Michigan unemployment rises to 12.6% in March

[notesdev]

Unemployment rose in 46 states and Washington, D.C., in March, with Michigan leading the way at 12.6%, the government said Friday.

The most dramatic increase was in Oregon, which went from 10.7% to 12.1% - the second-highest among the states.

Oregon was followed by South Carolina, at 11.4% in March, and California, at 11.2%.

The Michigan job market has been hit hard by the battered auto industry. The Big Three carmakers have shed tens of thousands of jobs because of giant corporate losses and waning demand for vehicles.

Liz Ski, an auto industry job recruiter at Hire Expectations in the Detroit suburb of Livonia, said she's getting less than half the business compared to a year ago.

"Usually, this is the time of year we start picking up, but lately it's been real slow," Ski said.

In Oregon, employment is heavily reliant on the lumber industry, which has suffered from the decline in homebuilding in California and elsewhere.

Other states with double-digit unemployment include North Carolina (10.8%), Rhode Island (10.5%), Nevada (10.4%) and Indiana (10%).

North Dakota had the lowest unemployment rate at 4.2%.

The nationwide unemployment rate in March was 8.5%, an increase from 8.1% the prior month.

---

My comment: note that this is the "official" unemployment rate, which for various cynical political reasons has been manipulated to produce a number that looks better than the actual. A 12.6% on the U-3 translates to 20%+ on the U-6, and probably something in the neighborhood of 25% actual, real-life unemployment.

In other words, one out of four people who want to work in the state of Michigan cannot find a job.

[notesdev]

1. link to story

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Michigan-unemployment-rises-cnnm-14956843.html?.v=1?sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

[ClarkUSA]

2. Thanks to Pres. Obama, high-unemployment states get an extra 13 weeks of UI...

in addition to the year-plus they have now. Hopefully, they won't need it.

[Oregone]

3. YES. Go Oregon!

I think itll take the lead in a few months!


:bounce:


My prediction of 15% UE a few months back doesn't seem so silly anymore

[xchrom]

4. whoa -- shit -- those numbers are fuckin bleak! nt

[pinqy]

5. Again with the misrepresentations.

"note that this is the "official" unemployment rate, which for various cynical political reasons has been manipulated to produce a number that looks better than the actual" Since it's been calculated pretty much the same way for almost 70 years and is the International standard, where are you getting the manipulation idea from?

And "In other words, one out of four people who want to work in the state of Michigan cannot find a job." is blatantly dishonest. Let's say if a U-6 for MI was calculated and was 25%...that does not mean 1 in 4 can't find a job since the U-6 includes people who aren't looking and also people who have jobs but whose hours have been cut to part time and those working part time but want to work full time (whether or not they're looking for full time work). If you have a job you don't need to find one, you have one, and the part time number is irrespective of whether or not the person is looking for full time work. And saying someone who isn't looking for work can't find a job is ridiculous. How on earth would you know if they couldn't find one or not if they looked?

The Unemployment rate of 12.6% for Michigan means that of the people who have or are looking for work, 12.6% can't find any work at all.

[girl gone mad]

6. U3 has become heavily politicized.

It hasn't been calculated the same way for over 70 years. Many of the data points which used to be calculated in U3 have been removed.

The growing spread between U3 and U6 tells the story:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jbs0fnMs1sc/SWjuR-ZsI7I/AAAAAAAAAEc/5_1qtVDwz_E/s400/U6-U3+Spread+10JAN2009.PNG


the true unemployment number is somewhere in between U3 and U6.

I like http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/06/unemployment-reporting-a-modest-proposal-u3-u6/">Barry Ritholtz's proposal:

U3 is the "official unemployment rate" according to the BLS website. Due to this, it is the current measure of Unemployment that gets focused upon by most media, and therefore the public. It has, over the years, slowly excluded many of the factors that USED to go into how the US reported unemployment. Hence, there has been a gradual decrease in the Unemployment rate that has occurred regardless of what was happening in the Jobs market.

U3 is now comprised in a way that merely repeating it without a slew of caveats borders on fraud.

U6, on the other hand, is the broadest measure of Unemployment: It includes those people counted by U3, plus marginally attached workers (not looking, but want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past), as well as Persons employed part time for economic reasons (they want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule).

To be honest, I do not know what the true Unemployment rate actually is; I believe it is considerably higher than U3 (by 100s of basis points), but I suspect it might be lower than U6.

Here is a modest proposal for all of the poor scribes (like me) who slog through the monthly NFP report:
For the sake of more accurately describing the conditions in the labor
market, let’s begin reporting two measures of Unemployment: U3 as well
as U6.

Its been pretty obvious for sometime that the Financial Media are doing a disservice to their readers by only reporting U3, given how dramatically it understates Unemployment. Indeed, consumer sentiment reports are at deep negative levels that only occur when Unemployment is much than what U3 has been saying. It is painfully obvious that U3 does not paint an accurate view of the Employment situation.

Its way past time to fix that.

Here’s the experiment I propose: Let’s start reporting both, with appropriate descriptions of each. Report U3, add U6, provide monthly and year over year changes. Let the reader see the full picture, via BLS data.

Here is how I would have reported the Unemployment portion of April’s 2008 NFP:

"The number of unemployed persons was little changed in April. U-3, the official unemployment rate as a percent of the civilian labor force, was 4.5%. Itis only modestly elevated from one year earlier, when it was 4.3%.

U-6, the broadest measure of total unemployed*, was also little changed at 8.2%. It is up from 7.9% one year ago.

_______
* U6 includes U3, plus discouraged workers, those working part time who want a full time position, plus marginally attached workers. It is the broadest measure of Unemployment."

That presents a much more complete and accurate picture of what the employment situation is actually like. This doesn’t require any math, or massaging of the numbers — its just passing along data directly from BLS in a more inclusive and accurate way.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, to its credit, provides lots more data on inflation,
unemployment, GDP , etc. than ever gets reported in the mass media. Few people seem to want to slog through the numbers
to get at the details of the economic picture — and that’s a shame.

The Financial press can provide a more accurate picture of what’s going on with a slight modification of how they present the BLS releases. Its long overdue.

Let’s take the data and statistics out of the hands of the politicians and spinmeisters. As a nation, we would be better off for it.

[pinqy]

9. Back up your claim

Quoting someone else who doesn't provide evidence is not actually evidence.

"Many of the data points which used to be calculated in U3 have been removed." And your cite doesn't give any examples of his claim either. Please provide a list from a reliable source, preferably BLS or from a professional publication, saying what these "factors that USED to be included" were and why they should be included. I know them by heart, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea.

[TheWatcher]

10. "Please provide a list from a reliable source, preferably BLS"

:rofl:

Call us when you leave the Matrix. If you actually think the BLS is a reliable source, you have yet to even begin to understand the problem.

I'm sure you believe everything you read in the Media, see on television, and hear from the Government.

You have to stop soaking in the Propaganda before you can dry off with the Truth.

[pinqy]

14. ok, then you show me

a more reliable source as to what changes they've made over the years.

I know the truth, rather than your conspiracy, because I've studied and worked with these numbers for years.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to know a damn thing about statistical methodology and just regurgitate what others have told you.

[girl gone mad]

12. What's to back up?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

You can see the yearly changes in the footnotes.

[pinqy]

15. Your claim was that there had been changes

and the implication was that these were changes for the worse. And the opinion you quoted also said the things had been removed, implying that it made the current figures less reliable/accurate/useful and he also implied that the U-6 made up for the changes. But what exactly were the changes and why did that make things worse? Click on the link in the footnote of the link you just gave and read for yourself.

[girl gone mad]

25. okay.

1 Not strictly comparable with data for prior years. For an explanation, see "Historical Comparability" under the Household Data section of the Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error at http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf.

hmmm...

• In 1967, more substantive changes were made as a result
of the recommendations of the President’s Committee
to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics (the
Gordon Committee). The principal improvements were as
follows:

a) A 4-week job search period and specific questions on
jobseeking activity were introduced. Previously, the questionnaire
was ambiguous as to the period for jobseeking,
and there were no specific questions concerning job search
methods.

b) An availability test was introduced whereby a person
must be currently available for work in order to be classified
as unemployed. Previously, there was no such requirement.

This revision to the concept mainly affected students, who,
for example, may begin to look for summer jobs in the spring
although they will not be available until June or July. Such
persons, until 1967, had been classified as unemployed but
since have been assigned to the “not in the labor force”
category.

c) Persons “with a job but not at work” because of strikes,
bad weather, etc., who volunteered that they were looking
for work were shifted from unemployed status to employed.

d) The lower age limit for official statistics on employment,
unemployment, and other labor force concepts was
raised from 14 to 16 years. Historical data for most major
series have been revised to provide consistent information
based on the new minimum age limit.

e) New questions were added to obtain additional information
on persons not in the labor force, including those
referred to as “discouraged workers,” defined as persons who
indicate that they want a job but are not currently looking
because they believe there are no jobs available or none for
which they would qualify.

Note that this change shifted many unemployed from U-3 to U-6.

f) New “probing” questions were added to the questionnaire
in order to increase the reliability of information on
hours of work, duration of unemployment, and self-employment.

