The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?
“I would be very skeptical of any claims the job statistics are manipulated,” Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C., told ABC News. ”If they were, the administration’s record so far in 2012 would undoubtedly look a lot brighter.” Indeed, as Ezra Klein points out in the Washington Post, the drop is a mere three-tenths of one percent, from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent–not exactly a reason to crack open the Veuve Clicquot.
“The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which conducts the monthly jobs survey is a non-partisan group of hard-working people that have the public trust. Considering this trust and the controls imposed on their processes, the chances that the BLS actively “manipulated” data are extremely low, even if some of the numbers underlying today’s jobs report appear surprising. In my discussions with statistical organizations, political officials receive information about economic releases only after the numbers have been calculated, so there’s no opportunity for the White House–or anyone else–to alter the results.”
Correct me if I'm wrong...
1. They ONLY count people unemployed less than 12 months. If more than 12 months, they are considered no longer looking for work and not counted.
2. It makes no distinction between full and part time work. So if an unemployed person gives up finding a full time job and goes to work 20 hours a week at a UPS sorting center for $2 over
minimum, that is counted as becoming employed.
3. They also do not count people they consider unemployed but no longer trying to get a job.
If that is accurate, that statistic is false and pointless. Its like when they don't count fuel, food, medicine and utilities when calculating inflation. All sorts of tricks to falsely make the government look good.
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?
Correct me if I'm wrong...
1. They ONLY count people unemployed less than 12 months. If more than 12 months, they are considered no longer looking for work and not counted.
2. It makes no distinction between full and part time work. So if an unemployed person gives up finding a full time job and goes to work 20 hours a week at a UPS sorting center for $2 over
minimum, that is counted as becoming employed.
3. They also do not count people they consider unemployed but no longer trying to get a job.
If that is accurate, that statistic is false and pointless. Its like when they don't count fuel, food, medicine and utilities when calculating inflation. All sorts of tricks to falsely make the government look good.
Aren't these the same numbers and methods used in all previous months and years?...your point?
Which happens to be the way they have calculated it long before Obama was elected. If you want to claim the figures don't give a true picture, fine, I'll even agree with you. Claiming that it is suddenly being manipulated to aid Obama is the same kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory as the "birther" crap which made a laughingstock of the right.
Aren't these the same numbers and methods used in all previous months and years?...your point?
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?
Which happens to be the way they have calculated it long before Obama was elected. If you want to claim the figures don't give a true picture, fine, I'll even agree with you. Claiming that it is suddenly being manipulated to aid Obama is the same kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory as the "birther" crap which made a laughingstock of the right.
Considering the Obama admin is offering to compensate companies to violate the WARN Act in order to prevent hundreds of thousands of defense workers from getting layoff notices in the week before the election, I have a hard time trusting anything they say about employment rates
Correct me if I'm wrong...
1. They ONLY count people unemployed less than 12 months. If more than 12 months, they are considered no longer looking for work and not counted.
2. It makes no distinction between full and part time work. So if an unemployed person gives up finding a full time job and goes to work 20 hours a week at a UPS sorting center for $2 over
minimum, that is counted as becoming employed.
3. They also do not count people they consider unemployed but no longer trying to get a job.
If that is accurate, that statistic is false and pointless. Its like when they don't count fuel, food, medicine and utilities when calculating inflation. All sorts of tricks to falsely make the government look good.
I believe his point is contained in his last two sentences: the calculation is flawed, and has been as long as the method he outlined above has been used. He never said this is a "new" system. He said it is a flawed system. Why don't you argue on the basis of what he actually posted instead of posting strawmen?
The methodology leaves gaps but then we must ask ourselves inconvenient questions like "Are people on welfare really looking for work and therefore how many if any of them should be included in the unemployment numbers?"
If you are physically and mentally able to work and you don't have a job, you should be counted in the unemployment numbers
I would agree except for those who are independently wealthy or "homemakers". Somebody who doesn't want to work and is receiving no form of welfare in place of a work-earned income shouldn't really be counted, IMO.
The unemployment rate has suddenly dropped just as the President's fortures took a turn for the worst. What does this mean?