• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jobs claim misleads

K

katsung47

Banned
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
879
Reaction score
128
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fact Check: Labor SecretarySolis Misleads on Jobs Revisions

by Joel B. Pollak5 Oct 2012

Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallenon Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning anddefended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the privatesector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisionsto state and federal government payrolls.

The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created inSeptember--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is thefastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiestpredictions.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July andAugust jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimateof public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually reviseddownward by 5,000.

In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs,adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained byany other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether thegovernment had changed the way it counted part-time workers.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/05/Suspicion-Falls-on-Labor-Secretary-Solis-as-Jobs-Numbers-Questioned
 
The lack of spelling and grammar is amazing.
 
Typical liberal response. Ignore the content and focus on the delivery.

The employment figures truly do not make sense. Couple that with the timing of a desperate incumbent who just had his ass handed to him in the first presidential debate, and it only raises more questions.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Typical liberal response. Ignore the content and focus on the delivery.

The employment figures truly do not make sense. Couple that with the timing of a desperate incumbent who just had his ass handed to him in the first presidential debate, and it only raises more questions.
Click to expand...

No, people are just mad that good news for the country might mean that their guy won't get in office, and are looking for any crazy excuse to ignore, and/or downplay good news for the country.
 
Your Star said:
No, people are just mad that good news for the country might mean that their guy won't get in office, and are looking for any crazy excuse to ignore, and/or downplay good news for the country.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that there wasn't good news, that it was all manufactured. We got wind of this yesterday and now it is starting come to light. It makes no sense to have a net job loss (new job seekers > new jobs created) and an unemployment rate dropping 0.4%. Now we know how they are cooking the numbers. They changed the assumptions on the home phone survey. They added public sector jobs to help the matter. The whole thing stinks of manipulation.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I think the point is that there wasn't good news, that it was all manufactured. We got wind of this yesterday and now it is starting come to light. It makes no sense to have a net job loss (new job seekers > new jobs created) and an unemployment rate dropping 0.4%. Now we know how they are cooking the numbers. They changed the assumptions on the home phone survey. They added public sector jobs to help the matter. The whole thing stinks of manipulation.
Click to expand...

My point is proven.
 
Your Star said:
No, people are just mad that good news for the country might mean that their guy won't get in office, and are looking for any crazy excuse to ignore, and/or downplay good news for the country.
Click to expand...
The point isn't whether or not this is good news for the country. The point is the timing, and the historical trend leading up to this.

This would be like a kid, making minimum wage at a grocery store, suddenly shows up to work driving a brand new BMW with all the bells and whistles. Wouldn't you wonder where he got the money for that? Even saving up his money still wouldn't have been enough. Even if he got a loan, his income couldn't support the monthly payments. Nevertheless, here he is with that brand new BMW. When you ask him how he can afford it, he just says he "can afford it." "How," you ask. He can't really explain how...just that he can.
 
Your Star said:
No, people are just mad that good news for the country might mean that their guy won't get in office, and are looking for any crazy excuse to ignore, and/or downplay good news for the country.
Click to expand...

The number is suspect. But that aside, even if it were absolutely accurate, it doesn't mean good news for the country - it only means good news for the Obama campaign.

The ONLY way the unemployment RATE could have dropped is that far more people left the workforce than failure of new jobs to meet the population increase.

We would need 400,000 + new jobs just to keep up with the population increase. Only 114,000 jobs were created. That means the unemployment should have gone UP by a tenth of a percent or so. For it to DECREASE by .4 % can only be accounted for by the reduction of people looking for jobs.

SO - the 'good news' that the Obama admin is spreading is that FAR FEWER people are even interested in working.

Nah - this is just a number that the Obama admin manufactured for the last month before an election. Look for it to be corrected after the votes are counted.

But cheer on. The cliff is approaching and maybe you can achieve one more obamagasm before hurdling off onto the rocks below.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I think the point is that there wasn't good news, that it was all manufactured. We got wind of this yesterday and now it is starting come to light. It makes no sense to have a net job loss (new job seekers > new jobs created) and an unemployment rate dropping 0.4%. Now we know how they are cooking the numbers. They changed the assumptions on the home phone survey. They added public sector jobs to help the matter. The whole thing stinks of manipulation.
Click to expand...

There are two explanations - one is that they redefined what kind of part-time work qualifies as a job - they are probably counting teeangers who baby-sit for the neighbors as having a job.

The other is that they enlisted the local governments to report more jobs - most of the 'jobs created' were in the public sector - practically none in the private sector. So all these cities and municipalities that are considering filing for bankruptcy are reporting vast increases in employment.

Makes perfect sense - if only the government would just hire EVERYONE we could have ZERO unemployment.

But in the meantime the Obamabots are having a circle jerk.
 
Your Star said:
My point is proven.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. This isn't a case of turning something good into something bad. This is the case of political corruption in the form of the use of a federal office to manipulate popular opinion through the release of false data. There was no drop in the unemployment. It didn't happen. It is fake.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Typical liberal response. Ignore the content and focus on the delivery.

The employment figures truly do not make sense. Couple that with the timing of a desperate incumbent who just had his ass handed to him in the first presidential debate, and it only raises more questions.
Click to expand...

The polls are wrong, the BLS is wrong and even Romney is going around saying he was VERY wrong. On that at least he was right. Romney is very wrong for America.
 
That's pretty disgusting, that they would stoop to this kind of deceptive manipulation to take the sting out of the debate loss.

