Fudging the Unemployment Numbers?

[soonercruiser]

So, when did the labor Department change the way they calculate the unemployment numbers.
I believe that it was AFTER obama was elected.
As I have said..."lies; damn lies; and then statistics.


Cal Thomas: Fudging the numbers on unemployment
BY CAL THOMAS Oklahoman 0 Published: February 11, 2012
The Obama administration is touting the latest unemployment numbers released last week by the U.S. Department of Labor as proof its policies are working. But a closer look at the actual number of able-bodied people who are willing to work, but are not, reveals a different picture.

As economist John R. Lott has written, not only is the drop in the unemployment rate from 8.5 percent to 8.3 percent still half a percentage point higher than when President Obama took office three years ago, the number of unemployed is higher. Compared with January 2009 when 11.6 million Americans were jobless, today, writes Lott, “there are 12.8 million unemployed and 43 percent have been out of a job for more than six months. The average length of unemployment has increased dramatically since the recovery started. Back in June 2009, ‘only' 29 percent of the unemployed had been unemployed longer than six months.”


Lott examined the Labor Department's statistics and found nearly 1.2 million Americans no longer in the labor force. That means most have given up looking for work and are no longer counted as unemployed. That fact skews the statistics to make the employment picture appear better than it is.

Real unemployment is mostly ignored by the major media, which was happy to tout the latest jobless rate reduction as a boon to Obama and a problem for Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. Most reporting has focused on the impression voters might have of an economic recovery, or at least trending in the right direction. The opposite is true and it is up to Romney to make that case.
Read more: http://newsok.com/cal-thomas-fudging-the-numbers-on-unemployment/article/3647820#ixzz1mESoRUOB

[yermom]

as far as i know, it was the same under Bush

[Midtowner]

The economy is improving. That is really upsetting to right wing columnists.

[SoonerPride]

That # Lott supposedly found has been widely refuted as false and a misreading of the statistics.


economic journalist and Washington Post columnist Barry Ritholtz explained that those who are claiming that 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in January are misreading the Labor Department's jobs report:
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201202060007

[soonercruiser]

More.....


What the New Unemployment Numbers Are Telling Us
By John R. Lott, Jr.

The new unemployment numbers are a lot worse than the headlines indicate. The news media is breathlessly reporting today that 120,000 jobs were created in November. But with the working age population increasing by about 160,000 people each month, job creation isn’t even keeping up with the number of people entering the work force. So how is it possible for the unemployment rate to fall from 9.0 to 8.6 percent?

The explanation is actually pretty simple. People are only counted as unemployed as long as they are actively looking for work. It is good news when the number to falls if it means that Americans are getting new jobs. It is not so good if the number falls because people are simply giving up looking for work.

In November, the numbers could hardly have been worse -- 487,000 people simply gave up looking for work and left the labor force. That is the 6th worst report since the recession started 48 months ago. Even more startling, 5 of those 6 worse reports have occurred since the “recovery” supposedly started in June 2009
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FNNewUnemplNumbers120211.html

Fudging the Unemployment Numbers
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2012/02/fudging-unemployment-numbers.html

Fudging The Latest Unemployment Numbers
I have always believed that as we nearer to the 2012 election, we will see loads of “good news on the economy”stories released by this administration and it’s media lap-dogs. This article from Zero Hedge dissects the recent “good news” on the latest unemployment numbers and illustrates how easy it is for Democrats to twist the truth.
From ZeroHedge.com
http://themorningspew.com/2012/02/04/fudging-the-latest-unemployment-numbers/

Now this is the 1995 BLS document on expanding the "alternative employment data"
But, I do not believe that all administartions since have used the current numbers as they are now.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf


Is it true that in the calculation of nation's unemployment rate un-employees who stopped receiving unemployment benefits are not counted?
Answer:
This is true, so the rate being thrown around is very misleading. This was made a big "talking point" in the 80s when they were also trying to downplay the recession, but I am not sure what the proper references are, although I used to. After unemployment runs out or if people change to "self-employed" or entrepreneurs no matter how underpaid they are they are no longer counted. This assisted the transition to many if the workforces being forced into temps jobs with little or no benefits, or being lost to homelessness or dire poverty. Also those getting welfare even in back to work programs are not counted.
Here is an explanation of who are excluded, from an Answers.com discussion of the different types of unemployment, from an economist view point: See the Related Link below on Structural Unemployment.
Hidden unemployment
Hidden, or covered, unemployment is the unemployment of potential workers that is not reflected in official unemployment statistics, due to the way the statistics are collected. See the Related Link below.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_true_that_in_the_calculation_of_nation's_une mployment_rate_un-employees_who_stopped_receiving_unemployment_benef its_are_not_counted#ixzz1mEgNUeLH

[SoonerPride]

More.....


What the New Unemployment Numbers Are Telling Us
By John R. Lott, Jr.

The new unemployment numbers are a lot worse than the headlines indicate. The news media is breathlessly reporting today that 120,000 jobs were created in November. But with the working age population increasing by about 160,000 people each month, job creation isn’t even keeping up with the number of people entering the work force. So how is it possible for the unemployment rate to fall from 9.0 to 8.6 percent?

The explanation is actually pretty simple. People are only counted as unemployed as long as they are actively looking for work. It is good news when the number to falls if it means that Americans are getting new jobs. It is not so good if the number falls because people are simply giving up looking for work.

In November, the numbers could hardly have been worse -- 487,000 people simply gave up looking for work and left the labor force. That is the 6th worst report since the recession started 48 months ago. Even more startling, 5 of those 6 worse reports have occurred since the “recovery” supposedly started in June 2009
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FNNewUnemplNumbers120211.html

Fudging the Unemployment Numbers
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2012/02/fudging-unemployment-numbers.html

Fudging The Latest Unemployment Numbers
I have always believed that as we nearer to the 2012 election, we will see loads of “good news on the economy”stories released by this administration and it’s media lap-dogs. This article from Zero Hedge dissects the recent “good news” on the latest unemployment numbers and illustrates how easy it is for Democrats to twist the truth.
From ZeroHedge.com
http://themorningspew.com/2012/02/04/fudging-the-latest-unemployment-numbers/

Now this is the 1995 BLS document on expanding the "alternative employment data"
But, I do not believe that all administartions since have used the current numbers as they are now.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

American Spectator debunks Zero Hedge. This is a conservative news outlet telling you that Zero Hefge is wrong. Got it?


American Spectator Blog: "The Claims Of A Big One-Month Drop In Labor Force And Participation Rate Are Simply Wrong." In a February 3 post on the blog of The American Spectator, a conservative publication, Ross Kaminsky wrote that it's "simply not true" that "the participation rate dropped .03 percent and the labor force dropped more than 1.2 million in the past month." From Kaminsky's post

[soonercruiser]

OK! Here's the story that I was looking for!
The BLS has changed their methods in 2010!


U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment
Updated 12/28/2010 3:05 PM

By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been joblessThe move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Likening recessionary unemployment spikes in recent decades to a storm at sea, she says, "The waves are getting higher, and we want to understand the intricacies of how they're made up."

The change involves the form used for the bureau's Current Population Survey, based on interviews with thousands of the unemployed. Currently, no matter how much longer than two years someone has been out of work, the form allows interviewers to check off only "99 weeks or over." Starting next month, jobless stints of "260 weeks and over" can be selected on the response form.

"The BLS doesn't make such changes lightly," Barrington says. Stacey Standish, a bureau assistant press officer, says the two-year limit has been used for 33 years.

A two-year limit hampers economists' ability to compare this recession's effect on the job market with another severe one in the early 1980s, Barrington says.

Although "this feels like something we've not experienced" since the Great Depression, she says, economists need more information to be sure.

