I'm reading tweets that the labor force actually grew? I don't understand how that math is possible...
ETA: oh ok, Household survey and establishment survey showing very different things this month. Household is +800K, and that's the one they use for the UE number. Establishment survey only 114K. Not sure what the precedent is for them being so different.
I thought the numbers just did not make sense. You can be sure Obama will be touting the new 7.8 as success. Any guess how the numbers will later be adjusted as they always are?
Post by cookiemdough on Oct 5, 2012 8:29:10 GMT -5
These metrics have been around for awhile I don't get why there is so little visibility in how this information is gathered. I am still trying to understand the revision upward of earlier months that came out recently.
I thought the numbers just did not make sense. You can be sure Obama will be touting the new 7.8 as success. Any guess how the numbers will later be adjusted as they always are?
I am sure he will tout the success but i am not sure how much it will help. The reality is a lot of people still don't feel like things are better despite these numbers.
I thought the numbers just did not make sense. You can be sure Obama will be touting the new 7.8 as success. Any guess how the numbers will later be adjusted as they always are?
Why wouldn't he tout them? Any sitting President would. And I am sure the GOP is going to be sad that they can no longer say unemployment is over 8%.
I thought the numbers just did not make sense. You can be sure Obama will be touting the new 7.8 as success. Any guess how the numbers will later be adjusted as they always are?
Why wouldn't he tout them? Any sitting President would. And I am sure the GOP is going to be sad that they can no longer say unemployment is over 8%.
Not really. So far conservative pundits I have seen don't really believe the numbers. There is already a counterargument in the works I am sure
Why wouldn't he tout them? Any sitting President would. And I am sure the GOP is going to be sad that they can no longer say unemployment is over 8%.
Not really. So far conservative pundits I have seen don't really believe the numbers. There is already a counterargument in the works I am sure
Well, yeah but even if there is a counter argument "unemployment over 8%" is a good soundbite. It doesn't work as well if you have to give a lengthy story about why the numbers are wrong. It isn't something you can put on mailers, like the 6 I got yesterday (stupid husband voting in the GOP primary).
Why wouldn't he tout them? Any sitting President would. And I am sure the GOP is going to be sad that they can no longer say unemployment is over 8%.
Not really. So far conservative pundits I have seen don't really believe the numbers. There is already a counterargument in the works I am sure
Apparently there are some conspiracy theories floating around about the numbers being tinkered with for partisan purposes, but that is incredibly unlikely. I have yet to check my Twitter feed today, which I am sure will be all over this, but at first glance, a conspiracy theory about these numbers sounds to me a bit like Al Gore blaming the altitude. Excuses excuses.
Not really. So far conservative pundits I have seen don't really believe the numbers. There is already a counterargument in the works I am sure
Apparently there are some conspiracy theories floating around about the numbers being tinkered with for partisan purposes, but that is incredibly unlikely. I have yet to check my Twitter feed today, which I am sure will be all over this, but at first glance, a conspiracy theory about these numbers sounds to me a bit like Al Gore blaming the altitude. Excuses excuses.
I think doing that makes these numbers more powerful than they are. Conservative pundits should be focusing on the numbers that aren't good (like 16K manufacturing jobs lost, still in double digit numbers in Nevada, still at 9+% in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina).
Apparently there are some conspiracy theories floating around about the numbers being tinkered with for partisan purposes, but that is incredibly unlikely. I have yet to check my Twitter feed today, which I am sure will be all over this, but at first glance, a conspiracy theory about these numbers sounds to me a bit like Al Gore blaming the altitude. Excuses excuses.
I think doing that makes these numbers more powerful than they are. Conservative pundits should be focusing on the numbers that aren't good (like 16K manufacturing jobs lost, still in double digit numbers in Nevada, still at 9+% in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina).
Manufacturing is a bit of a mixed bag right now.
American manufacturing rebounded in September, expanding for the first time in four months despite uncertainty at home and slumping economies around the globe.
