Refuting the "Unemployment Conspiracy" Nonsense

[Toro]

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said it's 'ludicrous' to suggest that the Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulated jobs numbers for political ends.

"You know, I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the BLS," she said on CNBC Friday. "They’ve been doing these calculations. These are these are our best trained and best skilled individual that have been working in the BLS. It's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement."

Solis: Charges of cooking numbers 'ludicrous' - POLITICO.com

 

[KissMy]

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said it's 'ludicrous' to suggest that the Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulated jobs numbers for political ends.

"You know, I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the BLS," she said on CNBC Friday. "They’ve been doing these calculations. These are these are our best trained and best skilled individual that have been working in the BLS. It's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement."

Solis: Charges of cooking numbers 'ludicrous' - POLITICO.com

Hilda Lucia Solis was appointed by Obama. She is a member of the Democratic Party and served in the United States House of Representatives from 2001 to 2009, representing the 31st and 32nd congressional districts of California that include East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley.

Hilda Solis is a tax cheat who recently paid about $6,400 this week to settle numerous tax liens against his business dating to 1993.

 

[Toro]

When conspiracists suggested Friday that the Obama administration had engineered a sharp drop in unemployment to aid President Barack Obama's re-election, the response was swift.

Career government officials, economists and even some Mitt Romney supporters issued a collective sigh.

The staffers who compute the U.S. unemployment rate work in an agency of the Labor Department. Officials who have overseen the work say it's prepared under tight security with no White House input or supervision.

"To think that these numbers could be manipulated. ... It's impossible to do it and get away with it," said Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that calculates the unemployment rate.

"These numbers are very trustworthy," said Hall, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and whose four-year term ended in January. ...

Tom Nardone, a 36-year veteran of the BLS, oversees the report's preparation. The goal, Nardone said, is to make the report as accurate and "apolitical" as possible.

"We strive to be like Joe Friday, just presenting the facts," he said.

A draft of the report is completed by early Wednesday before the Friday when it's released. Several groups of staffers review it. That Wednesday is usually the earliest that the commissioner of the BLS gets involved.

On Thursday afternoon, the report is sent to the White House's Council of Economic Advisors. Krueger provides a copy to the president.

Hilda Solis, Obama's labor secretary, doesn't see the report until around 8 a.m. Friday, a half-hour before its public release.

A week later, Labor releases the raw data on its website. Many academics use the data, which is stripped of all identifying information, for their own research.

The commissioner is the BLS' only political appointee. And even he or she operates independently of the presidential administration. ...

On Friday, one leading Republican sided with Obama's team in rejecting the latest accusations.

"Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories. Good grief," Tony Fratto, a strategist who was a top communications official in the Bush White House, tweeted.

Officials reject conspiracies on unemployment rate

I agree. It makes Republicans look retarded.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When conspiracists suggested Friday that the Obama administration had engineered a sharp drop in unemployment to aid President Barack Obama's re-election, the response was swift.

Career government officials, economists and even some Mitt Romney supporters issued a collective sigh.

The staffers who compute the U.S. unemployment rate work in an agency of the Labor Department. Officials who have overseen the work say it's prepared under tight security with no White House input or supervision.

"To think that these numbers could be manipulated. ... It's impossible to do it and get away with it," said Keith Hall, a former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that calculates the unemployment rate.

"These numbers are very trustworthy," said Hall, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and whose four-year term ended in January. ...

Tom Nardone, a 36-year veteran of the BLS, oversees the report's preparation. The goal, Nardone said, is to make the report as accurate and "apolitical" as possible.

"We strive to be like Joe Friday, just presenting the facts," he said.

A draft of the report is completed by early Wednesday before the Friday when it's released. Several groups of staffers review it. That Wednesday is usually the earliest that the commissioner of the BLS gets involved.

On Thursday afternoon, the report is sent to the White House's Council of Economic Advisors. Krueger provides a copy to the president.

Hilda Solis, Obama's labor secretary, doesn't see the report until around 8 a.m. Friday, a half-hour before its public release.

A week later, Labor releases the raw data on its website. Many academics use the data, which is stripped of all identifying information, for their own research.

The commissioner is the BLS' only political appointee. And even he or she operates independently of the presidential administration. ...

On Friday, one leading Republican sided with Obama's team in rejecting the latest accusations.

"Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories. Good grief," Tony Fratto, a strategist who was a top communications official in the Bush White House, tweeted.

Officials reject conspiracies on unemployment rate

I agree. It makes Republicans look retarded.

Shame on them because they are part of the problem that plagues the U.S. government. A blind person can see there is something wrong with the cooked numbers of obama's labor department this close to the election. And yes I called it months ago.
unemployment will be below 8% before election time.

