Neither link supports that claim. A nd you're citing heavily biased sources and the articles contain a lot of "could haves" and "possibly"s. Why do you have two different standards?Second, the BLS has apparently, on occasion, been pressured (and agreed) to cook the numbers for political higher ups.
what would you consider a "straight tabulation?" And of course there's math and modelling. But why do you think the modeling is inaccurate? Present facts and evidence, not your bias or zero hedge' shows.Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report | New York Post of course curbstoning happens; that's why it's watched out for and why Buckmon was fired. There is nothing to show any political motivation and no one is claiming any particular result was asked for or could have been obtained. Read it again and then tell us what the FACTS in that article are. Not speculation, not unsupported claims, but facts.
[QuoteThird, as I believe I have stated before - the CES is NOT a stright tabulation. There is a TON of creative math and modelling going on. The Net Birth/Death Model is just one of them.
CES Net Birth/Death Model
Statistical modeling is not a "Guess."'Birth/Death does not refer to people but to businesses. The BLS guesses how many new companies opened versus how many closed their doors. The BLS then uses that guess to guess again how many jobs those business created or lost.'
And you're ignoring the QCEW. Which is not a survey, but a full count. The CES is not off by much when compared to the actual numbers.
I'm confused by your use of "belief." Is it or is it not less adjusted? That's not a matter of belief or opinion.I am not saying the CPS is great either...but I believe their tabulation process is less adjusted by 'modeling'
But in any case, less adjusted does not mean more accurate. Modeling and adjustments are made to increase accuracy.
In over 100 years no one has ever shown they have, and I personally know many of the people involved. So it's not "faith"It's simple, you have faith (apparently) that the BLS is an honorable organization that would never fudge numbers.
You can say it all you want, but it's still a lie. And you clearly don't understand the first thing about statisticI say the BLS regularly fudges the numbers through usually legal tabulation/modelling processes to get the result their superiors desire.
And you have no evidence or reason except your own bias or biased sources.
It's No a matter of belief! Factually, numerically, by simple math, the CES is more accurate and that accuracy we m proven every year by comparison to the actual numbers.believe the CPS is the more accurate number (when it is not being deliberately manipulated) - you do not.
Yes, I did. Bias is not possible when talking about error rates. And you have presented neither facts nor unbiased evidence.B]And, with respect, nothing you have provided has factually proven me wrong as I asked for links to unbiased, factual proof that what I said was wrong.