You keep on lookin' for an argument in the manner in which you post. Lighten up!
Yes, I am looking for an argument ("a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition*") instead of assertions. You keep making claims that show zero understanding of how the different numbers are calculated and you never back up any of your claims of manipulation.
I have not ignored the dynamics of the Labor Force. I have addressed those issues in numerous other posts that I know you have read.
No, you haven't...you keep talking as if when the number of people filing for UI should match the change in Employment should match the change in Unemployment. They shouldn't. 2.5 million new UI claims does not mean the total number of employed has gone down 2.5 million nor that the number of Unemployed has gone up 2.5 million.
The fact remains that the horribly corrupt Obama Administration is trying to get people to believe that of 2.8 Million Americans who file for Unemployment Compensation each month, 2.1 Million of them find jobs right away. Then his stooges create numbers out of thin air to downsize the remaining 700,000 unemployed to only 345,000.
Nobody is saying that of the 2.8 million, 2.1 million find a job right away...Nobody. You’re comparing 3 different surveys that measure completely different things.
The Unemployment Insurance levels do NOT measure people who just lost their jobs, but it measures people who filed for Insurance…they might have been unemployed for weeks. It’s produced by main Department of Labor on a weekly basis.
The Employment level (from the Establishment Survey) measures how many jobs (NOT people…those with 2 jobs get counted twice) there are in non-agricultural industries and also excludes the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers. It comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, NOT main DOL. It is based on one week of the month: “How many employees did you have during week X?”
The Unemployment level (and rate) comes from a Household survey (conducted by the Census Bureau for BLS). The household survey also has an Employment level (which is not the official figure)which includes everyone who worked at least one hour for pay or 15 or more hours as an unpaid family worker. Its Unemployment level is all those who did not work, but had looked for work. Note that doesn’t mean they’ve lost their job, they might never have had a job, or been out of the Labor Force for a while and have just started looking for a job. Note that this means that changes in the two numbers don’t have to add up. By the Household survey, from April to May, Employment went down 437,000, and Unemployment went up 787,000, and total Labor Force went up 350,000. That means that 350,000 more people joined the Labor Force, either as Employed, or Unemployed. It’s also based on one week out of the month: “During week X did you work for pay or 15+ hours unpaid in a family business. If no, did you look for work in the previous four weeks.”
So, different definitions, different surveys, different time periods….of course the numbers never match exactly (not even considering the margins of error for the surveys).
To make things a little clearer (hopefully), let’s look at yet another BLS survey, the
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey which covers non-farm payroll employment similar to the official Employment report, but covers the entire month and looks at Job Openings, Hires, and Seperations (layoffs, quits, and other). In April, 4,718,000 people left their jobs...2,557,000 were discharged or laid off (close to the number of new filings for UI), 1,771,000 quit, and the rest retired, died, transferred, or left due to disability. But at the same time 4,165,000 people were hired! That's why employment didn't go down by all the fired people.
And you’re still talking as if the Sec Labor had anything to do with BLS figures…she doesn’t. For the 342nd time, the Commissioner of BLS, who IS in charge of how the BLS numbers are calculated (though he doesn’t have anything to do with the actual calculations) can hardly an Obama stooge as he was appointed by Bush. Also the vast majority of DOL and BLS and Census employees had worked for their agency way before Obama.
Ironically the DOL released an additional report that said that the ranks of those still receiving unemployment compensation rose by 700,000.
And not all of those people are Unemployed by the BLS definition. Some states allow allow people to continue to receive partial benefits even after they find work (if the pay is less than their previous salary) and some have not looked for work in the previous four weeks and so are Not in the Labor Force, even if they are still eligible for UI.
If they are going to lie, they have got to get the numbers on their releases to agree.
If the numbers all agreed, that would be clear sign of manipulation. They shouldn't agree because they're measuring different things at different time periods. It would be awfully suspicious if they all matched up, especially when you consider that all the numbers except UI claims are estimations and have a margin of error (at a 90% confidence level, the change in the official Employment level was between -444,435 and -245,565. The change in the Labor Force was between -18,141 and +718,141. The change in Unemployment was between 419,839 and 1,154,161)
Right now the DOL looks stupider than shit. But then again, the woman that Obama put in the position of Secretary is not that bright.
Do you honestly think she has anything to do with the actual calculation of anything???? That's not her job.
I know I've explained the different numbers and where they come from and why they don't match before, but you keep ignoring it.
*[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y]Argument Clinic[/ame] Monty Python's Flying Circus.
