Fudging the numbers again? Unemployment remains steady at 9.7% while 36,000 jobs lost

[MadHound]

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy_35>

Once again the Obama administration is following the lead of his predecessors and is cooking the books when it comes to the unemployment figures. We saw this happen last month, where they were a bit more audacious, dropping the percentage figure by .3% while 20,000 jobs were lost. Perhaps a modicum of decency crept in, and that is why this month's percentage figure didn't drop.

This practice of playing political games with the unemployment figures in order to make your administration look better started under Reagan, and Obama is carrying on the tradition quite well, thank you. Desperate for any sort of "win" on the jobs front, expect us to be inundated with statements like "hitting the bottom" and such like crap to try and make people feel like something is being done.

Nothing is being done, except that more and more people are becoming desperate for a job. Many have reached a point of despair where they simply stop looking, why bother. Which is the government's perfect excuse for not counting them.

Don't be fooled, the fact of the matter is that we're still losing jobs in this country. A modest estimate of the true unemployed rate ranges around seventeen percent and climbing.

This massaging of the unemployment numbers needs to stop, it doesn't serve the country, it doesn't serve the people, the only ones it serves are the politicians who are in office. There are well over twenty one million people unemployed in our country. It is time this administration honestly faced this fact, and started doing something about it.

[AllentownJake]

1. It started under Eisenhower

Playing these games is nothing new.

Want to know how the country is doing economically. Look at income tax receipts, sales tax revenue, the trade gap, and the budget deficit.

Put it simply the Government borrowing is the economy right now. Government stops spending more than they take in, economy goes poof.

There comes a point when the people you are borrowing money from, eventually lose faith you are going to pay it back. Generally speaking, they stop lending you money at that point.

[MadHound]

3. True, but it really became prevalent under Reagan

And the numbers up until then were basically honest. It was until Reagan came along that we saw "discouraged" workers not counted, while the folks in the military were added for the first time in order to bulk up the numbers.

Compared to what happened with Reagan and those who followed, Ike was squeaky clean in this regard.

[AllentownJake]

6. Each President since FDR

has slightly adjusted the government statistics to make them appear better.

Reagan had more to cover up than IKE, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, or Carter.

[laughingliberal]

11. As I recall, Bush made a little change that further rosified the numbers and we are still on that

model.

[AllentownJake]

14. Obama made a change in January

Which conveniently recognized 800,000 job losses not recorded under the past administration, and through them into discouraged workers.

[laughingliberal]

22. Thanks. I was not aware of that. nt

[laughingliberal]

10. Now you know the message discipliners will be here momentarily to call you a 'doom and gloomer.'

Yet, you persist in spreading the facts. WTF is wrong with you?

:P

[AllentownJake]

13. Something is about to happen

Not really sure, but the crowd that doesn't like what I'm saying is becoming increasingly hostile.

November elections? Moving into the next phase of the stage of grief collectively? Knowledge that a gentle breeze at this point crashes the house of card?

Not really sure, something is going on though.

[laughingliberal]

18. Perhaps just setting up scapegoats for the coming rout in November

They'll never admit the move to the right had anything to do with it. Hell, most have a hard time admitting a move to the right is occurring.

[AllentownJake]

20. No

This is bigger. On the non-partisan boards the tone has suddenly changed as well.

I have a feeling some insiders know something bad is about to happen and they are trying to delay it as much as possible.

Either that, or I'm convinced there is an increasing awareness in the general populace they've been fucked.

There was a theory I've read that generally knowledge starts off in a few hands, than expands outward.

5 months ago, there was just me and Mamar talking about economic realities and willing to fight about our opinion...the number appears to be growing....I didn't even have to do an OP today about why the BLS numbers are bullshit, 5 of them appeared for me.

[laughingliberal]

24. Could be. Even some really intractable Republicans I know are starting to rail against the wealthy

corporations. They still see 'gummint' as the problem but are starting to get pissed about the government giving the money to the corporations. Has completely knocked 'illegal immigrants' off their front burner (if that's an indication of the type I'm talking about).

I even heard one acquaintance, a well known hawk, last night bitching about the defense contractors and all the money we're spending on them.

Just anecdotal, I know, but a damned significant change for this little bunch. People are starting to get it how badly we've been screwed and a few are looking in the right direction for the culprits.

[NightWatcher]

2. they are trying very hard to keep the "Official Number" under 10%

but look around, states are furloughing employees, schools are closing early and cutting programs, cities are raising the costs of licenses and traffic tickets....

No one has any money, things are bad.

[AllentownJake]

4. The U3 number is meaningless

All it is, is a highly manipulated government number the media likes to report on.

Here is what I see.

Income tax revenues are declining

Sales tax revenues are declining

The trade deficit is getting worse

Government borrowing is at an unsustainable level.

The only thing bringing money and resources into this country right now, is the Federal Government.

[MadHound]

5. Yep, meanwhile the real number is at least at 17% and climbing

But I'm finding this sort of in your face lying rather astonishing. The percentile number doesn't change, while almost forty thousand jobs are lost. Last month they had twenty thousand jobs lost, but the percentile rate actually dropped. They think that they can fool the people, and perhaps they can.

[AllentownJake]

8. People tend to want to be lied to when faced with a hard truth

Remember the 5 stages of grief...what is step 1.

[MadHound]

15. Oh I think that collectively we're well past denial

There are too many people out of work out there for denial to work.

I think that what this is about is simply keeping a pretty face on the matter, keep a lid on it through the election season. Once more, it's all about politics, not the people.

[Echo In Light]

28. Pertaining to an entire host of similarly related issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGavqvkxrhQ

[tritsofme]

7. You do realize of course...

That the payroll number and the unemployment rate are calculated through completely separate surveys?