• In 1994, major changes to the Current Population Survey
(CPS) were introduced, which included a complete redesign
of the questionnaire and the use of computer-assisted
interviewing for the entire survey. In addition, there were
revisions to some of the labor force concepts and definitions,
including the implementation of some changes recommended
in 1979 by the National Commission on Employment
and Unemployment Statistics (NCEUS, also
known as the Levitan Commission). Some of the major
changes to the survey were:

a) The introduction of a redesigned and automated questionnaire.
The CPS questionnaire was totally redesigned in
order to obtain more accurate, comprehensive, and relevant
information, and to take advantage of state-of-the-art computer
interviewing techniques.

b) The addition of two, more objective, criteria to the
definition of discouraged workers. Prior to 1994, to be classified
as a discouraged worker, a person must have wanted a
job and been reported as not currently looking because of a
belief that no jobs were available or that there were none for
which he or she would qualify. Beginning in 1994, persons
classified as discouraged must also have looked for a job
within the past year (or since their last job, if they worked
during the year), and must have been available for work
during the reference week (a direct question on availability
was added in 1994; prior to 1994, availability had been
inferred from responses to other questions). These changes
were made because the NCEUS and others felt that the previous
definition of discouraged workers was too subjective,
relying mainly on an individual’s stated desire for a job and
not on prior testing of the labor market.

c) Similarly, the identification of persons employed part
time for economic reasons (working less than 35 hours in the
reference week because of poor business conditions or because
of an inability to find full-time work) was tightened
by adding two new criteria for persons who usually work
part time: They must want and be available for full-time
work. Previously, such information was inferred. (Persons
who usually work full time but worked part time for an economic
reason during the reference week are assumed to meet
these criteria.)

d) Specific questions were added about the expectation of
recall for persons who indicate that they are on layoff. To be
classified as “on temporary layoff,” persons must expect to be
recalled to their jobs. Previously, the questionnaire did not
include explicit questions about the expectation of recall.

e) Persons volunteering that they were waiting to start a
new job within 30 days must have looked for work in the 4
weeks prior to the survey in order to be classified as unemployed.
Previously, such persons did not have to meet the
job search requirement in order to be included among the
unemployed.

Now I have specifically posted the information which backs up my claim. Where's your evidence that U-3 and U-6 have remain unchanged and U3 is a valid assessment of full unemployment?

[pinqy]

27. I never said there were no changes,

just that the claim was "Many of the data points which used to be calculated in U3 have been removed." and "It has, over the years, slowly excluded many of the factors that USED to go into how the US reported unemployment. Hence, there has been a gradual decrease in the Unemployment rate that has occurred regardless of what was happening in the Jobs market.
U3 is now comprised in a way that merely repeating it without a slew of caveats borders on fraud.
"
The implication being that these changes deliberately removed people from the definition of unemployed that should be counted with the intention of artificially lowering what should be the "real" unemployment rate. Which is untrue. I knew what changes had been made, but since neither you nor your source gave any specific examples, I wasn't sure you knew what they were rather than just repeating talking points. Now you do know, let's go through the reasons for changes, none of which were political:

A 4-week job search period and specific questions on jobseeking activity were introduced. Previously, the questionnaire was ambiguous as to the period for jobseeking, and there were no specific questions concerning job search methods.

Ambiguity in a sample survey leads to poor data because each individual represents thousands of others (for the CPS, 60,000 households represent over 150,000,000 people). The concept behind "unemployed" is that the person does not have work and is trying to find work and Unemployed is a measure of how successful people are at that, especially over time. Reading want ads, but not responding to any, is not trying to find work in any meaningful way. Having looked 2 years ago is not currently looking for work. People who looked some time in the past but aren't looking now are not looking now, anymore than a retiree, fulltime student, stay at home spouse etc. So why do you consider tightening up the defintion to be more meaningful, better able to measure the labor force, and consistant (removing interviewer bias and error) to be worse?

An availability test was introduced whereby a person must be currently available for work in order to be classified as unemployed. Previously, there was no such requirement.

If a person isn't available to work, then how can they be unemployed? Again the concept is activity in the labor market. The concepts of employed and unemployed are about change in status. Including people as unemployed who CANNOT become employed artificially raises the number of unemployed.

Persons “with a job but not at work” because of strikes, bad weather, etc., who volunteered that they were looking for work were shifted from unemployed status to employed.

If you have a job, then you are employed. If you're not at work but will return, then you're still employed, regardless of whether or not you're looking for another job. There's no reason that not being at work because of a strike, bad weather should be conceptually different from any other temporary period of not working such as vacation or illness.

New questions were added to obtain additional information on persons not in the labor force, including those referred to as “discouraged workers,” defined as persons who indicate that they want a job but are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or none for which they would qualify.

Now, you claim this shifted people from U-3 to U-6 which is technically untrue, since there was only one measure published until 1976 and those were U-1 to U-7 with U-5 being the official rate. But in any case I just asked one of the Economists who calculates the Unemployment Rate and he said he did some research and found that Discouraged Workers weren't really included prior to 1967....the questions were vague and it was up to the individual interviewer to determine status, and it usually only applied to regions going through particular hardship at the time. The definiton before 1967 was

Unemployed Persons comprise all persons who did not work at all during the survey week and were looking for work, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for unemployment insurance. Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days (and were not in school during the survey week); or (c) would have been looking for work except that they were temporarily ill or believed no work was available in their line of work or in the community. Persons in this later category will usually be residents of a community in which there are only a few dominant industries which were shut down during the survey week. Not included in this category are persons who say they were not looking for work because they were too old, too young, or handicapped in any way.

Note the bold section.."usually residents of a community etc.." was the prevailing use at the time. It wasn't systematic, it was vague and ambiguous. And the closest to the current measures would be the U-4, NOT the U-6, because it was limited to discouraged workers while the U-6 is ALL marginally attached AND part-time for economic reasons.

In 1994, major changes to the Current Population Survey
(CPS) were introduced,

Most of those changes, as you quoted, were transferring from pen and paper to computer questionairres. There was no definitional change in "Employed" and one minor definititonal change to "Unemployed." (which I'll get to later)

The addition of two, more objective, criteria to the definition of discouraged workers. Prior to 1994, to be classified as a discouraged worker, a person must have wanted a
job and been reported as not currently looking because of a belief that no jobs were available or that there were none for which he or she would qualify. Beginning in 1994, persons classified as discouraged must also have looked for a job within the past year (or since their last job, if they worked during the year), and must have been available for work during the reference week (a direct question on availability was added in 1994; prior to 1994, availability had been inferred from responses to other questions).

Note that Discouraged workers were already Not in the Labor Force, so this in no way changed the definition of unemployed. Discouraged worker is useful (though not terribly so) to measure potential, but not actual, workers, but you still need some time limits to get an accurate measure. Why would you think a more objective measure is worse? And as I mentioned, iscouraged workers had NEVER been fully counted...even before 1967, it was interviewer discretion on whether or not to place a person as "Unemployed" if they hadn't been looking but wanted a job.

Similarly, the identification of persons employed part time for economic reasons (working less than 35 hours in the reference week because of poor business conditions or because of an inability to find full-time work) was tightened by adding two new criteria for persons who usually work part time: They must want and be available for full-time work. Previously, such information was inferred. (Persons who usually work full time but worked part time for an economic
reason during the reference week are assumed to meet these criteria.)

Since this group had NEVER been considered unemployed, it doesn't support your claim. Getting actual information rather than inferred is an improvement.

Persons volunteering that they were waiting to start a new job within 30 days must have looked for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey in order to be classified as unemployed.
Previously, such persons did not have to meet the job search requirement in order to be included among the unemployed.

This was the ONLY definitional change to Unemployed in the 1994 revision. This tweak just helped have a more consistant definition of Unemployed.


In summary, the basic concept of unemployed being someone without work trying to find a job has not changed....Part-time has NEVER been part of the definition, the Marginally Attached have NEVER been part of the definition, the sub-set of the Marginally Attached known as Discouraged Workers were sort of included, but only at interviewer discretion and were not really part of the full concept since it was only applied under certain circumstances.

Changes which lower the Unemployment rate are not bad if the rate was overstated to begin with.

Methodologically, statistically, the changes are undeniable improvements to tighten definitions, get more objective and accurate. Vague, ambiguous, subjective definitions make things worse not better. Which is more objective and accurately measurable, people who want to work, are available to work, but can't find work, OR people who claim they want to work, have sometime in the past (with no time limits) looked for work, but aren't currently looking for work or in any way participating in the labor market?

So, no you haven't supported your claim that anything was political, nor the implication that previous definitons were better/more reliable and should really be included.

[girl gone mad]

44. You just expect people to take you at your word.

You asked someone you worked with and he said such and such. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Back up your claims with a real source, as I did.

[pinqy]

50. No you haven't

You showed what changes had been made. You haven't backed up that the reasons were political or that the changes were for the worse. The definition of what we now call discouraged from 1967 is consistant with the claim that it was sporadically used, but I'm giving you the statement from someone who did the research. Feel free to call yourself [phone] and ask.

[notesdev]

7. We've gone over this before

and you know that your interpretation is unsupportable. The U-series has far too many exceptions to be considered a whole measure. I have provided you with the full technical analysis in our last conversation on this subject.

You can agree to disagree, fine. Objection noted. Go tell the guy who has been unemployed so long he has fallen off the rolls that he isn't officially unemployed (even by U-6), and let me know what he tells you.

[pinqy]

8. And yet my interpretation is the most widely accepted in the world

Funny how that works.

And no, you didn't provide any technical analysis showing that Economists and Statisticians don't consider it a whole measure. We do, I assure you. And I'm pretty sure you've quoted at least one author I know personally and certainly doesn't agree with you.

But now you're spouting idiocies that someone who isn't looking for work can't find work. Duh. Of course they can't.

And you STILL in this post are trying to claim that the unemployment rate has something to do with Unemployment insurance. Have you read nothing on the subject?????? For the Billionth time: IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN UNEMPLOYED OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE EVER COLLECTED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, YOU ARE STILL COUNTED IF YOU ARE STILL LOOKING FOR WORK.

If you're not looking for work, you're not going to find it.

But tell me, what is the practical difference as far as the labor market goes, between person A who isn't looking for work because s/he doesn't want a job, person B who isn't looking because she would theoretically like a job, but just had a baby and doesn't have day care yet, and person C who isn't looking because s/he doesn't think there's any available?

Oh, and why on earth do you think the usefulness of an economic statistic depends on how someone feels about it?

[girl gone mad]

13. Fortunately, many media outlets are catching on..

and reporting U6 in addition to or instead of U3.

BLS also finally responded to criticis last year and began making state level U6 information available.

[notesdev]

17. A statistic that is not meaningful is not worth a mention

If you've been paying attention to the unfolding crisis, then you should know that there is much that has been widely accepted (e.g. 'housing prices can never go down') that turned out to be total falsehoods. Whether something is accepted or not has no relevance to whether it is meaningful.

The U-3 statistic, when it showed 5%, was for an employment environment so labor-tight that we were importing well over a million new laborers every year. Now that it shows 8%, a janitor job opening gets a thousand resumes. How is that figure useful? It's a figure whose useful range is 4% of the entire range which it purports to measure. Of course it is a nonsense number!

If you have the level of interest in the subject that you appear to have, then surely you are familiar with the fact that the official numbers are wild-ass guesses by bureau whose own model admits it is wrong at economic turning points, where we are now. You must also be familiar with the wide range of exceptions, people who are not included in the official figures.

There is no good reason to believe the official figure because it communicates nothing of value. All it communicates is what a succession of increasingly cynical governments want you to believe.

I fully admit that my own figure is also a wild-ass guess. But it's just as good a wild ass guess as anybody else's. If you were to give the two numbers to the average person and ask which was more credible, I have no doubt that few would find an 8% unemployment figure in this environment to be a credible description of the employment figure.

I do not expect it to be me who convinces you. I expect that you will continue to believe what is 'widely accepted' until reality crashes the pleasant illusion that it is not so bad out there. I can only assume that you must be employed in a highly protected job environment (government employee and/or tenured professor), because no person who is out there in the real world can take an 8% unemployment figure as a serious and accurate description of the employment environment today.

[pinqy]

30. Reality check

If you've been paying attention to the unfolding crisis, then you should know that there is much that has been widely accepted (e.g. 'housing prices can never go down') that turned out to be total falsehoods. Whether something is accepted or not has no relevance to whether it is meaningful.

I've never heard any Economist or Statician who dealt with price changes make that claim...housing prices have always gone up and down in various markets for various reasons.

The U-3 statistic, when it showed 5%, was for an employment environment so labor-tight that we were importing well over a million new laborers every year. Now that it shows 8%, a janitor job opening gets a thousand resumes. How is that figure useful? It's a figure whose useful range is 4% of the entire range which it purports to measure. Of course it is a nonsense number!

But how would U-6, which moved in exactly the same direction at the same time be any more useful for the purpose of available labor underutilization? The UE rate shows the percentage of people participating in the labor market who can't find work. For that purpose it doesn't matter where the labor is coming from. There are other programs, such as BLS's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) that take a good look at the components of the changes (how many jobs are available and the activity of people entering and leaving jobs).

surely you are familiar with the fact that the official numbers are wild-ass guesses by bureau whose own model admits it is wrong at economic turning points, where we are now

IIRC your claim about the model being wrong at economic turning points wasn't for the CPS. I can't find your exact cite, but I remember looking it up and you were mistaken. Plus how on earth do you think a more subjective and ambiguous measure would be more accurate?

[notesdev]

40. Look at risk pricing

the entire investment banking industry priced in risk levels that were predicated on housing prices never going down. Try to start with any other assumption and see if you can justify AAA-rated MBS on subprime, Alt-A, no-doc, option-ARM types of loans.

It was a mania, and economists were not only caught up in it like everyone else, they were often the cheerleaders of the bubble, producing endless rationalizations of why "it's different this time".

I'm not sure how seriously I can take you, CPA, Ph.D. or not, unless you can at the minimum admit that economists as a profession were not only wrong, but spectacularly, catastrophically wrong. All you have convinced me of so far is that you are educated beyond your ability to think critically and independently or to match up the predicted results of theory with actual empirical observation.

[TheWatcher]

11. He'd rather go with "widely accepted interpretations."

Those who cannot see beyond the Propaganda are not going to get it, until they make the decision to do so.

Best to not waste your time.

[pinqy]

16. Yes, I'd certainly prefer the accepted interpretations of Economists and Statisticians

rather than what ignorant reporters and people out to make a profit say and conspiracy theorists say.

[notesdev]

18. Guess what

your 'economists and statisticians' are also out to make a profit.

Howabout that widely-respected chief economist of Citibank? Still believe what he says, even after his predictions turned out to be so wildly overoptimistic that it threw the largest bank in the nation into insolvency?

[pinqy]

19. I'm talking about professionals involved in statistical surveys

Government workers and acadmenics don't come up with their methodology to make a profit. I know these people, they have no incentive or reason to be anything but objective. The morons you listen to make money by feeding conspiracy theorists.

