More economic good news, unemployment rate drops to 8.6%

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush should have seized Fannie and Freddie and arrested all their top officers

Frank Rains in Chains is Barney Frank's Bane....

Frank and Dodd = 100% fraud.

In the mid 90's under cover of darkness, Dodd stuck a provision into a bill extending government guarantees to insurance companies. Nice, eh?

Dodd and Frank are economic Jihadists

 

[Uncensored2008]

How? And by whom? The current Comissioner of BLS, the only political appointee in BLS, was appointed by President Bush, and had previously served as Bush's Chief Economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He's the guy with the final word on the numbers. The President doesn't get to see or have any idea what the numbers will be.

What was the growth in GDP for the first half of 2011 when the figures were released? What is the figure now? Why the massive change?

And again, what process do you think could be used to adjust the numbers considering the thousands of cells of data? The seasonal adjustment uses a set software program and you can't really change the inputs to get a desired output...it's too complicated.

Yep, software is flawless and can never be changed - unless it's a Diebold voting machine, then little old Bluehairs can write bios level code in binary on machines with no keyboard, NIC or peripheral devices, you know, tapping wires together to make 1's and 0's...

Change the parameters and you change the results.

 

[Conservative]

I know that the numbers the government gives out are wrong it has been shown that the government does cook the books I don't have any links and not even going to look for any. You can believe the bullshit all you want I believe what's around me and with what I have to deal with on a day to day basis

In other words, you just made it up and don't care if you're right or wrong. Wow.

**** you, you god damn son of a ***** this is what I said do not chop up part of what I post

bigfuckingmoron1775 is PWNED...again... as usual.

 

[pinqy]

How? And by whom? The current Comissioner of BLS, the only political appointee in BLS, was appointed by President Bush, and had previously served as Bush's Chief Economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He's the guy with the final word on the numbers. The President doesn't get to see or have any idea what the numbers will be.

What was the growth in GDP for the first half of 2011 when the figures were released? What is the figure now? Why the massive change?

Now you're switching programs....the discussion was Unemplolyment and now you're throwing in a non sequitur about GDP. Try to focus.

And again, what process do you think could be used to adjust the numbers considering the thousands of cells of data? The seasonal adjustment uses a set software program and you can't really change the inputs to get a desired output...it's too complicated.

Yep, software is flawless and can never be changed - unless it's a Diebold voting machine, then little old Bluehairs can write bios level code in binary on machines with no keyboard, NIC or peripheral devices, you know, tapping wires together to make 1's and 0's...

Change the parameters and you change the results.

No, it's not flawless, but no, you can't really change the parameters without major oversight and justification.

But let's look at what changes seasonal adjustment made:
From the Current Employment Survey (offical jobs numbers), the Unadjusted data had a change from Oct to Nov of 132,620,000 to 132,959,000 (+339,000) while the seasonal adjustment "massaged" that to a change of 131,588,000 to 131,708,000 (+120,000)

And from the Current Population Survey (Labor Force numbers) the unajusted data shows a change in Employed from 140,502,000 to 140,987,000 (+485,000)
Seasonally adjusted is from 140,302,000 to 140,580,000 (+278,000)

Unemployed unadjusted went from 13,520,000 to 13,102,000 (-418,000)
Seasonally adjusted went from 13,897,000 to 13,303,000 (-594,000)
Ok, that one is an improvement but NOT in conjunction with employment becaause combining Employed with Unemployed for the Labor Force, the Unadjusted numbers were 154,022,000 to 154,088,000 ( +66,000) while seasonally adjuste showed a loss of 315,000

And the Unadjusted UE rate went from 8.8 % to 8.5% while seasonally adjusted showed 9.0% to 8.6%, mostly due to people leaving the labor force.

So since the Unadjusted numbers are clearly better, how can you claim seasonal adjustment was used to make things seem better when it clearly did not?

 

[8537]

So since the Unadjusted numbers are clearly better, how can you claim seasonal adjustment was used to make things seem better when it clearly did not?

They'll remember that excuse come January and February when the expected post-holiday layoffs occur. Then you'll hear all about how the Obama administration is hiding the real numbers behind smoke and liberal mirrors.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Take a look at the data published: Employment Situation
The A tables are from the household survey.
The B tables are from the establishment survey.
It's just not possible to get the necessary data from tax records. Yes, the list is used to benchmark the numbers, but that just can't be done every month, it takes too long.

