4 ms·

Does anyone remember the unemployment rate dropping just before the 2012 Presidential election (and then rising again immediately afterwards)? These numbers ca

Does anyone remember the unemployment rate dropping just before the 2012 Presidential election (and then rising again immediately afterwards)? These numbers can't be trusted, and are nothing more than a tool for party control of government.

batoure 12y ago
that is simply untrue. If you spent any time trying to understand the data and the way it is produced you would understand why your comment is so outlandish. The BLS that produces these figures is basically a cult of numbers. they spend a huge amount of time correcting and reworking out of fear of this type of contamination and rigorously work to keep those numbers accurate.
sd8f9iu 12y ago
Which statistic are you interpreting this from? The Bureau of Labor Statistics' publications? In glancing at their unemployment rate estimates, it looks like the overall trend throughout 2012 and continuing into 2014 is negative, with some noise in between. Though the methods used to calculate unemployment statistics are frequently discussed (such as their inclusion or exclusion of workers who give up searching for a job), it seems like you are interpreting the noise for some mischievous activity (ironically, in a way similar to what this post discusses), for which you provide no evidence.
mikeyouse 12y ago
Seriously? http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=xNq http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=xNq
001sky 12y ago
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbe... Table 1 shows the revisions. October spiked month over month only to be reversed. And the 1st relase numbers show a "uptrend" for aug, sep, oct while the final numbers show a distinct "downtrend" for same. crossreference: p17, http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-ameri...

batoure 12y ago

that is simply untrue. If you spent any time trying to understand the data and the way it is produced you would understand why your comment is so outlandish. The BLS that produces these figures is basically a cult of numbers. they spend a huge amount of time correcting and reworking out of fear of this type of contamination and rigorously work to keep those numbers accurate.

sd8f9iu 12y ago

Which statistic are you interpreting this from? The Bureau of Labor Statistics' publications? In glancing at their unemployment rate estimates, it looks like the overall trend throughout 2012 and continuing into 2014 is negative, with some noise in between. Though the methods used to calculate unemployment statistics are frequently discussed (such as their inclusion or exclusion of workers who give up searching for a job), it seems like you are interpreting the noise for some mischievous activity (ironically, in a way similar to what this post discusses), for which you provide no evidence.

mikeyouse 12y ago

Seriously? http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=xNq http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=xNq

001sky 12y ago

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbe... Table 1 shows the revisions. October spiked month over month only to be reversed. And the 1st relase numbers show a "uptrend" for aug, sep, oct while the final numbers show a distinct "downtrend" for same. crossreference: p17, http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-ameri...