Educate yourself:
http://www.bls.gov/dolfaq/blsfaqtoc.htm

[AllentownJake]

9. It is a telephone survey

They both are.

I prefer looking at revenue streams...they lie less.

Income Tax revenues are declining with Sales Tax revenues. Unless there is a wave of tax cheating going on, I assume people are being paid/working less and buying less things.

[laughingliberal]

12. There you go again. Messing up a perfectly good talking point. nt

[tritsofme]

23. I wasn't making any other point

that than today's numbers are not inconsistent or evidence of any "cooking the books" as the OP claims. It didn't seem like the OP understood the figures come from different surveys, as I know you do. No conspiracies abound.

[AllentownJake]

29. The statistic is designed to reflect reality

in the most distorted way possible. It isn't a conspiracy, the government hires people who will report that their policies are working.

[MadHound]

36. 'Scuse me, but I'm fully cognizant of how the numbers are gathered,

I'm also fully aware of how they're cooked, when they've been cooked, and have a good idea as to why they're being cooked. So please, don't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been involved in this issue for a long, long time.

There is a deliberate effort, has been for decades, to keep the U3 numbers low. It's good for politics, it's good for keeping the people pacified. This has been accomplished in a number of ways, how the numbers are gathered, who is counted as unemployed and who isn't, the "seasonal adjustment", etc. etc. It is all pretty much cooking the books, has been for a long while. Why do you think that Reagan suddenly decided to include the military as part of the labor force back in '87? Oh, yeah, there was a recession going on and an election coming up. Same sort of thing is in play here, an election coming up and the unemployment percentage stays low while jobs are lost.

Meanwhile, best estimates of real unemployment are around seventeen percent of the work force. Can't have that number get out there, it would be devastating to Dem's election prospects this fall. So, the books will just be cooked a bit.

If you don't think that this has occurred or is occurring, prove me wrong.

[tritsofme]

40. The BLS is run by career bureaucrats

Who do their jobs well, and insulated from politics.

The last major revision to CPS was in 1994, it has been pretty consistent in that time.

U3 unemployment is consistent with the ILO international standard, it is a solid number, unless the conspiracy extends to all labor reporting agencies in the world.

It makes perfect since that the unemployment rate would decline or stay stagnant in a job market with continuing job losses, as we see now. I agree this is generally a negative economic indicator, but it does not mean there is some conspiracy to "cook the books." Conversely when conditions improve many of these workers will rejoin the labor force and give the appearance that U3 unemployment is increasing, and it will be a positive development, despite the politics of what will be a bad "headline number" of an increase to the UE rate.

[jody]

16. The numbers are fudged because they ignore those who've given up and those grossly underemployed.

I use grossly unemployed to mean those who have jobs at near minimum wage but once had near six figure incomes.

[laughingliberal]

19. This is, I believe, the change in calculations that occurred under Bush and continues now

We were incensed when Bush started this but it's A-OK, now, I guess.

[jody]

21. Agree, how can so many people who know politicians lie with statistics accept continual lies from

an administration if it's their party occupying the Oval Office!

[laughingliberal]

25. It's that whole sporting event approach to politics. As long as they're wearing the right jersey. nt

[Jim Lane]

34. No, the most recent major revision was under Clinton (in 1994)

See for a summary of the 1994 overhaul.

[jody]

39. Thanks. n/t

[MadHound]

37. That's not the only way they're cooked,

Part of it comes with how the numbers are gathered (telephone survey, landline only) when they're gathered, and as you say, who is counted. It has been rigged over the years to keep the public from knowing just how many people are truly out of work, keep the populace pacified as it were.

[northernlights]

41. hey, I exist! thank you...

that would be me. it's so nice to be noticed now and then. :hi:

[Political Heretic]

17. U6, not U3. That's the the most accurate federally tracked unemployment number.

And it was at 16.5% NSA last month.

[tritsofme]

27. Keeping in mind however, that in even in the best of times this number sits around 8-10%

And this measure has also declined from it's 2009 peak of 17.4%.

It's certainly a bigger number, and a broader measure of unemployment, but should kept in context.

[inna]

26. AFAIK, people whose unemployment benefits expire are no longer counted as unemployed.

(Which is a total travesty.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jim Lane]

30. I believe you're wrong -- unemployment benefits aren't a factor at all

The factor that does cause people to drop out of the ranks of the unemployed, per the official definition, is when they become discouraged and stop looking for work. Here's the definition from :

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

Workers expecting to be recalled from layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

The BLS does also try to count these discouraged workers, but it's harder to do. That's why there are different measures of unemployment (the U3 and so on referred to above). U3 is the rate according to the definition of the International Labour Organization. U4 adds in the discouraged workers. U5 and U6 add additional groups, such as part-timers who'd like to work full-time. See for details.

As for the original post, the numbers reported do not show any dishonesty or fudging on the part of the administration. In the first place, 36,000 jobs lost is, in this big economy, far below one-tenth of one percent of the total labor force, so an unemployment rate reported to the nearest tenth of a percent wouldn't immediately plunge even if all other factors were constant. Second, all other factors aren't constant. The size of the work force (for purposes of the calculation) changes as people retire, or graduate, or become discouraged and stop looking for work, etc.

[AllentownJake]

38. This is a telephone survey

There is no real world information other than people called on the phone. It is no different than a poll on who is going to be the next President...only done larger.

[Motown_Johnny]

31. Maybe 36,000 people hit 70 and retired?

[AllentownJake]

32. They have a category for that

[Greyhound]

33. Raygun was the first to be completely blatant about lying, but it did start long before. n/t

[earth mom]

35. The REAL unemployment numbers are at 17% if not more.

Which was posted here on DU a few months back.

Nice how they continue to fudge the numbers-NOT!