That jobs report would seem to conflict with this one released only days ago:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ployment_states

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ That jobs report would seem to conflict with this one released only days ago: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ployment_states

didn't Michael Moore write that article?

After all isn't Michael just an arm of Kerry?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

For all of you who are paranoid about the jobs number, that it was fudged, you don't quite understand how the "system" works. Yes, the Labor Dept. is technically an executive agency, but the White House has no pull whatsoever in changing the numbers. The numbers are calculated as they have been for decades, or else they wouldn't be accurate across a period of time. If the Labor Dept. wanted to change the types of jobs included, they'd have to go back and recalculate decades of numbers to get them all on the proper scale.

Plus, the people who develop these numbers are career employees of the federal government. They are not political appointees.

And furthermore, the Labor Dept. understands that the validity of these numbers means a lot to capital markets, so the neutrality of their analysis is fiercly verified internally.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok For all of you who are paranoid about the jobs number, that it was fudged, you don't quite understand how the "system" works. Yes, the Labor Dept. is technically an executive agency, but the White House has no pull whatsoever in changing the numbers. The numbers are calculated as they have been for decades, or else they wouldn't be accurate across a period of time. If the Labor Dept. wanted to change the types of jobs included, they'd have to go back and recalculate decades of numbers to get them all on the proper scale. Plus, the people who develop these numbers are career employees of the federal government. They are not political appointees. And furthermore, the Labor Dept. understands that the validity of these numbers means a lot to capital markets, so the neutrality of their analysis is fiercly verified internally.

YEAH, what he said!

betta reconize my nizzles

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus didn't Michael Moore write that article? After all isn't Michael just an arm of Kerry?

We all know what the NY Post is an arm of, so let's see what they have to say...


http://www.nypost.com/business/17897.htm

quote:

OOPS! LABOR DEPT. LOST 321,000 AMERICAN JOBS! By JOHN CRUDELE April 1, 2004 -- LET'S make some trouble. Tomorrow morning the Labor Department will announce the number of new jobs created in March as well as the monthly unemployment rate. The experts - you will recognize them because for months they've been sitting in the corner with dunce caps on - are expecting 125,000 new positions to have appeared during the month and the unemployment rate to fall from 5.6 percent to 5.5 percent. We all know how politically sensitive these figures are, especially in a presidential election year. And I don't have to tell you how much Wall Street obsesses over them. Well, what if I told you that the Labor Department made 321,000 jobs disappear in January. If it hadn't been for this move, Washington would have reported monstrous growth of 433,000 jobs that month instead of a paltry 112,000. Don't believe me? Go to the Labor Department's website: http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm. This is a section on the so-called "birth/death model adjustment," and it's buried deep in thousands of pages of other facts and figures. You'll see a "-321" in the box under January 2004 - which means that 321,000 jobs were removed from the totals reported to the public. This'll make the experts and Republicans crazy (or at least that's my aim.) But the officially reported job count was reduced because models in the Labor Department's computers say - but can't prove - that many companies went out of business in January and took jobs with them. This is all very nutty stuff. Last year, for instance, the government computers concluded that jobs mysteriously appeared in nine of the last 10 months of 2003 because someone in the hidden netherworld of economic forecasting thought - but also couldn't prove - that new companies were being born. And remember, this company creation was supposedly happening when the economy was so blah that the folks in D.C. decided we desperately needed a tax cut. Normally the government comes up with its monthly jobs figures based on surveys of some 160,000 companies and government agencies, which may or may not tell the truth about hiring. The guesstimates on companies being born or dying are based on an economic model called the "auto-regressive integrated moving average." I don't know what the hell that means, but I did want to get some big words into this column. So let me give you a couple of bottom lines - if that isn't an oxymoron. First, take all numbers coming out of the Labor Department with a pillar of salt. Second, don't believe what the experts think. They have about as much chance of guessing the monthly labor number as Lotto queen Yolanda Vega has of figuring out which numbered balls are going to appear in the chute. Third, trust only this. After all the seasonal adjustments (which are now inexplicably done every month), the guesswork on the birth and death of companies, the millions of people who may have stopped looking for work, the offshoring of jobs and dozens of other statistical peculiarities - nobody really knows nothin' about the current job market. My guess: Friday's number will continue to show mediocre job growth because the economy isn't growing as strongly as Washington would like and because there is no real incentive for companies to take on the added cost of new workers. Let's call the rest: Fun With Numbers.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

The point is this:

If you don't believe these numbers because they are some stastical fallacy, or computer malfunction, then you should not beleive the same numbers when they say we are losing jobs.

You can't selectively say I want to listen to the Labor department only when they are reporting bad news - loss of jobs - and not good news - creation of jobs - because they are lying with their meothodoly


And that is just the thing... I haven't heard anyone (either from right or left) critize the authenticity of the numbers when they reported job losses, or meager job growth. Yet all of a sudden there is a good job growth, and people are crying fowl "no fair, no fair! this can't be! this looks bad for kerry it must be untrue".

Your thinking is politically motivated, and simply not correct - unless you are equally willing to condemn job loss numbers.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I've seen this condition before.

It's called selective reasoning disorder. It is a degenerative gasrtonuerological myopia brought on by repeated watching of old X-files episodes. In most cases it leads to sudden loss of values and sound decision making abilities.
I can recomend some excellent physicians in France that specialize in this area on an outpatient basis.

Unfreakinbelievable ... I knew the thread would turn to this eventually but I didn't know it would happen this quickly. Look people, statisticians and economists are NOT politicians. Government agencies such as the BEA, the labor department, the census bearuea, etc., are NOT politicians. They collect data as they have ALWAYS been doing for decades past, present it, and leave it up to the politicians to interpret it. Remember when Greg Mankiw from the council of economic advisors committed the political feaux pas of saying outsourcing actually aided the economy? Then EVERYBODY from the bush administration, republican congressmen, and democrats jumped on him calling for his resignation, etc.??? Guess what? He was speaking as an ECONOMIST NOT A POLITICIAN! Look, I've been following the data closely for the past 3 years through all of its up and downs so I'm going to make things quite simple for all of you ... either you value the credibility of the data as a whole or you do not beleive ANY of the data. You do not PICK AND CHOOSE which data you WANT to believe in and casually dismiss the data that goes against your arguments/convictions/beliefs unless you have a rational argument to support selective choice. Therefore which is it??? Did bush REALLY lose 2.5 million jobs as indicated by government statistics? Did Clinton REALLY maintain a 3.5% unemployment rate as indicated by government statistics? MAYBE in reality, 2000-2004 were remarkable boom years and 1992-2000 were recessionary years because government statistical agencies haven't a SHRED of credibility!!! Or MAYBE since the labor department and ANY government department are always lackeys of the administration in power we've been in CONTINUAL depression since the beginning of time!

Please ... this bipartisan bullshit is really pissing me off.

"Sticking to your guns" is not very condusive towards building integrity. One would like to think that the Bush administration is an excellent case in point. But in reality it appears that the phenomenom is widespread.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Apr-04-2004 at 07:02

you go Occrider! Tell them!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Haven't gotten around to this topic yet. The numbers are great for last month, exactly what Bush touted them to be, for the 1st time in 7 months. Congrats. But seriously, it is good news for the economy.

The bad news, however, is people are still quite discouraged about the job market:

quote:

The share of the U.S. population working or actively seeking a job has fallen to 65.9 percent, the lowest level in 16 years. Economists say the weak jobs market is causing people to give up their searches and drop out of the labor pool at an unusual pace - holding down the unemployment rate, which was 5.6 percent in February. "Normally in a recovery the participation rate would rise," said Sung Won Sohn, Wells Fargo's chief economist. "People hear about the improving economy and more job opportunities so they actually come out of the woodwork. We are seeing the opposite of what's been normal in the past. That's why the jobless rate has really become somewhat of a misleading indicator." That growing trend has caused the participation rate to fall 1.2 percentage points since the start of the recession in March 2001. This is the first time the participation rate has fallen 27 months into an economic recovery.

Crap, I lost the source. I'll find it if people are actually interested.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...