Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I don’t believe ‘em (jobs numbers)
NY Post ^ | August 3, 2012 | John Crudele

Posted on 08/04/2012 8:25:13 AM PDT by lasereye

I’ve long believed the Labor Department’s monthly employment statistics are horribly inaccurate. So bad, in fact, that they are hardly worth compiling.

But I never thought the numbers were fudged — until now.

The government reported yesterday that 163,000 jobs were created in July and that the unemployment rate rose by 0.1 percentage points to 8.3 percent.

While Wall Street’s first reaction to the job report was very positive, that’ll change in the weeks ahead.

Why? Because the strength of the report probably eliminated any chance that Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve would begin a new money- printing operation, known as quantitative easing, before the presidential election.

What really matters to you and me is that the economy is creating jobs again, right?

As I’ve explained before, Labor each month guesses at the number of jobs that it thinks are being created by newly formed companies that it really can’t prove actually exist. This is called the birth/death model, in case you want to impress your cocktail-party friends.

So far this year, 400,000 of these phantom jobs have been added to Labor’s count.

Yesterday’s report included the addition of 52,000 phantom jobs. In July 2010, by comparison, Labor subtracted 18,000 jobs because small, invisible companies were dying and killing jobs.

In July 2011, Labor subtracted 38,000 jobs. On average, 20,000 phantom jobs are subtracted in July.

This year, the economy is now officially growing much more slowly than it was last summer and Labor suddenly adds 52,000 jobs to the July count that it can’t prove exist.

Let me put this into a different perspective: When the economy was still booming in the summer of 2007, Labor subtracted 57,000 phantom jobs.

Could the fact that this is an election year have anything to do with this remarkable discrepancy?

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; economy; election; jobs

1 posted on 08/04/2012 8:25:23 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; blam; TigerLikesRooster; SeekAndFind; Nachum

ping


2 posted on 08/04/2012 8:32:50 AM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

163,000 jobs created but 195,000 fewer people employed in July. Something ain’t right!

Dept of Labor:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm


3 posted on 08/04/2012 8:40:27 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

It doesn’t matter about number of jobs. 8.3 is what is going to kill any chance of an Obama reelection. Of course we will be sattled with an idiot Romney so we all lose anyway. Lord 2013-2017 is gonna suck!!!!!


4 posted on 08/04/2012 8:41:25 AM PDT by napscoordinator (GO TO CHIC-FIL-A 1 AUGUST FOR BREAKFAST, LUNCH OR DINNER (OR ALL))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The industry I’m in continues to decline with one plant closing in a few months that I know of. Somewhere some media source planted the idea that we were in a recovery somewhere a few years ago. There has been NO recovery. Period.


5 posted on 08/04/2012 8:44:20 AM PDT by MachIV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

btt


6 posted on 08/04/2012 8:47:14 AM PDT by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Obama Smoke and Mirrors add "Virtual Jobs"

Seasonal And Birth Death Adjustments Add 429,000 Statistical "Jobs"

(largest seasonal adjustment for July in the past decade, possibly ever)

Happy by the headline establishment survey print of 133,245 which says that the US "added" 163,000 jobs in July from 133,082 last month?

Consider this: the number was based on a non seasonally adjusted July number of 132,868. This was a 1.248 million drop from the June print.

So how did the smoothing work out to make a real plunge into an "adjusted" rise? Simple: the BLS "added" 377K jobs for seasonal purposes.

This was the largest seasonal addition for a July NFP print in the past decade, possibly ever, as the first chart below shows. But wait, there's more: the Birth Death adjustment, which adds to the NSA Print to get to the final number, was +52k. How does this compare to July 2011? It is about 1000% higher: the last B/D adjustment was a tiny +5K!

In other words, of the 163,000 jobs "added", 429,000 was based on purely statistical fudging.


7 posted on 08/04/2012 8:48:42 AM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

I think the numbers aren’t very meaningful either, but for a different reason. I think BLS has to make adjustments—and without a detailed look in their models, I have no idea what they should be, or whether they’ve been distorted in a particular month or quarter. But, the adjustments over time have proved to be larger, and sometimes much larger, than the resulting jobs number.

Any time this happens, you are looking for a “signal” as to what is happening in the presence of overwhelming noise. It’s like trying to listen to music on the radio from a very weak station. You can’t make it out, or tell what is going on.

So, what’s clear is that the jobs number is weak—but what you can’t do is conclude definitively that it is significantly better or worse than the month before, or indicative of any change in trend.

Did the BLS cook the numbers, or is the method such that the numbers are not very meaningful except six months after the fact when you have enough of them to discern a real trend? Does it make any difference? The numbers still suck.

I think the author is right to look at other statistics, like the total and percentage number of the workforce employed, to get a clearer picture.

I also think that the market didn’t go up because of the jobs number. Europe was up bigtime before the number was announced, because it sounds as if the ECB is going to find a way to buy questionable bonds from deadbeat countries, in a manner similar to the way the Fed “expanded its balance sheet” buying crap mortgage backed securities.


