| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Padding the numbersby Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012 Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls. The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions. One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000. In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers. Solis was adamant today in defending both the revisions and the BLS's methodology for counting part-time workers--relying largely on the upwards revisions for July and August jobs (emphasis added): CNBC: We're getting bombarded by people who do not believe the number. They believe this number was fixed and typed to coincide with Election Day. What do you say to them?...I'll rephrase the question. A lot of people do not believe the 7.8 number. They believe that somehow BLS fixed this to coincide with the election cycle. What is labor's response? Solis: You know, I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional, civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the BLS. They've been doing these calculations. These are -- these are our best trained and best-skilled individuals working in the BLS, and it's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement, and I say that because just look at the -- we have to look at what happens across the board, not just in one month, but look what happened in the last two months. We also saw revisions there upwards of 86,000 additional jobs added and this brings us now to 5.2 million private sector jobs across the board, we saw 104 private sector jobs created.... CNBC: Before I let you go, you say skepticism over the numbers are ludicrous. You say you're insulted. Is there a danger, you believe, when large sections was country don't believe the data. Not that it's ever been considered gospel, but when you have disbelief how much danger is embedded in that? Solis: I will tell you that we look at each report differently. We just saw revisions for the last two months and this happens. I mean, these are estimates that obviously, the BLS puts out. They do the best calculation, using the best measurements and tools and we've been using them for the past 70 years. We haven't changed anything and the information that I received is given to me by our professional, civil service staff in the BLS. Note that Solis describes the 86,000 upward revision as if it were an increase in private sector jobs, though in fact the increase came entirely from revisions to public sector payrolls by cash-strapped federal and state governments. Instead of shedding jobs, as previously claimed, governments have been adding jobs. www.breitbart.com |
||
|
Manipulating the numbers by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012 Cash-strapped state governments and the federal government added thousands of jobs in July, August and September, boosting overall jobs numbers. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced today that it had revised jobs numbers for July and August upwards, with revised gains coming from public sector jobs. According to the BLS, government jobs grew 18,000 in July, 45,000 in August, and 10,000 in September, accounting for nearly 17% of total gains. Those government increases reverse the trend of recent years, in which public sector jobs had been cut while the private sector had experienced modest job growth. Update: In addition, the revisions meant that instead of shrinking by 28,000 jobs in July and August, as previously reported, state and federal governments grew by 63,000 across the same period--a net shift of 91,000. The total number of jobs added in September was 114,000, according to the BLS--well below the monthly average in recent years, and far below the July jobs increase, which had been described as good. Economists had predicted a rise of 111,000 to 113,000 jobs--but that rise would have meant a rise in the unemployment rate from 8.1% to 8.2% (Update: given long-term labor force trends). With the large revisions from the BLS--revising private sector jobs down, and public sector jobs up--the modest rise in September jobs coincided with an unusually dramatic drop in the unemployment rate, causing some experts to greet the new numbers with puzzlement. Government jobs are an important part of the explanation. www.breitbart.com |
||
|
dmaestro 05-Oct-12, 17:39 |
blogs.wsj.com The fact is that one reason why this recession is so bad is that for the first time since the Depression state and particularly local governments cut their workforce drastically, whereas in the past recessions their employment was a stimulus that helped keep the economy more stable and come back. Those workers buy and pay taxes like everyone else, keeping money flowing into the economy. But then if you had been alive you would have voted for Herbert Hoover too. |
||
|
Do you ever actually think about what you say? |
||
|
“Dinner Table” by Tony Lee 5 Oct 2012 On the day the national unemployment rate was cut to 7.8 percent, Americans For Prosperity (AFP) on Friday released what may be one of the most attention-grabbing and unconventional ads of the 2012 election cycle. The ad is titled “Dinner Table” and features a recently unemployed father trying to eat dinner with his worried wife and two kids. The only sounds that can be heard are the tinkling of utensils as the family unnervingly pokes at their food. It is a scene that has been played in real life in millions of homes across America during the Great Recession and the so-called recovery.... “The President is out on the campaign trail gloating about unemployment dropping a couple tenths of a percent,” Russell said. “It's sad that so often, the gritty reality of how American families are suffering in this economy is glossed over, or used as a campaign tool.”... www.breitbart.com At a government employee dinner table there would be laughing and chatting about how wonderful everything is... |
