Obama inherits manipulated employment data, more jobs lost than previously thought

[Specop 007]

Obviously Bushs corruption of government is quite widespread. It appears the Transparent Administration inherited incorrect (manipulated? Falsified) employment data. Now Obama will have to face the criticism that they are fudging the facts when clearly its simply the Bush Agenda.

So it seems unemployment is higher then previously thought. Green shoots? No, not really. We should raise the debt limit to throw more money into the economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNSc0oQ0vb4M&pos=10

U.S. May Lose 824,000 Jobs as Employment Data Revised: Analysis

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

Click here for a Bloomberg Multimedia interactive visual analysis of the economy’s job losses.

 

[MikeMike]

So, you take a revised statement, and say Bush manipulated data?

I want proof that this was Bush's fault before you can post that in the OP, because that's pure troll bait.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

So, you take a revised statement, and say Bush manipulated data?

I want proof that this was Bush's fault before you can post that in the OP, because that's pure troll bait.

Look at the OP, then realize that you fail at detecting massive levels of sarcasm.

 

[xochi]

This has been going on since at least the Reagan Administration.

BLS workers estimate current employment numbers based on models, surveys, etc, for current employment statistics. (Unemployment rate, employment by industry)

When real data comes in, they compare the estimates to real wage data employers report to their states for Unemployment Insurance purposes. Most of the time the Govt, is pretty close to reality so the revison is a non-issue, this year apparetnly they were a bit off.

 

[woolfe9999]

I doubt that the data was purposefully manipulated by Bush or his Labor Department. These kinds of computations are done by careerist bean counters in the DOL, and the DOL's methods are controversial, as are other methods which are proposed as alternatives. Error is a more likely scenario, which is why the stats get revised by the same department that created them.

- wolf

 

[Hacp]

Models fail? Color me surprised. If models were 100% accurate, the current ones wouldn't be predicting global warming.

 

[theeedude]

Models fail? Color me surprised. If models were 100% accurate, the current ones wouldn't be predicting global warming.

and supply side economics would work

 

[ElFenix]

and supply side economics would work

models are like pictures on myspace. sometimes there actually is a cute girl. and sometimes there is this

 

[werepossum]

LOL Your tag line is particularly apropos with that picture. Sweet girl, makes all her own clothes, all the girls love her, knows all the best restaurants, and DAMN you should see her float. Plus she comes with her own zip code and an OSHA-mandated back-up alarm. What's not to love?

 

[Bowfinger]

I doubt that the data was purposefully manipulated by Bush or his Labor Department. These kinds of computations are done by careerist bean counters in the DOL, and the DOL's methods are controversial, as are other methods which are proposed as alternatives. Error is a more likely scenario, which is why the stats get revised by the same department that created them.

- wolf

Who knows if it was purposefully manipulated or not, but the change was beneficial to the Bush administration as it tried to paint a positive picture of job recovery.

If you go back to old threads about employment, you'll find I brought this up several times. I believe the change was in January of 2003, and it was documented as a methodology change by BLS. It had the net effect of increasing the reported number of Employed by roughly one million, something one had to consider when comparing pre-2003 employment statistics with 2003 forward.

While the methodology change may have been perfectly valid, it was exploited by Bush and his supporters to claim employment had recovered by a million more jobs than it actually had. The new adjustment from the OP may be reversing this change, or it may be something wholly unrelated that happens to have similar scale. Either way, it makes it difficult to compare Employment from year to year unless you have BLS adjusted figures. It would be nice if BLS picked one methodology and stuck to it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Who knows if it was purposefully manipulated or not, but the change was beneficial to the Bush administration as it tried to paint a positive picture of job recovery.

If you go back to old threads about employment, you'll find I brought this up several times. I believe the change was in January of 2003, and it was documented as a methodology change by BLS. It had the net effect of increasing the reported number of Employed by roughly one million, something one had to consider when comparing pre-2003 employment statistics with 2003 forward.

While the methodology change may have been perfectly valid, it was exploited by Bush and his supporters to claim employment had recovered by a million more jobs than it actually had. The new adjustment from the OP may be reversing this change, or it may be something wholly unrelated that happens to have similar scale. Either way, it makes it difficult to compare Employment from year to year unless you have BLS adjusted figures. It would be nice if BLS picked one methodology and stuck to it.

You should change your username to B..bu..but..Bushfinger.

If you actually read the article you'll see that the methodology used to come up with these figures has been in use since 2000. It has nothing to do with any change in 2003. Additionally, that methodology was perfectly valid except for the year 2008. 2008 was an anomaly, which means the model might require some tweaking to accomodate a recession, but it doesn't invalidate the modeling in its entirety or point back to Bush doing anything devious. In fact, the Labor Dept. states that:

"there are no changes to the current modeling technique scheduled at this time."

So go spew your trollish anti-Bush diatribes elsewhere. They are long past stale.

 

[Bowfinger]

You should change your username to B..bu..but..Bushfinger.

If you actually read the article you'll see that the methodology used to come up with these figures has been in use since 2000. It has nothing to do with any change in 2003. Additionally, that methodology was perfectly valid except for the year 2008. 2008 was an anomaly, which means the model might require some tweaking to accomodate a recession, but it doesn't invalidate the modeling in its entirety or point back to Bush doing anything devious. In fact, the Labor Dept. states that:

"there are no changes to the current modeling technique scheduled at this time."

So go spew your trollish anti-Bush diatribes elsewhere. They are long past stale.

Po' baby. I mention Georgie's name in something less than a glowing light (albeit completely accurate) and you spring from under your rock to defend him. Cluck off. There was no trolling and no diatribe (that would be you). I was conveying information. You should try it some time.

 

[Thump553]

My favorite manipulation was during the Bush Administration when fast food restaurant workers were reclassified from service to manufacturing on the theory that McDonald's workers are "assembling" hamburgers (that are already manufactured offiste, anyway). Overnight we had a substantial paper increase in manufacturing jobs, which are widely viewed as higher paid.

 

[DesiPower]

Poor Obama... I really feel sorry for him... Darn Bush, its all his fault. It will take another 7 years just to clean all his mess...

 

[Thump553]

If only the damage Bush caused could be solved in seven years. You are far more optimistic than I am.

I fear that history will judge the last Bush as the President that closed the door on the golden age of the USA. He succeeded in politically radicalizing the Supreme Court. he reversed a decade long trend of reduced deficits and even slight surpluses, instead changing them into massive deficits under his cynical plan to cut taxes for the rich "to grow the economy." He squandered billions of dollars and much of our military strength on an egocentric war to prove he was better than his father. He ignored the real war against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11, thus squandering forever our initial acheivments in Afganistan.



By any objective standard GWB was perhaps the worst possible President at the worst possible time we could have had. It will take decades of sacrifice to repair the damage GWB caused-regardless of who the President is.

 

[IGBT]

the obama is comfortable with fraud and lies. he'll find a way to juggle the numbers and blame bush at the same time.

 

[Robor]

If only the damage Bush caused could be solved in seven years. You are far more optimistic than I am.

I fear that history will judge the last Bush as the President that closed the door on the golden age of the USA. He succeeded in politically radicalizing the Supreme Court. he reversed a decade long trend of reduced deficits and even slight surpluses, instead changing them into massive deficits under his cynical plan to cut taxes for the rich "to grow the economy." He squandered billions of dollars and much of our military strength on an egocentric war to prove he was better than his father. He ignored the real war against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11, thus squandering forever our initial acheivments in Afganistan.



By any objective standard GWB was perhaps the worst possible President at the worst possible time we could have had. It will take decades of sacrifice to repair the damage GWB caused-regardless of who the President is.

QFT :awe:

 

[JS80]

This has been going on since at least the Reagan Administration.

BLS workers estimate current employment numbers based on models, surveys, etc, for current employment statistics. (Unemployment rate, employment by industry)

When real data comes in, they compare the estimates to real wage data employers report to their states for Unemployment Insurance purposes. Most of the time the Govt, is pretty close to reality so the revison is a non-issue, this year apparetnly they were a bit off.

lol, now it's Reagan's fault! haha

 

[dmcowen674]

lol, now it's Reagan's fault! haha

No no no, it's Jimmy Carter's brother fault with his Billy Beer

 

[Genx87]

If only the damage Bush caused could be solved in seven years. You are far more optimistic than I am.

I fear that history will judge the last Bush as the President that closed the door on the golden age of the USA. He succeeded in politically radicalizing the Supreme Court. he reversed a decade long trend of reduced deficits and even slight surpluses, instead changing them into massive deficits under his cynical plan to cut taxes for the rich "to grow the economy." He squandered billions of dollars and much of our military strength on an egocentric war to prove he was better than his father. He ignored the real war against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11, thus squandering forever our initial acheivments in Afganistan.



By any objective standard GWB was perhaps the worst possible President at the worst possible time we could have had. It will take decades of sacrifice to repair the damage GWB caused-regardless of who the President is.

Our Golden age died long before Bush came into the presidency. We are fighting more and more wars to secure our way of life, espending more and more resources to do so, and we have a tidal wave of entitlements about to wash us all away. We sealed our own doom decades ago. The only question is can we make a life raft quick enough to avert drowning? With the way this administration is topping the last when it comes to deficit spending. I think we may as well sit back, smoke a fat blunt, and enjoy the beauty of the incoming wave.

 

[dullard]

Our Golden age died long before Bush came into the presidency. We are fighting more and more wars to secure our way of life, espending more and more resources to do so, and we have a tidal wave of entitlements about to wash us all away. We sealed our own doom decades ago.

Our golden age had little to do with politics (maybe indirectly at best). It has a lot more to do with population demographics. Here is the percent of Americans who are of working age (15-65): Source
1960: 59.7%
1970: 61.9%
1980: 66.2%
1990: 65.9%
2000: 66.2%
2010: 66.9% (near all time peak of 67.2% in 2007)
2020: 64.0% (estimated)
2030: 61.2% (estimated)
2040: 60.7% (estimated)
2050: 60.6% (estimated)

As you can see, our ability to have a high GDP (many workers) with a low burden (few children/retired) peaked in 2007. That was the peak of our ability to have a golden age. This wasn't Bush's fault (or Clinton or Obama). This is just a fact.

Our pyramid-like entitlement programs worked as long as that ratio grew (until 2007). But that time is over. Over for good. Things will be far more bleak from here on out. Entitlements must be curtailed and taxes must go up. Either that or the relatively new concept of a retirement must go.

Note: the small percent changes there are bigger than they seem. When 66.9% of the population is of the working age, each working age person had to carry 0.49 people of non-working age. At 60.6%, each working age person will have to carry 0.65 non-working age people. That is a 31% decline in our lifestyle with just a 6.3% shift in the numbers in the table above.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Po' baby. I mention Georgie's name in something less than a glowing light (albeit completely inaccurate) and you spring from under your rock to defend him. Cluck off. There was no trolling and no diatribe (that would be you). I was conveying misinformation. You should try it some time.

Fixed.

You should try actually reading articles next time before spouting off with your BDS-addled brain. As I already explained to you, this report had nothing to do with any methodology changes made by the BLS in 2003. The information you conveyed was not correct. So stop passing shit around while trying to convince everyone it's palatable. Anyone that bothers to take a whiff can easily determine that your "information" stinks and arises from your ingrained biases, not facts.

 

[kage69]

If only the damage Bush caused could be solved in seven years. You are far more optimistic than I am.

I fear that history will judge the last Bush as the President that closed the door on the golden age of the USA. He succeeded in politically radicalizing the Supreme Court. he reversed a decade long trend of reduced deficits and even slight surpluses, instead changing them into massive deficits under his cynical plan to cut taxes for the rich "to grow the economy." He squandered billions of dollars and much of our military strength on an egocentric war to prove he was better than his father. He ignored the real war against the people who actually attacked us on 9/11, thus squandering forever our initial acheivments in Afganistan.

By any objective standard GWB was perhaps the worst possible President at the worst possible time we could have had. It will take decades of sacrifice to repair the damage GWB caused-regardless of who the President is.

Great post. Very well said, and IMHO entirely accurate. Cue the amnesia afflicted trolls!

 

[Bowfinger]

[ Usual belligerent flapping and clucking deleted ]

Learn to read all the words sweetie. I was responding to the general observation that, "These kinds of computations are done by careerist bean counters. ..." I explicitly said, "The new adjustment from the OP may be reversing this change, or it may be something wholly unrelated that happens to have similar scale." What part of that escapes your fowl little brain?

One would think you could give your compulsive Bush fluffing a break after all this time, but I suppose when that's the only card in your deck ...

 

[Robor]

Our golden age had little to do with politics (maybe indirectly at best). It has a lot more to do with population demographics. Here is the percent of Americans who are of working age (15-65): Source
1960: 59.7%
1970: 61.9%
1980: 66.2%
1990: 65.9%
2000: 66.2%
2010: 66.9% (near all time peak of 67.2% in 2007)
2020: 64.0% (estimated)
2030: 61.2% (estimated)
2040: 60.7% (estimated)
2050: 60.6% (estimated)

As you can see, our ability to have a high GDP (many workers) with a low burden (few children/retired) peaked in 2007. That was the peak of our ability to have a golden age. This wasn't Bush's fault (or Clinton or Obama). This is just a fact.

Our pyramid-like entitlement programs worked as long as that ratio grew (until 2007). But that time is over. Over for good. Things will be far more bleak from here on out. Entitlements must be curtailed and taxes must go up. Either that or the relatively new concept of a retirement must go.

Note: the small percent changes there are bigger than they seem. When 66.9% of the population is of the working age, each working age person had to carry 0.49 people of non-working age. At 60.6%, each working age person will have to carry 0.65 non-working age people. That is a 31% decline in our lifestyle with just a 6.3% shift in the numbers in the table above.

Very interesting.