8 posted on 08/04/2012 8:48:59 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

The market went up but volume was low, below average.

Absent growth,”new” jobs are still created by- death, retirement. There was some talk of how the numbers were messed up by the auto industry not having their usual layoffs.


9 posted on 08/04/2012 8:55:28 AM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
But I never thought the numbers were fudged — until now.

Crudele has had his head in the sand for months.

Anyone who has watched the revised upward week after week and the unexpected week after week and the number of people magically disappearing from the work force since 2009 knows something stinks -- and it isn't dead fish.


10 posted on 08/04/2012 8:57:49 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

:: In other words, of the 163,000 jobs “added”, 429,000 was based on purely statistical fudging. ::

There has got to be a less confusing way of stating this fact. As written, I try to reconcile how 429,000 is a ^subset^ of 163,000.

The 163,000 is a subset of the total job numbers to which 429,000 was arbitrarily added.


11 posted on 08/04/2012 9:01:41 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

The weekly report on the number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits that comes out every Thursday morning is a complete farse.

As an example of their perverted math, BLS reports an increase in the number of jobless claims (e.g., 10,000) then the following week revises it UPWARD (e.g., 15,000) to make it easier for the ensuing new weekly number (e.g., 12,000) to print as a ‘DECLINE”. Even though 12K is obviously an increase over 10K, its magically converted into a drop after the original 10K was conveniently revised upward.

Whatever the new weekly number happens to be, simply “adjust” the old number higher to make sure you can report a decline. This manipulation goes on week after week thereby allowing the MSM to almost always report a never ending “improvement” in jobless claims.


12 posted on 08/04/2012 9:15:52 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MachIV

Agree. The economy is bad and getting worse and America is rapidly losing its competitive edge. Remember the farsical charade by the administration (and their pals in the media) known as “Recovery Summer” back in 2010? This was nothing but a political fabrication to dupe the populace into believing that the economy was rebounding. The administration knew all along this was complete BS.


13 posted on 08/04/2012 9:22:22 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

“In other words, of the 163,000 jobs “added”, 429,000 was based on purely statistical fudging”


The BLS has been totally compromised under this administration. The monthly print would have been horrible if not for all the “adjustments”.

A poll today that was reported on Fox Business showed that nearly two thirds believe we are currently in a recession. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.


14 posted on 08/04/2012 9:30:16 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

The current quote of 8.3% is a flat out lie. Counting those whose unemployment compensation ran out who are not yet employed, which the government figures ignore, it is more like 15%.


15 posted on 08/04/2012 9:40:08 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

“Did the BLS cook the numbers”


Let’s just say a lot of ordinary (non-statistical) people wonder about the huge and ongoing disparity between the monthly prints and U6 as well as the recurring “upward revisions” in the Thursday weeklies that are obviously tortured. Issues like these call into serious question the integrity of the BLS.


16 posted on 08/04/2012 9:46:30 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Starboard
Let’s just say a lot of ordinary (non-statistical) people wonder about the huge and ongoing disparity between the monthly prints and U6...

I'm still not clear whether the Great Depression definition of unemployment was more like U6 than U3, myself. Now, THAT redefinition would be a switch of substantial importance. Did it occur, and when?

17 posted on 08/04/2012 9:51:45 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; lasereye
The Employment Rate In The United States Is Lower Than It Was During The Last Recession
18 posted on 08/04/2012 10:19:45 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lasereye; All
The BLS collects two sets of data on employment. The household survey is considered much more reliable than the payroll survey. However it is open to manipulation through the use of seasonal adjustment and removing people from the civilian labor force.

The payroll survey is open to manipulation through seasonal adjustment and the Birth and Death Model.

From this months payroll survey - Table B-1:
# jobs, not seasonally adjusted
June 134,072,000
July 132,860,000
=
-1,212,000 fewer jobs in July

After running -1,212,000 through 2 statistical tools: the Birth and Death model and seasonal adjustment

-1,212,000 becomes +163,000
19 posted on 08/04/2012 10:52:16 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; avacado; napscoordinator; MachIV; KSCITYBOY; Iron Munro; Pearls Before Swine; mrsmith; ...

a short version:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2914558/posts?page=19#19


20 posted on 08/04/2012 11:01:45 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: khelus; All
The blue line shows Unemployment if you add back in the underemployed and those who have been dropped from the civilian labor force but want work:


21 posted on 08/04/2012 11:05:51 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: khelus

An excellent post explaining some very murky stats.

I find it interesting that terms like

McJobs
Recovery for Wall $treet and not Main Street
Homeless problem

haven’t been seen in the MSM since Jan 09.


22 posted on 08/04/2012 11:09:48 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Lies, lies, everywhere lies. Look up, look down, all you see are lies!! It is the US government’s way to speaking. If they EVER told the truth the entire beltway would explode and sink into hell.


23 posted on 08/04/2012 11:11:35 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (You can almost hear the footsteps of Jesus. He is right at the door!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

thanks.