||
|
dmaestro 06-Oct-12, 09:03 |
|
||
|
dm You seem to continue to believe some fundamentally incorrect things: That you can borrow your way out of debt, That you can spend your way into prosperity, That by increasing government overhead with bureaucracy you will improve employment, That by increasing taxes you will increase government revenues, That by restricting the availability of natural resources, costs will not go up, That by imposing excessive restrictions on business that you'll encourage more commerce. Nobody with a thinking mind can agree with that. |
||
|
dmaestro 06-Oct-12, 10:14 |
No, but sometimes the right kind of short term borrowing can help the country get out of debt over the long term. >>That you can spend your way into prosperity, No, but the right kind of spending during downturns created by sticky money does lead to prosperity. >>That by increasing government overhead with bureaucracy you will improve employment, No, but by maintaining productive government employment on things that need to be done you help stabilize the economy which ultimately improves employment >>That by increasing taxes you will increase government revenues Actually you do up to a point, because taxes are at historic lows, and conversely, the Bush tax cuts returned only around 28% of that amount in taxes due to stimulus and increased incomes, with the remaining 72% of missing revenues increasing the deficit. >>That by restricting the availability of natural resources, costs will not go up Not really, but it all depends on market factors of speculation, demand and supply, and the supply chain. If you have a world wide demand for a product, it is world wide supply and demand and the supply chain along with the need for speculators to maximize profits that sets prices. For example, more domestic oil produced at very high prices will NOT lower prices significantly when the market is set by cheap $5.75 per barrel production cost Middle East oil and there is not the domestic infrastructure to shift the oil where it is needed, e.g., the West Coast right now. When you add in the environmental costs (which you are not) the true cost is much higher and that is what the benchmark needs to be. >>That by imposing excessive restrictions on business that you'll encourage more commerce. No, I do not favor EXCESSIVE restrictions. But some of what you call excessive is necessary. We saw wnat happened to the world economy when we let Wall Street and the Banks decide what restrictions were "excessive". Sorry Softaire but a majority of intellectuals (who actually do think quite well, mind you) would probably agree with what I have said far more than what you have said. |
||
|
dmaestro 06-Oct-12, 11:10 |
============================= Those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1). |
||
|
dmaestro 06-Oct-12, 11:30 |
Right up to today where the right wing jobs "truthers" have another nut case conspiracy theory that Obama himself is cooking the job numbers. Nonsense. |
||
|
dm ... Personally, I'm not sure I need to 'just trust' Romney to come up with anything significantly different from pre-Obama activities ... but, I could consider his proposal if only he'd give us some details. Otherwise, I'd rather lean toward four more years of Obama. I'd sure like for the GOP to come up with a better candidate for 2016 ... we will likely need some conservative balancing by then to offset Democrat successes ... maybe another Eisenhower type. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
05-Oct-12, 17:39 Yeah, right. Big bad government rigging the election for Obama. dmaestro 06-Oct-12, 09:03 If conservatives were politically irrelevant and only econmists mattered there would not have been the meltdown in the first place... ...as early as December 2008 the GOP was already planning to both blame Obama for being too slow to recover and sabotage every effort... Tactically you all have done a good sales job on a dishonest product. dmaestro 06-Oct-12, 11:10 The main reason Obama is in trouble is because he wasted time, and didn't understand that we are at war with you and you will do anything to destroy a democratic president. dmaestro 06-Oct-12, 11:30 Right up to today where the right wing jobs "truthers" have another nut case conspiracy theory that Obama himself is cooking the job numbers. Nonsense. chaz5 06-Oct-12, 11:53 dm ... you made quite a reasonable balancing argument to those 'tried and true' far right arguments. You forgot to tell everyone again how much of centrist and middle of the road guy you are. Do you really think anyone believes that line? |
||
|
Thumper ... |
||
|
chaz In this thread you have made one post directly to DM where you lauded him. In this thread you made one indirect post to nobody in particular but you implied that Thumper "sees only in one direction" meaning he is dogmatic and rigid in his views. You didn't engage him... you indirectly made an accusation. I don't understand how that is attempting to "engage him in honest conversation". I'm only looking to expand my knowledge and understanding here. Can you expand on how that works, or are you only fencing? |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
chaz But that was a good, rational, and politically non-biased response. Thanks |
Log in 
