Talk about cooking the unemployment stats

[MadHound]

The reason the unemployment numbers went down is because the number of discouraged workers went up, way up. With an increase of 260,000, a figure that is over doubled the number of jobs created, the number of discouraged workers is now sitting at 1.3 million.

This is the job recovery that Obama was praising today? This is his idea of progress, his idea of recovery? I'm sorry, but we used to call bullshit when it was obvious that Bushboy was cooking the unemployment stats, we need to call out Obama for the same sort of bullshit.

Obama and his administration are cooking the unemployment stats, it is that simple. Meanwhile, millions are suffering, some dying, because of the lack of jobs. Meanwhile, the administration is focusing on deficit reduction(witness the Catfood Commission and the appointments of both Daley and Sperling). How much plainer do we need to make it to Obama? Is he tone deaf, or does he simply not give a damn?

Apparently the only change that he is willing to make when it comes to jobs is cosmetic change, ie cook the books so that they make him look good.

Beyond disappointment, beyond caring, we need real change in this country, not the faux change that Obama brought to this country.

Edit to add link
<http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/07/news/economy/december_jobs_report/index.htm?section=money_topstories>

[leftstreet]

1. Sad to K&R

:-(

This is just so wrong. No politician, not a Republican or a Democrat, should be claiming there's a 'job recovery.' Even Orwell would have put a little more effort into the newspeak

[Brickbat]

2. Eight million jobs are needed to erase the "bikini graph" -- and that's not counting the ones we

need every month (150K) to hold steady.

[emilyg]

3. kick

[ProSense]

4. No

"The reason the unemployment numbers went down is because the number of discouraged workers..."

Discouraged workers contributed to half the drop. The other half (.2 percent) is attributed to job creation.

EPI:

The December jobs report shows continued improvements in the labor market, but they were modest. Payroll employment growth was just 103,000, average hours held steady at 34.3, and average hourly wages increased by only three cents. Though the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4%, around half of the improvement was due to 260,000 people dropping out of the labor force, leaving the labor force participation rate at 64.3%, a stunning new low for the recession. Incredibly, the U.S. labor force is now smaller than it was before the recession started, though it should have grown by over 4 million workers to keep up with working-age population growth over this period.

The good news in this report is that December caps an entire year of job gains in the private sector. The bad news is that – three full years after the recession officially began – the U.S. is still near the bottom of a deep crater. Where does the Great Recession, three years out, stack up historically? The accompanying figure, which compares the percent employment change by month from the start of each post-WWII recession, shows that the Great Recession is far outside the experience of any this country has seen in 70 years. Three years out, the labor market is still down a larger percentage of jobs (5.2%) than at the most severe point of any other postwar recession.

<...>

While the labor market is now adding jobs, it remains 7.2 million payroll jobs below where it was at the start of the recession three years ago. And even this number understates the size of the gap in the labor market by failing to take into account the fact that simply keeping up with the growth in the working-age population would require the addition of another 3.7 million jobs in those three years. This means the labor market is now nearly 11 million jobs below the level needed to restore the pre-recession unemployment rate (5.0% in December 2007). So, despite the job growth of 2010, we remain near the bottom of a very large hole. To achieve the pre-recession unemployment rate in five years, the labor market would have to add nearly 300,000 jobs every month for the entire period. December’s modest improvement offered 103,000 pieces of good news, but little collective cheer.

The rate dropped, it didn't go up, and jobs were created, although short of expectations.

The reaction to this report should be viewed in context of a report that could have continued the November 2010 path (a decline in the number of jobs created and an increase in the unemployment rate). Instead it's continuning to move in a noticeable positive direction, especially with the October and November being revised up.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

10. That's funny

"Furthermore, apparently you can't do math very well. Yes, 103,000 jobs were added, but over twice that number of workers dropped out of the work force entirely. You can quote DLC think tanks to your hearts content, but the fact of the matter is that this is simply cooking the books when it comes to unemployment stats. "

So you're quoting the cooked numbers to claim the numbers are cooked? How did anyone know the unemployment rate rose for November?

Do you know that the BLS report offers statistics impacted by many variables and subject to revision?

There are conservative and optimistic numbers. If the best numbers are put forward everytime, regardless of variables, they will likely be revised down.

[MadHound]

12. Cute, but again off the mark

You can't argue facts so you try diversionary tactics. I, like you, am quoting the official numbers. The cooking of the books comes when the administration tries to pass off 260,000 people quitting the employment force as somehow being a gain in employment. You know this as well as I do, but heaven forbid you admit to the truth of the matter if it reflects badly on Obama.

Nice try, please play again.

[ProSense]

13. Are you joking?

You can't argue facts so you try diversionary tactics. I, like you, am quoting the official numbers. The cooking of the books comes when the administration tries to pass off 260,000 people quitting the employment force as somehow being a gain in employment. You know this as well as I do, but heaven forbid you admit to the truth of the matter if it reflects badly on Obama.

BLS reported the gain in employment. Why exactly are you attributing some of the report to BLS and other parts of the report to the President?

"You can't argue facts so you try diversionary tactics."


What's this, from your previous statement: "You criticized this sort of cooking of the books under Bush, where is your integrity on this issue now?"

Also, I did no such thing. The problem with the numbers during the Bush administration is that they were always being revised down. That and your attempt to question my integrity are completely unrelated to this discussion.




Edited missing word.

[MadHound]

22. Exactly,

"The problem with the numbers during the Bush administration is that they were always being revised down. "
They were cooking the books, ie revising the numbers downward.

Obama is, apparently, bit more sophisticated than that. He's trying to tell us that 260,000 people dropping out of the labor force is a reduction in unemployment.

And you're buying that bullshit, how sad to see somebody lose their critical thinking skills.

[lynne]

6. January's figures will tell the tale about the December job increases -

- as seasonal jobs are normal for December. December figures are not reflective of the true state of employment because of seasonal hirings.

[thecrow]

7. Are we 99ers part of that "discouraged " crowd?

Is that how we are categorized now?
I'd say that I, for one am a bit more vehement than just "discouraged".
We're also depressed, penniless, losing our health and homes, angry, hungry for jobs,
unable to provide for our children's needs....
and some of us are suicidal, too.

Discouraged? Pfft. That's for babies.

We need a full accounting of the 99ers, and we need a 99ers march on Congress.
Oh. Forget that... we have no money to get to DC.

Were we supposed to just go die quietly?

[MadHound]

8. Apparently that's the only real plan this administration has

Is for the unemployed to quietly fade away and die.

Sorry to hear about your suffering, I'm in the same boat with you.

[somone]

9. I know several 99ers

Their pain is immense, and this administration doesn't give a shit.

[TBF]

23. 99ers march on Washington -

it is the only thing that gets their attention.

[Statistical]

39. 99er are accounted.

U-3 = not working, willing & able to work, actively looking for a job (at least one inquiry in last 4 weeks).
U-4 = U-3 + discourage workers (people who stopped looking because they believe there are no jobs)
U-5 = U-4 + all other people not actively looking for work (poor health, family issues, etc)
U-6 = U-5 + all persons working less than full time because they can't find full-time employment.

[thecrow]

47. Got a link to something that interprets the meaning of this?

[woo me with science]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Not only do they not give a shit, they are clueless about the human factor, which means they will not BEGIN to give a shit anytime soon. Fixing the numbers is no big deal when you cannot see the human lives attached to them. They are comfortably insulated in their bubble, where Robert Gibbs is one with a "modest" salary.

Words cannot express my rage.

[BzaDem]

14. Actually, the household survey recorded an increase of 297,000 in employment IN ADDITION to the 260k

who left the labor force. (In December, 139,206,000 were employed, which is 297,000 more than 138,909,000 that were employed in November.)

So in reality, slightly more than half the drop in unemployment comes from an increase in employment, and slightly less than half comes from a decrease in the labor force (people giving up).

Your mistake is to compare those leaving the labor force (260k) with the employment number of the establishment survey (+103k). That's where you get the "more than double." You should be looking at what the household survey says about employment (+297k) if you are comparing it to another piece of data on the household survey, not a piece of data on the establishment survey (+103k). Otherwise, you are comparing two different surveys with two completely different methodologies. That's apples and oranges. Even if no one left the labor force at all, the unemployment rate would have dropped at least half of what it did.

(This is in addition to the ridiculousness of you blaming Obama for how the Labor department has been doing its work for decades, though at this point that is totally unsurprising.)

[Zhade]

19. KICK FOR TRUTH -- which was in the OP, not the load of horseshit to which I'm replying.

NT!

[BzaDem]

20. See, normally, if you call a post "horseshit," you're at least supposed to identify the part you

think is false and why. Of course, I don't blame you for not doing so (given that my post is actually true, it would be quite hard to find part of it that is false).

[TheKentuckian]

28. If we know we aren't creating enough jobs to keep up with population growth

then we are seeing the books being cooked. At the most optimistic we treaded water which means chicanery.

Clearly, the unemployment rate is a game with most of our traction depending on not counting an ever increasing amount of people that can't find work falling off.

What is the debate? There is a number of jobs that must be created to keep up with population growth, any less means a net loss and any more is a net gain. Trying to get much more complicated than that is to be willfully misleading.

[AdHocSolver]

15. The US economy will not recover until most goods purchased by Americans are made in the US.

The minor juggling of the employment numbers won't make a damn bit of difference to the economy as long as the trade deficit continues, and the US continues to buy imports with borrowed money, rather than giving Americans the ability to earn money from working at family supporting jobs.

The employment numbers are fantasy numbers. Who makes the goods we buy? The economy will be strong when most of what we buy is made in the US by other Americans. The US economy will recover when US production increases for the everyday goods that we buy and imports decrease. Everyday goods includes clothes, shoes, appliances, tools, hardware, toys, and similar items.

When the majority of everyday goods purchased by Americans provides jobs for other Americans, then you can start celebrating the recovery of the US economy, and not until that happens.

[Mimosa]

18. Adhocsolver, I'm sure most of us wish stores stocked 'made in America' goods

I remember that during the mid 1980s we still had a choice. I used to be able to buy sheets, towels, even tools which were made in the USA. Now the rich corporations have closed down the American textile industry. As well as many other things, including the occasional Magnavox or Zenith TV.. I guess NAFTA and 'free trade' were all about moving factories to the cheapest labour countries. How could anybody have thought it would be good for us?

[eridani]

16. There are new records being set for prople taking early Social Security

A lot of this is involuntary early retirement.

[Mimosa]

17. Involuntary 'early retirement'

People over age 55 generally cannot get a job in today's economy. And much of our military has enlisted because of the 'poverty draft', not because they repeatedly love visiting Afghanistan and Iraq.

I respect ProSense and others who want to keep believing. I wish what you keep saying would become reality, for the sake of Madhound and other people. But everything is not coming up roses. :(

[Vinca]

24. About a month ago I signed up online to get SS early with the thought

it might subsidize my income enough so I can afford that lousy insurance pool. Still haven't heard a peep so they must be swamped with applicants.

[hayseed]

21. Well....

We are close to the point where people who never thought they could lose their jobs will. That's when it starts getting interesting. Platitudes from DC won't cut the mustard much longer. We are already in an unsustainable situation as far as revenue goes and it is about to get much worse. Boomers hitting the entitlement programs en mass and meager low paying jobs left to support this surge. It will never work. The broad range of promises made in exchange for the taxes paid are about to be reneged on.

[creon]

25. situation normal

The unemployment numbers are a percentage of the labor force.

People no longer 'looking for work', AKA 'discouraged workers', are out of the labor force;and, no longer counted as 'unemployed'. This agrument takes every time that there is a recession. This is standard operating procedure.

[MadHound]

26. It is still a form of cooking the books,

Saying that employment figures rose because 260,000 workers became so discouraged as to completely drop out of the labor force, well, that is disingenuous at best, and more commonly referred to as lying with stats.

It wasn't right when Republican presidents did it, and it isn't right when Obama does the same damn thing.

[RegieRocker]

37. and Obama doesn't have ownership to this technique either

get it?

[creon]

43. yes

Yes, it is a form of cooking the books. We are agreed on that.

Not working and wanting a job is unemployed.

[KG]

27. gov'ts lie. that includes democratic party govt's.

[RegieRocker]

29. This has nothing to do with Obama it has

been going on forever. It's the beginning of the year employment always picks up slowly gradually increasing until june. We have been cooking the books forever.

[MadHound]

31. Ah, so since we've been "cooking the books forever" it's OK to continue to do so?

Wow, talk about low expectations.

And yes, this has everything to do with Obama, since it is happening under his administration, and is, I suspect, being done in order to bolster his own poll numbers.

[RegieRocker]

32. Hell no

it's not ok. But facts are facts. WE allow this to happen. Obama didn't initiate this procedure. He has only not stopped it. It would only have his name on it if he started the trend or he stopped it. So don't put his name on it.

[Arkana]

33. I'm guessing you think he's a SEKRIT MUSLIN too.

[MadHound]

34. I'm guessing you're deliberately jumping to outrageous conclusions,

Because you have no rational way of refuting what I say.

Whatever, you're post reeks of desperation.

[RegieRocker]

36. You're post stinks of incomprehension

You obviously didn't take the time to read "it's not obamas". I agree with you that it is a bad practice. It's doesn't have Obama's name on it. Period. Get it?

[MadHound]

42. Actually this tactic of using the people

Who fell out of the labor force as a means of boosting the employment numbers is a new tactic, one employed by the Obama administration.

But that aside, the simple fact of the matter that the excuse of "everybody before him did the same thing" is a piss poor excuse for Obama's cooking the books. We should demand better out of our politicians than simply cooking the books in order to try and boost their own poll numbers.

[RegieRocker]

35. What the hell are you talking about?

I am standing up for Obama! He didn't create the sham! I think you think he's a sekrit muslin. Are you all there.

[Arkana]

44. Take a look--I wasn't responding to you.

[RegieRocker]

45. my bad....sorry

[timo]

30. THANKS NAFTA

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Still a Democrat]

38. How would you calculate the number?

And by what possible methodology would the rate not have gone down?

[GeorgeGist]

40. I suspect President Obama of being ...

a member of Milton Friedman's 'Chicago Boys'.

cf. Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

[Still a Democrat]

41. You're confused about the numbers, MadHound

There are two surveys, the household survey and the establishment survey. You compared the number of discouraged workers on the household survey to the number of jobs gained on the establishment survey.

If you are consistent and use either survey for both numbers, you will conclude about half of the drop in the rate is due to new jobs. Even if we exclude the impact of discouraged workers, the rate still would have dropped by either method.

How would you have calculated the rate? And under your methodology, how would the rate have changed?

[Liberal_in_LA]

46. k&r