Unemployment: We Fucked Up Last Month

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-08-08-31-08

The Bureau of Labor Statistics report glorious numbers one month then revise the numbers down next month. Its systemic bull shit. Are Aprils numbers real? Prolly not if theyre like numbers for the last 6 months.

I think Emily Latella is in charge. NEVER MIND!

 

[Que]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-08-08-31-08

The Bureau of Labor Statistics report glorious numbers one month then revise the numbers down next month. Its systemic bull shit. Are Aprils numbers real? Prolly not if theyre like numbers for the last 6 months.

I think Emily Latella is in charge. NEVER MIND!

Yep in the same article where they were talking about how the economy is just fine because of over 200,000 jobs in one particular month. ( When the spring thaw has finally resulted in construction picking up as per it does every single season) they are also mentioning as an aside that oops there were 85000 less jobs last month than we thought.


I pointed out the same phenomenon when it comes to GDP numbers being revised down and I said after every quarter..

BobsDownSouth started an enrire thread to crow about the fact that on a single occasion out of the last 30 quarters those GDP figures were revised upwards. "But...but...you said they are ALWAYS Revised downwards!!!!!" As if my superlative completely negated the obvious trend when it comes to the reorting government figures.

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of trying to improve the country's morale by accentuating the positive. But those that only read the headline like in that article you just posted and ignore the subtext when it points out that as per usual oops we didn't have quite as many jobs as we thought aren't really worth talking about economics to.

So many people like to go dumb statistics such as how many quarters are how many months we've had an increase in this or an increase in the GDP. If we don't have any increase For three successive quarters it's considered as a recession staying slightly out of recession is not the same thing as a recovery.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yep in the same article where they were talking about how the economy is just fine because of over 200,000 jobs in one particular month. ( When the spring thaw has finally resulted in construction picking up as per it does every single season) they are also mentioning as an aside that oops there were 85000 less jobs last month than we thought.


I pointed out the same phenomenon when it comes to GDP numbers being revised down and I said after every quarter..

BobsDownSouth started an enrire thread to crow about the fact that on a single occasion out of the last 30 quarters those GDP figures were revised upwards. "But...but...you said they are ALWAYS Revised downwards!!!!!" As if my superlative completely negated the obvious trend when it comes to the reorting government figures.

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of trying to improve the country's morale by accentuating the positive. But those that only read the headline like in that article you just posted and ignore the subtext when it points out that as per usual oops we didn't have quite as many jobs as we thought aren't really worth talking about economics to.

So many people like to go dumb statistics such as how many quarters are how many months we've had an increase in this or an increase in the GDP. If we don't have any increase For three successive quarters it's considered as a recession staying slightly out of recession is not the same thing as a recovery.

A similar article out today reveals that Social Security fucks with its numbers to make Social Security, Medicare, and Disability trust funds seem better than they are. In reality all of them go bust in less than 20 years. Afterwards you get 3/4ths of your benefits. People live much longer than estimated, and the real unemployed aren't paying taxes.