Trump Administration: Numbers are hard

[First]

Hey, whatever it takes for you to sleep at night.

Haha, already said that, Mr. Original.

 

[jana519]

Isn't that par for the course for media today?

Oh hell no. MSM is held to a much higher standard than alt "news". Like when the Times WH reporter mistakenly said the MLK bust was removed, he had to apologize profusely for the mistake. That's accountability.

 

[jana519]

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

"
The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
by Jim Clifton


Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading."

or
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...e-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/#16f6a2d03d23

"
...................That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. They may desperately need and want jobs. They may be in poverty, as many undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that 8.3% unemployment rate ........................

Right. "Discouraged workers" or long-term unemployed are typically not used for the unemployment rate as a metric.

 

[Accord99]

Oh hell no. MSM is held to a much higher standard than alt "news". Like when the Times WH reporter mistakenly said the MLK bust was removed, he had to apologize profusely for the mistake. That's accountability.

Where's the accountability of doing proper due diligence to avoid making such a mistake. And that apology probably came out because it was so easily disproved.

And that's a minor thing; compared to something like the liberation of East Aleppo, which much of the MSM still thinks is a tragedy.

As for the economy, no great economy would still have interest rates at near historical lows or a Fed with a staggering balance sheet. The US has become Japan, an economy with a low unemployment rate that has become stagnant for most of its population.

 

[jana519]

Where's the accountability of doing proper due diligence to avoid making such a mistake. And that apology probably came out because it was so easily disproved.

And that's a minor thing; compared to something like the liberation of East Aleppo, which much of the MSM still thinks is a tragedy.

Whoa, back up a second. First of all, I'm citing specific incidents. Your statement on Aleppo is a blanket generalization. In the case of the WH reporter, I said MSM was held to a higher standard of accountability. This is proven by the apologies issued. There is a higher standard, ie some accountability is more than none. Where's the accountability for Bannon and Breitbart labeling MSM outlets "fake news"?

I do agree, however, that due diligence wasn't given, but that wasn't my point. Also, don't want to veer off topic too much here. Back on track: Trump is having a hard time with the unemployment rate.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Right. "Discouraged workers" or long-term unemployed are typically not used for the unemployment rate as a metric.

of course they're not counted..........now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discouraged_worker
"According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are the following:[18]

1. The worker thinks no work is available.
2. The worker could not find work.
3. The worker lacks schooling or training.
4. The worker is viewed as too young or too old by the prospective employer.
5. The worker is the target of various types of discrimination."

Why would they be counted as unemployed? I mean just because they couldn't find work?

 

[pcgeek11]

What?
In an administrative position, how do you steer the ship? With data, with statistics, without data you are flying blind.
Saying you dont care for statistics is the same as saying you dont care about facts. Wait....

Statistics aren't always facts. A statistic is the results of data analysis. It being accurate is dependent on the data that is used. Everybody knows that the unemployment number data has been manipulated for years to get a better ( lower ) number for years. It doesn't take into account people that have given up for one thing.

I didn't see where he said they are ignoring the statistic.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Statistics aren't always facts. A statistic is the results of data analysis. It being accurate is dependent on the data that is used. Everybody knows that the unemployment number data has been manipulated for years to get a better ( lower ) number for years. It doesn't take into account people that have given up for one thing.

If you torture the numbers long enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear.

 

[Dulanic]

If I said my proof of something at my work was how I "felt" I'd be fired. Goals need to be able to be measurable or they're useless.

 

[pcgeek11]

If I said my proof of something at my work was how I "felt" I'd be fired. Goals need to be able to be measurable or they're useless.

He was pointing out the falsehood of the numbers that they frequently use as the Unemployment Number.

 

[jana519]

of course they're not counted..........now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discouraged_worker
"According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the top five reasons for discouragement are the following:[18]

1. The worker thinks no work is available.
2. The worker could not find work.
3. The worker lacks schooling or training.
4. The worker is viewed as too young or too old by the prospective employer.
5. The worker is the target of various types of discrimination."

Why would they be counted as unemployed? I mean just because they couldn't find work?

The reason why the BLS unemployment rate doesn't include discouraged workers is because they are not actively part of the job market.