 

[KissMy]

Labor participation rate is going down. That is the opposite direction of this unemployment number. There will be another unemployment number released just days before the election. If they do not converge with the labor participation rate then we will know for sure they are a lie.

 

[Toro]

Labor participation rate is going down. That is the opposite direction of this unemployment number. There will be another unemployment number released just days before the election. If they do not converge with the labor participation rate then we will know for sure they are a lie.

That's different from "It's a conspiracy!" And it's fair. The household survey may be inaccurately measuring the actual labor market. But that's a far cry from putting on the tinfoil hat.

 

[Toro]

Tags
Data manipulation
employment
Jack Welch
Unemployment

Even if the U.S. government wanted to manipulate monthly jobs figures, it would be impossible to accomplish, said a former head of the U.S. government’s labor statistics agency.

Accusations that the government had manipulated the latest employment report spread across Twitter and other forums Friday after the U.S. unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since President Barack Obama’s inauguration. Among those questioning the better-than-expected report was former General Electric Chief Executive Jack Welch, who tweeted the suggestion that the “unbelievable jobs numbers” were fabricated to help Obama’s electoral chances in next month’s presidential election.

But, Keith Hall, who served as Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 until 2012, said in an interview Friday that there is no way someone at the agency could change any of the data from its two monthly employment surveys. The significant improvement in the unemployment rate may reflect normal statistical errors in the sampling process, he said, but that has nothing to do with manipulation.

Jack Welch Is Wrong, It's Impossible to Manipulate Labor Survey Data -- Former BLS Head - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tags
Data manipulation
employment
Jack Welch
Unemployment

Even if the U.S. government wanted to manipulate monthly jobs figures, it would be impossible to accomplish, said a former head of the U.S. government’s labor statistics agency.

Accusations that the government had manipulated the latest employment report spread across Twitter and other forums Friday after the U.S. unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since President Barack Obama’s inauguration. Among those questioning the better-than-expected report was former General Electric Chief Executive Jack Welch, who tweeted the suggestion that the “unbelievable jobs numbers” were fabricated to help Obama’s electoral chances in next month’s presidential election.

But, Keith Hall, who served as Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 until 2012, said in an interview Friday that there is no way someone at the agency could change any of the data from its two monthly employment surveys. The significant improvement in the unemployment rate may reflect normal statistical errors in the sampling process, he said, but that has nothing to do with manipulation.

Jack Welch Is Wrong, It's Impossible to Manipulate Labor Survey Data -- Former BLS Head - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Nothing is impossible
The numbers should match the work force, it doesn't.
It's amazing I said unemployment would be below 8% months ago.

 

[KissMy]

Labor participation rate is going down. That is the opposite direction of this unemployment number. There will be another unemployment number released just days before the election. If they do not converge with the labor participation rate then we will know for sure they are a lie.

That's different from "It's a conspiracy!" And it's fair. The household survey may be inaccurately measuring the actual labor market. But that's a far cry from putting on the tinfoil hat.

The BLS has screwed with the numbers before to make Clinton look good & Bush look bad. Why would they not do it again for Obama?

"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"

The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

Somehow, the Clinton administration successfully set into motion reestablishing the full 60,000 survey for the benefit of the current Bush administration's monthly household survey.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year.

Here is the 2001 Fed document increasing the Household Survey from 50,000 back to 60,000 soon after Bush took office.

Effective with the release of July 2001 data, official labor force estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS) and Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program reflect the expansion of the monthly CPS sample from about 50,000 to about 60,000 eligible households.

Here is a 1995 BLS document showing that the Household Survey of 60,000 was reduced to 50,000 under Clinton to make him look good.

In January 1996, the CPS sample was reduced from about 60,000 households to approximately 50,000 households.

 

[Ravi]

I agree. It makes Republicans look retarded.

What doesn't. Welcome to America and your citizenship.

 

[Toro]

I agree. It makes Republicans look retarded.

What doesn't. Welcome to America and your citizenship.

Thanks! And I registered as a Republican!

 

[Toro]

Labor participation rate is going down. That is the opposite direction of this unemployment number. There will be another unemployment number released just days before the election. If they do not converge with the labor participation rate then we will know for sure they are a lie.

That's different from "It's a conspiracy!" And it's fair. The household survey may be inaccurately measuring the actual labor market. But that's a far cry from putting on the tinfoil hat.

The BLS has screwed with the numbers before to make Clinton look good & Bush look bad. Why would they not do it again for Obama?