I know the data is flawless and never manipulated, but what are there so many revisions?

{Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time. }

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

Since the BLS represents perfection, what is there a need to revise the data constantly?

 

[pinqy]

So since the Unadjusted numbers are clearly better, how can you claim seasonal adjustment was used to make things seem better when it clearly did not?

They'll remember that excuse come January and February when the expected post-holiday layoffs occur. Then you'll hear all about how the Obama administration is hiding the real numbers behind smoke and liberal mirrors.

Yeah, the February report of the January numbers will unleash a shitstorm....The CES will be re-benchmarked, changing everything from March to Dec 2011.

And the Census Bureau will update the population controls, so that the January 2012 and December 2011 numbers won't be comparable.

Why do people who have never studied statistics or economics think they understand the complexities?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now you're switching programs....the discussion was Unemplolyment and now you're throwing in a non sequitur about GDP. Try to focus.

No, what I'm doing is pointing out that the federal government has a pattern of releasing numbers that paint a rosy picture to create headlines and manipulate public perception, then releasing "adjustments" at a later date with the accurate data.

No, it's not flawless, but no, you can't really change the parameters without major oversight and justification.

Sure...

I trust the federal government to always give the unvarnished results....

But let's look at what changes seasonal adjustment made:
From the Current Employment Survey (offical jobs numbers), the Unadjusted data had a change from Oct to Nov of 132,620,000 to 132,959,000 (+339,000) while the seasonal adjustment "massaged" that to a change of 131,588,000 to 131,708,000 (+120,000)

And from the Current Population Survey (Labor Force numbers) the unajusted data shows a change in Employed from 140,502,000 to 140,987,000 (+485,000)
Seasonally adjusted is from 140,302,000 to 140,580,000 (+278,000)

That's nice, but not terribly relevant given the number of people who became disenfranchised and simply dropped of the labor pool.

Further, we BOTH know that these figures will be revised sometime next year, as they always are.

Unemployed unadjusted went from 13,520,000 to 13,102,000 (-418,000)
Seasonally adjusted went from 13,897,000 to 13,303,000 (-594,000)
Ok, that one is an improvement but NOT in conjunction with employment becaause combining Employed with Unemployed for the Labor Force, the Unadjusted numbers were 154,022,000 to 154,088,000 ( +66,000) while seasonally adjuste showed a loss of 315,000

And the Unadjusted UE rate went from 8.8 % to 8.5% while seasonally adjusted showed 9.0% to 8.6%, mostly due to people leaving the labor force.

So since the Unadjusted numbers are clearly better, how can you claim seasonal adjustment was used to make things seem better when it clearly did not?

I didn't make the claim that seasonal adjustment was used, that is simply a straw man by you.

 

[8537]

Now you're switching programs....the discussion was Unemplolyment and now you're throwing in a non sequitur about GDP. Try to focus.

No, what I'm doing is pointing out that the federal government has a pattern of releasing numbers that paint a rosy picture to create headlines and manipulate public perception, then releasing "adjustments" at a later date with the accurate data.

no, they don't. Data releases are just as often revised in the other direction.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In other words, you just made it up and don't care if you're right or wrong. Wow.

**** you, you god damn son of a ***** this is what I said do not chop up part of what I post

pinqy when you take the context away from a persons post when quoting and responding to them it makes you look dishonest.

Thanks for pointing that out to him

 

[Uncensored2008]

no, they don't. Data releases are just as often revised in the other direction.

I don't think that really supports the pinqy assertion that BLS figures are flawless....

 

[JDzBrain]

More fuzzy math brought to you by graduates of the Jethro Bodine school of tot and cipher.

Lets us just do a little simple math...and I'll take it slow enough that even economist can keep up.

According to the folks at Labor, the total work force in this country is about 153 million people. The unemployment rate WAS 9.1%. So multiply 153,000,000 times 0.091 and you get 13.923 million unemployed people at 9.1%.

It went down to 8.6%. So, just multiply 153,000,000 times 0.086...which means there should only be 13.158 million unemployed folks.

If we subtract 13.158 million 13.923 million, we get a figure that is SUPPOSE to represent a 765,000 person drop in unemployment.

Ok, that's simple enough math...even if you live and work in Washington, DC. ;~)

Now, we supposedly created 126,000 new, non farm jobs. So, subtract 126,000 from 765,000 and we get 639,000.