Re: McJobs - that’s about all that are being created LOL


24 posted on 08/04/2012 11:27:50 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
... If they EVER told the truth the entire beltway would explode and sink into hell.


25 posted on 08/04/2012 11:44:57 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
Counting those whose unemployment compensation ran out who are not yet employed, which the government figures ignore, it is more like 15%.

Unemployment calculations are not impacted by unemployment compensation.

26 posted on 08/04/2012 12:24:49 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Unemployment calculations are not impacted by unemployment compensation.

When they stop receiving compensation, and are not back at work, they disappear from the stats. That is my complaint. They lie about the true number.

27 posted on 08/04/2012 1:08:39 PM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
When they stop receiving compensation, and are not back at work, they disappear from the stats.

Wrong. If they're still looking, they're still counted as unemployed.

28 posted on 08/04/2012 1:58:49 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640  
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317  
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934  
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279  
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762  
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645  
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299  
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124  
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393  
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097  
2012 12758 12806 12673 12500 12720 12749 12794            

See the data up top? That's total unemployed.

In Jan 2012, that was 12,758,000.

See the data below? That's initial and continuing claims for unemployment. At the end of Jan 2012, 4,097,007.

The difference, 8,660,993, is the number of unemployed people not collecting benefits. The number you say "disappear from the stats".

Subject: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Data - Report r539cy

Initial Claims Continued Claims I.U.R Covered Employment
N.S.A S.F. S.A. N.S.A S.F. S.A. N.S.A S.A.
01/07/2012 646,219 165.9 390,000 4,109,127 117.5 3,497,000 3.2 2.8 126,579,970
01/14/2012 525,422 144.2 364,000 4,069,651 114.6 3,551,000 3.2 2.8 126,579,970
01/21/2012 416,880 112.0 372,000 4,058,236 116.4 3,486,000 3.2 2.8 126,579,970
01/28/2012 422,287 110.7 381,000 4,097,007 116.5 3,517,000 3.2 2.8 126,579,970
02/04/2012 401,365 108.2 371,000 3,984,885 115.7 3,444,000 3.1 2.7 126,579,970
02/11/2012 365,014 101.2 361,000 4,010,484 117.6 3,410,000 3.2 2.7 126,579,970
02/18/2012 346,659 95.7 362,000 3,882,525 113.3 3,427,000 3.1 2.7 126,579,970
02/25/2012 334,241 89.7 373,000 3,988,890 116.1 3,436,000 3.2 2.7 126,579,970
03/03/2012 368,433 98.6 374,000 3,862,329 113.8 3,394,000 3.1 2.7 126,579,970
03/10/2012 340,077 93.6 363,000 3,815,580 112.8 3,383,000 3.0 2.7 126,579,970
03/17/2012 319,498 87.7 364,000 3,699,473 110.3 3,354,000 2.9 2.6 126,579,970
03/24/2012 323,373 89.0 363,000 3,636,706 108.6 3,349,000 2.9 2.6 126,579,970
03/31/2012 315,623 87.1 362,000 3,470,104 106.1 3,271,000 2.7 2.6 126,579,970
04/07/2012 390,064 100.6 388,000 3,447,774 104.1 3,312,000 2.7 2.6 127,048,587
04/14/2012 370,482 95.2 389,000 3,425,328 102.9 3,329,000 2.7 2.6 127,048,587
04/21/2012 370,632 94.5 392,000 3,292,997 100.1 3,290,000 2.6 2.6 127,048,587
04/28/2012 333,476 90.6 368,000 3,210,827 98.9 3,247,000 2.5 2.6 127,048,587
05/05/2012 341,080 92.3 370,000 3,150,380 95.8 3,288,000 2.5 2.6 127,048,587
05/12/2012 325,094 87.3 372,000 3,124,384 95.3 3,278,000 2.5 2.6 127,048,587
05/19/2012 330,431 88.5 373,000 3,060,348 93.9 3,259,000 2.4 2.6 127,048,587
05/26/2012 346,260 89.1 389,000 3,062,676 92.3 3,318,000 2.4 2.6 127,048,587
06/02/2012 324,385 85.3 380,000 3,091,216 93.7 3,299,000 2.4 2.6 127,048,587
06/09/2012 376,610 96.8 389,000 3,101,927 93.7 3,310,000 2.4 2.6 127,048,587
06/16/2012 364,548 93.0 392,000 3,113,904 94.3 3,302,000 2.5 2.6 127,048,587
06/23/2012 370,460 95.4 388,000 3,145,031 94.8 3,318,000 2.5 2.6 127,048,587
06/30/2012 369,826 98.3 376,000 3,112,199 93.9 3,314,000 2.4 2.6 127,048,587
07/07/2012 442,192 125.8 352,000 3,360,067 101.3 3,317,000 2.6 2.6 127,495,952

29 posted on 08/04/2012 2:32:17 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
When they stop receiving compensation, and are not back at work, they disappear from the stats. That is my complaint. They lie about the true number.

That's a common misconception. That's not how it's calculated.

30 posted on 08/04/2012 7:30:38 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson