U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment down

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

Yeah we created a bunch of jobs -- what kind of jobs? Minimum wage (or less) fast food jobs don't count for much.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

Jobs in construction, healthcare, and professional services usually pay more than min wage. Anyone who thinks that most new jobs pay min wage didn't bother to read the report.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

Fletch said:

The unemployment rate during the entirety of the Bush years averaged around 5%.

Click to expand...

Then we should expect more job creation.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

I could care less about the 'curve'...I care about month-to-month accuracy.

And by my quick count, the two were not even within 20% of each other approximately 20 of the 28 months in question.

You (and others) want to call that 'correlation'...fine. Not me.

I do not know about you, but I am not satisfied with a government agency making blanket statements about the economy that are usually (potentially) off by at least 20%.

All I want the BLS to do is stop altering the raw data when they present it to the public (which they freely admit they often do). Just do the survey, forget the 'seasonal adjustments' and the 'Birth/Death' models (and ALL models) and ALL of their assumptions/definitions and just present the RAW DATA AS IS to the public and let the public (and ALL the economists) decide what it means.

Click to expand...

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

I would suggest to you that the ADP labor reports usually do NOT correlate with the BLS's.

Click to expand...

ADP suggests otherwise, and their calculation is reflected in imagep's chart.


That brief article details the differences between the surveys.

>>I am not familiar with how ADP tabulates their numbers so I cannot verify their accuracy.

That author may help you. When referring to BLS data, she's using the CES or "establishment" survey. Yer looking at the household survey. Here's some information from BLS that discusses the difference in those figures: Differences Between Data Series Household vs. Establishment Series.

>>What I am saying is that the BLS takes the raw data and presents it in a manner that makes the economy appear healthier then it is. Not by lying, but by their methods of assumptions, modelling, tabulation and presentation.

And when does this process stop? If you "do things" to misrepresent the data, making it look better than it really is, for eight years, yer gonna be pretty far out on a limb by the end of that period. Can you find evidence of precipitous drops in employment that occur as an administration from one party succeeds one from the other, declines that are not found in ADP data? Or do you think the Obummerites have performed this "fudging" for, say, seven years, and will now begin to unwind the process in 2016? And how do they know who will win the election?

>>You disagree...fine. But you cannot factually prove I am wrong...you can only believe it.

Well, yeah, like I believe the sun will rise in the AM. While it may be true that yer suspicions cannot be "proven" false, they can easily be exposed for the nonsense they are.

DA60 said:

I could care less about the 'curve'...I care about month-to-month accuracy.

Click to expand...

In doing so, you again indicate very clearly that you don't have any idea what yer talking about. All these figures are estimates based on surveys. There can be no "accuracy."

>>And by my quick count, the two were not even within 20% of each other approximately 20 of the 28 months in question. You (and others) want to call that 'correlation'...fine. Not me.

You should get yer data sets straight.

>>I am not satisfied with a government agency making blanket statements about the economy that are usually (potentially) off by at least 20%.

Well, my thought is that you may just have to learn to accept yer dissatisfaction. Or you could simply continue to complain. I complain about things a lot myself. I try to be realistic when I'm doing so.

>>All I want the BLS to do is stop altering the raw data when they present it to the public (which they freely admit they often do).

I don't think "admit" fits here. The agency works hard to shape the data into useful information.

>>Just do the survey, forget the 'seasonal adjustments' and the 'Birth/Death' models (and ALL models) and ALL of their assumptions/definitions and just present the RAW DATA AS IS to the public and let the public (and ALL the economists) decide what it means.

Unadjusted data is available. E.g., series of data that are not adjusted for seasonality are typically published right alongside the adjusted figures. Labor economists argue all the time about how effective BLS adjustments are.

Here's some stuff about the birth/death model that you seem concerned about:

CES Birth/Death Model Frequently Asked Questions

CES Net Birth/Death Model

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

nothing like that Birth Death nonsense or the seasonal adjustment crap.

Click to expand...

I will repeat AGAIN that all the details on that stuff is easily found online. You can even call the agency and ask them questions. They're very helpful public servants.

>>do not even get me started on the absolutely PATHETIC job the BLS does with the 'inflation calculation' (though Congress is partly to blame there).

No problem there. I'm happy to not hear yer view.

>>But none of this U-3 is the official unemployemnt rate and it includes this and that but should not include this or that.

Mindless drivel.

>>The BLS should NEVER be making decisions like that. They should just do what good little trained minions should do...compile the stats, tabulate them, present them and keep quiet otherwise (no offense)...but NEVER interpret them or make ANY assumptions on them. NEVER. That is for economists/the public to do..not bureaucrats...no matter how well 'trained' they are.

You are free to question or dismiss the process BLS uses to generate its statistics. It's all public information, and as I said, labor economists are constantly scrutinizing their work.

Another group one can hear from on a regular basis are the RWNJ's who foam at the mouth about the Kenyan commie homo who's married to a man, the guy who lies all the time. And then there are investors who hope to influence public opinion for personal gain.

>>there is no point in talking to you about this

I agree, insofar as yer rants are concerned.

>>tell me why mmi cannot include links to his stats? NOT why he does not, why he can not. You often do it. I always try and do it. He has the link right in front of his face when he brings up the data..why can he not include the link to them?

Please do continue to pretend that you ignore my posts and that I don't source my data. The crap you barf up about the US labor market should be ignored by readers of this forum, and by repeating yer behaviour in one thread after another, you must surely be undermining yer reputation as someone who presents credible arguments.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

MTAtech said:

Then we should expect more job creation.

Click to expand...

Why? If you are at or near full employment, why would you expect more job creation than when you are recovering from a massive wave of layoffs? Answer: you wouldn't.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

I am not talking about THAT raw...come on now.

I am talking about just posting the numbers WITHOUT any modelling or assumptions AT ALL. Obviously they would do totals and breakdowns. But nothing like that Birth Death nonsense or the seasonal adjustment crap. And do not even get me started on the absolutely PATHETIC job the BLS does with the 'inflation calculation' (though Congress is partly to blame there).

But none of this U-3 is the official unemployemnt rate and it includes this and that but should not include this or that.

The BLS should NEVER be making decisions like that. They should just do what good little trained minions should do...compile the stats, tabulate them, present them and keep quiet otherwise (no offense)...but NEVER interpret them or make ANY assumptions on them. NEVER.
That is for economists/the public to do..not bureaucrats...no matter how well 'trained' they are.


But there is no point in talking to you about this as you are clearly (imo) STAGGERINGLY biased about how wonderful the BLS is just the way it is.



BTW, you never answered my question...tell me why mmi cannot include links to his stats? NOT why he does not, why he can not. You often do it. I always try and do it. He has the link right in front of his face when he brings up the data..why can he not include the link to them?

Click to expand...

Without any assumptions or models, it would be "that raw," and you wouldn't have totals or breakdowns because those are all based on models and assumptions.

As for birth death, you seem unaware that the population numbers used in the household survey come from a birth-death-net migration model. Or do you think we should be calculating labor force stats as if the population hadn't changed since 2010? For the CES, since an actual count is done, we can check the accuracy of the business birth/death model: from April 2013 to March 2014, the estimate was +769,000, while the actual was +971,000. So clearly the model made the estimates more accurate. Now, in 2008, 2009, the model was not adequate and was off by quite a bit. So the model was changed to be updated more frequently.


As for your question about mmi: he can and has posted links. Who said he was unable to?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

Fletch said:

Why? If you are at or near full employment, why would you expect more job creation than when you are recovering from a massive wave of layoffs? Answer: you wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Certainly a decent point, but there are lot's of factors.

As new jobs are created, more demand is also created because when people get jobs they get money in their pockets, and most of us spend our money. Increases in spending means employers have a need to hire more people so they can match demand.

As our unemployment rate drops below 5%, I would assume that employers will have to compete harder for workers, and will likely start providing better compensation, which will not only increase demand but may actually enthuse some discouraged workers to re-enter the work force.

I certainly see no reason why job creation would slow at this point. Unless of course republicans sweep the election and decide that we need to pay off the deficit (reducing the GDP, shrinking our tax base, and reducing private sector surpluses) or something stupid like that.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Well, thanks for the effort and the data...but the correct answer is 'there is no way to prove it'. Your statement was virtually impossible to prove.

Btw, a larger sample size means nothing as there are many things the BLS could (and does) do to alter the raw data (like the Birth Death model, for example).

Click to expand...

All modifications are designed to make the data more accurate. When that fails, as it sometimes does, the methods are changed or updated. But everyone does that. ADP had the adminstrative data for all their clients, but still has to model that out to cover the whole country. They use the BLS data to do that.

Plus, since no independent and unbiased, non-governmental organization monitors every aspect of the BLS data taking at all times, it is not possible to know how accurate their statistics even are...though I doubt they are dumb enough to do anything illegal.I have said it before, the BLS, IMO, is instructed (covertly) by the White House (not just his one...probably all of them in recent history) to legally present the statistics and the surveys that feed them in such a way so as to alter the true economic picture in a manner that makes the economy look healthier then it is. Sometimes massively so, sometimes only slightly so and sometimes not at all. And sometimes fundamentally so such as the definition of U-3 and using it as the official unemployment rate (which many - including the Federal Reserve - have dismissed as an inaccurate means of determining the employment situation).

Click to expand...

Deliberately falsifying data would be illegal....and misrepresenting the data before Congress (the Commisioner testifies every month) would be perjury. But since all the methodology is public...and academics are given access to the raw data, then there is plenty of opportuntity to discover any "fudging." No one has. You are the one claiming BLS is influenced and deliberately manipulates to give a false impression. But you never show any evidence (note that I didn't say "proof," but "evidence") that this is true. So you shift the burden. that's not honest.

A) can you factually prove they don't (your answer is 'no').
B) you should know very well that one can garner almost any result one wants from a poll depending on the way it is carried out/asked.
C) the BLS does NOT produce raw data very often. Even by it's own admission it alters that data based on it's own models/assumptions (again...the Birth Death number is just one of many examples).
D) to assume that when the BLS commissioner is nominated by the POTUS (not just Obama...all of them) that that person is not expected to 'play ball' on occasion is so ridiculously naive in 2015 it simply defies rational logic. Again, please prove that this situation NEVER happens (your answer, btw, is 'I cannot').

Click to expand...

I can't factually prove a negative. But then you have zero evidence to support your claim they do anything untoward.
Of course. Do you have any evidence that this is done to get other than the most accurate responses?
Of course. Why do you think that's a problem? You have to use models and assumptions for meaningful data.
I don't assume. I've heard Nixon on tape discussing what could be done to manipulate BLS. He knew he couldn't get them to change the data, so he wanted to manipulate release dates to be most favorable to him. While it didn't happen, the law has been changed to make that impossible. Former Commissioner Katherine Abraham has claimed that Newt Gingrich offered to allocate more funds to BLS if she would massage the numbers. She refused. So while I know offers have been made, I am not aware, and neither are you, of any pressure actually succeeding.

Oh, political pressure has come to bear: G.H.W Bush stopped BLS from publishing numbers on female/male wage gap; Obama got BLS to include a new program to measure Green Jobs (which BLS cut as soon as they had to make budget cuts); BLS was forced to reintitute monitoring women's pay and hours in the CES after they dropped it because no actual economists cared, but the public and politician outcry forced them to put it back.

But the kind of massaging you're talking about? I've never heard even a hint that it occurs. What is your evidence?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

pinqy said:

All modifications are designed to make the data more accurate. When that fails, as it sometimes does, the methods are changed or updated. But everyone does that. ADP had the adminstrative data for all their clients, but still has to model that out to cover the whole country. They use the BLS data to do that.

Deliberately falsifying data would be illegal....and misrepresenting the data before Congress (the Commisioner testifies every month) would be perjury. But since all the methodology is public...and academics are given access to the raw data, then there is plenty of opportuntity to discover any "fudging." No one has. You are the one claiming BLS is influenced and deliberately manipulates to give a false impression. But you never show any evidence (note that I didn't say "proof," but "evidence") that this is true. So you shift the burden. that's not honest.