"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"

The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities. Despite claims of corrective statistical adjustments, reported unemployment among people of color declined sharply, and the piggybacked poverty survey showed a remarkable reversal in decades of worsening poverty trends.

Somehow, the Clinton administration successfully set into motion reestablishing the full 60,000 survey for the benefit of the current Bush administration's monthly household survey.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year.

Here is the Fed document increasing the Household Survey from 50,000 back to 60,000 soon after Bush took office.

Effective with the release of July 2001 data, official labor force estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS) and Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program reflect the expansion of the monthly CPS sample from about 50,000 to about 60,000 eligible households.

And yet, we've had even wider disparities between the household and establishment surveys.

But such anomalies have happened before. In February '02, for example, the gap was even wider, with household employment up 737,000 and nonfarm payrolls down 146,000—and nobody cried foul.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ployment-conspiracy-nonsense.html#post6113244

So what did the Bush administration do to "cook the books" in Feb 02? Hmm?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's different from "It's a conspiracy!" And it's fair. The household survey may be inaccurately measuring the actual labor market. But that's a far cry from putting on the tinfoil hat.

The BLS has screwed with the numbers before to make Clinton look good & Bush look bad. Why would they not do it again for Obama?

"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"


Here is the Fed document increasing the Household Survey from 50,000 back to 60,000 soon after Bush took office.

And yet, we've had even wider disparities between the household and establishment surveys.

But such anomalies have happened before. In February '02, for example, the gap was even wider, with household employment up 737,000 and nonfarm payrolls down 146,000—and nobody cried foul.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ployment-conspiracy-nonsense.html#post6113244

So what did the Bush administration do to "cook the books" in Feb 02? Hmm?

You can't fix it when you do not see that their is a problem.

I must remind you little simple me said months ago that unemployment would be below 8% as the election nears. I said this months ago.

 

[Toro]

Apparently, Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of manipulating the jobs report to help President Obama. Others seem to be adding their voices to this slanderous lie. It is simply outrageous to make such a claim and echoes the worrying general distrust of facts that seems to have swept segments of our nation. The BLS employment report draws on two surveys, one (the establishment survey) of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and the other (the household survey) of 60,000 households. The household survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of BLS. It’s important to note that large single-month divergences between the employment numbers in these two surveys (like the divergence in September) are just not that rare. EPI’s Elise Gould has a great paper on the differences between these two surveys.

BLS is a highly professional agency with dozens of people involved in the tabulation and analysis of these data. The idea that the data are manipulated is just completely implausible. Moreover, the data trends reported are clearly in line with previous monthly reports and other economic indicators (such as GDP). The key result was the 114,000 increase in payroll employment from the establishment survey, which was right in line with what forecasters were expecting. This was a positive growth in jobs but roughly the amount to absorb a growing labor force and maintain a stable, not falling, unemployment rate. If someone wanted to help the president, they should have doubled the job growth the report showed. The household survey was much more positive, showing unemployment falling from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. These numbers are more volatile month to month and it wouldn’t be surprising to see unemployment rise a bit next month. Nevertheless, there’s nothing implausible about the reported data. The household survey has shown greater job growth in the recovery than the establishment survey throughout the recovery. The labor force participation rate (the share of adults who are working or unemployed) increased to 63.6 percent, which is an improvement from the prior month but still below the 63.7 percent reported for July. All in all, there was nothing particularly strange about this month’s jobs reports—and certainly nothing to spur accusations of outright fraud.

The outrageous attack on BLS | Economic Policy Institute

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Apparently, Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of manipulating the jobs report to help President Obama. Others seem to be adding their voices to this slanderous lie. It is simply outrageous to make such a claim and echoes the worrying general distrust of facts that seems to have swept segments of our nation. The BLS employment report draws on two surveys, one (the establishment survey) of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and the other (the household survey) of 60,000 households. The household survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of BLS. It’s important to note that large single-month divergences between the employment numbers in these two surveys (like the divergence in September) are just not that rare. EPI’s Elise Gould has a great paper on the differences between these two surveys.

BLS is a highly professional agency with dozens of people involved in the tabulation and analysis of these data. The idea that the data are manipulated is just completely implausible. Moreover, the data trends reported are clearly in line with previous monthly reports and other economic indicators (such as GDP). The key result was the 114,000 increase in payroll employment from the establishment survey, which was right in line with what forecasters were expecting. This was a positive growth in jobs but roughly the amount to absorb a growing labor force and maintain a stable, not falling, unemployment rate. If someone wanted to help the president, they should have doubled the job growth the report showed. The household survey was much more positive, showing unemployment falling from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. These numbers are more volatile month to month and it wouldn’t be surprising to see unemployment rise a bit next month. Nevertheless, there’s nothing implausible about the reported data. The household survey has shown greater job growth in the recovery than the establishment survey throughout the recovery. The labor force participation rate (the share of adults who are working or unemployed) increased to 63.6 percent, which is an improvement from the prior month but still below the 63.7 percent reported for July. All in all, there was nothing particularly strange about this month’s jobs reports—and certainly nothing to spur accusations of outright fraud.

