Maga

JasperL · Dec 10, 2017

code1211 said:
Um...

I DO like Trump and I DO distrust the numbers.

You were saying...

At this point I'll just say two things. You really should trust the numbers, while keeping in mind they are estimates. And if you have any questions or concerns, you can ask DP's resident expert - pinqy. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect he is or was one of those talented people I've referred to in previous posts who do the excellent work compiling employment data.

code1211 · Dec 16, 2017

pinqy said:
The BLS conducts the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which uses the unemployment insurance tax records. It takes too long to get the details of industry, pay, overtime, etc to release monthly. But the QCEW is used to benchmark the Current Employment Statistics, which is a monthly survey of businesses (634,000 work sites).

The IRS does not like to share information with anyone, and BLS cannot legally share raw data with the IRS.

As I just explained, payroll data, from businesses and tax records are used. But not included in those are data on agricultural workers, the self-employed, people who work in other people's houses, unpaid family workers, and, of course, the unemployed. Additionally, people who have more than one job will show up on the payrolls of each job and so are double counted, and the payroll data does not distinguish between full and part time and gives no demographic information.

Therefore a household survey has to be used for Unemployment data as there are no alternatives

My answer does not.

Oh, and "opinion survey?" How is asking "Did you work for pay lat week?" or "What did you do to find a job in the last four weeks?" asking for an opinion? Do you want a copy of the survey? There are no questions on opinions.

My point is that actual real data is available, but other data that the surveyors prefer is used.

When that array of opinions is collected from various sources by the BLS, it is then seasonally adjusted.

This is not the actual, real data that is available and could be used.

Also, the actual real data that should be used to gauge the number of people working is the participation rate and THAT rate is clearly the number of those working.

THAT number is available through the payroll numbers and it COULD be collected using an automated system.

As I said before, we are using a horse and buggy system in the information age.

Does the IRS ask people if they earned money or do they measure the wages paid to whom based on that actual, documented, readily available facts?

I have never been surveyed by the BLS to see if I was working last week. I've been working for about 2700 weeks since I was 11. The BLS has no idea whether or not I was working. The IRS does.

One uses conjecture and the other uses facts.

Why is one using conjecture?

code1211 · Dec 16, 2017

JasperL said:
At this point I'll just say two things. You really should trust the numbers, while keeping in mind they are estimates. And if you have any questions or concerns, you can ask DP's resident expert - pinqy. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect he is or was one of those talented people I've referred to in previous posts who do the excellent work compiling employment data.

Opinion is opinion and fact is fact.

Pinqy is very knowledgable on this topic and that is great. I love that there are really knowledgable people in this forum.

However, opinion is what the folks who draft football players use to draft this year's rookies.

Fact is what puts them in the Hall of Fame decades later.

Peyton Manning will be voted to the Hall of Fame. Ryan Leaf will not be so honored.

It was the OPINION that both were going to be fantastic players at the time of their draft class. It is the FACT that one was fantastic and the other was not.

Thoreau72 · Dec 16, 2017

volsrock said:
2.2 Million New Jobs Since Election...

Record low unemployment rate for manufacturing...

Hispanic unemployment rate drops to 4.7% - LOWEST in history of USA... MORE...

Swamp enlarged and enhanced, with new seats for everyone, improved access. Middle class and poor to pay more taxes while .5% will all do better. Perpetual war consolidated and expanded.

Thanks Donald!

JasperL · Dec 16, 2017

code1211 said:
Opinion is opinion and fact is fact.

Pinqy is very knowledgable on this topic and that is great. I love that there are really knowledgable people in this forum.

However, opinion is what the folks who draft football players use to draft this year's rookies.

I have no idea what your point is. If you're bound and determined to distrust the numbers for some reason, that's fine, but in my OPINION that skepticism should be based on an accurate understanding of how and why BLS does what they do each month.

pinqy · Dec 16, 2017

JasperL said:
At this point I'll just say two things. You really should trust the numbers, while keeping in mind they are estimates. And if you have any questions or concerns, you can ask DP's resident expert - pinqy. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect he is or was one of those talented people I've referred to in previous posts who do the excellent work compiling employment data.