All I know is that the GOP had better make damn sure that the MSM is unable to bury this. They had better get out there and shout it from the rooftops, utilizing every avenue at their disposal to make sure every American understands the truth about these numbers. They need to make a very big deal over it.

And if Obama tries to tout these numbers in the next debate, Romney had better be waiting to pounce and turn this into a knockout punch.
 
If this is true, why hasn't a single BLS employee said something?

Or shall we stick this under the Birther/Time Machine file?

And when you look at the actual number, it's still terrible. Obama is harping on an awful unemployment rate as he did a good job.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I think the point is that there wasn't good news, that it was all manufactured. We got wind of this yesterday and now it is starting come to light. It makes no sense to have a net job loss (new job seekers > new jobs created) and an unemployment rate dropping 0.4%. Now we know how they are cooking the numbers. They changed the assumptions on the home phone survey. They added public sector jobs to help the matter. The whole thing stinks of manipulation.
Click to expand...

My assumption is that they actually held back those revisions up till this month, right before the election...how convenient. Plus upping more government jobs.
 
Isn't this how it worked in communist countries? Don't believe your lyin' eyes, believe what the Bureau tells you to believe comrade.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Typical liberal response. Ignore the content and focus on the delivery.

The employment figures truly do not make sense. Couple that with the timing of a desperate incumbent who just had his ass handed to him in the first presidential debate, and it only raises more questions.
Click to expand...

The only reason they don't make sense is because you don't like them. There is nothing even remotely suspicious about them. A revision of 83,000 is not unusual. In fact the average MONTHLY revision is around 70,000.

There is something we do know for sure, though. We know for sure that BLS has determined that they've undercounted jobs by about 350,000, and those 350,000 jobs are not yet reflected in their numbers. When are they going to be incorporated into their datablase? Not until February next year. Now ... if they were trying to help Obama, don't you think they would do that revision BEFORE the election? :roll:
 
What lies bigger than a republican losing an election? Nothing. All just lies and misinformation. But then, that's what the right feeds on to give it its opinions.
 
AdamT said:
The only reason they don't make sense is because you don't like them. There is nothing even remotely suspicious about them. A revision of 83,000 is not unusual. In fact the average MONTHLY revision is around 70,000.

There is something we do know for sure, though. We know for sure that BLS has determined that they've undercounted jobs by about 350,000, and those 350,000 jobs are not yet reflected in their numbers. When are they going to be incorporated into their datablase? Not until February next year. Now ... if they were trying to help Obama, don't you think they would do that revision BEFORE the election? :roll:
Click to expand...


Do you think that former full time employed persons, taking part time jobs should be counted as employed?
 
katsung47 said:
Fact Check: Labor SecretarySolis Misleads on Jobs RevisionsSuspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallenon Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning anddefended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the privatesector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisionsto state and federal government payrolls.

The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created inSeptember--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is thefastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiestpredictions.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July andAugust jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimateof public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually reviseddownward by 5,000.

In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs,adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained byany other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether thegovernment had changed the way it counted part-time workers.

Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions
Click to expand...

Normally, I try not to comment in threads dealing with poll numbers because of the obvious - most polls are very partisan. But since there's been such a ruckus over the recent unemployment figures, I figured I'd check with the one polling source I trust - Gallup - and see where they placed the numbers. You can imagine my surprise upon noticing that Gallup had the nation's unemployment rate at .02% lower than BLS (7.6% to 7.8%, respectively). In fact, Gallup adjusted the rate down by .01% which in itself was .01% lower than what was originally reported by BLS for 4Q, FY12.

What I take away from this is if you don't think you can trust BLS or any of the partisan polling figures for Rasmussen or the networks, go with the one source that has a proven history for its accuracy and integrity - Gallup!
 
Rapunzel52 said:
My assumption is that they actually held back those revisions up till this month, right before the election...how convenient. Plus upping more government jobs.
Click to expand...

This is assuredly what they did to be 'technically' non-criminal.
 
j-mac said:
Do you think that former full time employed persons, taking part time jobs should be counted as employed?
Click to expand...

They are employed. But that's beside the point. The method used to calculate employment has not changed. Why is it that you're complaining about it now -- 18 years after the benchmark was set -- and not previously? That's the point. You're only complaining about it because the numbers didn't come out the way you wanted them to.
 
Another aspect I haven't heard anyone talk about is the notion of "seasonal workers."

Obama's crowing about how he's sending unemployment numbers down, when in actuality it's just a bunch of (barely) part-time workers getting hired for the holiday season. ...Seasonal workers who will all be laid off in January. Not that Obama cares one fig about them...he'll be anointed ruler for another four miserable years.

I'd like to see what the unemployment rate is, without these seasonal workers. That would better reflect the actual job market, and be more indicative of how things would be in..say..July.

But we all know the answer to that...it would be miserable. Probably back up around 8.5%
 
If I understand the folks on Squawk box and the link they furnished below the household survey queries if one ‘worked over the past month’ at anything. If yes it counts as a job. The example they gave was if you mowed your neighbor’s lawn once it counts as a part time job, paid or not (pg 7). If you mowed it 6 times it would count as 6 part time jobs (pg 8). Right or wrong reviewing Chart 1 & 2 a monthly claim of 873k is GROSSLY out of line with historical data. The NBER report somewhat substantiates this also. Am I reading this wrong?

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14805.pdf?new_window=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom