Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71
The truth is, THE NUMBERS ARE PROPPED!!
When people run out of unemployment, they are no longer included in the unemployment figures.
Why is that so hard to understand?
|
It's hard to understand because the statement is untrue.
Unemployment in the US is (and has been for decades and decades) based entirely on a telephone survey and nothing more. At no time in the history of the US has unemployment ever been based on the number of persons collecting unemployment benefits.
Before listening to some retard wannabe on a some propaganda web-site, you might want to actually look and see how your government determines unemployment.
The first thing you need to know about unemployment is that the BLS uses a theoretical statistical model -- the Birth-Death Model (BDM) ---- to calculate the number of unemployed.
Many people (myself included) have known or suspected for a very long time that the BDM is heavily flawed. In fact, the more knowledge people here on C-D had a nice thread/discussion on that a few years go. Lo and behold, shortly thereafter, our suspicions were confirmed as BLS publicly admitted for the first time since 1994 that the BDM was statistically flawed.
You can find the analytical tables the BLS uses for "Seasonal Adjustment" (snicker) here...
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) Home Page
You can see the, uh, "validation" here...
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.tab1.txt
The longitudinal surveys (the numerical basis) are here...
National Longitudinal Surveys Home Page
The specific data utilized by the BLS comes from these two surveys...
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97)-- Survey of young men and women born in the years 1980-84; respondents were ages 12-17 when first interviewed in 1997.
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79)-- Survey of men and women born in the years 1957-64; respondents were ages 14-22 when first interviewed in 1979.
Note that the BDM --- Birth-Death Model -- has nothing to do with the birth/death of people, rather it models the birth/death of businesses in the US.
That is one reason it is flawed....
The other reason is the weighting system...
AE(
p) = estimate of all employees for the previous month
i = the
i-th sample unit
wi = the weight for the
i-th sample unit
aec(
i) =
i-th sample unit that reports for the current month
aep(
i) =
i-th sample unit that reports for the previous month
...allowing you to tweak is the sample weight.
Just playing around, the jobs report can be +/- 200,000 jobs or so, meaning 236,000 jobs could be 436,000 jobs, or it could be 36,000 jobs, depending on the sample weight and other factors like seasonally adjusting.
It's effectively statistical manipulation based on idealism, and it uses Tautology --- a Circular Argument:
This data is messing up my graph, so we can exclude it, and we can exclude it, because it is a measurement error, and we know it is a measurement error, because this data is messing up my graph, so we can exclude it, and we can exclude it because it is a measurement error, and we know it is a measurement error, because this data is messing up my graph, so we can exclude it...
March 1996, Vol. 119, No. 3
Slower economic growth affects the 1995 labor market Jennifer M. Gardner and Howard V. Hayghe
Job growth slowed dramatically in 1995, but the unemployment rate remained little changed. This article reviews the important changes in the employment picture that occurred in 1995, as the economy was cooling down from 1994's robust expansion.
Let's look at the footnote....
The Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationwide sample survey conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census, collects information about the demographic characteristics and employment status of the noninstitutional population aged 16 and older. In January 1996, the CPS sample was reduced from about 60,000 households to approximately 50,000 households.
[Bold and Underlined emphasis mine]
Slower economic growth affects the 1995 labor market (ABSTRACT), Monthly Labor Review Online, Mar. 1996
Expansion of the Current Population Survey Sample Effective
July 2001
Ryan T. Helwig, Randy E. Ilg, and Sandra L. Mason
Effective with the release of July 2001 data, official labor force estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS) and Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program reflect the expansion of the monthly CPS sample from about 50,000 to about 60,000 eligible households.
[Bold and Underlined emphasis mine]
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/pu..._2000-2004.pdf
That's not propaganda.....those are federal government documents from federal government web-sites.
Reducing the household survey from 60,000 to 50,000 skews the weighting system and falsely makes the unemployment data look good.
Yet, the Census Bureau upped the survey numbers from 50,000 back to 60,000.
This expansion of the monthly CPS sample was one part of the Census Bureau's plan to meet the requirements of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation
Who on this forum would like to know why?
Increasing the sampling weight increases the number of children estimated to be the SCHIP thereby requiring more tax money
When the Census Bureau did their survey of "uninsured Americans" you can rest assured they used 60,000 households as the sample weight to inflate the numbers as high as possible, instead of using a lower number of households in the sample.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/pu..._2000-2004.pdf
Anyway, if you want to complain about the employment/unemployment figures, fine, but do it based on Reality™ and back it up with facts.
A salute and nod to Krazeekrewe for the links.
Understanding...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Instead of getting POed, complain about longstanding government policies that do not hinder outsourcing. Complain about Republicans in Congress who campaigned on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," then refused to pass Obama's jobs bill that would have added 1,000,000 jobs.
|
Outsourcing is a natural event that takes place in accordance with the Laws of Economics.
Attempting to violate the Laws of Economics by "hindering" that which happens naturally would only result in more job losses.
And Obama's jobs bill not have added 1 Million jobs.
Economically...
Mircea
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.