The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm

[StoopTroup]

Is it possible that many of the folks missing from the ranks of the workforce have just changed the way they used to live and gone back to just a one income family. Maybe some quit buying a new car every 3-4 years and are taking a more conservative approach to the way they live their lives?

Is it possible that if the above is happening, that really the folks in those links are really the ones trying to fudge the numbers? It could be pretty handy to try during the current rally to try and scare everyone in America from re-electing the current POTUS.

Just a thought.

[SoonerPride]

OK! Here's the story that I was looking for!
The BLS has changed their methods in 2010!


U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment
Updated 12/28/2010 3:05 PM

By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been joblessThe move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Likening recessionary unemployment spikes in recent decades to a storm at sea, she says, "The waves are getting higher, and we want to understand the intricacies of how they're made up."

The change involves the form used for the bureau's Current Population Survey, based on interviews with thousands of the unemployed. Currently, no matter how much longer than two years someone has been out of work, the form allows interviewers to check off only "99 weeks or over." Starting next month, jobless stints of "260 weeks and over" can be selected on the response form.

"The BLS doesn't make such changes lightly," Barrington says. Stacey Standish, a bureau assistant press officer, says the two-year limit has been used for 33 years.

A two-year limit hampers economists' ability to compare this recession's effect on the job market with another severe one in the early 1980s, Barrington says.

Although "this feels like something we've not experienced" since the Great Depression, she says, economists need more information to be sure.

The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm

Did you even read this?


The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed

Um. I think you are tilting at windmills, Don.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

But a closer look at the actual number of able-bodied people who are willing to work, but are not, because they have not found a job they are willing to accept ....

FIFY

[badger]

Anyone that has taken an economics class in high school knows that you only count those that are willing and able to work as unemployed (if they don't have jobs).

You can't count infants as unemployed.

You can't count retired persons as unemployed.

You can't count the bum on the street that has never had a job in his life as unemployed.

You can't count the stay-at-home mom as unemployed.

You can't count the full-time student that is getting 100 percent of the expenses handled by mommy and daddy as unemployed.

The list goes on endlessly.

People that complain how the unemployment numbers are calculated are probably also complaining when the unemployment rate is 5 percent. OMG! FIVE PERCENT OF OUR COUNTRY DOESN'T HAVE A JOB!!!!!!

[Midtowner]

1. Read a headline
2. Interpret it wildly out of context
3. Use out of context assumptions to support anti-Obama beliefs
4. OUTRAGE!

[XingTheRubicon]

Yeah, that's just right-wingers trying to distort the unemployment numbers...just like they have distorted GDP growth, housing, etc...

[badger]

5. ???
6. PROFIT!!!!

[soonercruiser]

Anyone that has taken an economics class in high school knows that you only count those that are willing and able to work as unemployed (if they don't have jobs).

You can't count infants as unemployed.

You can't count retired persons as unemployed.

You can't count the bum on the street that has never had a job in his life as unemployed.

You can't count the stay-at-home mom as unemployed.

You can't count the full-time student that is getting 100 percent of the expenses handled by mommy and daddy as unemployed.

The list goes on endlessly.

People that complain how the unemployment numbers are calculated are probably also complaining when the unemployment rate is 5 percent. OMG! FIVE PERCENT OF OUR COUNTRY DOESN'T HAVE A JOB!!!!!!

Sorry Badger.,
The facts are that they have changed how they view the chronically unemployed in their statistics.
And, Midtowner, even though they "have not changed how they actually calculate unemployment".....THEY HAVE DECIDED TO CHANGE HOW THEY COUNT ONE OF THE NUMBERS THEY USE TO CALCULATE!!!
Duh!
Too bad you can't read between the lines!

Any basic algebra student can tell you that makes a difference!
And, any person who has had statistics classes can tell you that only a sample size of at least 10% will yield valid assumptions about the group.
Surveying 1,000 workers????!!!!

[SoonerPride]

Sorry Badger.,
The facts are that they have changed how they view the chronically unemployed in their statistics.
And, Midtowner, even though they "have not changed how they actually calculate unemployment".....THEY HAVE DECIDED TO CHANGE HOW THEY COUNT ONE OF THE NUMBERS THEY USE TO CALCULATE!!!
Duh!
Too bad you can't read between the lines!

Any basic algebra student can tell you that makes a difference!
And, any person who has had statistics classes can tell you that only a sample size of at least 10% will yield valid assumptions about the group.
Surveying 1,000 workers????!!!!

And yet it took from 2010 to Jan 2012 for this change to positively affect the unemployment rate?

Yeah.

Right.

hmm, again I think you're tilting at windmills.

[Midtowner]

Sorry Badger.,
The facts are that they have changed how they view the chronically unemployed in their statistics.
And, Midtowner, even though they "have not changed how they actually calculate unemployment".....THEY HAVE DECIDED TO CHANGE HOW THEY COUNT ONE OF THE NUMBERS THEY USE TO CALCULATE!!!
Duh!
Too bad you can't read between the lines!

Any basic algebra student can tell you that makes a difference!
And, any person who has had statistics classes can tell you that only a sample size of at least 10% will yield valid assumptions about the group.
Surveying 1,000 workers????!!!!

You're going to have a hard time arguing your way around this:


The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times.

(from the article you posted with the big 'ol letters at the top making sure everyone would see it)

[badger]

I'm not trying to call out anyone here for attending or not attending classes in high school, but rather, I am just kind of rolling my eyes at this criticism. It's like complaining that an immobile car is red instead of blue. While everyone tut-tuts about the inferiority of the redness of the car, I'm scratching my blond mop trying to figure out why the real criticism isn't that THE CAR DOESN'T WORK.

With unemployment, you can complain that that numbers are fudged... but even the fudged numbers suck, so who cares how much they are fudged. Having the unemployment rate drop a tenth of a point does not make unemployed people any happier, nor will it make them any more likely to vote for Obama. Rather, it might just make them angrier that some people are getting employed and they are still struggling to make ends meet as they continue living off of government programs they might have once been too proud to accept.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

That # Lott supposedly found has been widely refuted as false and a misreading of the statistics.


http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201202060007

Quoting MediaMatters is just as if you have O'Bammy on the phone...They lie, O'Bammy lies, the MSM lies...

[SoonerPride]

That # Lott supposedly found has been widely refuted as false and a misreading of the statistics.


http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201202060007

Quoting MediaMatters is just as if you have O'Bammy on the phone...They lie, O'Bammy lies, the MSM lies...

Would you trust the Rupert Murdoch controlled Wall Street Journal?

Doubtful. They write above a third grade level.

[Midtowner]

Email forwards =/= argument. The rules on how unemployment is computed haven't changed. President Bush and before used the same method.

[yermom]

the right wingers loved to use the employment numbers under Bush to show how great and stable the economy he gave us was

[Turd_Ferguson]

The left wingers love to use the previous admin as an excuse why there beloved commrunity organizer hasn't done jack **** for this country...

[East Coast Bias]

You would think Republicans and Democrats alike would rejoice in the prospect that maybe things could be moving in the right direction? A big part of this whole thing is consumer confidence and positive news helps to build that. Trying to somehow spin this in the other direction tells me that there are groups that want the country to fail in the short term. If this positive trend develops steam Pubs are in dire straits.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You would think Republicans and Democrats alike would rejoice in the prospect that maybe things could be moving in the right direction? A big part of this whole thing is consumer confidence and positive news helps to build that. Trying to somehow spin this in the other direction tells me that there are groups that want the country to fail in the short term. If this positive trend develops steam Pubs are in dire straits.and just like SP, you're a hypocrite...

[Whet]

Media Matters? Figures.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Help me, because I don't think I'm quite grasping the lie here.

If they extended the timeframe under which those unemployed can file as job-seeking, thus qualifying them as unemployed for the unemployment numbers, isn't unemployment being skewed to a GREATER number than before the change? Which in turn would reflect a more accurate number of those unemployed yet job-seeking for periods longer than before?

