Just curious.....Is anyone else here the slightest bit skeptical of the unemployment numbers released today? Please understand I like the current administration and hope for an Obama win, but aside from that, I'm not seeing the employment situation getting better for many here in Phoenix and the timing of the announcement of unemployment being under 8%? It sure seems like funky timing to me, at least on the surface.....Anyone care to comment? Rob
Obviously, the answer is that the employment situation is miraculously improving just in time for the election. They only seem strange because the 114K new jobs created in September are less than previous months increases which had little or no impact on the 8.x% rate at that time. I think it's important that the unemployment rate dip below 8% for at least one month during the President's first term. Ergo, it did.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Alan, there is no sarcasm or snideness in this reply, just want to preface it with this.....do you really believe what you have said here? I mean the implications of it? I'm rather afraid as much as we have disagreed in the past that the timing of the numbers has me wondering if you are not in fact dead on.....Please understand that given that I continue to support the current administration, this is not an easy pill to swallow. RobOriginally Posted by Alan
Well they don't include those who don't collect unemployment, so they don't include those who fell of the rolls due to their time expiring, those who quit and couldn't get other jobs, those who can't break into the labor market (new grads, mothers going back to work after taking time off for kids who can't get work etc.). Then well there's lots of analysis devoted to things like birth/death models and unemployment (stuff I don't fully understand but ... the birth and death are of companies not flesh people).
This is probably the most famous site:
http://www.shadowstats.com/
But I'm skeptical that extremist models like that site (yes we're in the Greater Depression, the Greatest Depression, yes we also see signs of hyperinflation, stagflation from heck, everybody run!), really make sense of our lives either. Because the story as experienced by any given individual is personal. Inflation IS personal rate of inflation. Unemployment is relative to the field you work in and location. And this is my personal experience: I think unemployment in my field, even around here, is fairly low (much much lower than any quoted general unemployment figures), recruiters call me on old resumes, there's interest and I'm not even putting in effort to job search, I see others in my field getting jobs, etc..
Now if you really want to talk about employment, the economy, suspicious stuff, and the Obama campaign. Quantitative Easing 3 went ahead, right in time for the election, of course it's suspicious as heck!!! And I don't say this because I'm convinced Romney would be better or that he wouldn't want QE as well. But a whole new round of QE (and not a huge amount, but WITHOUT ANY time limit) right in time for the election. The scary thing there is noone is sure they actually know how to unwind Quantitative Easing. How to stop QE without crashing the economy? Continuing it indefinitely may or may not lead to inflation (evidence now is the money is not being lent out so then it won't, but if it is).
Trees don't grow on money
I am always skeptical of any statistic, until I look carefully into the details.
Yes, I do.
In order to get those numbers it was necessary to remove people from the job market and include part-time jobs reported under the Household Survey, disregarding the traditional Industrial Survey which is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator. The important thing to remember is that there is nothing to see here. How bout that American Idol?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Ok the Household Survey may be less reliable but have they suddenly switched measures or have they always (or at least for the last decade or two) used the Household Survey? Because if they have always used that (including even in gasp previous administrations) then yes you are making up a story out of whole cloth here to suggest it's some kind of scandal, if the real story is just the shadow stat one that the numbers have been questionable for a long time (that's an old site, it wasn't created just to critique Obama). Two seperate questions here: 1) is unemployment higher than the official figures 2) is unemployment dropping. I don't think you can call #2 on one month of data.In order to get those numbers it was necessary to remove people from the job market and include part-time jobs reported under the Household Survey, disregarding the traditional Industrial Survey which is widely regarded as the most reliable indicator.
Trees don't grow on money
3/10th of a percent is not that impressive a drop. 3%, I'd be impressed with but not .3. Rate is still pretty high.
The thing that really bothers me is that so many people (led by Jack Welch, former CEO of GE) are willing to shoot from the hip and cry foul play, no wait, even worse--corruption with absolutely no evidence to support such a vile, salacious and slanderous claim and to do so only 5 short minutes after the release of the report.
If I did think there was something not quite right about a report from an independent agency within the Administration, I'd actually stop, think about it a little and then gather a hell of a lot of evidence before I opened my big mouth and vomited whatever impression came to mind. I'd do this because I know that usually when I react and vomit whatever noise comes to mind without even considering filtering what I say, I usually end up looking pretty stupid and I actually value my reputation. Obviously, Jack Welch and his ilk are not of the same mind as I. Pretty boorish.
Anyone who knows this report is fraud right away, well even if they are right, what are they propped in to a continuous direct feed of talking points? Talking points IV. We get talking points from the news to your brain the fastest!!!
As for my comments, they were based on general understanding of how unemployment is calculated (and thus why it ALWAYS leaves out some people, it's not NEW information) and general discussions I have read of the effects of people falling off the unemployment rolls on the unemployment rate (good grief the paper paper, every month it runs an report about unemployment and almost always discusses workers added and those who fallen off the roles, and how this months dip might be more due to workers falling off the roles than a real change in unemployment. Nearly every single month ...). Plus other discussions I have read about the problems with the calculations to begin with, always something mysterious or other is attributed to the birth/death model (which I guess I will have to actually learn about now I guess).
Trees don't grow on money
Does anyone here even know what the properties of the underlying datasets look like?
I admit to not having a clue myself(*). For all I know, a .3% reduction could be within the range attributable to chance, or it could be significant to 99.9999%.
(*) Because of what I see as grand flaws in the overall classification scheme the unemployment figures are based on, the official single number is of little interest to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote