April unemployment numbers

[werepossum]

Actually, they can't be. If the government tried to change the regulations to be effective as of say, 1 January, 2014 and then attempted to assess retroactive penalties for businesses who were in compliance with regulations at the time they would be taken to court and they would lose.

If your argument is that businesses are cutting employee's hours out of a fear of a retroactive regulatory changes that will assess court enforceable tax penalties on them I'm going to have to ask for a single credible source that indicates that.

I suspect you're merely being dishonest, but on the off chance you are honestly confused:
http://tcbmag.com/News/Recent-News/2014/January/Businesses-Seek-Revision-Of-Obamacare-30-Hour-R

One of the most divisive components of the ACA is the so-called “play or pay” provision, which will require employers with more than 50 full-time (or full-time equivalent) employees to offer a certain level of health insurance coverage to their workers or face monetary penalties. The provision was initially set to take effect in 2014 but was pushed back to 2015.

The law defines full-time or full-time-equivalent workers as those who work at least 30 hours per week. (The actual calculation can get quite complicated, as it is based on a formula that takes into account average hours worked. Learn how to calculate your full-time employee count here.)

Their hours were cut because of the expectation that the new 30 hour full time definition would kick in as scheduled, in 2014. Also, personally I would not want to be the company that changed its policies right before the change kicks in, as the bureaucracy can easily change the rules to hurt you for not embracing glorious new program.

As far as retroactively changing the definition, Clinton and the Dems retroactively raised the tax rate and that stood up in court. I see no reason the same could not be done here.

 

[fskimospy]

I suspect you're merely being dishonest, but on the off chance you are honestly confused:
http://tcbmag.com/News/Recent-News/2014/January/Businesses-Seek-Revision-Of-Obamacare-30-Hour-R

Their hours were cut because of the expectation that the new 30 hour full time definition would kick in as scheduled, in 2014. Also, personally I would not want to be the company that changed its policies right before the change kicks in, as the bureaucracy can easily change the rules to hurt you for not embracing glorious new program.

As far as retroactively changing the definition, Clinton and the Dems retroactively raised the tax rate and that stood up in court. I see no reason the same could not be done here.

Oh? So when were these hours cut? What month should we use as a baseline for the pre-ACA part time hours?

It is also odd that you are trying to argue with my statement that the employer mandate hasn't been implemented by quoting a piece about how it hasn't been implemented. The icing on the cake is that yet again you find that anyone who points out your ignorance must be lying.

By the way, still waiting on your report on how the BLS is conspiring to make unemployment numbers look better. Got an ETA on that, or are you going to do what you normally do and pretend it never happened?

 

[werepossum]

Oh? So when were these hours cut? What month should we use as a baseline for the pre-ACA part time hours?

It is also odd that you are trying to argue with my statement that the employer mandate hasn't been implemented by quoting a piece about how it hasn't been implemented. The icing on the cake is that yet again you find that anyone who points out your ignorance must be lying.

By the way, still waiting on your report on how the BLS is conspiring to make unemployment numbers look better. Got an ETA on that, or are you going to do what you normally do and pretend it never happened?

I'm not arguing with your statement that the employer mandate hasn't been implemented, I'm pointing out that it was to have been implemented and was postponed, and therefore affected businesses before it was postponed and in preparation of it being implemented. Surely if you can't understand that, you can at least find someone to explain it to you. Not sure how you get my "ignorance" considering that I'm pointing out that your post was dishonest in implying that the new definition could not be affecting businesses yet. Oh wait, I do get that. It's the exact same thing you do every thread, every issue, every time.

The hours were cut in the first or second quarter of 2013 if memory serves. You may choose to pretend that the mandate was never scheduled to be implemented in 2014, but in the real world businesses don't wait until the last minute to respond to changes in the law because unlike government, failure for businesses has consequences.

As far as conspiracies, what I specifically said was:

It's based on the new system consistently yielding lower unemployment numbers than the old system. When the new system consistently yields lower unemployment numbers than the old system, one doesn't really need to know why the new system consistently yields lower unemployment numbers than the old system to know that the new system consistently yields lower unemployment numbers than the old system.

Being unable to address that point, you attempted to warp it into something your felt you could address.

This is not sound logic. If the old system were faulty this would be the case as well. If employment really were better and everything else stayed the same this would also be the case. Saying that lower reported unemployment is facial evidence of an attempt to change the numbers to make unemployment lower is illogical.

So again, you have made a statement that BLS has intentionally altered their calculations to make unemployment appear better. If this is the case, provide the changes they have made that accomplish this. If you can't do that you might want to question why you would come to such a conclusion considering your lack of evidence.

Every thread, every issue, every time, whatever you have to say to fit your ideology you will say.

It's also highly interesting that the unemployment rate was dropped based on the 800,000 people (statistically calculated, obviously) reporting that they are no longer looking for work. Yet the business survey obviously cannot obtain this data. The survey that can provide this data is the household survey, which reported a net job loss for the month.

 

[fskimospy]

I like how you selectively bolded my post to de-emphasize the parts that told you why your logic was at best, wrong, and at worst deliberately dishonest. You said the BLS changed the method to make things look better. For the obvious reasons already mentioned, you have no way of knowing that. Naturally when called on your bullshit you retreat to attacking other people instead if admitting you might have said something stupid.

Every issue, every thread, every time.

If the reduction in hours happened in early 2013 then this should be reflected in the BLS data for that time. Can you please link to the evidence for this? Btw it will have to be in January-March as I already linked to April 2013 and hours worked are actually slightly up on the whole since then. You realize I would make fun of you less if you bothered to research what you're saying, right?

As for the survey data, that's not particularly interesting at all.

 

[Cozarkian]

OK, my mistake. I didn't check the latest U6 before posting. But to be clear, you're suggesting the higher U6 right is wrong because it doesn't "add back in" the people included in the lower 9.9 number? Must be the new math.

No, to be clear, the U6 rate would be 15.6%, not 12.3% if it included the missing workers. The U4-U6 rates include "discouraged workers" but there is an arbitrary cut-off that says workers who remain discouraged for more than a year drop out of the labor force and are no longer counted as discouraged. The daily KOS article calls these workers "missing" and points out that their absence from the U3 rate makes it a poor estimator of the economy.

 

[Knowing]

So your argument is that businesses in America were being run extremely inefficiently, and the ACA alerted them to this. Uhmm, okay.

That's your argument, if you'd like to argue against it then be my guest.

Additionally, the average hours worked per week has actually gone up slightly, while average hours worked per week in the service industry (which should be most heavily affected by the ACA employer mandate), remain the same. Can you explain how this relates to your theory?

They're cutting people, the people that remain work more hours.

Except you posted wrong facts and then when confronted with this declared the reality irrelevant.

wrong facts

wrong_facts

wrong

facts

I didn't declare reality irrelevant, I said businesses reacted and they're probably not going to go back just because the administration punted. There's a mandate to have rear view cameras in all new cars in 2018, after they CAD the cars up and put in orders for wire harnesses and components do you suppose they're going to give consumers a bye if the administration decides to make it 2019 instead?
Of course not.

Can you see why the credibility of your analysis on a particular policy might be called into question when you literally didn't know that it didn't exist yet?

It does exist, they chose not to implement it. At this point you're the one ignoring reality and making stuff up.

Most polling on small businesses does not show regulatory uncertainty as their reason for not hiring, they usually say that insufficient demand is the reason.

Is that right?

What about this survey from the US Chamber of Commerce?

Key Summary Points
I. Uncertainty Continues to be the Biggest Challenge for Small Businesses
...
What is the impact of regulation and the new health care law? Fewer jobs. 78% of small businesses surveyed report the taxation, regulation and legislation from Washington make it harder for their business to hire more employees. And, 74% say the recent health care law makes it harder for their business to hire more employees.

"But that was 2011!"

What about this survey from the US Chamber of Commerce?

Key Findings
Health Care Law is Top Concern

• Concern about Obamacare has increased by 10-points since June 2011 and by 4 points since last quarter.
• 71% of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to hire.

Here's some inspiring news, though, a survey by CBIZ payroll services (whoever they are).

In the nationwide survey of 3,500 businesses with 300 or fewer employees, 26 percent said they were adding to their payrolls in March, while 20 percent were cutting
...
Overall, hiring in this group was up about 1 percent over the previous month--the first hiring increase of 2014.
...
Noftsinger reads the fairly typical increase last month as a sign that anxiety about Obamacare is dissipating--at least for now.
...
"They keep pushing it off. Businesses that resisted hiring during late 2013 because of pending implementation, now see so much delay, and can't wait any longer to respond to increasing demand."

Remember, that's the anxiety you said didn't exist.

"But these sources are all not agreeing with me, it must be because they're wrong!"

Here's media matters' explanation:

according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey.
...
In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists -- not all of whom answer every question -- were asked the main reason employers aren't hiring more readily. Of the 51 who responded to the question, 31 cited lack of demand (65%) and 14 (27%) cited uncertainty about government policy.

Wow. Much sample. Many business. Wow.
...and uncertainty was still number 2. Let's keep going and see what else shakes out.

Economist Bruce Bartlett: "It's The Aggregate Demand, Stupid."

The New York Time's new Paul Krugman is a Keynesian, who'd have thought! Of course it's the spending, it always is. Or maybe it isn't...

'Financialization' as a Cause of Economic Malaise
By Bruce Bartlett

Moreover, rising fees paid by nonfinancial corporations to financial markets have reduced internal funds available for investment, shortened their planning horizon and increased uncertainty.

Granted, this isn't regulatory uncertainty so much as letting the banks have their run of the place to ruinous effect. At least he recognizes that the real economy is impacted by uncertainty. Maybe the lack of "aggregate demand" has something to do with the financial sector rentseeking.

But wait, there's more!

National Bureau of Economic Research:

Our estimates suggest that the decline in aggregate demand driven by household balance sheet shocks accounts for almost 4 million of the lost jobs from 2007 to 2009

Now, I accept that Media Matters wrote this article in June of 2012, so obviously they wouldn't have more recent data, but look what I found:

Really Uncertain Business Cycles
NBER Working Paper No. 18245

We find that reasonably calibrated uncertainty shocks can explain drops and rebounds in GDP of around 3%. Moreover, we show that increased uncertainty alters the relative impact of government policies, making them initially less effective and then subsequently more effective.

I sure hope they're right about that effectiveness.

Link to the paper at Stanford.

The non-convexities together with time variation in uncertainty imply that firms become more cautions in investing and hiring when uncertainty increases.
...
Increased uncertainty makes it optimal for firms to wait, leading to significant falls in hiring, investment and output.

I feel as though I've made my case, I bookmarked more that I didn't care to transcribe. I'm eager to see the data that you base your opinions on.

 

[Genx87]

I always like theads like these because the usual cheerleaders come out in support or against the numbers. I remember having the exact same pissing matches under Bush. Except we were pissing back and forth about 4-5% unemployment numbers and 67% participation rates.

 

[fskimospy]

That's your argument, if you'd like to argue against it then be my guest.

They're cutting people, the people that remain work more hours.

Oh jesus christ.

Your first post in this discussion between us was in response to me asking why people would think hours were reduced, to which you said that full time equivalency put them in the crosshairs of the ACA. Now you're claiming hours have increased, while cutting people. Not only does that make your original reply to me nonsensical, it also has the virtue of once again being completely wrong.

Please cite BLS data that supports this contention. I'm interested to see it, as the average hours worked in April of 2014 was 34.5. Guess what it was in January of 2013? 34.4. Guess what it was in January of 2012? 34.5. That was the 'slight' increase I referenced before. (which of course I am quite certain is not statistically significant)

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref2

Additionally, the number of part time workers has fluctuated fairly randomly between 27 and 28 million over the last year, while full time employment has modestly increased:

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf

Neither of these supports your contention in any way.

All I can do is post facts. Maybe you should check them before just making things up.

I didn't declare reality irrelevant, I said businesses reacted and they're probably not going to go back just because the administration punted. There's a mandate to have rear view cameras in all new cars in 2015, after they CAD the cars up and put in orders for wire harnesses and components do you suppose they're going to give consumers a bye if the administration decides to make it 2016 instead?
Of course not.

It does exist, they chose not to implement it. At this point you're the one ignoring reality and making stuff up.

I have no desire to get into the semantics of existence for public policy. This regulation has spent zero days in effect. I don't even know why you're trying to argue on this. You clearly thought the regulation was in effect despite loads of news stories to the contrary. If you aren't even aware of whether or not something has been implemented, a reasonable person might question that person's ability to discuss other aspects of that regulation intelligently.

Is that right?

**CUT**

I feel as though I've made my case, I bookmarked more that I didn't care to transcribe. I'm eager to see the data that you base your opinions on.

As for all that nonsense, I was simply referencing how polling shows that inadequate demand is the overwhelming reason for less hiring. You wasted a lot of time there in a fit of pique.

 

[fskimospy]

I always like theads like these because the usual cheerleaders come out in support or against the numbers. I remember having the exact same pissing matches under Bush. Except we were pissing back and forth about 4-5% unemployment numbers and 67% participation rates.

What's even sillier about arguing over every monthly report is that the initial margin of error is so large that a "good" report can become a "bad" one or vice versa very quickly. It's pointless.

I have to say that I'm pretty tired of the continuing accusations of the BLS changing things to make the numbers look better, though. It's just ignorance.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What's even sillier about arguing over every monthly report is that the initial margin of error is so large that a "good" report can become a "bad" one or vice versa very quickly. It's pointless.

I have to say that I'm pretty tired of the continuing accusations of the BLS changing things to make the numbers look better, though. It's just ignorance.

You can leave but some of the players must stay in the game so we can have comedic relief threads.

 

[Knowing]

Now you're claiming hours have increased, while cutting people. Not only does that make your original reply to me nonsensical, it also has the virtue of once again being completely wrong.

I said that the people who remained worked more hours, not that businesses paid for more net hours. This marks the second time in this thread that you've created an argument for me and then argued against it.

Please cite BLS data that supports this contention.

This is a new horizon in debate, "You may only use sources that I allow you to use." Just this second time I'll use your data, show you that you're wrong, and anxiously anticipate how you ignore it or claim that the facts are now wrong.


From March to April, unemployment dropped from 8,881 to 8,206 (-675). That's great, isn't it! Less people on unemployment must be good, it must be because that's what I believe so strongly. Meanwhile, the full time numbers changed from 118,003 to 118,415 (+412). This actually is pretty decent. Let's take a look at part time 27,695 to 27,297 (-398).

So, unemployment dropped by 675,000 while full time increased by 412,000, and part time dropped by 398,000. At the very least, 263,000 people fell off off of unemployment because they could not have gotten one of the 412,000 full time jobs and part time was contracting.

This is simple math.

Additionally, the number of part time workers has fluctuated fairly randomly between 27 and 28 million over the last year, while full time employment has modestly increased:

Neither of these supports your contention in any way.

You're absolutely right, both of those things would completely disprove my theory if human beings stopped having children and aging. Unfortunately, people are still joining the labor market.

All I can do is post facts. Maybe you should check them before just making things up.

I did, and again you were found to be wrong.

You clearly thought the regulation was in effect despite loads of news stories to the contrary.

No, I thought the regulation had an impact on the market. I've posted evidence to support that claim, you've provided exactly goose-egg to disprove it.

As for all that nonsense, I was simply referencing how polling shows that inadequate demand is the overwhelming reason for less hiring. You wasted a lot of time there in a fit of pique.

You didn't reference a single thing. You made a claim, then I quoted media matters' 2 year old compilation of cherry picked data and found several of their sources singing a different tune.

 

[fskimospy]

I said that the people who remained worked more hours, not that businesses paid for more net hours. This marks the second time in this thread that you've created an argument for me and then argued against it.

Oh, so you've resorted to mysterious, unprovable contentions that require businesses to be engaging in mass violations of labor law. This is so stupid as to not merit refutation.

Basically you said something stupid and you got called on it. Next time be more careful.

This is a new horizon in debate, "You may only use sources that I allow you to use." Just this second time I'll use your data, show you that you're wrong, and anxiously anticipate how you ignore it or claim that the facts are now wrong.

From March to April, unemployment dropped from 8,881 to 8,206 (-675). That's great, isn't it! Less people on unemployment must be good, it must be because that's what I believe so strongly. Meanwhile, the full time numbers changed from 118,003 to 118,415 (+412). This actually is pretty decent. Let's take a look at part time 27,695 to 27,297 (-398).

So, unemployment dropped by 675,000 while full time increased by 412,000, and part time dropped by 398,000. At the very least, 263,000 people fell off off of unemployment because they could not have gotten one of the 412,000 full time jobs and part time was contracting.

This is simple math.

Using your logic I can use previous months and make the exact opposite point. That's why no person trying to make a serious argument would use a single month's data. Cherry picking is a pretty obvious and ham handed effort. This is just getting childish.

As for my request that you use authoritative data, I'm so sorry to inconvenience you by having you use real facts.

You're absolutely right, both of those things would completely disprove my theory if human beings stopped having children and aging. Unfortunately, people are still joining the labor market.

I did, and again you were found to be wrong.

No.

No, I thought the regulation had an impact on the market. I've posted evidence to support that claim, you've provided exactly goose-egg to disprove it.

No rational person would interpret what you wrote that way. This is your standard MO.

You didn't reference a single thing. You made a claim, then I quoted media matters' 2 year old compilation of cherry picked data and found several of their sources singing a different tune.

so what? This argument with you is pointless. You're desperately trying to dodge admitting to what you obviously said, you're complaining about using real data, inventing mythical and unprovable theories to ignore BLS data, and even when you do you're cherry picking it to try and save face.

I'm not interested in continuing this if you can't even attempt to make an honest argument supported by facts. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[Attic]

What's even sillier about arguing over every monthly report is that the initial margin of error is so large that a "good" report can become a "bad" one or vice versa very quickly. It's pointless.

I have to say that I'm pretty tired of the continuing accusations of the BLS changing things to make the numbers look better, though. It's just ignorance.

In a time of no accountability for folks in positions of power and a truth as treason mentality amongst the current and past administrations I find the bolded to be one heck of a whopper.

That the BLS "changes things to make things look better" or goal seeks is common sense. This is why they manipulate labor force participation rate and why their numbers are poor representations of realities in the labor force. The BLS numbers are so deserving of skepticism it's a wonder anyone could look at them and think "yea, that makes sense, I'll trust it". This is just the time we live in, skepticism towards government run agencies is wise. Incessant bastardization of common sense is one of the tools used to counter push back against corrupt institutions and false idols.

 

[fskimospy]

In a time of no accountability for folks in positions of power and a truth as treason mentality amongst the current and past administrations I find the bolded to be one heck of a whopper.

That the BLS "changes things to make things look better" or goal seeks is common sense. This is why they manipulate labor force participation rate and why their numbers are poor representations of realities in the labor force. The BLS numbers are so deserving of skepticism it's a wonder anyone could look at them and think "yea, that makes sense, I'll trust it". This is just the time we live in, skepticism towards government run agencies is wise. Incessant bastardization of common sense is one of the tools used to counter push back against corrupt institutions and false idols.

As I asked of werepossum, if you believe this to be the case please mention the specific methodological changes that you believe to be problematic and provide analysis as to why these changes are problematic, particularly as compared to the methods they replaced.

The BLS calculates everything transparently. Hardly a good plan if you're intent on pulling a fast one on everyone. This reminds me of the crazies who think that there is secret inflation out there despite all the evidence.

 

[Knowing]

Oh, so you've resorted to mysterious, unprovable contentions that require businesses to be engaging in mass violations of labor law. This is so stupid as to not merit refutation.

How are they violating labor law? How does what I said imply they are violating labor law? Do you ever plan to back up your claims with facts?

Using your logic I can use previous months and make the exact opposite point. That's why no person trying to make a serious argument would use a single month's data.

"A single month's data"

So show me how I'm wrong and figure out why the labor participation rate and unemployment are dropping faster than full time and part time employment are adding jobs.

As for my request that you use authoritative data, I'm so sorry to inconvenience you by having you use real facts.

So media matters wasn't using real facts? I used their sources. Please reply, I'm trying to confirm that what you describe as "real facts" are not simply "facts that agree with my position," because that would be irrational and I'm oh so confident that you're not irrational.

No.

So...people aren't joining the labor market? That's an interesting conclusion to come to. It's also completely opposite what the BLS says, and I thought you said they were a valid source.

The growth in the labor force during 2012–2022 is projected to be smaller than in the previous 10-year period, 2002–2012, when the labor force grew by 10.1 million, a 0.7-percent annual growth rate.

So if we know the economy lost ~8 million jobs in the recession alone and over a 10 year period 10.1 million people joined the work force...

BLS

No rational person would interpret what you wrote that way. This is your standard MO.

Yes, no one could possibly divine that when I said "the people who remain work more hours" I meant that the people who are still working work more hours, but not more hours than all of the people who ever worked there. That would be silly. This way, it looks like I'm contradicting myself. If I didn't do that it would also make it harder for you to strawman my argument, which has been your standard MO.

so what? This argument with you is pointless. You're desperately trying to dodge admitting to what you obviously said, you're complaining about using real data, inventing mythical and unprovable theories to ignore BLS data, and even when you do you're cherry picking it to try and save face.

Jobs went up by ~2 million while the labor force participation rate declined. People who are not receiving unemployment insurance are not counted as unemployed, they're counted as not in the labor market.

With new people entering the labor force every day, the economy needs to add new jobs for them so an increase in the number employed and a decrease in the unemployment rate alone do not fully explain the situation. This is why they include labor force participation.

Every time I use data that you don't agree with you say that it's not real facts. The rate at which you deny sources' validity with absolutely no basis given is unsustainable, the entire planet will run out of "real facts" at this rate.

I'm not interested in continuing this if you can't even attempt to make an honest argument supported by facts. Feel free to have the last word.

So even when I use your sources you're going to tell me I'm wrong (but never say how), misrepresent my argument, and then leave?

 

[werepossum]

As I asked of werepossum, if you believe this to be the case please mention the specific methodological changes that you believe to be problematic and provide analysis as to why these changes are problematic, particularly as compared to the methods they replaced.

The BLS calculates everything transparently. Hardly a good plan if you're intent on pulling a fast one on everyone. This reminds me of the crazies who think that there is secret inflation out there despite all the evidence.

The new system consistently shows higher employment than does the old system. You seem to feel that acknowledging this requires showing proof of a conspiracy.

 

[fskimospy]

The new system consistently shows higher employment than does the old system. You seem to feel that acknowledging this requires showing proof of a conspiracy.

Higher employment as compared to what? Considering they aren't both used at the same time you aren't comparing apples to apples. It's like saying that my bank account must be miscalibrated because it shows more money in it this week than last week. It could be a problem with my account, or I could have gotten paid. Without a constant basis of comparison it's not possible to know. I am baffled that you are having so much trouble with this.

You made a simple, declarative statement: the BLS changed their methodology in a way that increased employment numbers. It is extremely telling that you have refused over and over to answer a very simple question.

HOW?

 

[werepossum]

Higher employment as compared to what? Considering they aren't both used at the same time you aren't comparing apples to apples. It's like saying that my bank account must be miscalibrated because it shows more money in it this week than last week. It could be a problem with my account, or I could have gotten paid. Without a constant basis of comparison it's not possible to know. I am baffled that you are having so much trouble with this.

You made a simple, declarative statement: the BLS changed their methodology in a way that increased employment numbers. It is extremely telling that you have refused over and over to answer a very simple question.

