Aug 2012 BLS report

[bigrebnc1775]

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

A proud Rush Limbaugh supporter^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[edthecynic]

What numbers did I cite? We're not going to allow you to spin this, so what numbers?
Cut and paste the numbers I cited.

Can you not read your own post? Where you quoted

Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles
and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer
workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were
recalled in August.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and government, showed
little change over the month.

So, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?

The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked

Apparently CON$ervative Christian Gallup is cooking the numbers too.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 8.1% for the month of August, down slightly from 8.3% measured in mid-August and 8.2% for the month of July. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for August is also 8.1%, a slight uptick from 8.0% at the end of July.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can you not read your own post? Where you quoted
So, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?

The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked

Apparently CON$ervative Christian Gallup is cooking the numbers too.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 8.1% for the month of August, down slightly from 8.3% measured in mid-August and 8.2% for the month of July. Gallup's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for August is also 8.1%, a slight uptick from 8.0% at the end of July.

 

[pinqy]

What numbers did I cite? We're not going to allow you to spin this, so what numbers?
Cut and paste the numbers I cited.

Can you not read your own post? Where you quoted

Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles
and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer
workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were
recalled in August.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and government, showed
little change over the month.

So, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?

The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked

That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?

It just seems odd to me that you cite BLS as proof that BLS is lying. There's a bit of a contradiction there.

And of course, you still avoid explaining HOW you think the numbers are cooked. It's really not possible in any practical sense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can you not read your own post? Where you quoted
So, simple question. Are you claiming that what you quoted is accurate or cooked?

The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked

That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?

It just seems odd to me that you cite BLS as proof that BLS is lying. There's a bit of a contradiction there.

And of course, you still avoid explaining HOW you think the numbers are cooked. It's really not possible in any practical sense.

What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,

 

[blastoff]

What's all the fuss? Hell, we had the summer recovery, what, two years ago now? All is well, we spent that 800 billion bucks, and we're creating like 500,000 jobs a month, just like Plugs Biden said we would.

 

[pinqy]

The lose of jobs shown in what I quoted does not justify the lowering of unemployment, so yes the numbers are cooked

That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?

It just seems odd to me that you cite BLS as proof that BLS is lying. There's a bit of a contradiction there.

And of course, you still avoid explaining HOW you think the numbers are cooked. It's really not possible in any practical sense.

What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,

Stop avoiding. What's vague about "The job loss numbers you quoted?" What part of that didn't you understand? For the second time, you quoted

Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were recalled in August.

Those numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?

See, you consistantly claim BLS cooks the Unemployment and Jobs numbers, so why would you cite as authoritative the decline in manufacturing jobs, when they come from the same agency you claim is dishonest from the very same jobs report you claim is cooked?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That wasn't clear. Which numbers? The job loss numbers you quoted..are they accurate or cooked?

It just seems odd to me that you cite BLS as proof that BLS is lying. There's a bit of a contradiction there.

And of course, you still avoid explaining HOW you think the numbers are cooked. It's really not possible in any practical sense.

What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,

Stop avoiding. What's vague about "The job loss numbers you quoted?" What part of that didn't you understand? For the second time, you quoted

Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were recalled in August.

Those numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?

See, you consistantly claim BLS cooks the Unemployment and Jobs numbers, so why would you cite as authoritative the decline in manufacturing jobs, when they come from the same agency you claim is dishonest from the very same jobs report you claim is cooked?

I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.

 

[Eaglewings]

I hate this guy..little ******* weasel

 

[pinqy]

What numbers are you talking about? you are not going to be allowed to spin this,

Stop avoiding. What's vague about "The job loss numbers you quoted?" What part of that didn't you understand? For the second time, you quoted

Manufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000). A decline in motor vehicles and parts (-8,000) partially offset a gain in July. Auto manufacturers laid off fewer workers for factory retooling than usual in July, and fewer workers than usual were recalled in August.

Those numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?

See, you consistantly claim BLS cooks the Unemployment and Jobs numbers, so why would you cite as authoritative the decline in manufacturing jobs, when they come from the same agency you claim is dishonest from the very same jobs report you claim is cooked?

I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.

You refuse to give a straight answer, but you're not avoiding? How does that work? I asked a simple, straightforward question, but you played word games and won't answer. You never do...it's a pattern. You make assertions and then don't even try to back them up. You simply insult the poster for any info that contradicts your claims, and avoid any real discussion.

And I'm not an Obama supporter. There's the other thing...Even though I have never said anything in support of Obama or his policies, you label me as a supporter so you can dismiss the facts I present.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Stop avoiding. What's vague about "The job loss numbers you quoted?" What part of that didn't you understand? For the second time, you quoted
Those numbers....-15,000 in manufacturing and -8,000 in motor vehicles. Accurate or cooked?

See, you consistantly claim BLS cooks the Unemployment and Jobs numbers, so why would you cite as authoritative the decline in manufacturing jobs, when they come from the same agency you claim is dishonest from the very same jobs report you claim is cooked?

I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.

You refuse to give a straight answer, but you're not avoiding? How does that work? I asked a simple, straightforward question, but you played word games and won't answer. You never do...it's a pattern. You make assertions and then don't even try to back them up. You simply insult the poster for any info that contradicts your claims, and avoid any real discussion.

And I'm not an Obama supporter. There's the other thing...Even though I have never said anything in support of Obama or his policies, you label me as a supporter so you can dismiss the facts I present.

I am waiting on you to make your point, no spinnie this time for you.

 

[pinqy]

I am not avoiding , How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.

You refuse to give a straight answer, but you're not avoiding? How does that work? I asked a simple, straightforward question, but you played word games and won't answer. You never do...it's a pattern. You make assertions and then don't even try to back them up. You simply insult the poster for any info that contradicts your claims, and avoid any real discussion.

And I'm not an Obama supporter. There's the other thing...Even though I have never said anything in support of Obama or his policies, you label me as a supporter so you can dismiss the facts I present.

I am waiting on you to make your point, no spinnie this time for you.

Well, my point is that you refuse to support anything you claim.

So let's try these for starters:
1. You cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS? Which numbers are "cooked," which not, and what metric do you use to determine which is which?

2. If they UE numbers are "cooked," why does the Gallup poll always agree (accounting for differences in sampling and methodology etc)?

3. What is the exact process of "cooking" the data? From collection to analysis to dissemination, who, how, and why are the data cooked and what is your evidence? (that you don't believe the numbers is not evidence that they're off).

And again, my point, no spin, is that you refuse to answer those 3 questions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You refuse to give a straight answer, but you're not avoiding? How does that work? I asked a simple, straightforward question, but you played word games and won't answer. You never do...it's a pattern. You make assertions and then don't even try to back them up. You simply insult the poster for any info that contradicts your claims, and avoid any real discussion.

And I'm not an Obama supporter. There's the other thing...Even though I have never said anything in support of Obama or his policies, you label me as a supporter so you can dismiss the facts I present.

I am waiting on you to make your point, no spinnie this time for you.

Well, my point is that you refuse to support anything you claim.

So let's try these for starters:
1. You cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS? Which numbers are "cooked," which not, and what metric do you use to determine which is which?

2. If they UE numbers are "cooked," why does the Gallup poll always agree (accounting for differences in sampling and methodology etc)?

3. What is the exact process of "cooking" the data? From collection to analysis to dissemination, who, how, and why are the data cooked and what is your evidence? (that you don't believe the numbers is not evidence that they're off).

You cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS?

I explained this already

How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.

 

[pinqy]

You cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS?

I explained this already

How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.

No, that's not an explanation. How many people look at those numbers? Everyone in economics or business who tracks the labor market and jobs. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a data set is accurate or not. Are you seriously trying to claim that anything other than the main numbers the mainstream media reports is accurate but the headline numbers are cooked? How does that work? They wouldn't match up, but they do. It's ridiculous to claim that some parts are accurate, but other parts of the very same report are cooked. Unless of course you have evidence. Which you don't.

And of course you didn't answer the other two.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You cited job loss numbers from BLS. Yet you reject Unemployment and Jobs numbers from BLS, even though the Jobs numbers are the source of the job loss numbers you cite. On what basis do you accept or reject data from BLS?

I explained this already

How many people actually look at those numbers? it's the unemployment numbers that most look at. not the numbers I posted, it's too much work for the blind sighted obama supporter.

No, that's not an explanation. How many people look at those numbers? Everyone in economics or business who tracks the labor market and jobs. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a data set is accurate or not. Are you seriously trying to claim that anything other than the main numbers the mainstream media reports is accurate but the headline numbers are cooked? How does that work? They wouldn't match up, but they do. It's ridiculous to claim that some parts are accurate, but other parts of the very same report are cooked. Unless of course you have evidence. Which you don't.

And of course you didn't answer the other two.