Actually I worked on the CPI. But I also worked in training and helped teach the methodology for most BLS programs.

JasperL · Dec 16, 2017

pinqy said:
Actually I worked on the CPI. But I also worked in training and helped teach the methodology for most BLS programs.

As I've said before, I've learned from you posts and appreciate them.

eace

code1211 · Dec 16, 2017

JasperL said:
I have no idea what your point is. If you're bound and determined to distrust the numbers for some reason, that's fine, but in my OPINION that skepticism should be based on an accurate understanding of how and why BLS does what they do each month.

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your post to change or eliminate the meaning?

The point is they are basing their outcomes on opinions when they could use facts.

I'm more interested in arriving at an accurate outcome than an accurate understanding of why the outcome is fallacious.

JasperL · Dec 16, 2017

OK, my apologies. Don't know what the example has to do with your point, but here's your ENTIRE post with my comment.

code1211 said:
Opinion is opinion and fact is fact.

Pinqy is very knowledgable on this topic and that is great. I love that there are really knowledgable people in this forum.

However, opinion is what the folks who draft football players use to draft this year's rookies.

Fact is what puts them in the Hall of Fame decades later.

Peyton Manning will be voted to the Hall of Fame. Ryan Leaf will not be so honored.

It was the OPINION that both were going to be fantastic players at the time of their draft class. It is the FACT that one was fantastic and the other was not.

I have no idea what your point is. If you're bound and determined to distrust the numbers for some reason, that's fine, but in my OPINION that skepticism should be based on an accurate understanding of how and why BLS does what they do each month.

And the actual FACT is you really don't understand the report, at all.

RetiredUSN · Dec 16, 2017

volsrock said:
2.2 Million New Jobs Since Election...

Record low unemployment rate for manufacturing...

Hispanic unemployment rate drops to 4.7% - LOWEST in history of USA... MORE...

I just like hearing the term (MAGA) being used.

You can see the veins in liberal foreheads popping. :lamo

And, good for the Hispanics, as they are a hard working group of people, and know how to get out there and get it done.

JasperL · Dec 16, 2017

code1211 said:
Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your post to change or eliminate the meaning?

The point is they are basing their outcomes on opinions when they could use facts.

That's actually false, it's been explained to you, and you've ignored the explanations.

I'm more interested in arriving at an accurate outcome than an accurate understanding of why the outcome is fallacious.

We all want an accurate outcome.

pinqy · Dec 16, 2017

code1211 said:
The point is they are basing their outcomes on opinions when they could use facts.

I'm more interested in arriving at an accurate outcome than an accurate understanding of why the outcome is fallacious.

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages “The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program publishes a quarterly count of employment and wages reported by employers covering more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs, available at the county, MSA, state and national levels by industry.”

The monthly Current Employment Statistics Survey benchmarks the monthly survey to the QCEW once a year based on March data. The preliminary numbers show that the CES was off in March 2017 by 0.1%.

The most recent data from the QCEW count is from April-June 2017. The most recent data from the CES is from November.

If you prefer to wait months to get a tenth of a percent more accurate, fine.

code1211 · Dec 17, 2017

JasperL said:
OK, my apologies. Don't know what the example has to do with your point, but here's your ENTIRE post with my comment.

I have no idea what your point is. If you're bound and determined to distrust the numbers for some reason, that's fine, but in my OPINION that skepticism should be based on an accurate understanding of how and why BLS does what they do each month.

And the actual FACT is you really don't understand the report, at all.

I DO trust the numbers.

I neither understand the need of nor trust the accuracy of the OPINIONS that they have chosen to continue to use in place of the numbers.

The numbers are available. Why not use them?

I do understand the report. It us what it is and one of the defining qualities that is absent is "accuracy". It provides a number that is comparable to previous numbers using the similar, changing methodology. In this way, it is consistent.

Consistency is not accuracy.

code1211 · Dec 17, 2017

JasperL said:
That's actually false, it's been explained to you, and you've ignored the explanations.

We all want an accurate outcome.

You said that the BLS SURVEYS employers and SURVEYS people.

What part of survey did you misstate?

code1211 · Dec 17, 2017

pinqy said:
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages “The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program publishes a quarterly count of employment and wages reported by employers covering more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs, available at the county, MSA, state and national levels by industry.”

