Hilarity of Unemployment Rate

B

Bronco

500+ Posts
I am not suggesting anything nefarious but the numbers don't come close to adding up. I never really researched how the BLS calculates the numbers before but it is a VERY unscientific approach and leaves a lot of room for subjectivity. Not saying it is different from pres to pres but it is a weird way of pegging the number.

The White House made a big point of the 140,000 or so jobs created in the month. The funny thing is that based on the total number of people working right now, over 840,000 new jobs would have to be created to lower the unemployment rate by .03%. This obviously didnt happen.

I'm not sure you can trust ANY number or statistic that is calculated by the govt on anything.
 
They have always arrived at the " household" rate the same way.
What is unusual about this particular stat is the overly large number of ' part time" in the employed figure.

that and that the media and BO are ignoring the 9 million no longer looking or only occasionaly looking
 
You can rest assured that the corrected numbers will come out after the election. And I don't understand why they don't add in people who have given up looking for work, and factor in people who are only able to find part-time work. Oh yeah, that would make the numbers much worse.
brickwall.gif
 
Two things strike me about this story:
1. The numbers and the facts that underly them don't giving any sort of resounding confidence in the economy.
2. Republicans attacking and denouncing authentic (if not especially instructive) statistical calcualations and intimating if not making outright accusations of data manipulation.

The same talking heads producing such relevant insight as "the worst president in modern history" are getting all flummoxed over number that show a decline in unemployment. Before logic and facts can be your friend, you have to spend a little time getting to know them. If you don't like facts and numbers don't give us the ******** that you are the party of facts and logic and be so dismissive of others feelings. Admit you are the talking heads for "conservative feelings" but don't keep deluding yourself that "conservative feelings = logic"
I'm not sure I agree with the The Stephen Colbert joke -- "Reality has a well known liberal bias" but Republican dismissal of factual evidence that doesn't fit their narrative is really comical watching from the perspective of an independent. How you could let people at Fox and conservative radio keep feeding you ******** is perplexing.

For an insightful read about the conservative war on facts readThe Link
 
Crockett, the hilarious thing is that they aren't even conservatives, but Republicans. They conflate being conservative with being Republican.

As my dad ---- a veteran of two tours of duty in Vietnam ------ said, "Conservatism is the ideal thing, Republicanism the real thing. A confusing of the ideal with the real seldom goes unpunished."

And now they've nominated a liberal from Massachusetts ----- John Kerry/Michael Dukakis redux ------ to be their party's standard bearer! Ha!
 
Michtex- I think you may have come back as Mcbrett or Satchel.

I suggested the UE rate is calculated unscientifically and allows for subjectivity. To refute this statement (and accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about) you posted a story that says this:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Just because it is "volatile", it doesn't mean that BLS collects its data in an unscientific manner.

And moving .1% or .2% is volatile?
 
Crockett- I dont necessarily disagree with you but you look at this through only one side of the equation. You say it in your first point, this figure doesnt show much confidence in the economy.

But, the demsand BO trumpet it as great news and use to suggest the opposite of what you said- that it is a testament to their policies that they are working and things are getting better. When they make these challenges, the repubs must answer them.

You and many others here, jump on the repub for discounting the reduced UE rate but do not jump on the dems for trumpeting it, even though by your own admission, the news isnt that good.

I was merely pointing out how misleading the stats can be. I made sure I said that I didnt think the numbers were being purposefully tweaked and I said the same formula is used by all admins. Its just a misleading stat if you look at it.
 
Bronco
Further hilarity ; Most of BO's media is wet with excitment on the supposed drop in unemployment claims.

ManyBo media outlets are leaving off the information that one large state didn't report some quarterlly figures. I guess that would have nessed with the Bo media's lovefest

here is USA today. See any mention in this report on a large state's irregular filing?The Link
 
In reply to
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I was merely pointing out how misleading the stats can be. I made sure I said that I didnt think the numbers were being purposefully tweaked and I said the same formula is used by all admins. Its just a misleading stat if you look at it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bronco -- I apologize if it appeared I was lumping you into the those shoveling empty-headed accusations into the discussions on the unemployment number. You show an interest in and respect for the facts related to this issue. I wanted to vent at the stupidity I was observing on this topic and your thread gave me an opportunity. I certainly feel you are one with whom I can have an adult interchange of ideas on topics like this.
 
Crockett,

You cool with the government putting out misleading figures in the month before the election? Or do you believe it was not misleading perhaps to leave out the data from one state?
 
I think the government should be honest and come clean with all the information that's relevant. Trust people to understand, even if some don't. Certainly that a state was left out of the final calculations should be disclosed. I'm pretty sure the release of the numbers is something that is scheduled, expected and never missed. I'm not sure the protocol on disclosure, but it should be followed. And it should be drafted to give credible, undoctored information to the public and if something is amis, like a state being left out of the calculations, that should be disclosed.
 
The links from the Washington Post and NPR didn't mention which state. Why is the government not mentioning which state?
 
Latest reports as of this morning say the "state" was CA but then it was retracted. Who knows what is going on with the latest number because it appears from the last couple of days it might depend on who you talk to in the labor dept what story you get. (according to the reports referenced The Link )
whiteflag.gif


Just be honest about the reporting is all I am asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top