Why are the unemployment numbers being cooked and not much said about it?

[pinqy]

It's the numbers Nole
Jobs listed as 114,000 in Sept.
In order to get from 8.1% to 7.8% you need 759,000 more jobs.

Except the jobs numbers aren't used to calculate the UE rate....Total Employment is. And total employment went up 873,000

So if you don't even know how the rate is calculated, then how could you claim anything about manipulation?

Do you think that's an accurate or even likely representation of what happened in September?

Within known variation and error? sure. It's possible the seasonal adjustment was off, but the rate absolutely went down. And there's always the possibility of a fluke, but no chance of manipulation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Except the jobs numbers aren't used to calculate the UE rate....Total Employment is. And total employment went up 873,000

So if you don't even know how the rate is calculated, then how could you claim anything about manipulation?

Do you think that's an accurate or even likely representation of what happened in September?

Within known variation and error? sure. It's possible the seasonal adjustment was off, but the rate absolutely went down. And there's always the possibility of a fluke, but no chance of manipulation.

Did it? How would you know that? Would you bet your life on it?

I would bet my life that the numbers are cooked.

 

[pinqy]

Do you think that's an accurate or even likely representation of what happened in September?

Within known variation and error? sure. It's possible the seasonal adjustment was off, but the rate absolutely went down. And there's always the possibility of a fluke, but no chance of manipulation.

Did it? How would you know that? Would you bet your life on it?

I would bet my life that the numbers are cooked.

Because I've studied this stuff on the professional level over ten years, I'm very familiar with the laws and policies and procedures, and I've personally met all the supervisors and many of the analysts, and none are particularly political. Hell, all of BLS avoids anything close to political.

You on the other hand have repeatedly shown your complete ignorance of statistical methodology. Here, let's go again:

Explain to the class the full procedure from collection to publication and say exactly where when and by whom the data was manipulated and how Obama fits in.

I know you won't even attempt to do so, you'll just assert and imply.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Within known variation and error? sure. It's possible the seasonal adjustment was off, but the rate absolutely went down. And there's always the possibility of a fluke, but no chance of manipulation.

Did it? How would you know that? Would you bet your life on it?

I would bet my life that the numbers are cooked.

Because I've studied this stuff on the professional level over ten years, I'm very familiar with the laws and policies and procedures, and I've personally met all the supervisors and many of the analysts, and none are particularly political. Hell, all of BLS avoids anything close to political.

You on the other hand have repeatedly shown your complete ignorance of statistical methodology. Here, let's go again:

Explain to the class the full procedure from collection to publication and say exactly where when and by whom the data was manipulated and how Obama fits in.

I know you won't even attempt to do so, you'll just assert and imply.

Would you have said unemployment would be below 8% close to election time months ago? All that studying and nothing to show for it.

 

[pinqy]

Did it? How would you know that? Would you bet your life on it?

I would bet my life that the numbers are cooked.

Because I've studied this stuff on the professional level over ten years, I'm very familiar with the laws and policies and procedures, and I've personally met all the supervisors and many of the analysts, and none are particularly political. Hell, all of BLS avoids anything close to political.

You on the other hand have repeatedly shown your complete ignorance of statistical methodology. Here, let's go again:

Explain to the class the full procedure from collection to publication and say exactly where when and by whom the data was manipulated and how Obama fits in.

I know you won't even attempt to do so, you'll just assert and imply.

Would you have said unemployment would be below 8% close to election time months ago? All that studying and nothing to show for it.

Dodge. You fail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because I've studied this stuff on the professional level over ten years, I'm very familiar with the laws and policies and procedures, and I've personally met all the supervisors and many of the analysts, and none are particularly political. Hell, all of BLS avoids anything close to political.

You on the other hand have repeatedly shown your complete ignorance of statistical methodology. Here, let's go again:

Explain to the class the full procedure from collection to publication and say exactly where when and by whom the data was manipulated and how Obama fits in.

I know you won't even attempt to do so, you'll just assert and imply.

Would you have said unemployment would be below 8% close to election time months ago? All that studying and nothing to show for it.

Dodge. You fail.

Stop dodging I don't have all that studying but I said it would be blow 8% at this time.
You wasted all that money on that education.

 

[pinqy]

Would you have said unemployment would be below 8% close to election time months ago? All that studying and nothing to show for it.

Dodge. You fail.

Stop dodging I don't have all that studying but I said it would be blow 8% at this time.
You wasted all that money on that education.

I almost forgot how you refuse to answer questions or explain anything yet insist everyone else answer your attempts to divert.

I'm not playing.

Explain how the numbers were manipulated. You say you'd bet tour life omit, so you must have something. Or your life is only worth petty change.

 

[McDowell's]

Except the jobs numbers aren't used to calculate the UE rate....Total Employment is. And total employment went up 873,000

So if you don't even know how the rate is calculated, then how could you claim anything about manipulation?

Do you think that's an accurate or even likely representation of what happened in September?

Within known variation and error? sure. It's possible the seasonal adjustment was off, but the rate absolutely went down. And there's always the possibility of a fluke, but no chance of manipulation.

The 90% confidence interval cited by the BLS is plus or minus 100,000. You think a legitimate range for the increase in the number of people employed in one month is between 773,000 and 973,000. In the current economic environment?

 

[pinqy]

Do you think that's an accurate or even likely representation of what happened in September?

Within known variation and error? sure. It's possible the seasonal adjustment was off, but the rate absolutely went down. And there's always the possibility of a fluke, but no chance of manipulation.

The 90% confidence interval cited by the BLS is plus or minus 100,000. You think a legitimate range for the increase in the number of people employed in one month is between 773,000 and 973,000. In the current economic environment?

Could you link to where BLS gives the margin of error? And are you sure you're citing month to month change and not level? My calculations from http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf makes it higher.

But yeah, it's unusual, it could be a fluke the "10% of the time it's outside the error range, but it's not manipulation. Of course they could be wrong, it's possible.

 

[Lakhota]

Why are the unemployment numbers being cooked and not much said about it?

Because the only thing being "cooked" is your brain.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dodge. You fail.

Stop dodging I don't have all that studying but I said it would be blow 8% at this time.
You wasted all that money on that education.

I almost forgot how you refuse to answer questions or explain anything yet insist everyone else answer your attempts to divert.

I'm not playing.

Explain how the numbers were manipulated. You say you'd bet tour life omit, so you must have something. Or your life is only worth petty change.

Why should I answer you failed bull shit when I'm not an expert and said unemployment would be below 8% at this time. Maybe you should be asking me for help.
OBAMA CONTROLS THOSE WHO GET THE INFORMATION AND DISTRIBUTES IT.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why are the unemployment numbers being cooked and not much said about it?

Because the only thing being "cooked" is your brain.

OK can you explain why the new jobs do not match the jobs needed to make the unemployment drop?

 

[Rozman]

Because the media loves Obama and wants him elected again...

 

[pinqy]

Why are the unemployment numbers being cooked and not much said about it?

Because the only thing being "cooked" is your brain.

OK can you explain why the new jobs do not match the jobs needed to make the unemployment drop?

It's been explained a dozen times: two different surveys, measuring different things. The jobs numbers are more accurate, but can't be used for the UE rate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because the only thing being "cooked" is your brain.

OK can you explain why the new jobs do not match the jobs needed to make the unemployment drop?

It's been explained a dozen times: two different surveys, measuring different things. The jobs numbers are more accurate, but can't be used for the UE rate.

No it has not your point has failed.
But I am smarter than the experts like you and said unemployment would be below 8% before election time.

 

[McDowell's]

Within known variation and error? sure. It's possible the seasonal adjustment was off, but the rate absolutely went down. And there's always the possibility of a fluke, but no chance of manipulation.

The 90% confidence interval cited by the BLS is plus or minus 100,000. You think a legitimate range for the increase in the number of people employed in one month is between 773,000 and 973,000. In the current economic environment?

Could you link to where BLS gives the margin of error? And are you sure you're citing month to month change and not level? My calculations from http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf makes it higher.

But yeah, it's unusual, it could be a fluke the "10% of the time it's outside the error range, but it's not manipulation. Of course they could be wrong, it's possible.

I should have clarified. I don't think the numbers have been manipulated. I just think they do not sync well with all the other economic indicators out there which do not indicate a very vibrant economy. Yet this employment report would indicate the exact opposite.

I got that 100k number from here, and didn't dig much further. From your link I got an interval of plus/minus 420K+ which is pretty damn ludicrous in my opinion, but that's the methodology. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Since you actually have knowledge on the subject, I just wanted to get your personal opinion on the reasonableness of these numbers. My gut feeling is that President Obama got lucky with the results of last months survey, but I don't think next month will be as kind. How will he play it if (in my opinion when) unemployment ticks back up this month?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The 90% confidence interval cited by the BLS is plus or minus 100,000. You think a legitimate range for the increase in the number of people employed in one month is between 773,000 and 973,000. In the current economic environment?

Could you link to where BLS gives the margin of error? And are you sure you're citing month to month change and not level? My calculations from http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf makes it higher.

But yeah, it's unusual, it could be a fluke the "10% of the time it's outside the error range, but it's not manipulation. Of course they could be wrong, it's possible.

I should have clarified. I don't think the numbers have been manipulated. I just think they do not sync well with all the other economic indicators out there which do not indicate a very vibrant economy. Yet this employment report would indicate the exact opposite.

I got that 100k number from here, and didn't dig much further. From your link I got an interval of plus/minus 420K+ which is pretty damn ludicrous in my opinion, but that's the methodology. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Since you actually have knowledge on the subject, I just wanted to get your personal opinion on the reasonableness of these numbers. My gut feeling is that President Obama got lucky with the results of last months survey, but I don't think next month will be as kind. How will he play it if (in my opinion when) unemployment ticks back up this month?

You're not going to see unemployment rise until December and January.

 

[Salt Jones]

Could you link to where BLS gives the margin of error? And are you sure you're citing month to month change and not level? My calculations from http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf makes it higher.

But yeah, it's unusual, it could be a fluke the "10% of the time it's outside the error range, but it's not manipulation. Of course they could be wrong, it's possible.

I should have clarified. I don't think the numbers have been manipulated. I just think they do not sync well with all the other economic indicators out there which do not indicate a very vibrant economy. Yet this employment report would indicate the exact opposite.

I got that 100k number from here, and didn't dig much further. From your link I got an interval of plus/minus 420K+ which is pretty damn ludicrous in my opinion, but that's the methodology. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Since you actually have knowledge on the subject, I just wanted to get your personal opinion on the reasonableness of these numbers. My gut feeling is that President Obama got lucky with the results of last months survey, but I don't think next month will be as kind. How will he play it if (in my opinion when) unemployment ticks back up this month?

You're not going to see unemployment rise until December and January.

Who cares? I'm working.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I should have clarified. I don't think the numbers have been manipulated. I just think they do not sync well with all the other economic indicators out there which do not indicate a very vibrant economy. Yet this employment report would indicate the exact opposite.

I got that 100k number from here, and didn't dig much further. From your link I got an interval of plus/minus 420K+ which is pretty damn ludicrous in my opinion, but that's the methodology. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Since you actually have knowledge on the subject, I just wanted to get your personal opinion on the reasonableness of these numbers. My gut feeling is that President Obama got lucky with the results of last months survey, but I don't think next month will be as kind. How will he play it if (in my opinion when) unemployment ticks back up this month?

You're not going to see unemployment rise until December and January.

Who cares? I'm working.

I care because I care about my country, I hate liars and those who would cook the numbers to support a liar are also liars.

 

[pinqy]

The 90% confidence interval cited by the BLS is plus or minus 100,000. You think a legitimate range for the increase in the number of people employed in one month is between 773,000 and 973,000. In the current economic environment?

Could you link to where BLS gives the margin of error? And are you sure you're citing month to month change and not level? My calculations from http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf makes it higher.

But yeah, it's unusual, it could be a fluke the "10% of the time it's outside the error range, but it's not manipulation. Of course they could be wrong, it's possible.

I should have clarified. I don't think the numbers have been manipulated. I just think they do not sync well with all the other economic indicators out there which do not indicate a very vibrant economy. Yet this employment report would indicate the exact opposite.

I got that 100k number from here, and didn't dig much further.

Ok, that interval is for the Establishment survey. So non-farm payroll jobs went up 114k, +/-100K
Total Employment, from the Household Survey, went up 873k, +/- 422k

From your link I got an interval of plus/minus 420K+ which is pretty damn ludicrous in my opinion, but that's the methodology. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

It's a smallish sample, prone to error. Note, though that the result is statistically significant. It definitely went up, and it went up somewhere between 450k and 1.3M

Since you actually have knowledge on the subject, I just wanted to get your personal opinion on the reasonableness of these numbers. My gut feeling is that President Obama got lucky with the results of last months survey, but I don't think next month will be as kind. How will he play it if (in my opinion when) unemployment ticks back up this month?

Looks like luck to me, as well, and an uptick won't surprise me. Not much Obama or Romney could do though...only 4 days before the election.