The monthly Current Employment Statistics Survey benchmarks the monthly survey to the QCEW once a year based on March data. The preliminary numbers show that the CES was off in March 2017 by 0.1%.

The most recent data from the QCEW count is from April-June 2017. The most recent data from the CES is from November.

If you prefer to wait months to get a tenth of a percent more accurate, fine.

Why do we need to wait months to get data that is produced electronically weekly in many cases and bi-weekly in more cases.

This information is available from the payroll data records that are produced for every company conducting payroll processes to issue checks to employees.

My point is not that the horse and buggy system that you describe be used more completely.

My point is that the current process is obsolete and could be replaced by actual data is a fraction of the time.

We are employing a whale oil system in a Maglev society.

pinqy · Dec 17, 2017

code1211 said:
Why do we need to wait months to get data that is produced electronically weekly in many cases and bi-weekly in more cases.

This information is available from the payroll data records that are produced for every company conducting payroll processes to issue checks to employees.

No, it’s not. Here are the tables produced by the CES: https://www.bls.gov/ces/tables.htm#ee
Peak-trough tables,
Analytic tables:
UPDATED Table 1. Normal seasonal movements, estimated employment change and test of significance, in thousands
UPDATED Table 2. Detailed industry employment ranked by change and prior 3-month average change, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
NEW Table 3A. Employment changes and tests of significance, seasonally adjusted (in thousands)
UPDATED Table 3B. Employment change compared with recent averages, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
UPDATED Table 4. Employment change from same month a year ago, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
UPDATED Table 5. Estimated change in hours and earnings of all employees, normal seasonal movement and test of significance
UPDATED Table 6. Aggregate weekly hours and payrolls of all employees, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
UPDATED Table 7. Most recent industry-specific peak and trough employment and change through current month, in thousands
Tables A-C2: 90 percent confidence intervals for employment, hours, overtime hours, and earnings (XLSX

Monthly Establishment Data--National
Summary table B. Employment, hours, and earnings, seasonally adjusted
B-1a. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted
B-1b. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, not seasonally adjusted
B-2a. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-2b. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-3a. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-3b. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-4a. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-4b. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-5a. Employment of women by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-5b. Employment of women by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-6a. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees by private-industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-6b. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees by private-industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-7a. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-7b. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-8a. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-8b. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-9a. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-9b. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted

It takes a while to do all that work. And which is it? Do you think the data should come from the IRS or payroll companies? The IRS does not have information on hours or overtime, and the data they do have was collected for a different purpose and would have to be completely reworked by BLS anyway.
As for payroll companies, not every business uses one, and all the data would have to be reworked anyway to consolidate the different formats.

Why does it take months for the QCEW?
https://data.bls.gov/cew/apps/data_views/data_views.htm#tab=Tables
Because it takes a long time to process and analyze and format the data into all the tables in that Link.

You are thinking just of a single number of employed, but that by itself is pretty useless

code1211 · Dec 17, 2017

pinqy said:
No, it’s not. Here are the tables produced by the CES: https://www.bls.gov/ces/tables.htm#ee
Peak-trough tables,
Analytic tables:
UPDATED Table 1. Normal seasonal movements, estimated employment change and test of significance, in thousands
UPDATED Table 2. Detailed industry employment ranked by change and prior 3-month average change, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
NEW Table 3A. Employment changes and tests of significance, seasonally adjusted (in thousands)
UPDATED Table 3B. Employment change compared with recent averages, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
UPDATED Table 4. Employment change from same month a year ago, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
UPDATED Table 5. Estimated change in hours and earnings of all employees, normal seasonal movement and test of significance
UPDATED Table 6. Aggregate weekly hours and payrolls of all employees, in thousands, seasonally adjusted
UPDATED Table 7. Most recent industry-specific peak and trough employment and change through current month, in thousands
Tables A-C2: 90 percent confidence intervals for employment, hours, overtime hours, and earnings (XLSX