Well THAT is certainly not going to drop the unemployment rate by 5 percentage points. As a matter of fact, 126,000 new jobs only represents 8/100ths of 1% of the total work force. So that many new jobs would not have even got it below 9%. And there are STILL 639,000 folks unaccounted for.

So...how did it drop by 5%. Well, the folks at Labor say that 315,000 people simply gave up looking for work.

Damn...that's good news, but ok, let's subtract 315,000 from 639,000 and we get 324,000. I'll be damn...324 thousand remainder. Even the 126 and 315 number combined would only amount to about a 3% drop to around 8.8%...NOT 8.6%.

Huh...what the hell happened to that 324 thousand? Did they just drop off the face of the planet? Maybe they retired? Nope...if they'd retired, they'd have been removed from the 153 million total work force figure in the first place.

I tell ya what strikes me as strange about that number. That 324,000 is almost EXACTLY the number of new jobs we have to add every single month just to keep up with NEW employees entering the work force. That's the figure that has to be taken OUT of total jobs first to get to the 126 thousand new job figure.

Is that just coincidence? What the hell is going on? Oh yeah, FUZZY MATH!

I'm no economist and I'm sure they will come up with some COCK AND BULL about this thing or that which skewed this bit or that of the calculations...but THEY ARE LIARS.

They will claim that the number of new employees got added in twice by "accident" and that skewed the figure OR that it never got taken out in the first place and the unemployment rate actually went UP, but the LIE will be out there and the polling data will be manipulated just in time for the Obama family Christma....Holidays.

It's been said many times and it's always MOST true when it comes from the government. Liars figure and figures LIE!

 

[pinqy]

Take a look at the data published: Employment Situation
The A tables are from the household survey.
The B tables are from the establishment survey.
It's just not possible to get the necessary data from tax records. Yes, the list is used to benchmark the numbers, but that just can't be done every month, it takes too long.

I know the data is flawless and never manipulated, but what are there so many revisions?

{Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time. }

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

Since the BLS represents perfection, what is there a need to revise the data constantly?

No one claimed the data is flawless. They're estimates. And your article is old...it's from Feb 2010. The estimate of change for the 2011 data is +192,000.

Here's the basics. The Universe for the Current Employment Survey (non-farm payroll jobs) is the UI list. Every month, BLS surveys about 440,000 worksites and releases an estimate of total jobs. Every March, BLS looks at the entire List, which takes months, and every January updates the data based on the new benchmark. The re-benchmarking for 2011 looks like it will be an increase of 192,000 (+0.1%) from the estimate. In other words, in March 2011, BLS's estimate was 130,757,000 non farm payroll jobs, but now they've looked at the actual list, the real number looks like 130,949,000 so the March 2011 number will be revised and subsequent months adjusted as well. The average difference is about +-0.3% which is not bad.

Similarly, the Census Bureau redoes their population estimates every year. The estimate of the adult civilian non-institutional population for Dec 2010 was 238,889,000 which was revised in Jan 2011 to 238,704,000...off by 0.1% But that of course affects the labor force numbers as well.

Revisions occur because BLS and Census know the numbers aren't perfect and they try to get them as good as possible, adjusting up or down when better information is available.

Due to budget and personel constraints, you can't do a full count of businesses or people every month...you estimate and then adjust the estimates when necessary.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More fuzzy math brought to you by graduates of the Jethro Bodine school of tot and cipher.

Lets us just do a little simple math...and I'll take it slow enough that even economist can keep up.

According to the folks at Labor, the total work force in this country is about 153 million people. The unemployment rate WAS 9.1%. So multiply 153,000,000 times 0.091 and you get 13.923 million unemployed people at 9.1%.

It went down to 8.6%. So, just multiply 153,000,000 times 0.086...which means there should only be 13.158 million unemployed folks.

If we subtract 13.158 million 13.923 million, we get a figure that is SUPPOSE to represent a 765,000 person drop in unemployment.

Ok, that's simple enough math...even if you live and work in Washington, DC. ;~)

Now, we supposedly created 126,000 new, non farm jobs. So, subtract 126,000 from 765,000 and we get 639,000.

Well THAT is certainly not going to drop the unemployment rate by 5 percentage points. As a matter of fact, 126,000 new jobs only represents 8/100ths of 1% of the total work force. So that many new jobs would not have even got it below 9%. And there are STILL 639,000 folks unaccounted for.

So...how did it drop by 5%. Well, the folks at Labor say that 315,000 people simply gave up looking for work.

