Skip to comments.On jobs numbers, BLS vows there's no conspiracy (The BLS is just plain BS!)
Posted on 10/06/2012 10:07:51 PM PDT by tobyhill
On the heels of a positive September jobs report, which showed a 0.3 percentage point drop in the national unemployment rate, prominent conservative Jack Welch and some others on the right are questioning the source of the numbers, suggesting on Twitter that the Obama team had in some way manipulated the data to their advantage.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," wrote Welch, the former chairman and CEO of General Electric, shortly after the September jobs report was released.
Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham piled on in a Twitter message of her own: "Jobs #s from Labor Secretary Hilda Solis are total pro-Obama propaganda--labor force participation rate at 30-yr low. Abysmal!"
And Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., posted on Facebook his belief that "Chicago style politics is at work" with regard to a "manipulation" of the data.
Welch was not available to comment on the nature of his Twitter message or to offer up an explanation for its basis -- according to someone in his office, he posted his message before walking into a meeting without his phone -- but the Bureau of Labor Statistics and others immediately knocked down his and other similar comments as factually unsound. (Welch later doubled down on the sentiment in a Fox News appearance, noting that "these numbers don't smell right.")
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
How convenient, they use a smaller sample one month before the elections. I smell fraud.
chopping block candidate?
The numbers from Jan 2008 were 138 million. From Jan 2008 until DEC 2009, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had full control of government and the economy. In two years, the number plummeted to 129 million. Since the GOP took over the House, the number has risen halfway back to the 133 million that was reported yesterday.
While trying to explain THOSE hard figures (and not predictions made form surveys that need monthly revisions), maybe someone might ask the President why the US has hit an all-time low in the percentage of the working-age population participating in employment (63%... Another number that is a bit tougher to massage, taking the total employed number from the monthly BLS report and dividing it by the working-age population.)
1.) We have been trained by poll takers to look at poll numbers for THE MARGIN OF ERROR.
2.) Why don’t we train the Government Departments to give us their MARGIN OF REVISIONS?
BTW, do you have any charts showing the initial and later revisions?
Happy days are here again ! Rejoice.
Remember how obama messed with the work requirement in welfare last month or the month before? So people could claim things like getting a massage as work, or taking a class as work?
Maybe that’s how they came up with these crazy numbers. Just use the welfare people. I don’t know. Just a thought.
They were in his other pants.
That and the very recent back-door dream-act, encouraging illegals, thru 30 y-o, to be a bit more honest about their illegal job.
the july 2012 birth death adjustment was 1,000% higher than the july 2011 birth death adjustment. I suppose that’s because the economy is growing 1,000 % faster this july? Oh yes, the july 2012 seasonal adjustment was the largest july seasonal asjustment in BLS history. These are all numbers that the BLS pulls out of their ass and then adds to the monthly total. For some reason the numbers they’re pulling out of their asses are cinsiderably larger than nirmal. It’s just a coincidence that they’re doing this right before an election I guess?
The 873,000 part time jobs people are talking about are no more real than the U3 number. The 873,000 jobs are an attempt to explain why the U3 number fell 0.3 to 7.8%, but the U6 number remained unchanged at 14.7%. Because, you see, if the U3 number fell 0.3, the U6 number should also have fallen, but it didn't. So how come? Well, the explanation is, the -0.3 people fell off BOTH numbers, (they had to have, because U6 contains U3 as a subset) but the U6 therefore had to gain an additional 0.3 to remain unchanged, and that can only be explained by assuming 873,000 additional part time jobs. It doesn't say they actually know where these jobs are. They have to be there to make the numbers game work.
Here's another theory: the U3 number is pure BULLSHIT and neither the U3 nor the U6 number actually changed at all.
The best explanation I've seen for this is here, with nice graphs for the numerate among you. The red line is the ADP number. It's the real jobs number based on payroll. The blue line is the household survey. http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/vas-is-das-u3-unemployment-falls-to-7-8-but-u6-unemployment-remains-at-14-7/
[Disclaimer: I don't run this blog, don't know this blogger, and don't blog anywhere myself except FR. I am not a blog pimp. The "FRED" in the lower left corner stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data, and anyway, my real name isn't "Fred."]
In particular, have a look at this graph, which is quite telling. It tracks the payroll survey (ADP survey) against the household survey. Notice anything STRANGE?
Well, it's pretty clear. It looks like the BLS survey is ALWAYS COMPLETE CRAP. It comes in high, month after month, and when the PhD's at BLS get a chance to compare the household survey with the actual ADP numbers they zig the zag back out so that the household survey numbers look like they average out to the ADP numbers (which are REAL) every other month, or so. The problem with this is, a household survey should have a systemic rejection bias, which this graph does not have. This happens because people don't answer surveys randomly; many refuse. But notice another thing, based on history: In the Spring of this year, The ADP number declined by about 100,000, while the household survey number swung by more than a million jobs. In fact, the variance between ADP and the real jobs number is largest between January and March 2012 ... well except for one month which is? [hint: September 2012.]
The ADP payroll number is slightly positive at around 100,000-150,000 jobs/month and trending flat, and this tracks to the employers survey (not shown) which says not much hiring is going on.
Got enough stank, yet? Well hold on...
While you're looking, here's another thing to examine on the same website. Look immediately below the chart I linked to above. There, you will see that 91% of the people who have "dropped" out of the labor force since 2010 have shown up in the labor statistics ON DISABILITY.
You will also discover that since the employment numbers supposedly started improving late last year, the number of new Food Stamps recipients has increased by 5.6 million.
Does ANY of this really sound like an improving economy? Really?
Even if these numbers aren’t cooked, though I believe they are, people aren’t going to suddenly change their minds and decide they want this boob for a leader again.
Most people’s minds are already made up, and no matter what the MSM and skewed polls tell us, Romney’s gonna win. As long as he sticks to his guns and doesn’t implode.
“If 60,000 Households are surveyed in the Household Report, how was 873,000 more people with jobs found?”
You’re exactly right. With a sample of 60,000 households projected against an estimated workforce of 38,000,000, a very small margin of error will skew the unemployment numbers greatly. Also a small change in the sample group will change the numbers.
For example, if 40 people in the 60,000 sample group picked up work driving a school bus, those 40 people would change the unemployment rate by 0.1%. That’s all it takes, so the the 0.3% change in unemployment basically means that the status of 120 people had changed.
Now if you wanted to purposely twist the results, all you would have to do is change the demographics of the survey group. If you wanted better numbers, just sample more persons in areas or ethnic groups that have better numbers.
For what it’s worth, the U.S. Census does the sample survey. The raw survey data won’t be available publicly until later this month.
Until then, you just have to trust the BLS.
HA! Their explanation is phony. If they KNEW the numbers looked abnormal, then why didn't they report that up front? Why is the president touting it when there are abnormalities? None of this passes the smell test and the American people are not buying it.