[notesdev]

20. Let them speak for themselves

and hear exactly what they have to say.

I need to see the data for myself and understand what it means. Numbers like the official unemployment numbers, the official CPI, and other managed economic statistics show recent data that is not a credible assessment of what is going on.

Bureaucrats and their masters make a lot more money off of their game than do conspiracy theorists.

I really don't know what else to say to you. At some point you will have to realize for yourself that the numbers provided and description given - whether they be by the government or private companies - contain far more that is false than that is true. I came to this realization after experiencing an event many years ago which was given a totally false face by both private media and three levels of government. At some point not far along, should our trajectory not change course dramatically, we will all experience an event that there will be no glossing over.

[Hannah Bell]

22. .

http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

[notesdev]

24. An object lesson

in fudge factors, thanks for the demo.

"Congratulations, Mr. Citizen. You worked one hour this month; your pay bought you half a sandwich. although your unemployment has long since run out and you starved to death - alone and homeless - before the month was over, you are still counted as employed!"

Sadly I'm not kidding... this scenario really does count a person as employed.

[pinqy]

29. Sure...

And there are sound scientific reasons for it. But why should "Mr. Citizen" care whether or not he's counted as employed or unemployed? It makes no difference at all to him in any practical way. If you want to warp statistics to make someone feel good rather than for any rational, scientific, statistical, economic reason, well, there's not much I can say because your position is fundamentally illogical.

[notesdev]

47. Amazing, that 'science' of yours

On the upside of a Ponzi scheme, it's sacrosanct.

On the downslope, it's up to the other guy to 'prove' it wrong.

That's not science. That's politics. Just because economists play with a calculator and like to offer the pretense of being mathematicians doesn't make it true.

[pinqy]

28. But I am one of the Professionals

and you're not listening to me. Your arguments have been exclusively emotional: how does it feel or what would person think about his/her classification. None of it has to do with usefulness of the data and the reports. If you knew the math, the concepts, the reasons, the use, you'd have a different view.

I've studied labor statistics for over a decade, talked with many many professional economists and statisticians from over a dozen different governments and non-governmental organizations. I know far more about the topic than you do, so your condescension would be amusing if it wasn't so damned frustrating.

[TheWatcher]

32. So you're a shill.

Thanks for clarifying that.


Either that or a well-meaning "big-brain" who simply can't see the forest for the trees when in comes to BLS Bullshit.

It is well known they fudge the numbers, so take your condescending "I know so much more than the rest of you" and get bent. You professionally analyze fiction and expect the rest of us to accept it because "you are in the know."

Sorry, I'm through listening.

Many of us are sick of the shell game.

And we're sick of the apologists who shill for it, well-meaning or otherwise.

[pinqy]

33. In other words...

Even though you have no qualifications whatsoever to analyze or understand the methodology and concepts, you're going to say "la la la" and stick your fingers in your ears rather than try to actually educate yourself. Gotcha.

You make the claim that BLS "fudges" the data, but you can't say how. Nobody in the administration has access to the raw data, nobody involved in the process is political, and there are too many people involved anyway...the concepts conform to those used by the ILO, Eurostat, and dozens of other countries, yet somehow you claim to know better. Your arrogance is amazing.

[TheWatcher]

34. Blah, Blah, Blah.

Oh, now I must bow and kiss the feet of the all knowing, all-seeing analyzer of fiction, who tells me to go back to sleep and slurp my Propaganda Juice Box, because I'm stupid and unqualified and he "knows better."

Color me unimpressed.

I know A LOT more than you think, yes boy.

The system you believe in is a manipulated shell game.

And although you may be amazed by my "arrogance", I continue to be even MORE amazed by the arrogance of people like you, who continue to shill for it.

Here's a news flash for you Einstein.

Not all of the sheep are stupid, blind, and take everything at face value, just because some low-level gatekeeper says so.

WE KNOW WE'RE BEING CONNED.

And as I said, we're not listening. We've been lied to enough.

Run along now.

[pinqy]

37. Then prove it

You've done nothing but fling insults and make assertions and have yet to say anything of substance. You haven't and can't back up your claims of fudging and manipulation etc.

[TheWatcher]

43. Whatever For?

We have the helpful "Big Brain" to tell us what to think, and to shut up and sit down because we're "unqualified."

You've already told us all we need to know, haven't you?

Or maybe you're just irritated because we're no longer willing to buy the Dog Shit you and your beloved "Professionals" claim is Godiva Chocolate.

I think Jack said it best, so I shall paraphrase him.

Go Sell It Somewhere Else.

We're All Stocked Up Here......

[pinqy]

45. Like I said.

You can't prove shit.

[TheWatcher]

52. Ahhhh, struck a nerve with you, did I Mr. Shill?

All prickly now because you can't condescend me into submission or get me frustrated because of your "Professional Credentials?" :rofl:

Newsflash Einstein.

You haven't proven shit either.

But you certainly have proven nothing by using a hell of a lot of words.

You should work for the Treasury. Worked out pretty well for that Alan guy. He was a master of saying nothing but unadulterated Bullshit, but he used so many BIG WORDS. It was almost art.

Or you could write the Closing Final Statement for the G20, whenever they convene to invent new fiction for the masses.

You'd have no problem saying nothing in 4000 Words.

Look dear, even if you are just a cog, and you mean well, you need to understand something.

Your words and insults have no effect on me. Not in the slightest. I do however find your increasingly acerbic reactions amusing.

You're just getting SO frustrated because you can't get anyone here to buy what you're selling. Whether it's because you actually BELIEVE it (which I find sad), or you are just a shilling cog who is out yes-mongering on behalf of the con.

Get it through your head.

We are not interested.

Try the next house down the lane.

I'm done with you. You can go. But you'll probably bleat on, because you just HAVE to have the last word.

::Channels John Malkovich From 'Rounders':: "You-Won't-Be-Pushed-Around."

:hi:

[notesdev]

39. And the professionals failed spectacularly

Largely on a failure to question whether the base assumptions behind the calculations your professional colleagues were making still held true.

My arguments are not emotional ones. I allege that the base assumptions behind the mainstream economic thought are false. You can calculate all you like, if the assumptions are nonsense it's garbage-in, garbage-out.

Really, I don't see how you can continue to argue the mainstream line of argument when it has brought us to a historically unprecedented economic precipice.

Here are some points you should ponder.

- Congress is almost entirely bought out by moneyed interests.
- Almost all relevant government statistics are lies, manipulated numbers to produce results more favorable to those who govern.
- There is not a single public company whose books can be believed, thanks to the allowance for offshore havens, off-balance-sheet nonsense, and a dozen Enrons more of accounting tricks, and of course the endless stream of lies and half-truths from that quarter as well.
- Virtually every major public statement to come out of Treasury in the past year, covering both administrations, are also lies.
- The Federal Reserve, same as the Treasury.

I will argue the validity of those points until the cows come home. (In the latter two cases I can prove perjury, if Congress had the slightest interest in the truth, themselves.) So consider if they are true - what then does that do to your calculations?

[pinqy]

41. And...

you still haven't given a shred of evidence that the base assumptions for Unemployment calculations (and I have no clue which base assumption you're referring to) are false.

Please learn the difference between an assertion and an argument. You make a lot of assertions, but don't provide any evidence. You do like to keep switching to different specific topics though. Pick a point, stick with it, quit jumping around with ten gazillion assertions.

[notesdev]

46. It is clearly evident in

the fact that the BLS has adjusted its numbers, post-hoc, by an average of 110,000 jobs lost, every month so far this year.

If their methods were actually measuring something, in the scientific/mathematical sense of the term, why the adjustments? And why such huge ones? Could it be that they put out the initial number for political purposes, and the adjusted number to try and claim some sense of integrity?

At what point will you admit that your profession is a modern version of shamanism and that there is no actual scientific rigor from which to claim the authority you claim?

[pinqy]

49. Perhaps if you read the reports...

The adjustments, which are from the non-farm establishment Employment numbers, NOT the Unemployment numbers are due mostly to late reporting, and once a year for re-benchmarking. Remember these are all estimates based on a sample of Establishments (an Establishment is a single business site). Sometimes the adjustments show things better than initially, sometimes worse. It doesn't even make sense to revise for political reasons: if you're going to lie, lie from the beginning.

The Employment numbers are marked as preliminary, and then are adjusted twice based on new information coming in. Remember the tight turn-around here..the reference week is the week of the month containing the 12th (so for March, 2009 the reference week was March 8-14 , the collection was the week after, and the release date was 3 April) So there's barely 2 weeks to analyze and compile 160,000 individual reports and extrapolate estimates for the entire country. To look at all the revisions go to http://www.bls.gov/web/cesnaicsrev.htm which gives all the revisions since 1979.

In addition, there are other surveys, the Quarterly Census of Earnings and Wages and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey and the Occupational Employment Survey as well as Employment data from the Current Population Survey (which is where the Unemployment rate comes from) to compare. None of the numbers match up of course, due to different samples, different reporting periods, etc, but the movements are always the same, which is the important part.

Statistical sampling is not always precise...there are errors and biases (statistical biases, not political) and that's admitted to and published.

[notesdev]

51. All right, now we're starting to get somewhere

Let me specifically address an assumption made:

"Sometimes the adjustments show things better than initially, sometimes worse."

This is, of course, what an honest, scientific system would produce.

How then, to explain this?

http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/will-job-numbers-keep-being-revised-down/


August 2008: Initially 84,000, revised to 175,000

September 2008: Initially 159,000, revised to 321,000

October 2008: Initially 240,000, revised to 380,000

November 2008: Initially 533,000, revised to 597,000

December 2008: Initially 524,000, revised to 681,000

January 2009: Initially 598,000, revised to 655,000



Note that the chances of this happening randomly in a scientific process is 1/2^6; 1.56% is a pretty damn small likelihood and does not at all argue to the objectivity of those taking the measurements.

Moreover, by their own numbers the average underestimation was 27.9% to the low side - a level of error so large that it brings the meaning of the measurement itself into question. Now consider what happens to the numbers as the error is compounded as previous erroneous measurements are used as inputs into the system! Compounding is a bitch and a half, which I'm sure you well know. It takes just a few measurements for the noise to completely obliterate the signal.

I'm pretty sure you can articulate for yourself the various ways in which the impression of falsely rosy unemployment statistics might be beneficial to some.

In sum, if you really understand what goes into the production of these statistics and why, rather than just being able to regurgitate something you read in a textbook, then you know the math says the numbers are no better than a wild-ass guess. There's a remote basis in fact somewhere way at the bottom of the chain, but from there it's anybody's guess.

If you look at the factual numbers - not the estimated ones, not the ones which can be manipulated for impression - they do not read conditions a few percent from full employment. They read 'express lane to economic collapse'.

If you understand what is going on, you need to express your concern for the trajectory of the nation more clearly, because it's definitely not coming through over

[TheWatcher]

36. If it's what I think it is, it wasn't that many years ago.

And, unfortunately, if we're on the same page as far as which event it was, your last sentence is horribly correct. :(

[notesdev]

38. I think I know what you're alluding to

the event I experienced was the predecessor to that better-known event, 8 years prior.

[TheWatcher]

42. Understood.

And you are dead on about that one as well.

And The Truman Show Continues.....

[westerebus]

21. Welcome to the planet.

Any suggestions on how to accurately count the unemployed, under employed, slackers, and general population would be greatly appreciated.

So far, a very educated guess, based on mathematical possibilities, is the best the governments of the planet have come up.

The US BLS reports several variations of the employment numbers for this reason.

[TheWatcher]

35. No you should just go back to sleep and let "The Professionals" tell you what to think.

After all, they know everything, and we don't.

Best to let them handle the heavy lifting.

We're not qualified.

:sarcasm:

[westerebus]

48. BS or BA or MBA.

Bullshit or Bullshit Artist or Master Bullshit Artist.

Now that's "professionalism".:toast:

[TheWatcher]

53. Maybe he's all three.

He Hit The TRIFECTA!

:rofl:

[westerebus]

54. May be we could ask for some investment advice?

:P

[PassingFair]

23. And talk to my husband, while he's at it...

We had our own successful (but small)
advertising company in Michigan.

Declines started just BEFORE Chimpy
took over.

We struggled until 2003, when I had
to get a "real job" that covered our
family with health insurance.

He hasn't made more than $12,000 a year
since then.

SEVERELY underemployed...and no one
is hiring for graphic design.

[wuvuj]

26. So....is there any info...

...as to how many jobs that people are now losing will be outsourced to other countries?

What is to keep a company from laying off workers or closing a plant and reopening somewhere else?

Has congress passed any laws to try to keep this from happening...or reduce it?

So...AGAIN...corp profits will be stronger in the future, but people in the US will not have the $ to buy their junk?



GM going down?

...

Exactly four years ago, on April 18, 2005, I warned that "General Motors is speeding on a course that could lead to bankruptcy."

In August of that year, I issued a second warning: "Delphi, GM's former parts subsidiary, has already threatened to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by October 17 if its union does not provide relief. Don't be surprised if one day, in the not-too-distant future, General Motors does the same."

And in October of 2005, my headline was even more direct: "GM Headed for Bankruptcy."

I prayed it would not happen as often as I predicted it. But now, unfortunately, that fateful day is finally arriving:

Just This Past Friday, GM CEO Fritz Henderson
Announced That a Bankruptcy Filing Is "PROBABLE."

GM and Treasury Department officials will no doubt make every attempt to sugarcoat the disaster and disguise its severity. But the unmistakable reality is that, despite any government guarantees,

* GM dealerships will suffer massive further declines in sales;

* GM customers will suffer severe cutbacks in service and availability of parts;

* The used GM car market — already burned — will be toast;

* The government will be hard pressed to assume responsibility for the pensions and health benefits of GM employees and retirees — let alone their income;

* It will be difficult to avoid failures among GM's suppliers, which, in turn, could precipitate a chain reaction of more failures among their suppliers; and worst of all ...

* To the degree that the Treasury throws good money after bad to avert some of these consequences, it will merely drive up interest rates for everyone.


http://www.moneyandmarkets.com

[pinqy]

31. BLS does cover some outsourcing/offshoring.

Since "outsourcing" and "offshoring" can mean different things to different people, BLS uses the term "movement of work" for both, and then indicates locational change, change from in-house to contracted and if the new contracted labor is domestic or foreign. The info is in the quarterly report on Extended Mass Layoffs which covers layoffs of 50+ people. There was an article in the Monthly Labor Review http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/08/art1full.pdf">Mass layoff data indicate outsourcing and offshoring work a few years ago.