Monthly Establishment Data--National
Summary table B. Employment, hours, and earnings, seasonally adjusted
B-1a. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted
B-1b. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, not seasonally adjusted
B-2a. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-2b. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-3a. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-3b. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-4a. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-4b. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-5a. Employment of women by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-5b. Employment of women by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-6a. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees by private-industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-6b. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees by private-industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-7a. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-7b. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-8a. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-8b. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted
B-9a. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
B-9b. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, not seasonally adjusted

It takes a while to do all that work. And which is it? Do you think the data should come from the IRS or payroll companies? The IRS does not have information on hours or overtime, and the data they do have was collected for a different purpose and would have to be completely reworked by BLS anyway.
As for payroll companies, not every business uses one, and all the data would have to be reworked anyway to consolidate the different formats.

Why does it take months for the QCEW?
https://data.bls.gov/cew/apps/data_views/data_views.htm#tab=Tables
Because it takes a long time to process and analyze and format the data into all the tables in that Link.

You are thinking just of a single number of employed, but that by itself is pretty useless

IF those other things are so important, they could easily be included in the data on the paycheck and be tabulated accurately and in a time frame pretty close to real time.

Again, what is the justification for an opinion survey over actual, factual numbers.

JasperL · Dec 17, 2017

code1211 said:
I DO trust the numbers.

I neither understand the need of nor trust the accuracy of the OPINIONS that they have chosen to continue to use in place of the numbers.

The numbers are available. Why not use them?

They aren't available, at least not like you think they are. I'd explain but that's already been done.

I do understand the report. It us what it is and one of the defining qualities that is absent is "accuracy". It provides a number that is comparable to previous numbers using the similar, changing methodology. In this way, it is consistent.

Consistency is not accuracy.

But you don't if you think they can produce the report using only electronic data, or can produce an "unemployment" rate without a household survey, etc.

Fraggle Rock · Dec 17, 2017

volsrock said:
2.2 Million New Jobs Since Election...

Record low unemployment rate for manufacturing...

Hispanic unemployment rate drops to 4.7% - LOWEST in history of USA... MORE...

So Iam guessing the 76 straight months of job growth under Obama you were cheering ? The over two million in job growth in 2016 you were cheering? Just more lemmings. "Trump has repeatedly boasted that the “unemployment rate is at a 17-year low,” citing the standard (U-3) unemployment rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which hovers around 4.4 percent in 2017. His new-found excitement for the BLS numbers represents a considerable flip-flop for Trump, who claimed the unemployment rate was “nonsense” prior to his inauguration." Just more lemmings be led around by the nose by the Right wing media because they have no thoughts of their own. Parrot on boys

pinqy · Dec 17, 2017

code1211 said:
IF those other things are so important, they could easily be included in the data on the paycheck and be tabulated accurately and in a time frame pretty close to real time.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the federal government legally require what information payroll companies collect and in what format? That's pretty intrusive on private business.

Again, what is the justification for an opinion survey over actual, factual numbers.

BLS doesn't use opinion surveys. BLS surveys collect facts and uses the science of statistics to estimate the total from a sample and do so with pretty good accuracy. The CES results have been off by an average of 2/10ths of 1% in the last ten years.

code1211 · Dec 17, 2017

pinqy said:
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the federal government legally require what information payroll companies collect and in what format? That's pretty intrusive on private business.

BLS doesn't use opinion surveys. BLS surveys collect facts and uses the science of statistics to estimate the total from a sample and do so with pretty good accuracy. The CES results have been off by an average of 2/10ths of 1% in the last ten years.

They are off by 2/10ths of a percent compared to what? Is the comparator actual facts?

The IRS is already collecting money from businesses. It's difficult to imagine a more intrusive agency than the IRS.

pinqy · Dec 17, 2017

code1211 said:
They are off by 2/10ths of a percent compared to what? Is the comparator actual facts?

Yes, the QCEW. Which, because it’s so large, and the way the tax records are collected it takes months to process and analyze even with computers. So it is much faster to do a survey of businesses that covers about a third of all payroll workers and then reconcile it with the actual data.

The IRS is already collecting money from businesses. It's difficult to imagine a more intrusive agency than the IRS.

The IRS does not collect information on hours and overtime and they don’t collect the info in a form useful for BLS. Using the UI tax data is more useful.

Maga

Well-known member