Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(10,893 posts)
22. 90% chance that the unemployment change is within +/- 300,000 of the stated value
Sat Dec 9, 2017, 09:08 AM
Dec 2017

Last edited Sat Dec 9, 2017, 10:37 AM - Edit history (3)

Unemployment rate = Unemployed/Civilian Labor Force:
October unemployment rate is 6,520,000/160,381,000 = 4.065% -> rounds to 4.1%
November unemployment rate is 6,610,000/160,529,000 = 4.118% -> rounds to 4.1%

That they are "statistically significant" doesn't mean they aren't very volatile with a huge margin of error.

On statistical noise, I found this BLS technical note on sampling error -- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm . Based on what it says, there is a 90% probability that the Establishment Survey's non-farm employment increase is within +/- 120,000 of the stated number. And a 10% chance that it is off by more than 120,000.

And in the Household Survey, there is a 90% chance that the monthly unemployment change is +/- 300,000 of the stated number (note this is 2.5 times the Establishment Survey's employment's sampling error). Also, that there is a 90% chance that the unemployment rate is about +/- 0.2% of the stated number.

Given that November's unemployment change was +90,000, that means there is a 90% chance, based on sampling error alone, that the unemployment change is somewhere between -210,000 and +390,000.

The above only covers sampling error. There are also many other sources of error (search the above link for "non-sampling error" )

Here are the monthly changes in the Employed from the Household Survey, in thousands:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
2016: 503 510 258 -273 30 32 456 109 271 -24 146 63
2017: -30 447 472 156 -233 245 345 -74 906 -484 57
January and February data are affected by changes in population controls.

Notice how it bounces around -- not surprising with statistical sampling error alone being +/- 300,000 (for the unemployed -- I don't know what it is for the employed ).


Ignoring monthly changes in January and February, the population controls adjustment months, and leaving out the two outliers: -484,000 and +906,000, it bounces around between about -250,000 and +500,000

This is the non-farm employee count from the Establishment Survey, in thousands
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

2016: 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155
2017: 216 232 50 207 145 210 138 208 38 244(P) 228(P)
(P): Preliminary

With the much larger sample size of the Establishment Survey, and again throwing out the two outliers: +38,000 and +297,000, the monthly changes are much smoother, varying between about +40,000 and +290,000

Wonderful news! Kilgore Dec 2017 #1
That is correct, regardless of administration. mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #2
Yes, thanks Obama! Fred Sanders Dec 2017 #13
Repugs will take credit highmindedhavi Dec 2017 #19
As always thanks for the monthly posting! BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #3
Thanks for the thanks. mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #15
Ha! BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #16
It was on the TV news, too. It looked pretty impressive for San Antonio. mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #17
But! But! The Labor participation rate... Norbert Dec 2017 #4
Trump always said to ADD 6% to those unemployment numbers--when OBAMA was Pres. Bengus81 Dec 2017 #5
Yes, Obama halved the unemployment rate so Shitler lied. Now he is OK with the number. Fred Sanders Dec 2017 #12
trump will make sure to reverse those numbers Marthe48 Dec 2017 #6
How can we know that these numbers are legit? Glimmer of Hope Dec 2017 #7
If you feel the Bureau of Labor Statistics is handing out bunk, start here: mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #11
Links to earlier reports mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #8
Huh? ProfessorGAC Dec 2017 #9
Different surveys progree Dec 2017 #20
Those Are All Statistically Significant ProfessorGAC Dec 2017 #21
90% chance that the unemployment change is within +/- 300,000 of the stated value progree Dec 2017 #22
As One With An MS... ProfessorGAC Dec 2017 #23
The mind-numbing rant, based on a version posted on the first Friday in September 2016: mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #10
I believe the numbers Steerpike Dec 2017 #14
word. i think a lot of people are in denial about the true state of our economy. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2017 #34
From the socialist sounding Bureau of Labor Statistics IronLionZion Dec 2017 #18
Honestly BFD,it was what 4.6--4.7 nearly a YEAR ago when Obama left office?? Bengus81 Dec 2017 #24
Trump sometimes talked about 94 million jobless Americans progree Dec 2017 #25
Problem is ... LenaBaby61 Dec 2017 #26
Inflation adjusted weekly earnings has been increasing since 1993, but still well below 1970's level progree Dec 2017 #27
"average" wages don't tell you a lot. a few good jobs and a lot of crappy ones average out to TheFrenchRazor Dec 2017 #33
Its the average for production and non-supervisory workers, which is why I use it progree Dec 2017 #35
The numbers, from the report: mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #30
Other useful links: mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #28
Additional tweets, articles, and comments mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #29
I would like to give thanks mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2017 #31
great; too bad most of them don't pay a living wage. the "average" wage doesn't tell anything. TheFrenchRazor Dec 2017 #32
When has there ever been? progree Dec 2017 #36
Thanks Obama treestar Dec 2017 #37
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Payroll employment increa...»Reply #22