I can't factually prove a negative. But then you have zero evidence to support your claim they do anything untoward.
Of course. Do you have any evidence that this is done to get other than the most accurate responses?
Of course. Why do you think that's a problem? You have to use models and assumptions for meaningful data.
I don't assume. I've heard Nixon on tape discussing what could be done to manipulate BLS. He knew he couldn't get them to change the data, so he wanted to manipulate release dates to be most favorable to him. While it didn't happen, the law has been changed to make that impossible. Former Commissioner Katherine Abraham has claimed that Newt Gingrich offered to allocate more funds to BLS if she would massage the numbers. She refused. So while I know offers have been made, I am not aware, and neither are you, of any pressure actually succeeding.

Oh, political pressure has come to bear: G.H.W Bush stopped BLS from publishing numbers on female/male wage gap; Obama got BLS to include a new program to measure Green Jobs (which BLS cut as soon as they had to make budget cuts); BLS was forced to reintitute monitoring women's pay and hours in the CES after they dropped it because no actual economists cared, but the public and politician outcry forced them to put it back.

But the kind of massaging you're talking about? I've never heard even a hint that it occurs. What is your evidence?

Click to expand...

Ayyyy...now we are into the huge multi quotes I see. Well, I don't do those much...life is too short.

Besides, I can summarize your answer - even though I did not read it.

'The BLS is fantastic...everything they do is perfect. They are completely uncorrupted. The economy is good-great. Mmi is a great guy since he too loves the BLS.'

Same old pinqy.

Trying to convince you of anything other then the above is like a broken pencil...pointless.

We are done here for now...good day.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

Fletch said:

Why? If you are at or near full employment, why would you expect more job creation than when you are recovering from a massive wave of layoffs? Answer: you wouldn't.

Click to expand...

You said that the average unemployment rate was 5% during Bush. But job creation during both terms was 1,281,000.

Mainly, it was due to the terrible performance at the end of Bush's term. But saying the "average" unemployment was 5% papers over that performance.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Ayyyy...now we are into the huge multi quotes I see. Well, I don't do those much...life is too short.

Besides, I can summarize your answer - even though I did not read it.

'The BLS is fantastic...everything they do is perfect. They are completely uncorrupted. The economy is good-great. Mmi is a great guy since he too loves the BLS.'

Same old pinqy.

Trying to convince you of anything other then the above is like a broken pencil...pointless.

We are done here for now...good day.

Click to expand...

I have never said anything remotely like the above. Except uncorrupted. They are not corrupted and you certainly have no evidence. Your weird insistance that your accusations don't need any support except your biased, ill-informed opinion but that any defense must be fuly documented is odd. You have never shown that I am biased. I have certainly admitted to flaws and issues with BLS data, but you ignore that because they're not deliberate manipulations.

Show your evidence or quit your idiotic accusations.

Oh, and if you can't bother to read a post: don't bother responding.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

MTAtech said:

U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment down to 5.0%.

That's a very strong jobs report. As the economy improves, more tax-pays added to employment roles, government revenue rises.

Click to expand...

Top be fair, the number of unemployed people didnt change, but it looks better for the year. One month doesnt really mean anything.

Both the unemployment rate (5.0 percent) and the number of unemployed persons
(7.9 million) were essentially unchanged in October. Over the past 12 months,
the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons were down by 0.7
percentage point and 1.1 million, respectively. (See table A-1.)

Click to expand...

And all this with most of the Bush tax cuts in place, and no additional govt spending for 4 years. Guess we dont need high taxes and spending.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

First, with respect, I said I 'like to be informed'. I am not as informed as I wish I were.

Who is?

Second, considering that the most important demographic (25-54) had less employed last month and that the under 55's had a net employment loss...I would personally call it a 'worrying' report.

I read the same in (I forget who...) report.....But it takes more than one monthly report to see/measure the trend to see if it is just an outlier.....

It's not terrible. But it is is not good either...and the American economy cannot thrive forever so long as the under 55's show a net employment loss.

Once again more is needed to see if it is a trend...


My overall point is just that I think people should look past the headline numbers and should not automatically trust them as they can often be deceptive (deliberately or not) - as this one was, imo.

I agree.....but all that one can really say is job growth exceeded estimate...........and I thing we would both say that is good.............and the report is one on of several needed to gauge the economy's health

Click to expand...

... the hype is the media's making without full explanation...

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

pinqy said:

I have never said anything remotely like the above. Except uncorrupted. They are not corrupted and you certainly have no evidence. Your weird insistance that your accusations don't need any support except your biased, ill-informed opinion but that any defense must be fuly documented is odd. You have never shown that I am biased. I have certainly admitted to flaws and issues with BLS data, but you ignore that because they're not deliberate manipulations.

Show your evidence or quit your idiotic accusations.

Oh, and if you can't bother to read a post: don't bother responding.

Click to expand...

One simple yes or no question for you...

Do you believe that no BLS Commissioner in the past 25 years has EVER been put under pressure from the White House to make the employment/inflation situation look better then it really is?

Yes or no?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

One simple yes or no question for you...

Do you believe that no BLS Commissioner in the past 25 years has EVER been put under pressure from the White House to make the employment/inflation situation look better then it really is?

Yes or no?

Click to expand...

I already answered that Nixon tried. But in the last 25 years? No, I have no reason to think so. Do you have any specific reason to think so (not just "government is corrupt)? And what specifically do you think commissioners have done?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

pinqy said:

I already answered that Nixon tried. But in the last 25 years? No, I have no reason to think so. Do you have any specific reason to think so (not just "government is corrupt)? And what specifically do you think commissioners have done?

Click to expand...

Well, thanks for answering.

No offense man, but you are, IMO, INCREDIBLY naive. To actually believe that a POTUS is going to nominate someone to a post and not tell them, in essence, 'okay, I did you a favor, now you do me one' is hard to fathom.

But to answer your questions.

Why would they? Reducing the U-3 rate artificially makes the economy look better since most people just listen to the U-3 rate and the establishment survey number. And changing the CPI to make it seem lower saves the government billions and billions in welfare/SS payments.

What would theydo? Change the formula's definitions of important economic 'markers' to make them seem better then they are. Like when the U-3 definition was changed years ago (I believe under Clinton). And when the CPI definition has been changed numerous times (though Congress is also to blame for those) to make the CPI lower.


Wow...I knew you were naive, but I hoped you were not this naive. Again, I mean no offense, but you really are a trained minion of the government...just seem to believe them almost no matter what they tell you...especially about your ex-department.

Open your mind man...please.


Since your mind seems completely closed on this matter, I see no point in further discussion at this time.

Take care.


Btw, I still give you credit for generally being civil. Mmi is constantly thrashing about and foaming at the mouth whenever anyone questions him (and has been temp banned at least once for it). At least you USUALLY remain calm...it is appreciated and the main reason he is on my ignore list and you are not.
Plus, you still are the best source I know for BLS stats.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Well, thanks for answering.

No offense man, but you are, IMO, INCREDIBLY naive. To actually believe that a POTUS is going to nominate someone to a post and not tell them, in essence, 'okay, I did you a favor, now you do me one' is hard to fathom.

But to answer your questions.

Why would they? Reducing the U-3 rate artificially makes the economy look better since most people just listen to the U-3 rate and the establishment survey number. And changing the CPI to make it seem lower saves the government billions and billions in welfare/SS payments.

What would theydo? Change the formula's definitions of important economic 'markers' to make them seem better then they are. Like when the U-3 definition was changed years ago (I believe under Clinton). And when the CPI definition has been changed numerous times (though Congress is also to blame for those) to make the CPI lower.


Wow...I knew you were naive, but I hoped you were not this naive. Again, I mean no offense, but you really are a trained minion of the government...just seem to believe them almost no matter what they tell you...especially about your ex-department.

Open your mind man...please.


Since your mind seems completely closed on this matter, I see no point in further discussion at this time.

Take care.


Btw, I still give you credit for generally being civil. Mmi is constantly thrashing about and foaming at the mouth whenever anyone questions him (and has been temp banned at least once for it). At least you USUALLY remain calm...it is appreciated and the main reason he is on my ignore list and you are not.
Plus, you still are the best source I know for BLS stats.

Click to expand...

So no, you don't have any evidence of manipulation. You believe it, but you don't have any actual reason to believe it. Oh, and you're ridiculously naive if you think the commissioner could just change methodology.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Mmi … is on my ignore list

Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone believes that. Just like no one believes that you didn't read pinqy's post when you said you didn't. These pretensions are simply yer pathetic effort to control the discussion.

>>Mmi is constantly thrashing about and foaming at the mouth whenever anyone questions him (and has been temp banned at least once for it).

Constantly? Can you offer an example of that? Probably not. But you figure you win the argument because you pretend to not be aware of the question. I'd say things don't work that way.

I've been suspended because I have an insulting tone at times, and the infractions can pile up. I recognize that I should not allow that to get into my posts.

I think veterans of this forum may agree that the staff is fairly tolerant, but that they have to draw the line somewhere. You can say, "That's a really stupid thing to say," but yer not supposed to say "Yer really stupid." Fwiw, I'd be happy to have the rules be a lot stricter. But I suppose that's unrealistic given the topics discussed here, the classics — politics and religion.

Here are my most recent violations:


I don't see any "thrashing about and foaming at the mouth whenever anyone questions" me. I have a tendency to call people stupid, biased, delusional … when I think they're being stupid, biased, and/or delusional. Obviously, none of that advances the discussion, and I don't fault the moderators for giving me a kick when I do it.

>>you still are the best source I know for BLS stats.

You should try looking around their site. Maybe that way you wouldn't keep making it clear that you don't know what yer talking about.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

jonny5 said:

...Guess we dont need high taxes and spending.

Click to expand...

I'm just glad that a libertarian agrees that our taxes aren't high and neither is our spending.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Why would they? Reducing the U-3 rate artificially makes the economy look better since most people just listen to the U-3 rate and the establishment survey number. And changing the CPI to make it seem lower saves the government billions and billions in welfare/SS payments.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence the U-3 has ever been artificially reduced? Do you have any evidence that the CPI changes were made only to lower it and not because the changes improved accuracy?

What would theydo? Change the formula's definitions of important economic 'markers' to make them seem better then they are. Like when the U-3 definition was changed years ago (I believe under Clinton). .

Click to expand...

Ok.....well, the official unemployment rate has always been unemployed as a percent of the labor force. And the labor force has always been defined as employed plus unemployed. So you can only be talking about a change to the definition of unemployed.

From 1967 to 1993, Unemployed was defined as:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.

In 1994 it was changed to:
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

How do you think that change made the U-3 appear better than it really was?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

One simple yes or no question for you...

Do you believe that no BLS Commissioner in the past 25 years has EVER been put under pressure from the White House to make the employment/inflation situation look better then it really is?

Yes or no?

Click to expand...

What's your answer? And where's your proof if your answer is yes!

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Ayyyy...now we are into the huge multi quotes I see. Well, I don't do those much...life is too short.

Besides, I can summarize your answer - even though I did not read it.

'The BLS is fantastic...everything they do is perfect. They are completely uncorrupted. The economy is good-great. Mmi is a great guy since he too loves the BLS.'

Same old pinqy.

Trying to convince you of anything other then the above is like a broken pencil...pointless.

We are done here for now...good day.

Click to expand...

To convince someone......one needs facts and proof.....o0f which you have none

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imyoda said:

What's your answer? And where's your proof if your answer is yes!

Click to expand...

I do not have absolute proof.

Unless I get a signed confession from the Commissioners, I could never have 100% proof.

But I have common sense, statistics and political history on my side.

I cannot prove, but I strongly believe. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it.

I allow for doubt, but do pinqy and mmi? Not from what I see. They cannot prove the opposite, yet they refuse to entertain the possibility. That is unreasonable, unscientific and illogical. If you cannot prove something, then you cannot know it is so...you can only believe.

That shows they have closed minds...they do not (from what I saw) even entertain the possibility even though they cannot prove it. That IS a closed mind. The minute you refuse to admit doubt, your mind is no longer open on that subject and can no longer be trusted to be reasonable.

Since their minds are clearly closed, then I no longer trust them to be reasonable on any subject to do with the BLS.