4 ms·
The BLS does a TERRIBLE job of managing the unemployment stats. The birth/death model just does not work at cycle changes. For a detailed look at these issues c
by JSig 16y ago
The BLS does a TERRIBLE job of managing the unemployment stats. The birth/death model just does not work at cycle changes. For a detailed look at these issues check out Mish's many posts at http://bit.ly/9yjUjN http://bit.ly/9yjUjN
Additionally, there is something going on beyond a flawed model. From zerohedge.com => http://bit.ly/b5AJsz http://bit.ly/b5AJsz
"Readers may be surprised to discover that beginning in April, of 2010, continuing through today, there have been 22 out of 23 consecutive upward prior weekly revisions! In other words, the BLS has a definitive mandate to underrepresent the "current" weekly data and to allow it to catch up with reality once it has become "prior", and thus no longer market moving, when in reality should the BLS present true data it would have likely missed estimates on more than half the occasions it has "beaten" and caused ridiculous market spikes like the one experienced earlier. Furthermore, combining all individual weekly data, demonstrates that the BLS has underrepresented initial claims by roughly 80,000 year to date."
Check out the post for a nice chart.
- rbranson 16y agoDisclaimer: zerohedge is a bunch of hysterical Austrian economist nutcases.
- SkyMarshal 16y agoAd hominem, try again.
- johnny22 16y agoPerhaps it's just bias, but i have real trouble taking any advice or getting news from somebody who goes by the pseudonym "Tyler Durden", or anybody who ends up getting published by said person.
- SkyMarshal 16y agoAgreed it's a bit silly, but it's still worth training yourself to look past that and evaluate the argument independently of its presentation and other irrevelant context. It's hard, and I use the word 'train' intentionally b/c it requires discipline and constant attention. But I've uncovered gems of understanding over the years from doing that, that I wouldn't have otherwise, some which confirmed my worldview, and others which refuted it or expanded it. Some people are brilliantly insightful, but just awful at communicating and presenting their understanding.
- natrius 16y agoPointing out biases isn't an ad hominem argument. Arguing that someone is wrong because of their biases is an ad hominem.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago'Hysterical' + 'nutcases' = ad hominem. Personal attack intended to discredit the argument. I wasn't referring to the 'Austrian' part. If someone thinks Austrian economics is wrong or a flawed framework for understanding some phenomena or topic, just explain why. Also, I'm not sure that their Austrian favoritism has any bearing on this particular claim. Arguing that the BLS is intentionally fudging and later revising data to mitigate its effect on the markets seems economic-creed-agnostic.
- rbranson 16y agoYou're the only one taking it personally. It's worth taking into account the bias of the source for any material.
- tbrownaw 16y agoThey're definitely nuts, but I hadn't noticed that they were any particular flavor (Austrian or otherwise).
- Natsu 16y agoWhy did you use bit.ly to shorten those URLs? This isn't Twitter. http://bit.ly/9yjUjN http://bit.ly/9yjUjN -> http://www.google.com/search?q=site:globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com+birth+death+model http://www.google.com/search?q=site:globaleconomicanalysis.b... http://bit.ly/b5AJsz http://bit.ly/b5AJsz -> http://www.zerohedge.com/article/charting-statistical-fraud-bls-22-out-23-consecutive-upward-revisions-initial-jobless-claims http://www.zerohedge.com/article/charting-statistical-fraud-...
- JSig 16y agoMy apologies. Thanks for making my hyperlinks work.