HOW?

The new system is the business survey with its equations and calculations. The old system is the household survey. Everyone knows this. Everyone.

 

[First]

The new system consistently shows higher employment than does the old system. You seem to feel that acknowledging this requires showing proof of a conspiracy.

Correlation =/ causation. Your implicit premise is a joke; BLS is transparent by statue, it makes no sense for some career BLS bureaucrat to fudge numbers in any direction. There's no motive, no incentive.

 

[First]

The new system is the business survey with its equations and calculations. The old system is the household survey. Everyone knows this. Everyone.

Huh? Your statement is odd and vague. For one, the household survey hasn't ever been taken at face value, it's notoriously erratic. Two, it's released with the establishment survey. They release both. What's your issue?

 

[First]

BLS published recent trends paper the week before last, in case anyone's confused:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has two monthly surveys that measure employment levels and trends: the Current Population Survey (CPS), also known as the household survey, and the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, also known as the payroll or establishment survey.

Employment estimates from both the household and payroll surveys are published in the Employment Situation news release each month. These estimates differ because the surveys have distinct definitions of employment and distinct survey and estimation methods. (See the
comparison of the surveys on page 4.) This report is intended to help data users better understand the differences in the surveys’ employment measures as well as divergences that sometimes occur in their trends.

Both the payroll and household surveys are needed for a complete picture of the labor market. The payroll survey provides a highly reliable gauge of monthly change in nonfarm payroll employment. The household survey provides a broader picture of employment including agriculture and the selfemployed.

 

[Genx87]

What's even sillier about arguing over every monthly report is that the initial margin of error is so large that a "good" report can become a "bad" one or vice versa very quickly. It's pointless.

I have to say that I'm pretty tired of the continuing accusations of the BLS changing things to make the numbers look better, though. It's just ignorance.

I think the silliest part is how people change sides in the argument. If a republican gets into power in 2016 suddenly all of these underemployment numbers dont mean anything and participation rates are no fault of the admin because of baby boomers retiring. And we can reverse the current democrat positions.

My feeling is the unemployment numbers only tell us what the unemployment market looks like. It does exactly what is designed to do. Politics turn what is a barometer for people seeking work into a referendum on policies that take years to show results.

 

[fskimospy]

The new system is the business survey with its equations and calculations. The old system is the household survey. Everyone knows this. Everyone.

You are deeply, deeply confused about how the BLS makes unemployment calculations.

It is kind of funny that "everyone" knows something that is wrong. Maybe at this point you should just say that you didn't know what you were talking about. By the way, I'm still waiting for those part time numbers from early 2012 or 2013 that you claimed bear out your contention.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think the silliest part is how people change sides in the argument. ...

You've made that vague allegation at least twice. Would you care to support it by offering specific examples? I believe my position has been consistent through both administrations: the number are good but not amazing, the BLS data is credible and well-documented, and the employment and unemployment figures published are only two pieces of the very complex puzzle that is the American economy.

The big difference is that there actually was a methodology change during the Bush administration (Jan, 2003, IIRC). It had the net effect of increasing the number of people reported as employed (i.e., "number of jobs") by almost one million. BLS clearly documented this change, both in a separate note and as a technical note in their monthly report. I noted at the time that the change appeared to be reasonable, but we needed to include it when comparing data provided before that change.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the silliest part is how people change sides in the argument. If a republican gets into power in 2016 suddenly all of these underemployment numbers dont mean anything and participation rates are no fault of the admin because of baby boomers retiring. And we can reverse the current democrat positions.

My feeling is the unemployment numbers only tell us what the unemployment market looks like. It does exactly what is designed to do. Politics turn what is a barometer for people seeking work into a referendum on policies that take years to show results.

I have to say that I haven't experienced the statistics denial from the left in the same way I've seen the conspiracy mongering around inflation and now unemployment. My thought is that any one report should not be taken too seriously, particularly before revisions, and that it is much more informative to look at the trends.

Regardless of what the report says though, I would certainly never try to claim that the BLS is deliberately manipulating things to achieve a desired result.