The conventional unemployment rate is used as a metric because discouraged workers don't vary greatly month to month and quarter to quarter. Therefore the conventional rate is more useful for measuring change in the job seekers market.

If Trump wants to use discouraged workers to count total unemployment, fine. But it shouldn't be counted as an unemployment "rate." This shows how the administration is actively using misinformation as propoganda.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The reason why the BLS unemployment rate doesn't include discouraged workers is because they are not actively part of the job market.

The conventional unemployment rate is used as a metric because discouraged workers don't vary greatly month to month and quarter to quarter. Therefore the conventional rate is more useful for measuring change in the job seekers market.

If Trump wants to use discouraged workers to count total unemployment, fine. But it shouldn't be counted as an unemployment "rate." This shows how the administration is actively using misinformation as propoganda.

No, this shows how previous administrations have changed how they count unemployment figures to make themselves look better than their predecessors. Has the way unemployment numbers are counted been changed in the last 60 years? Are there different ranks of unemployment numbers?

 

[ivwshane]

No, this shows how previous administrations have changed how they count unemployment figures to make themselves look better than their predecessors. Has the way unemployment numbers are counted been changed in the last 60 years? Are there different ranks of unemployment numbers?

No you complete and utter fucking idiot! The unemployment numbers he wants to be used are simply another data set the BLS also collects and has collected for many decades. The fact is, the U3 number is the most common data set people use when talking about unemployment. If he wants to use a different set then to be useful he should be comparing the same data set historically.

Conspiracy not found.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Wish I had time to read through everyone's post, yet thought I'd respond to the initial one with an insight:

“It’s not just a number to him,” Spicer said of the president. "Trump is not focused on statistics as much as he is whether or not the American people are doing better as a whole.”

Statistics and logical inference are pillars of scientific progress.

Further, any business-school graduate who took his education seriously would have a feel for "basic business statistics" as taught with any of various fundamental text-books. An understanding of statistics and probability is essential to good business administration. It dovetails with a related topic explored in a book by Rappaport entitled "Decision Analysis" -- the exploration of decision alternatives through a search tree with probabilities assigned to paths between the nodes.

Statistics are also used in orchestrated psychological-warfare campaigns to assess the impact on target populations. Those applications were developed by the CIA in the 1950s. The Russians have come up to speed, though.

Everyone has heard Warren Buffet's brief remarks on Trump's "business practice," and it is not flattering. I would wager that Buffet will agree with me for what I say here, though.

Another application of probability and statistics dovetails with Trump's own flirtation with the hotel-casino industry -- most notably in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. But it applies generally to any low-stakes card-game or gambling situation in any context. I once knew a fellow who was an adjunct professor of statistics supplementing his civil-service day job. He had published a book on FORTRAN programming, using as a project example throughout the book the creation of a BlackJack simulation program. So the book discussed at length the strategy known as "card-counting" -- anathema to casinos, which strive to identify people who do it so they can be escorted to the door.

Business is analog to card-counting in the gambling industry. It exploits calculated risk, such as those Buffet and other serious business people demonstrate.

Trump, on the other hand, is an "all-in" Gambler of the type -- and personality disorder -- described in the movie and remake starring James Caan and later Mark Wahlberg -- "The Gambler." Narcissism and gambling often go together.

This is the last sort of person you want in the Oval Office. The last sort of person you'd want entrusted with "The Biscuit." And the last person in whatever office deserving my respect.

 

[Dulanic]

No, this shows how previous administrations have changed how they count unemployment figures to make themselves look better than their predecessors. Has the way unemployment numbers are counted been changed in the last 60 years? Are there different ranks of unemployment numbers?

So even IF you include discouraged workers we move up what .5%? So it went down 5%... how horrible. Has it been a perfect recovery? Nope. Is it decent for the situation we were in? I'd sure as hell say so.

 

[zinfamous]

And still [ZerHedge] end up more accurate than the most of the MSM with generally far better insight into economics. Maybe its your job that needs to disappear?

I'm gonna go ahead and accurately assume that you are in absolutely no position to gauge the accuracy of this trash website. "They are better because I agree!"