The Institute for Supply Management on Monday said its index of factory activity, based on a survey of purchasing managers across the U.S., rose to 51.5 in September from 49.6 in August. It was the first time since May that the index crossed the 50-point threshold that indicates expansion. Gauges of new orders and employment also inched up, boosting hopes that production and hiring will improve in coming months.
I think doing that makes these numbers more powerful than they are. Conservative pundits should be focusing on the numbers that aren't good (like 16K manufacturing jobs lost, still in double digit numbers in Nevada, still at 9+% in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina).
Manufacturing is a bit of a mixed bag right now.
American manufacturing rebounded in September, expanding for the first time in four months despite uncertainty at home and slumping economies around the globe.
The Institute for Supply Management on Monday said its index of factory activity, based on a survey of purchasing managers across the U.S., rose to 51.5 in September from 49.6 in August. It was the first time since May that the index crossed the 50-point threshold that indicates expansion. Gauges of new orders and employment also inched up, boosting hopes that production and hiring will improve in coming months.
Honestly, I think everything is a mixed bag about now.
My point is that there are some numbers in this job report that conservative pundits can focus on instead of mumbling about some unspecific conspiracy theory.
So apparently former GE head honcho Jack Welch is at least one, if not the, source for the rumors of BLS number manipulation and everyone is pointing and laughing at him, including the WSJ.
I swear Jack Welch is losing his marbles. This isn't the first controversy he has courted of late.
I'm reading tweets that the labor force actually grew? I don't understand how that math is possible...
ETA: oh ok, Household survey and establishment survey showing very different things this month. Household is +800K, and that's the one they use for the UE number. Establishment survey only 114K. Not sure what the precedent is for them being so different.
I can't explain the difference. I care more about the trend anyway than 1 month, and really are we supposed to be happy about 7.8%? That's sad. But my question is, do these numbers get seasonally adjusted at all? How many of these additions to the labor force are part-time?
I'm reading tweets that the labor force actually grew? I don't understand how that math is possible...
ETA: oh ok, Household survey and establishment survey showing very different things this month. Household is +800K, and that's the one they use for the UE number. Establishment survey only 114K. Not sure what the precedent is for them being so different.
I can't explain the difference. I care more about the trend anyway than 1 month, and really are we supposed to be happy about 7.8%? That's sad. But my question is, do these numbers get seasonally adjusted at all? How many of these additions to the labor force are part-time?
Of the 873K jobs the household survey estimates were added, 582K are part time--so two-thirds.
WSJ does a good job of getting into the nuts and bolts here:
I'm reading tweets that the labor force actually grew? I don't understand how that math is possible...
ETA: oh ok, Household survey and establishment survey showing very different things this month. Household is +800K, and that's the one they use for the UE number. Establishment survey only 114K. Not sure what the precedent is for them being so different.
I can't explain the difference. I care more about the trend anyway than 1 month, and really are we supposed to be happy about 7.8%? That's sad. But my question is, do these numbers get seasonally adjusted at all? How many of these additions to the labor force are part-time?
I can't explain the difference. I care more about the trend anyway than 1 month, and really are we supposed to be happy about 7.8%? That's sad. But my question is, do these numbers get seasonally adjusted at all? How many of these additions to the labor force are part-time?
Of the 873K jobs the household survey estimates were added, 582K are part time--so two-thirds.
WSJ does a good job of getting into the nuts and bolts here:
I'm reading tweets that the labor force actually grew? I don't understand how that math is possible...
ETA: oh ok, Household survey and establishment survey showing very different things this month. Household is +800K, and that's the one they use for the UE number. Establishment survey only 114K. Not sure what the precedent is for them being so different.
I can't explain the difference. I care more about the trend anyway than 1 month, and really are we supposed to be happy about 7.8%? That's sad. But my question is, do these numbers get seasonally adjusted at all? How many of these additions to the labor force are part-time?
I wish 7.8% did not elicit excitement but when it was as high as 10%+, it is some progess in the right direction.