EDITORIAL: Obama’s bogus jobs data

[Stephanie]

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

 

[samjones]

the workforce declined a record-setting 1.2 million. This figure represents those who out of sheer frustration ... have dropped out of what the government defines as the active labor pool.

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.

 

[DSGE]

Which is why people should be looking at the employment-to-population ratio. Still sitting at around 58.5 I believe.

 

[DSGE]

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

 

[samjones]

Which is why people should be looking at the employment-to-population ratio. Still sitting at around 58.5 I believe.

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.

 

[DSGE]

Which is why people should be looking at the employment-to-population ratio. Still sitting at around 58.5 I believe.

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.

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.

 

[Trajan]

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.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

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.

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.

 

[Trajan]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

 

[samjones]

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.

Good Effin GAWD! The BLS could not be more painfully transparent about how they arrive at their numbers. They go on and on for page after page with example phone calls and methodologies and exactly what a respondent might say and how they would interpret. Educate yourself or STFU.

 

[samjones]

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.

I don't agree. If a person has literally not *looked* for a job in over a year.... not that they haven't worked, but they haven't even looked for a job? That person doesn't want a job. They simply aren't part of the labor force. I'm not judging, but that just seems to me to be a plain fact.

I agree that it would be interesting to have a more complete view of 42% and why they don't work.

 

[Flopper]

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

There is nothing bogus about the data. The decrease in the total size of the work has no effect on the employment rate because only those actively seeking work are counted. The BLS made no change in method of calculation or the data included.

The important point to remember is that 243,000 more people have jobs this month than last month. Almost ever sectors added jobs except the government who saw a lose in jobs.

As demand begins to dominate the job market, the workforce will expand as the long term unemployed and marginal workers enter the workforce seeking jobs and thus putting upward pressure on the unemployment rate. The opponents of the administration will then site sluggest unemployment rate and ignore the expansion of the workforce. This is the way it always works.

The important thing is number of new jobs. 243,000 new jobs is very good regardless of the change in the size of the workforce.

 

[pinqy]

I find it ironic that every single case where anyone claims BLS is lying or the data is bogus, the person claiming that is guilty of lying or misrepresentation. The editorial is so off on everything it's amazing.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

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?

There are many reasons why people drop out of the labor market and there is no way you can tell why. First, the number of retirees are on the rise with baby boomers reaching retirement age. People have delayed retirement waiting for a market recover which is happening. Also people are retiring earlier. Kids are staying in school longer and many that are displaced are going back to school. Probably one the biggest reasons people have dropped out of labor market is that employers have become much more picky as to who they hire. This is due to oversupply of workers over the last three years. As demand for workers continues to rise these workers will move back into the labor market.

 

[Rozman]

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

They will cook the books like this all the way to re election.....

 

[expat_panama]

One of my favorite lines in the piece:

“America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5 percent, which should be just before the presidential election.” Maybe that’s the plan.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's interesting to me that the government (those working for us) know pretty well everything about us and we have such a difficult time figuring out what their up to.

I'm thinking when a roughly estimated 6.5 million plus American workers are statistical non-existers in the unemployment statistics...well that sucks.. and both parties in government/Congress should be held responsible including Bush...Obama .. or the next President.

Do you realize that we could upgrade the system of reporting with that new fangled invention... The Computer....

and I could understand the lefts view of...... Let the sunshine in but not quite yet..

 

[samjones]

It's interesting to me that the government (those working for us) know pretty well everything about us and we have such a difficult time figuring out what their up to.

and I could understand the lefts view of...... Let the sunshine in but not quite yet..

Hey - Ron Paul Whackjob. Use your newfangled invention to read this:

How the Government Measures Unemployment


I'm glad I could help you overcome your bizarre and pointless paranoia.

 

[pinqy]

It's interesting to me that the government (those working for us) know pretty well everything about us and we have such a difficult time figuring out what their up to.

I'm thinking when a roughly estimated 6.5 million plus American workers are statistical non-existers in the unemployment statistics

Ummm, they're not workers. You're talking about 6.5 million who are neither working nor trying to find work who say they theoretically want a job. 3.7 million of them either are not available to work or haven't bothered to look in over a year. Of those who say they are available and have looked in the last year, most (1.8 mil) stopped looking for personal reasons, Ann's 1 millionsay they just don't think they'd find a job.
People not trying to work aren't unemployed.