Unemployment #s

The funny part is they cooked the numbers so bad that this in and of itself could turn into a new scandal.

I'm betting they were saving this accounting trick for the November report just prior to the election but had to play the card early to deflect the debate performance.  Kind of like playing the 47% tape early to deflect from Libya.

Common!  I don't even have to click on the links and read the posts...

From wikipedia:

newsbusters.org:  The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III.  Its stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene".  In the summer of 2005, Media Research Center launched the NewsBusters, a website "dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias," in cooperation with Matthew Sheffield, a conservative blogger involved in the CBS Killian documents story.

The Weekly Standard:  The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible".  Since it was founded in 1995, the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from wealthy conservative benefactors such as former owner Rupert Murdoch.  Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.

I won't bother reading any stated conservative-leaning junk like this, just the same as I won't read any stated liberal-leaning junk.  MSNBC is just as bad as Fox and NEITHER has actual news.  If it's not coming from an independent, non-political, news organization, I won't listen to the "talking heads".

You're right - you can't trust anything anyone tells you.

As for the unemployment numbers, 1 month means nothing.  The numbers always get revised and changed anyway.  You simply have to look at the trend.  And at least for 12-24 month's worth:

From:  http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

You can't argue that the number has been going down since late 2009.  You can argue with the RATE at which the number is going down.

Does that exist?  

Here I found a link to help explain my point about seasonal adjustments. The average seasonal adjustment is 2.5x the reported number for September. Look at some of the other months like January. What is a puny 100-250k jobs compared to a seasonal adjustment of 2,000k?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/seasonal-adjustments-big-swing-factor

Here's another link to someone who breaks down the report more than is necessary IMO.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/september-jobs-114000-unemployment-rate.html

Oh I don't know....

Obama Economy Working: Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8 Percent

The onion...

And BT Message Boards.  They're pretty balanced... Or is it unbalanced?

UrsusAdiposimus - 2012-10-05 6:52 PM

tuwood - 2012-10-05 6:19 PM

UrsusAdiposimus - 2012-10-05 2:19 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 1:33 PM

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jobs-report-met-skepticism_653731.html

Something smells a bit fishy...

Of course a gov't agency would never manipulate #s for political gain...

It's honestly beginning to feel like Orwell's 1984.  You can't trust anything anyone tells you.

I'm curious what you think a BLS bureaucrat would gain from manipulating these numbers.

Oh I don't know....

Obama Economy Working: Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8 Percent

I guess I will just ask it again - what political gain does a BLS bureaucrat (the BLS is the government agency responsible for these stats) get from manipulating employment statistics? Reading the whole question and actually answering it - it's fun. You should try it sometime

SNARK ALERT!!! SNARK ALERT!!!

Maybe that BLS bureaucrat knows what the real unemployment numbers are and doesn't want to be in those the following week...

But they'd never fire him for not changing it right???  No, they never play games like that in Chicago...

UrsusAdiposimus - 2012-10-05 5:52 PM

tuwood - 2012-10-05 6:19 PM

UrsusAdiposimus - 2012-10-05 2:19 PM

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 1:33 PM

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/05/number-employed-people-rises-873000-september-highest-december-2008

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jobs-report-met-skepticism_653731.html

Something smells a bit fishy...

Of course a gov't agency would never manipulate #s for political gain...

It's honestly beginning to feel like Orwell's 1984.  You can't trust anything anyone tells you.

I'm curious what you think a BLS bureaucrat would gain from manipulating these numbers.

Oh I don't know....

Obama Economy Working: Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8 Percent

I guess I will just ask it again - what political gain does a BLS bureaucrat (the BLS is the government agency responsible for these stats) get from manipulating employment statistics? Reading the whole question and actually answering it - it's fun. You should try it sometime

OK, I'll try again, you're supposed to read through the sarcastic font.  (it doesn't read as funny when I have to type it all out)

The BLS which is part of the Department of Labor, which is part of the Obama Administration, I believe.
Obama has a horrible debate performance on Wednesday and has to do something to turn things around.  Then miraculously the largest unemployment change in almost 30 years hits the street friday morning and he immediately goes out touting about how his economic plan is working and we need to stay the course.

Then wave after wave of economists and investors come out saying the numbers are very fishy and that they're bogus.  The stock market pretty much confirms this sentiment because it usually roars when the number is better by a tenth of a point and today it was better by more than a quarter point than expected and the market said "LOL".

So, what does the BLS have to gain?  nothing.  What does Obama have to gain?  A distraction to take the heat off from Wednesday.

If everyone gave as a percentage as Romney gives in charitable donations I really don't give a rats arse what their tax rate is. 

Unemployment rates drop because either people find jobs or people give up looking for work. The government only counts those people looking for work. When people stop looking for work, the government stops counting and it falsely makes the unemployment rate look like it is moving in the right direction, however it isn't. People are just giving up looking for work.

For the unemployment rate to drop significantly, the US would need to create 250,000 new jobs per month over a prolong period to impact the unemployment rate. Last month the US only added 114,000 jobs which is not a significant enough to impact the unemployment rate or to substantiate the supposedly 873,000 new jobs that were created per the articles.  Someone is using very creative math to make the economy look better than it actually is.

Here is a link to an article that was posted on 10/3 talking about the same issue

http://www.komonews.com/news/business/Unemployment-falls-in-nearly-90-pct-of-US-cities-172534431.html

So I was trying to be funny initially with the sarc font, but you totally missed it.  So I tried to detail out the "controversy" that I don't necessarily believe but do find it a little convenient, but when I spell it all out it kinda loses the sarc font effect.  Carry on

If you read some of the articles they explain where the 873k comes from.