Honest question.

[SoonerPride]

The left wingers love to use the previous admin as an excuse why there beloved commrunity organizer hasn't done jack **** for this country...

Yeah other than turn the economy around that Bush drove off a cliff thus avoiding a second Republican-lead Great Depression.

Yeah except that, nothing much.

Oh well there's always healthcare reform insuring 32,000,000 more Americans using the personal responsibility model championed by the GOP for the prior two decades.

But beyond that, yea he hasn't really done anything.

Well there was the bullet in bin Laden's brain. You know, that guy Bush said he "didn't think much about?" Yeah that guy. At least one president said he was going to care about him. And now he sleeps with the fishes. Funny how that worked out, huh?

So sure. He ain't done nuthin.

[pphilfran]

The shaky foundation for the economy that Bush drove off the cliff was put in place prior to Bush taking office...

It is actually too early to tell if health care reform is all it is made out to be....

Info that led to the capture of Bin Laden was gathered over many years...the military and information gathering sources should get the vast majority of the credit for the death of BL...

How about immigration reform? Energy policy?

Do you agree with bailing out Chrysler and then selling a majority share to Fiat, an Italian company?

Are you comfortable with projected debt levels moving forward?

[Turd_Ferguson]

But beyond that, yea he hasn't really done anything.

Well there was the bullet in bin Laden's brain. Pretty sure I haven't seen any photos of Obama wearing kevlar and holding an M4...

[soonercruiser]

The shaky foundation for the economy that Bush drove off the cliff was put in place prior to Bush taking office...

It is actually too early to tell if health care reform is all it is made out to be....

Info that led to the capture of Bin Laden was gathered over many years...the military and information gathering sources should get the vast majority of the credit for the death of BL...

How about immigration reform? Energy policy?

Do you agree with bailing out Chrysler and then selling a majority share to Fiat, an Italian company?

Are you comfortable with projected debt levels moving forward?

Worn out leftist arguments....
It has already been proven and stated several times that Clinton merely rode the technology boom, and Booosh got an economy in decline from Clinton.
Then, 9-11!
Obama got an bad economy from Booosh, then spent the country in economic collapse to pay back his friends; while not creating any shovel-ready jobs!
And, he jokes about it!
:dispirited:

[Midtowner]

The shaky foundation for the economy that Bush drove off the cliff was put in place prior to Bush taking office...

True, but Bush did nothing to improve things. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was probably the biggest domino to fall and that was under Clinton's watch. Bush did preside over quite a bit of deregulation via stripping funding and resources from regulatory agencies though. When the SEC attorneys are having to use Kinko's copiers battling Wall Street law firms, something is grossly wrong with that.


It is actually too early to tell if health care reform is all it is made out to be....

Time will tell...


Info that led to the capture of Bin Laden was gathered over many years...the military and information gathering sources should get the vast majority of the credit for the death of BL...

Fair, but who would be getting blamed if we had remained in Afghanistan and still not laid a hand on OBL?


How about immigration reform? Energy policy?

Good luck getting anything meaningful through the legislature, but yeah, those are huge problems.


Do you agree with bailing out Chrysler and then selling a majority share to Fiat, an Italian company?

Absolutely. They were German before they were American. Daimler-Chrysler anyone? This moved saved thousands of American jobs. The bailout of GM was needed as well.


Are you comfortable with projected debt levels moving forward?

Anyone who is, IMHO is totally insane. Trouble is, our parties are set up for gridlock (probably by design). One party won't cut spending, even though it's at an insanely high level. The other won't raise taxes, even though our spending is through the roof and our taxes are about as low as they've been in the last century or so.

I appreciate your post. No childish email forward crap, acknowledging problems with both parties, etc. If more Americans were like you, I wouldn't care who they voted for because they'd be doing it for smart reasons instead of voting against some cartoonish version of the opponent conjured up by some SuperPAC and thinking folks like Sarah Palin are great leaders.