Unemployment rate to 8.8%

[bigrebnc1775]

[It's all done by a poll and depending on what your view is so goes the poll.

How does one have a "view" about whether or not one has worked or looked for work? You don't think this is an opinion poll where people are asked what they think the unemployment numbers are, do you? People are asked what they did in the previous week. There's no "view" to that.

People are asked, no way of finding out if they are telling the truth or not.

 

[pinqy]

[It's all done by a poll and depending on what your view is so goes the poll.

How does one have a "view" about whether or not one has worked or looked for work? You don't think this is an opinion poll where people are asked what they think the unemployment numbers are, do you? People are asked what they did in the previous week. There's no "view" to that.

People are asked, no way of finding out if they are telling the truth or not.

Of course not. But there's absolutely no reason to think that's at all a significant factor. And there are other sources of nonsampling error as well, which are most likely more significant. But there's nothing you can do about that, though some effort has been made to determine any consistant bias. But it does not appear that nonsampling error is all that significant, and sampling error is accounted for.

We know all this, it's an inherent part of statistical methodology. And yet you fail to come up with anything better. UI benefits don't capture all unemployed (even looking at denied claims doesn't help that). There's no way to extrapolate from other government assistance employment status, and you'd still miss all those unemployed who don't seek assistance (I've been unemployed and never received any govt benefits, including UI).

NOBODY CLAIMS THE NUMBERS ARE 100% ACCURATE! But they're the best that can be done, and as long as the terms and methodology are consistant, it's the monthly changes that are important.

 

[pinqy]

UE data like everything like all other data is published to advance an agenda since I don't know the explicit agenda I don't use it.

Then why are BLS numbers never significantly different from Gallup's Poll? For March, Gallup's % (not seasonally adjusted) was 10% +- 0.7, so between 9.3 and 10.7. BLS's was 9.2 +-0.2, so between 9.0 and 9.4. Both are at 90% confidence. At 95% confidence it's 9% - 11% for Gallup and 8.9% - 9.4% for BLS

Plus, I really don't think it's possible to manipulate the data significantly. There are 14 business days from the beginning of collection until publication...9 business days from end of collection to publication. That's barely enough time to calculate all the tables and data that are published, and no time at all to redo everything down to micro-data level. Add on that no one outside the BLS and Census CPS offices have access to the data (Sec Labor and the President receive a copy of the report the night before release), and you just can't do it...too many cells to change and figure out what the changes would do.

And, the current BLS commissioner is a Bush appointee, so has no motive to advance an Obama political agenda (and Bush had a Clinton appointee for his first two years, and Clinton had a Bush I appointee his first 2 years etc).

The number problems you're seeing could be from some systematic nonsampling error...a factor of the seasonal adjustment and rounding, etc. You can't look at one apparent anamoly and reach the conclusion that the books are cooked without any other supporting evidence.