Yes it does explain it. Doths only look at one thing the unemployment rate not the other information such as what I posted. They cook what they expect people to look at not the information that would require some effort to read.

 

[pinqy]

I explained this already

No, that's not an explanation. How many people look at those numbers? Everyone in economics or business who tracks the labor market and jobs. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a data set is accurate or not. Are you seriously trying to claim that anything other than the main numbers the mainstream media reports is accurate but the headline numbers are cooked? How does that work? They wouldn't match up, but they do. It's ridiculous to claim that some parts are accurate, but other parts of the very same report are cooked. Unless of course you have evidence. Which you don't.

And of course you didn't answer the other two.

Yes it does explain it. Doths only look at one thing the unemployment rate not the other information such as what I posted. They cook what they expect people to look at not the information that would require some effort to read.

LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.

LOL. But please, show me how the headline numbers you say are manipulated don't match up with what you claim are not manipulated. This should be hilarious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, that's not an explanation. How many people look at those numbers? Everyone in economics or business who tracks the labor market and jobs. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a data set is accurate or not. Are you seriously trying to claim that anything other than the main numbers the mainstream media reports is accurate but the headline numbers are cooked? How does that work? They wouldn't match up, but they do. It's ridiculous to claim that some parts are accurate, but other parts of the very same report are cooked. Unless of course you have evidence. Which you don't.

And of course you didn't answer the other two.

Yes it does explain it. Doths only look at one thing the unemployment rate not the other information such as what I posted. They cook what they expect people to look at not the information that would require some effort to read.

LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.

LOL. But please, show me how the headline numbers you say are manipulated don't match up with what you claim are not manipulated. This should be hilarious.

Your claim of not being an obama supporter is becoming very suspicious. I doubt it no matter how many times you deny it.

LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.

What specifically does this deflection have to do with the fact that most people do not read the details of the BLS report they only read what the unemployment rate is?

 

[pinqy]

Yes it does explain it. Doths only look at one thing the unemployment rate not the other information such as what I posted. They cook what they expect people to look at not the information that would require some effort to read.

LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.

LOL. But please, show me how the headline numbers you say are manipulated don't match up with what you claim are not manipulated. This should be hilarious.

Your claim of not being an obama supporter is becoming very suspicious. I doubt it no matter how many times you deny it.

Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.

LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.

What specifically does this deflection have to do with the fact that most people do not read the details of the BLS report they only read what the unemployment rate is?

While that may be true, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reports. If you're claiming there's some kind of difference between what most people read and the details, then it should be easy for you to point out the differences.

I'm not sure why you think the fact that most of the public doesn't read the detailed reports is any kind of evidence of manipulation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.

LOL. But please, show me how the headline numbers you say are manipulated don't match up with what you claim are not manipulated. This should be hilarious.

Your claim of not being an obama supporter is becoming very suspicious. I doubt it no matter how many times you deny it.

Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.

LOL! You're serious. That's too funny. So the only people who would notice the discrepencies are the people in a position to call foul and start an investigation.

What specifically does this deflection have to do with the fact that most people do not read the details of the BLS report they only read what the unemployment rate is?

While that may be true, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reports. If you're claiming there's some kind of difference between what most people read and the details, then it should be easy for you to point out the differences.

I'm not sure why you think the fact that most of the public doesn't read the detailed reports is any kind of evidence of manipulation.

Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.

Your rabid defense of the BLS numbers. Who in the **** hired the head of THE Department of labor?

 

[pinqy]

Your claim of not being an obama supporter is becoming very suspicious. I doubt it no matter how many times you deny it.

Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.


While that may be true, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the reports. If you're claiming there's some kind of difference between what most people read and the details, then it should be easy for you to point out the differences.

I'm not sure why you think the fact that most of the public doesn't read the detailed reports is any kind of evidence of manipulation.

Why? Where have I said anything in support of Obama? He has nothing to do with BLS operations.

Your rabid defense of the BLS numbers. Who in the **** hired the head of THE Department of labor?

BLS, and Census, and BEA are independent statistical agencies. Main DOL has nothing to do with BLS operations or programs, and no one at main Commerce has anything to do with the running of Census or BEA.
Obama has nominated a new commissioner for BLS, but she hasn't been confirmed. They've had an acting commissioner since Jan, when the last commissioner, a Bush appointee, retired. So BLS has never had any Obama appointees in it, and Hilda Solis has no operational control or access to the data.

Oh, and I was defending/explaining the data to Liberals when Bush was Presiden.