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.
53,000 government jobs were lost!....Obama might have some explaining to do, but I guess he might have jetlag!
Jobs can take awhile to recover after a recession. Particularly a bad recession that Bush resided over!
Quote:
The downturns of 1990–91 and 2001 saw unemployment continue to climb even after the recessions ended, declining only a year or more after the economy had started growing again. It took about five years for the unemployment rate to drop below its pre-recession levels after the 1980–82 and 1990–91 recessions.
In order for 0bama to pass his stimulus he had his economic team release a report that estimated unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent IF we passed his stimulus package. He and his team were way off the mark, which means they based their report on faulty information, fudged it for partisan reasons, or just plain had no clue...
The other possibility is that you have no idea what a projection is and therefore no idea of how to use one. The point of the projection was that unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus package than without. The numerical scale at the left of the chart is essentially meaningless. It is entirely dependent upon the levels of the most recent available data. Those were primarily data for November 2008. If you ran that very same projection over again but using data from August 2009, the shape of the curves would be substantially the same, but values in the numerical scale at the left would shift markedly upward. That shift would be irrelevant as the story that the projection told would still be the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
...either way, they proved their were either incompetent and unreliable. The CBO has always been more accurate then the wizards of smart on the 0bama team.
No, the administration's projections have been within the same range as those of other major analyses, such as those done by CBO, the Fed, the Blue Chip boys, and others. The worst that can be said is that they were at times on the high side of that range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Time and time again, 0bama has shown his incompetence, his rosy predictions are always proven to be false, he even had to redo his own deficit estimates and increase it by $2 trillion, and most likely another $2 trillion more.
CBO has revised its projections as well. They had to go in the opposite direction. Seems like they're incompetent too, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Why should I ever believe anything this man says, when he is always proven wrong? Is he purposely lying to distort the facts? Are his advisers just political hacks, who only lie in order to pass legislation?
Why should you even bother about how accurate or even what the numbers are? You will have exactly the same message to spit out in any case. Obama = Bad. That's it for you. Next....
It's actually far worse than 9.8%
since early 90s both parties have been changing the way jobs are measured
if it was done the same way as early 80s/late 70s we'd be talking something in mid teens
Really? I would assume that most people would come down in favor of technological and methodological improvements over time...are you one who does not???
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisguy
For example there is something called a birth death model that measures how many jobs are created by small business... almost every month during this downturn (2 years!) its been adding jobs, many times 100-150K a month. So you can strip almost all those out and suddenly you have 2M more jobless, easy.
What a complete train wreck. The birth-death model accounts for the fact that loss of jobs from the death of small businesses is fairly easy to detect in a rolling sample of nearly 400,000 sites, but there is a lag between the birth of new small businesses and the time they and their jobs start showing up in the sample frame. Some correction for these invisible jobs has been made for decades. The current methodology is to surpress the detected job losses, then impute a net move that is on the trend-line for other firms in the sector. Those imputations are then adjusted by a factor based on the most recent five years of actual (i.e., not sampled) data. This is a very good methodology, but anyone would note that it works best in times of relatively stable activity, and less well during times of steep or sudden growth or contraction.
So, let's look at actual magnitudes. Back in the dark days of last Nov-Dec-Jan, the birth-death model sucked almost 2,000,000 jobs out of the not seasonally adjusted employment numbers. Over this past Jul-Aug-Sep quarter meanwhile, it added an average of 60,000 per month. That was against an average of some 3,700,000 new hires per month, and total employment of more than 138,000,000. Anyone who thinks that the small residual error that might remain within the 60,000 imputation is enough to corrupt numbers like 3.7 million and 138 million deserves to work for the New York Post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisguy
That is but one of a few examples - another example - if you are exasperated and dont "actively" look for a job for 4 weeks you no longer are unemployed in America. Presto magic.
Right, you are marginally attached. If you can't get off your duff to do anything at all for a month, you aren't trying and can't be said to actually be in the job market anymore. Meanwhile those who actually have left the labor force need to be tracked. How long do you want to count a worker who quits in order to go back to school as being unemployed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisguy
Labor force participation is down to a record low 65% in America. Many are turning to (a) disability (b) welfare and the like - they are no longer unemployed. Etc.
They are if they consider themselves available to work and take as many as one active step a month to look for work. The government doesn't make the call for these people -- they make it themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisguy
See here for full details - half the problem is garbage in garbage out reporting.
Birth/death is not easy to detect. It's actually a hard number because of an almost 12 month lag and they guessed wrong this year..they upped the number instead of lowering it due to the recession and the lack of liquidity to small and medium business owners.
Then again..the recession should have been over last summer, then last Fall, then first half of this year, now end of this year.
"One of our favorite bugaboos is finally getting its due: The horrifically misleading Birth Death adjustment.
It is finally being recognized in the mainstream as the massive data distorter that it is. The latest BLS analysis and data revision shows that during 2008, the Birth Death adjustment caused NFP payrolls to be significantly under reported."
not guna read 25 pages to see if i posted. its not a recession and recovery its a contraction.
those 10% of all jobs are not comin back. when uib is gone its welcome to mcdonalds may i take your order please. we are about to step off the reef, do not buy a house car or take out a student loan.
So lets build a giant Wall around American business and cut ourselves off from the global economy. That should do the trick!
there is no global economy there is one market you are standing on it and everybody sells here. and that my friend is why we got a trillion plus trade deficit with china that is not free trade that is dumping, something france has fought tooth and nail while we sink to the bottom of the pool smiling.
Birth/death is not easy to detect. It's actually a hard number because of an almost 12 month lag and they guessed wrong this year..they upped the number instead of lowering it due to the recession and the lack of liquidity to small and medium business owners.
Births are not easy to detect. That's why the data are imputed. Deaths are easy to detect because when you call an establishment in the sample, they tell you they have gone out of business. But those job losses from deaths are thrown out, and what's imputed is the net change on the basis of the sector trend-line in the current month. The component with the one-year lag is Step-2, the adjustment factor, which is based on the most recent five years of hard and very low level detail data. It's an important factor, but it contributes quite a bit less to the final birth/death imputation than does the real-time Step-1. And again, the birth/death factor itself is essentially trivial in comparison to the contribution of the monthly sample data. Suggestions that there are current residual errors in the birth/death imputations that are significant enough to alter the overall employment picture are not particularly realistic. The birth/death imputations also affect only the data collected via the establishment survey. The household survey which forms the basis of most unemployment data is not affected.
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.