The outrageous attack on BLS | Economic Policy Institute

anyone that denies the number are not cooked are part of the problem.
I don't care if they are Republican libertarian or democrats.,

 

[xsited1]

Apparently, Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of manipulating the jobs report to help President Obama. Others seem to be adding their voices to this slanderous lie. It is simply outrageous to make such a claim and echoes the worrying general distrust of facts that seems to have swept segments of our nation. The BLS employment report draws on two surveys, one (the establishment survey) of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and the other (the household survey) of 60,000 households. The household survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of BLS. It’s important to note that large single-month divergences between the employment numbers in these two surveys (like the divergence in September) are just not that rare. EPI’s Elise Gould has a great paper on the differences between these two surveys.

BLS is a highly professional agency with dozens of people involved in the tabulation and analysis of these data. The idea that the data are manipulated is just completely implausible. Moreover, the data trends reported are clearly in line with previous monthly reports and other economic indicators (such as GDP). The key result was the 114,000 increase in payroll employment from the establishment survey, which was right in line with what forecasters were expecting. This was a positive growth in jobs but roughly the amount to absorb a growing labor force and maintain a stable, not falling, unemployment rate. If someone wanted to help the president, they should have doubled the job growth the report showed. The household survey was much more positive, showing unemployment falling from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. These numbers are more volatile month to month and it wouldn’t be surprising to see unemployment rise a bit next month. Nevertheless, there’s nothing implausible about the reported data. The household survey has shown greater job growth in the recovery than the establishment survey throughout the recovery. The labor force participation rate (the share of adults who are working or unemployed) increased to 63.6 percent, which is an improvement from the prior month but still below the 63.7 percent reported for July. All in all, there was nothing particularly strange about this month’s jobs reports—and certainly nothing to spur accusations of outright fraud.

The outrageous attack on BLS | Economic Policy Institute

Just one question for you Toro: Why do you call this unemployment conspiracy "nonsense?" Do you really trust the government that much?

 

[KissMy]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ployment-conspiracy-nonsense.html#post6113244

So what did the Bush administration do to "cook the books" in Feb 02? Hmm?

I know a lot of people were saying there was a problem with numbers under Bush. It may have been due to a post 9/11 bounce into the fired up housing market because the "household survey" leads the "establishment survey".

The only things I can think of that might be happening now would be a QE3 induced hiring surge, seasonal holiday hiring or dropping the welfare work requirement so people quit looking for work. The survey does show there was 582,000 part time jobs. So that could be hiring for the holiday season. If that is the case then the "establishment survey" & labor participation had best pick up next month to catch this "household survey".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Apparently, Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of manipulating the jobs report to help President Obama. Others seem to be adding their voices to this slanderous lie. It is simply outrageous to make such a claim and echoes the worrying general distrust of facts that seems to have swept segments of our nation. The BLS employment report draws on two surveys, one (the establishment survey) of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and the other (the household survey) of 60,000 households. The household survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of BLS. It’s important to note that large single-month divergences between the employment numbers in these two surveys (like the divergence in September) are just not that rare. EPI’s Elise Gould has a great paper on the differences between these two surveys.

BLS is a highly professional agency with dozens of people involved in the tabulation and analysis of these data. The idea that the data are manipulated is just completely implausible. Moreover, the data trends reported are clearly in line with previous monthly reports and other economic indicators (such as GDP). The key result was the 114,000 increase in payroll employment from the establishment survey, which was right in line with what forecasters were expecting. This was a positive growth in jobs but roughly the amount to absorb a growing labor force and maintain a stable, not falling, unemployment rate. If someone wanted to help the president, they should have doubled the job growth the report showed. The household survey was much more positive, showing unemployment falling from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. These numbers are more volatile month to month and it wouldn’t be surprising to see unemployment rise a bit next month. Nevertheless, there’s nothing implausible about the reported data. The household survey has shown greater job growth in the recovery than the establishment survey throughout the recovery. The labor force participation rate (the share of adults who are working or unemployed) increased to 63.6 percent, which is an improvement from the prior month but still below the 63.7 percent reported for July. All in all, there was nothing particularly strange about this month’s jobs reports—and certainly nothing to spur accusations of outright fraud.

The outrageous attack on BLS | Economic Policy Institute

anyone that denies the number are not cooked are part of the problem.
I don't care if they are Republican libertarian or democrats.,

You tell ‘em…

Anyone who denies the conspiracy exists is part of the conspiracy itself; it’s the mindset of the paranoid partisan.

And of course you have a lot of experience trying to keep lies and conspiracies alive.

 

[Toro]

Apparently, Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of manipulating the jobs report to help President Obama. Others seem to be adding their voices to this slanderous lie. It is simply outrageous to make such a claim and echoes the worrying general distrust of facts that seems to have swept segments of our nation. The BLS employment report draws on two surveys, one (the establishment survey) of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and the other (the household survey) of 60,000 households. The household survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of BLS. It’s important to note that large single-month divergences between the employment numbers in these two surveys (like the divergence in September) are just not that rare. EPI’s Elise Gould has a great paper on the differences between these two surveys.

BLS is a highly professional agency with dozens of people involved in the tabulation and analysis of these data. The idea that the data are manipulated is just completely implausible. Moreover, the data trends reported are clearly in line with previous monthly reports and other economic indicators (such as GDP). The key result was the 114,000 increase in payroll employment from the establishment survey, which was right in line with what forecasters were expecting. This was a positive growth in jobs but roughly the amount to absorb a growing labor force and maintain a stable, not falling, unemployment rate. If someone wanted to help the president, they should have doubled the job growth the report showed. The household survey was much more positive, showing unemployment falling from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. These numbers are more volatile month to month and it wouldn’t be surprising to see unemployment rise a bit next month. Nevertheless, there’s nothing implausible about the reported data. The household survey has shown greater job growth in the recovery than the establishment survey throughout the recovery. The labor force participation rate (the share of adults who are working or unemployed) increased to 63.6 percent, which is an improvement from the prior month but still below the 63.7 percent reported for July. All in all, there was nothing particularly strange about this month’s jobs reports—and certainly nothing to spur accusations of outright fraud.

The outrageous attack on BLS | Economic Policy Institute

Just one question for you Toro: Why do you call this unemployment conspiracy "nonsense?" Do you really trust the government that much?

Do you hate the government that much that you believe it may be a conspiracy?

Maybe its because I've worked in government that has been subject to such speculation that was absolute and utter bullshit. I could post links of ridiculous stories about the agency followed by moronic comments of political partisans with zero knowledge about what they were talking about, and making wild political assertions which were 100% untrue. And the accusations happened under Republican politicians, one event whereby I had to testify in front of Congress. So when I relate to my experiences and read comments here, it just reinforces my opinion that most people are absolutely clueless about what they are talking about, and instead want to live in an echo chamber to make themselves feel good by saying things no matter how implausible.

I work with economists. Economists make accountants look like wild-eyed daredevils. Most are boring wonks obsessed with data. The idea that dozens of them would be involved in this conspiracy just makes me shake my head.

I find the level of paranoia here to be astounding.

 

[Toro]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ployment-conspiracy-nonsense.html#post6113244

So what did the Bush administration do to "cook the books" in Feb 02? Hmm?

I know a lot of people were saying there was a problem with numbers under Bush. It may have been due to a post 9/11 bounce into the fired up housing market because the "household survey" leads the "establishment survey".

The only things I can think of that might be happening now would be a QE3 induced hiring surge, seasonal holiday hiring or dropping the welfare work requirement so people quit looking for work. The survey does show there was 582,000 part time jobs. So that could be hiring for the holiday season. If that is the case then the "establishment survey" & labor participation had best pick up next month to catch this "household survey".

There is a difference between the criticism of the methodological construction of the time series and the conspiratorial notion that the data is being manipulated for political gain. I have problems with some of the data, but I do not believe for a second that the data is manipulated so politicians of either party can be re-elected.

The problem in America - and I do mean America, because I didn't see this when I lived in Canada and the UK - is that every so often when a conspiracy turns out to be true, this one conspiracy reinforces within a certain significant minority of the population the idea that that one conspiracy is proof positive of the 100 events that are not conspiracies but the paranoid think they are. I understand the need to question government, but most people don't objectively question government. They line up on whatever side of the political spectrum they are on and defend their side. Do you really honestly believe that all of these Republicans would be making the same argument if the establishment survey showed +500k jobs and unemployment went up? No, of course not. And similarly, Democrats would be telling us why a rising unemployment rate wasn't indicative of the true employment situation.

There is very little objectivity amongst highly partisan people. Instead, its all about defending the tribe and reinforcing one's own beliefs.