio. Still sitting at around 58.5 I believe.
     
  4. DSGE
    Offline

    DSGE VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    Oh also the labour force didn't decline. It increased by 508,000. The Civilian Non-Institutional Population increased by about 1.7 million and the number "out of the labour" increased by 1.2 million. That 1.2 million being a combination of the new members of the Civilian Non-Institutional Population not entering the labour force and existing labour force members dropping out.

    http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea03.htm
     
  5. samjones
    Offline

    samjones Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    585
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    I don't really see how that has much to do with unemployment, per se. People who elect not to work may do so for many reasons, but probably not because they can't find work.

    I would look at U3 as the baseline and then compare it over time to U1 and U4. U4 seems to bounce around alot - as long as it stays at or about less than 6% higher than U3 I think you're probably doing okay. Nice to see U1 that's half what U3 is.
     
  6. DSGE
    Offline

    DSGE VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +30
    It's a better number to look at in a recession or prolonged downturn because of the effects those things have on labour force participation. Unless you find it feasible that following a recession a shitload of people just plum don't want jobs anymore.

    U4 falls victim to that too. It takes U3 and adds "discouraged workers", which it defines as people not in the labour force who want a job, are available to work, and have actively searched for work in the past 12 months. Given that this shit has been going on for... coming up on four years now, it's certainly missing a bunch of people. On top of which it doesn't count those who enter the Civilian Non-Institutional Population and are discouraged enough that they don't enter the labour force to begin with (as we saw this month). Where as employment-to-population captures both of those.
     
  7. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    the problem here inho is the counter intuitiveness of the figure they choose to propagate. The average citizen thinks that a general figure would probably serve us best, the old you have to add that then subtract this then consider that, this is dropped and not counted, rolling re- adjustments, *shrugs*

    obama is the benefactor of the same 'system' others have used, its no different, but the highlighting the media employs is dishonest and I think people have figured that out, especially in particularly bad times like these. They feel like they are being jerked around.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +54
    So its dishonest of the media to report the same number they have always reported, in good time and bad, whether republican or democrat, because Obama is in office.
    This is the number they have ALWAYS used, no matter what. To change it now, would be dishonest.
     
  9. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    read my comment again, especially this;

    obama is the benefactor of the same 'system' others have used, its no different, but the highlighting the media employs is dishonest


    I know they have used the same method, I said highlighted.....I posted on another therad here, several sources from the media ala 2004 and 2005 already where in the news was, in a 6% and sub 6% unemployment rate, they were pounding bush for the 'bad' numbers etc.....Krugman himself was highlighting; 'they don't count discouraged workers do they'? remarks that are being made now, ONLY this is obama and they aren't nearly as outraged, are they? That, is dishonest.

    see my point?
     
  10. Oldstyle
    Offline

    Oldstyle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,600
    Thanks Received:
    3,069
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +7,299
    What would be "honest" is if the media explained how the numbers they quote are arrived at and how there are many times when the numbers don't accurately reflect what is happening in the country. There is a large difference between a person who has been unemployed for an extended period of time and one that has just become unemployed, yet they are counted as the same. One of the biggest problems we face right now is the huge number of long time unemployed or underemployed. That number seems to keep growing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page