And your evidence for this is what?
The after the fact adjustments. Were you not paying attention.
When? For the CPS the reference week is the week that contains the 12th. Collection week is the week that contains the 19th, and Release Day is the first Friday of the next month. So for the November numbers, collection was from Nov 13-19. Initial processing and any follow-ups for clarification was done 21st to 25th (excluding the 24th, Thanksgiving). Final tallying (and seasonal adjustment) was done Nov 28-Dec 1st when it was sent to the printer, given to the Commissioner for final approval, and that night a copy was given to the President's Council of Econmic Advisors with release Dec 2nd. When was there time to make adjustments?
For the CES, reference week was the pay period that contains the 12th, respondents had until the 26th to report, and final week as above with the birth-death model added in. There will be 2 revisions to account for late reporting as many businesses don't make the intiial deadline. Here's the
list of all revisions since 1979 and you'll see no clear pattern.
And almost no way to predict the multiplicitve effects of any change. Approx 440,000 worksites are surveyed, they vary by industry, size, location, so there are multiple weights and aggregation. Plus number of employees affects hours and wages. Then there's the birth-death model and seasonal adjustment. It's just way too complicated to do in the amount of time available, even if the civil servants at BLS had any motivation to do so.
And GDP was recently revised DOWN. Just look at the CES revisions I linked to above...sometimes it's an increase, sometimes not.
From
Table 1 you'll not that the population increased. The changes to Labor Force and Not in Labor Force (the 2 components of the population) are NET changes. Some of the new entrants to the population logically must also join the labor force (as employed or unemployed) and this can be shown by looking at
Labor Force Flows that 3,610,000 people not in the labor force became employed and 2,651,000 became unemployed. That's 6,261,000 gross new entrants to the Labor Force. Add in the 72,000 entrants to the population that entered the Labor Force (other inflows) and that's a gross of 6,333,000 new entrants (re-entrants).
Or easier, in
Table A-11 there are entries for New Entrants and Re entrants.
That's a claim, not evidence.
The manipulation of census data for the apportionment of congressional seats and allocation of federal money is widely acknowledged.
That's done by Congress and the states in their gerrymandering, not by the Census.
Nothing makes me chuckle quite like a statistician demanding that statistics cannot possibly manipulated..
Except I didn't say that. Of course statistics can be. But the government econ statistics are so heavily monitored and checked that any "manipulation" is of twisting what the results mean, not of the data itself. There's just not enough time and too many people involved to make any real manipulation feasible. Plus, zero motivation on the part of the people making the calculations.
