Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government plays games with the birth death model to cook these rates
Q: Do the birth/death factors vary from first preliminary to final estimate?
A: The birth/death factor for a given month does not change between 1st preliminary, 2nd preliminary, and final sample-based estimates. Q: Are birth/death factors seasonally adjusted?
A: No, they are calculated using population data that is not seasonally adjusted and the factors are applied to the sample-based not seasonally adjusted estimates. Months with generally strong seasonal increases such as April, May and June generally have a relatively large positive factor. Conversely, months with overall strong seasonal decreases, such as January, generally have a relatively large negative factor. Q: Can I subtract the birth/death adjustment from the seasonally adjusted over-the-month change to determine what it is adding to employment?
A: No. Birth/death factors are a component of the not seasonally adjusted estimate and therefore are not directly comparable to the seasonally adjusted monthly changes. Instead, the birth/death factor should be assessed in the context of its effect on the not seasonally adjusted estimate. Q: Can BLS provide an estimate of the contribution of the birth/death adjustment to the seasonally adjusted monthly payroll change?
A: BLS does not calculate an estimate of the seasonally adjusted contribution of the birth/death model. The sample, the imputation of business births using deaths, and the net birth/death model are all necessary components for obtaining an accurate total employment estimate. The components are not seasonally adjusted separately because they do not have any particular economic meaning in and of themselves. Q: How frequently are the birth/death figures revised and why do the values change?
A: Birth/death numbers are revised once a year with the benchmark revision. There are two reasons that the birth/death values change with the update. First, each year another 12 months of data are added to the historical series used in fitting the models. As a result of the additional data, the models provide updated results. Secondly, in general the amount of birth/death required is of a larger magnitude the further the reference month is from the benchmark. As a result one model is used to provide birth/death values for the first 12 reference months after the benchmark month, and the second model is used for providing birth/death values for 13 to 21 months from the benchmark. As an example, the first preliminary estimate for June 2003 was produced on the March 2002 Benchmark using a second year model. When the March 2003 Benchmark was implemented, the June 2003 birth/death factor came from a first year model. Q: How long has CES been using the birth/death factors and is the history of birth/death available?
A: Implementation of the birth/death factors was associated with the implementation of a new probability-based sample design and estimator. The new methodology was phased in gradually under the following schedule: Beginning in June 2000 (with March 1999 Benchmark), Wholesale Trade on an SIC-basis was under the new methodology; in June 2001 (with the March 2000 Benchmark), Mining, Construction, and Manufacturing, on an SIC-basis, were added; in June 2002 (with the March 2001 Benchmark), all of Total Private with the exception of Services were under the new methodology; with the conversion to NAICS in June 2003 (with the March 2002 Benchmark), all of the Total Private industries were produced under the new methodology.
Historical Birth/Death factors are available at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbdhst.htm. Q: Were estimates purely sample based before 2003?
A: No, prior to the implementation of birth/death modeling, CES used a technique known as bias adjustment to account for business births, business deaths, and other limitations of the survey.
Agreed. The status quo republicans don't have answers that work either. The same ones that put us in this horrible economic condition cannot be expected to fix things with business as usual.
They should quit trying to manage the economy. It hasn't worked out in the long run yet.
Really?
"Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
The U.S. Economy Benefits From A Solid Foundation
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s."
First we need to determine the threshold for which we attribute employment figures to Presidents.
If solid employment numbers can be attributed to Clinton, mediocre employment numbers can be attributed to Bush, then are abysmmal employment numbers attributed to Obama?
You are trying to blame Bush's fart on Obama, because the room was already stinking when he walked in.
If you walk in when the country is losing 800 000 jobs per month, then it will obviously take a long time until things normalize, but the graphs prove that the trend reversed almost immediately after he took office. We have gone from losing 800 000 per month to gaining 200 000, a difference of one million per month. If you want to compare Clinton, Bush and Obama, then you'll have to wait until Obama has served eight years, and I think you will lose, because after another five years the job situation will look pretty good.