Damn...that's good news, but ok, let's subtract 315,000 from 639,000 and we get 324,000. I'll be damn...324 thousand remainder. Even the 126 and 315 number combined would only amount to about a 3% drop to around 8.8%...NOT 8.6%.

Huh...what the hell happened to that 324 thousand? Did they just drop off the face of the planet? Maybe they retired? Nope...if they'd retired, they'd have been removed from the 153 million total work force figure in the first place.

I tell ya what strikes me as strange about that number. That 324,000 is almost EXACTLY the number of new jobs we have to add every single month just to keep up with NEW employees entering the work force. That's the figure that has to be taken OUT of total jobs first to get to the 126 thousand new job figure.

Is that just coincidence? What the hell is going on? Oh yeah, FUZZY MATH!

I'm no economist and I'm sure they will come up with some COCK AND BULL about this thing or that which skewed this bit or that of the calculations...but THEY ARE LIARS.

They will claim that the number of new employees got added in twice by "accident" and that skewed the figure OR that it never got taken out in the first place and the unemployment rate actually went UP, but the LIE will be out there and the polling data will be manipulated just in time for the Obama family Christma....Holidays.

It's been said many times and it's always MOST true when it comes from the government. Liars figure and figures LIE!

Your analysis is good.

Of course you know that what BLS did was to reduce the total labor force by 315K - which provided the net effect of making 640K job seekers vanish from the roles by reducing the total unemployed AND reducing the the total labor pool.

In March, they will very quietly adjust this figure to include the 370,000 new entrants that were excluded from this calculation. It will be on page 93 of section D in the NY Times.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No one claimed the data is flawless. They're estimates. And your article is old...it's from Feb 2010. The estimate of change for the 2011 data is +192,000.

Irrelevant.

The point is that BLS data is routinely manipulated per the guidance of the administration in power.

Your claim that the figures would be "too hard" to manipulate is so absurd as to be laughable.

You acknowledged yourself that this is an estimate, and one that is highly beneficial to the current administration.

Here's the basics. The Universe for the Current Employment Survey (non-farm payroll jobs) is the UI list. Every month, BLS surveys about 440,000 worksites and releases an estimate of total jobs. Every March, BLS looks at the entire List, which takes months, and every January updates the data based on the new benchmark. The re-benchmarking for 2011 looks like it will be an increase of 192,000 (+0.1%) from the estimate. In other words, in March 2011, BLS's estimate was 130,757,000 non farm payroll jobs, but now they've looked at the actual list, the real number looks like 130,949,000 so the March 2011 number will be revised and subsequent months adjusted as well. The average difference is about +-0.3% which is not bad.

Yet there is a LOT of leeway for what data is and is not included.

We know for a fact that the reduction in the workforce without corresponding adjustments for new entrants has painted an unrealistic picture of the employment situation.

Similarly, the Census Bureau redoes their population estimates every year. The estimate of the adult civilian non-institutional population for Dec 2010 was 238,889,000 which was revised in Jan 2011 to 238,704,000...off by 0.1% But that of course affects the labor force numbers as well.

Do you really think that comparing to the Census bureau makes BLS look better? The census is notorious for manipulation to achieve political goals.

Revisions occur because BLS and Census know the numbers aren't perfect and they try to get them as good as possible, adjusting up or down when better information is available.

Both agencies routinely release numbers to support political agendas.

Due to budget and personel constraints, you can't do a full count of businesses or people every month...you estimate and then adjust the estimates when necessary.

A process replete with assumptions and modifiers that are simple to manipulate.

 

[JDzBrain]

In March, they will very quietly adjust this figure to include the 370,000 new entrants that were excluded from this calculation. It will be on page 93 of section D in the NY Times.

Exactly so 2008...and that is the whole purpose. This...was all about perception.

When this administration thinks that a heavily manipulated 8.6% unemployment rate and 315 thousand MORE people added to the millions that had just flat given up is something to tout as progress...they are LOST to reality!

 

[pinqy]

According to the folks at Labor, the total work force in this country is about 153 million people. The unemployment rate WAS 9.1%. So multiply 153,000,000 times 0.091 and you get 13.923 million unemployed people at 9.1%.

Let's be accurate. The Labor Force in Oct was 140,302,000 and an Unemployment rate of 9.0% with Unemployed at 13,897,000

It went down to 8.6%. So, just multiply 153,000,000 times 0.086...which means there should only be 13.158 million unemployed folks.

Only if the Labor Force didn't change. Why would you make that assumption? It changes every month. Why on earth would you think people don't enter and leave the Labor Force?

If we subtract 13.158 million 13.923 million, we get a figure that is SUPPOSE to represent a 765,000 person drop in unemployment.

In reality, it was 13,303,000 - 13,897 = -594,000

Now, we supposedly created 126,000 new, non farm jobs. So, subtract 126,000 from 765,000 and we get 639,000.

Bzzzzz! Invalid Operation. "New non farm jobs " (+120,000) comes from a completely different survey and is not comparable.

The Current Employment Survey is a non-farm payroll establishment survey. It surveys businesses and excludes all agriculture, self-employed and people working in other people's houses. It also double counts multiple job holders. It's a bigger survey, more accurate, and therefore the official Employment number.

The Current Population survey is a survey of households. It includes everyone and counts multiple job holders once no matter how many jobs. Smaller survey, less accurate, but is the one used for Labor Force.

So the CPS employment number was +278,000...so 278,000 - 594,000 is drop in the Labor Force of 315,000

So...how did it drop by 5%. Well, the folks at Labor say that 315,000 people simply gave up looking for work.

Sort of. 315,000 fewer people were looking for work...that's a net number.

[/quote]Damn...that's good news, but ok, let's subtract 315,000 from 639,000 [/quote] Why would you do that? Your 639,000 is a wrong number due to you mixing and matching surveys. If you used the right survey and done the right math you would have gotten 315,000 not 693,000

I'm no economist

I am.

and I'm sure they will come up with some COCK AND BULL about this thing or that which skewed this bit or that of the calculations...but THEY ARE LIARS.

No, just using the right numbers instead of guessing and mixing and matching.

Again, it's simple....Employed was 140,302,000, Unemployed was 13,897,000 for a Labor Force of 154,198,000. The Population was 240,269,000 with that 154,198,000 in the Labor Force and 86,071,000 Not in the Labor Force.

In November, some employed lost/left their jobs and started looking for work (became unemployed) some lost/left a job and didn't look for work (yet?) (Not in the Labor Force) and some of course died, left the country, went to prison, an institute or the military (left the population). At the same time some Unemployed found a job, some Not in the Labor Force started looking and found a job, and some people joined the population and found a job so the total employed was 140,580,000 an increase of 278,000


And some unemployed found work (employed), some stopped looking for work (not in the labor force) and some left the population. And some employed lost/left work and started looking, some people who hadn't been looking started looking, and some people joined the population looking. Fewer started looking than stopped, so net change was -594,000

And same thing with Not in the Labor force...net change of 487,000

And the Population increased by 172,000 but none of that increase was reflected in the Labor Force.

The math isn't fuzzy, you were just doing it wrong. Try again with the right numbers (Employment Situation

Here are the Gross Numbers

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it


is



adjusted


to


account


for



holiday


hiring

IT

Is

Adjusted

To

Account

For

Obama's

Low

Poll

Numbers

How? And by whom? The current Comissioner of BLS, the only political appointee in BLS, was appointed by President Bush, and had previously served as Bush's Chief Economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He's the guy with the final word on the numbers. The President doesn't get to see or have any idea what the numbers will be.

And again, what process do you think could be used to adjust the numbers considering the thousands of cells of data? The seasonal adjustment uses a set software program and you can't really change the inputs to get a desired output...it's too complicated.

Appoint by bush doesn't mean he's partisan hell Bush was a liberal disguised as a Republican

 

[Listening]

Do nutters realize that we have had 21 straight months of private sector job growth.....too weak to fix things....but growth. In spite of the hopes and dreams of you assholes who want Americans to suffer more in the short term, shit is getting better.

Thank goodness for the GOP taking over the House! We are back on the right path.

you're a nutter if you think what you wrote is true.

Did i say something that was untrue?

About every time you post.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

IT

Is

Adjusted

To

Account

For

Obama's

Low

Poll

Numbers

How? And by whom? The current Comissioner of BLS, the only political appointee in BLS, was appointed by President Bush, and had previously served as Bush's Chief Economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He's the guy with the final word on the numbers. The President doesn't get to see or have any idea what the numbers will be.

And again, what process do you think could be used to adjust the numbers considering the thousands of cells of data? The seasonal adjustment uses a set software program and you can't really change the inputs to get a desired output...it's too complicated.

Appoint by bush doesn't mean he's partisan hell Bush was a liberal disguised as a Republican

He was a republican...just a progressive one