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.
"Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.
...Annual average estimates are calculated from the not seasonally adjusted data series."
Maybe you can't see how attempting to "measure" something is wrong when you're analyzing data. Did you seasonally adjust your grades in school? Did you seasonally adjust your recipes for the holidays? Did you seasonally adjust the chemicals in the pool?
Of course not, because it's an absolutely stupid thing to do unless you're trying to explain data to chimp.
How are you going to mesh global climate change and seasonally adjusted data together? (Snickers)
Great, then unemployment was just 5.4% in December! Great news!
I love how people think it was fake gains despite the fact full-time hiring was truly up since September and fewer jobs were part-time. Now yes, it isnt that good of wages that can happen soon enough.
"Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique that attempts to measure and remove the influences of predictable seasonal patterns to reveal how employment and unemployment change from month to month.
...Annual average estimates are calculated from the not seasonally adjusted data series."
Maybe you can't see how attempting to "measure" something is wrong when you're analyzing data. Did you seasonally adjust your grades in school? Did you seasonally adjust your recipes for the holidays? Did you seasonally adjust the chemicals in the pool?
Of course not, because it's an absolutely stupid thing to do unless you're trying to explain data to chimp.
How are you going to mesh global climate change and seasonally adjusted data together? (Snickers)
Professional economists and corporate CFOs (who are the primary target audiences for BLS data) don't CARE that much about the short-term fluctuations because they are trying to make LONG-TERM plans - so they want to know the LONG-TERM trends (without the clutter of seasonal patterns that have little impact on the long-term trends). Consequently the seasonally-adjusted data is of FAR more value to them than the non-seasonally-adjusted data. So tell me what exactly is "wrong" with looking at long-term trends to make long-term plans. The fact that YOU may not make long-term plans doesn't mean that OTHER people - especially professional finance people - DON'T.
If don't want to look at the seasonally-adjusted data - then DON'T. The non-seasonally adjusted data is always available. Business professionals however will continue to focus on what they care about MOST - and that's the SEASONALLY-ADJUSTED data.
They do. They take a sample of the population, mark their findings and release them as well as total job losses and new jobs per month. It's not anyone's fault other than yourself that you don't believe them. Now if the number of jobs as lower and fewer were full-time (which wasn't the case from September on at the least,) your complaint is valid. The problem is, they aren't.
I love how people think it was fake gains despite the fact full-time hiring was truly up since September and fewer jobs were part-time. Now yes, it isnt that good of wages that can happen soon enough.
Yeah, it cracks me up how the wingnuts always assume that the "raw" (ie non-seasonally-adjusted) data is somehow automatically "worse news" than the seasonally-adjusted data. Maybe that's just an example of the well-known phenomenon whereby dishonest people think EVERYONE is as dishonest as them (because it somehow makes them feel less dishonest). The fact is however that the folks of the BLS are CAREER ECONOMISTS. They are NOT political appointees and are by and large the VERY SAME group of people who performed their jobs under the Bush Administration. The idea that the BLS manipulates data to somehow further a political agenda is just ignorant garbage. They just do their job day-in, day-out no matter WHO the President is - just as they have done it for well over 100 years now.
We go through this every single time Mircea. I really pegged you as smarter than that. Numbers are seasonally adjusted to even out wild swings. You know that. I know that.
Then you also know Seasonal Adjustments are arbitrary and unnecessary.
Unless you're an anal retentive control freak, there is no logical reason to "smooth out" the data points on a graph.
The raw data --- the unadjusted numbers --- tell the story.
You should also know it misleads people, like this....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I love how people think it was fake gains despite the fact full-time hiring was truly up since September and fewer jobs were part-time.
147,265,000 July 2014
147,190,000 December 2014
--------------- 75,000 fewer Americans are working, because you've had 75,000 net job losses.
There is nothing fake about that.
Regarding your erroneous and misleading comment vis-a-vis Full-Time/Part-Time
119,900,000 Full-Time Workers July 2014
119,394,000 Full-Time Workers December 2014
--------------
506,000 Full-Time Workers have lost their job since July.
There are 506,000 fewer Full-Time Workers working and paying taxes.
There is nothing fake about that.
27,365,000 Part-Time Workers July 2014
27,796,000 Part-Time Workers December 2014
-------------
431,000 Part-Time Jobs created.
There is nothing fake about that, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein
You'll never believe them. You've done nothing so far to disprove that the current data isn't the truth.
As of 31 December 2014:
147,190,000 Employed
119,394,000 Employed Full-Time
27,796,000 Employed Part-Time
118,951,000 Employed in the Private Sector
That's the Current Data and it is the Truth.
If you can't handle it, you probably need to clear your schedule and call 211.
Then you also know Seasonal Adjustments are arbitrary and unnecessary.
Unless you're an anal retentive control freak, there is no logical reason to "smooth out" the data points on a graph.
.........
Mircea
See that's why it's OBVIOUS that there is NO WAY IN H*LL that you are "trained in economics".
Only someone REALLY IGNORANT ABOUT ECONOMICS would make such a STOOOOOOPID statement. Even a BASIC economics class will cover WHY "smoothing" is used. Heck, even EXCEL has a "smoothing" function.
Maybe you should begin your "economics" training here:
It's not spin, it's just a simple statement of FACT. 2014 saw the most jobs created since 1999. Did it see more people employed since 1999? No, the but CNN article NEVER SAID THAT. The CNN article said MORE JOBS WERE CREATED THAN ANY YEAR SINCE 1999 - and that's a FACT. CNN mentioned 1999 because that was the last time the U.S. created this many jobs - again, it's a simple statement of fact - and it's GOOD NEWS.
Let's see what LordHypocrite says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The US deficit/GDP ratio was MORE in 1945 than it is TODAY.
Quote:
Compared to the size of the GDP this is NOT the worse debt problem we've ever had. The US debt in 1945 was FAR bigger (20% bigger) when stacked up against the GDP than the debt today is....
The deficit is falling - both in terms of actual dollars and as a percentage of GDP -
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The US debt today - as a percentage of GDP - is LESS today than the debt in 1945.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The Federal deficit is falling fast - both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
It's not really the existence of the debt - or even it's size - it's it's size RELATIVE to the total US economy (and thus the US government budget) that's important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The deficit IS falling, and the ratio of the deficit to the GDP is falling even faster.
Well, there you go.
You adamantly insist that the Budget Deficit must be viewed relative to the GDP.
You adamantly insist that the federal debt must be viewed relative to the GDP.
When someone takes your "job creation" numbers and views them relative to the size of the working age population, or relative to the change in working age population or relative to the size size of the labor force, you have a freaking cow.
The next time there is a thread about the Budget Deficit or the federal debt, and you chime in with your silly "relative to GDP" posters will take your comments here and throw them in your face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
And no, I'm sorry, but I don't believe for ONE MINUTE that you have a BA in Economics.
Um, you're the one who believes Seasonally Adjusted Workers are real workers who pay taxes, not me.
Maybe you can't see how attempting to "measure" something is wrong when you're analyzing data. Did you seasonally adjust your grades in school? Did you seasonally adjust your recipes for the holidays? Did you seasonally adjust the chemicals in the pool?
Of course not, because it's an absolutely stupid thing to do unless you're trying to explain data to chimp.
Indeed......funny how no government agency uses Seasonally Adjusted data in any of their subsequent calculations or projectionss. It's strictly the raw unadjusted data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
How are you going to mesh global climate change and seasonally adjusted data together? (Snickers)
Typical Democrat chest thumping. They love to talk about jobs when the numbers are up.
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.