PGH, Who's fault was the job losses between January 2009-March 2009?
You're talking about partisanship. You think its logical to blame Obama when he barely set foot into the White House and his policy hadn't taken in effect yet?
Especially since the trend of job losses were growing substantially prior to January 2009? January 2009-March 2009 simply continued the unemployment trend that was an effect of the economic collapse.
I could understand if everything was all peachy when Obama came into office AND THEN the job losses began.
Obama should get some of the blame for the stagnation and not improving as much as we could have since 2009.
But again to blame Obama for the lob losses in early 2009 and not place that blame on Bush is completely ignorant.
Can you tell me why then, that President Obama HIRED THE SAME GUYS RUNNING THE ECONOMY that President Bush HAD.
Its called THE ECONOMY.. Where the hell have I blamed Obama? See, another liberal who has to LIE about what others say
Has NO ONE here ever studied economic cycles? The economy goes up, it goes down, now its going back up.. ITS NOT RELATED TO ANY POLITICIAN.
Stop the crying about liberals so much.
You made the statement "And how many more are unemployed now, than when Obama was sworn into office? Nearly 2M "
Obama was sworn into office Jan. 2009 and most of those 2M job losses were between Jan 2009-March 2009.
So were you not blaming Obama in your statement I just quoted?
You are trying to blame Bush's fart on Obama, because the room was already stinking when he walked in.
If you believe politicians are responsible, at what part does Obama take the responsibility? How long after he gets sworn in, is it his responsibility?
Stop the crying about liberals so much.
You made the statement "And how many more are unemployed now, than when Obama was sworn into office? Nearly 2M "
Obama was sworn into office Jan. 2009 and most of those 2M job losses were between Jan 2009-March 2009.
So how again were you not blaming Obama is your statement I just quoted?
I made a FACTUAL statement.. Where did I blame Obama?
You are trying to blame Bush's fart on Obama, because the room was already stinking when he walked in.
If you walk in when the country is losing 800 000 jobs per month, then it will obviously take a long time until things normalize, but the graphs prove that the trend reversed almost immediately after he took office. We have gone from losing 800 000 per month to gaining 200 000, a difference of one million per month. If you want to compare Clinton, Bush and Obama, then you'll have to wait until Obama has served eight years, and I think you will lose, because after another five years the job situation will look pretty good.
You don't seem to have a grasp on economics here....
Many jobs were vulnerable to the economic collapse and were quickly lost. Industries like Construction contracted quickly.... There was no possible way that a pace of 800,000 job losses a month could be maintained, because alot of the job cuts occurred as quick as possible.
First we need to determine the threshold for which we attribute employment figures to Presidents.
If solid employment numbers can be attributed to Clinton, mediocre employment numbers can be attributed to Bush, then are abysmmal employment numbers attributed to Obama?
Or are you attempting to transpose 11 years of employment numbers on Bush and forgoing the blame that should be attributed to Obama under the Clinton forumula you just put forth?
Economic indicators do not neatly coincide with Presidential Administrations. However, we can look at what's going on in economic policy and see what happened afterward. I do not blame Bush for the recession that occurred near the beginning of his Presidency as his policies did not take hold. Likewise, I do not consider the continued fall in Obama's first quarter as his fault either.
You are trying to blame Bush's fart on Obama, because the room was already stinking when he walked in.
If you walk in when the country is losing 800 000 jobs per month, then it will obviously take a long time until things normalize, but the graphs prove that the trend reversed almost immediately after he took office. We have gone from losing 800 000 per month to gaining 200 000, a difference of one million per month. If you want to compare Clinton, Bush and Obama, then you'll have to wait until Obama has served eight years, and I think you will lose, because after another five years the job situation will look pretty good.
Yes and no. Obama should not be judged for 8 years, because a second term is not guaranteed. His first term is nearing its end, and that's the threshold for which Obama should judged.
You're still trying to peg 11 years of employment figures on Bush. I don't think that's fair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