Jesus tapfucking Christ: This country is losing out to madness. I don't know where you nuts came from, but someone needs to gas up the loonywagon.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh hell no. MSM is held to a much higher standard than alt "news". Like when the Times WH reporter mistakenly said the MLK bust was removed, he had to apologize profusely for the mistake. That's accountability.

It's funny watching these chuckleheads complain about "Accountability" while defending sources that display a history of none. One might say these bozos don't understand what accountability means. One might say that, not me though. But other people; that's what they are saying anyway. I didn't say it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Statistics aren't always facts. A statistic is the results of data analysis. It being accurate is dependent on the data that is used. Everybody knows that the unemployment number data has been manipulated for years to get a better ( lower ) number for years. It doesn't take into account people that have given up for one thing.

I didn't see where he said they are ignoring the statistic.

No, everybody doesn't know that. It's an allegation made by both parties when the numbers become inconvenient.

The basic BLS methodology hasn't changed in decades. In those rare cases where they've tweaked their methodology, they call it out and document it. For example, they revised demographics weighting in Bush 43's first term, creating a one-time ~900K increase in reported employment. (As someone who was not a Bush supporter, to put it mildly, I examined that change and had to concede it seemed legitimate, mostly reflecting a shift in the balance between farm and non-farm workers.)

The BLS has "always" maintained several sets of unemployment data, each using somewhat different criteria. The U3 rate is traditionally cited as the official unemployment rate. There are five others, however (from BLS):

• U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
• U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
• U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
• U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
• U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
• U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

When the opposition party wants to cry about the unemployment rate being manipulated, they usually cite the higher U-6 rate instead. This has been the case for decades, whether that opposition party is Republican or Democratic. Right now the U-3 is still seen as Obama's U-3, so Trump and his supporters are crying about how it's artificially low. I predict that in a few months, when the U-3 is accepted as Trump's U-3, Donnie and the gang will be bragging about how low unemployment is under his reign.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm gonna go ahead and accurately assume that you are in absolutely no position to gauge the accuracy of this trash website. "They are better because I agree!"

Jesus tapfucking Christ: This country is losing out to madness. I don't know where you nuts came from, but someone needs to gas up the loonywagon.

The Internet is a double-edged sword. The good news is we now have true freedom of the press, where anyone can disseminate news without fear of censorship. The bad news is we now have true freedom of the "press", where anyone can disseminate "news" without fear of censorship. Unfortunately, too many people cannot or will not recognize the difference between news and "news". There is a reason legitimate news source value journalistic ethics and competent editors.

 

[zinfamous]

He was pointing out the falsehood of the numbers that they frequently use as the Unemployment Number.

I'll remember this the next time you or a pal point out unemployment numbers during Reagan years, during Bush years, during Obama years, in upcoming years...all using the exact same measure.

You're doing the same thing over and over and over: If you have deigned to discredit all of the tools that we use to measure data, to shape policy, to disseminate information to the public, then you are saying that everything is meaningless. No one can know anything because nothing is real. This is dangerous and wholly irresponsible, and there is absolutely no other way to interpret comments like this from you.

Sooner or later, you guys are going to have to extract your heads from your asses and rejoin the rest of us in society that are going to be busy cleaning up this disaster that you have shit upon us.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it is a difficult question to answer. If you truly want to answer it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-14/whats-real-unemployment-rate-thats-wrong-question

Uhmmm, zerohedge? The site you are citing as to why the unemployment numbers from the government aren't good is the same site that told everyone to buy gold before it crashed and then blamed the crash alternatively on fake inflation numbers and then on a government conspiracy. It's Infowars but for the economic crowd.

 

[fskimospy]

And still they end up more accurate than the most of the MSM with generally far better insight into economics. Maybe its your job that needs to disappear?

If you made an investment strategy based on recommendations from zerohedge you would be a very, very poor man. I don't care if they disagree with the mainstream media, it's their total incompetence that's the issue. It's a tabloid that makes sensational headlines to get clicks from easily misled people.

 

[zinfamous]

The Internet is a double-edged sword. The good news is we now have true freedom of the press, where anyone can disseminate news without fear of censorship. The bad news is we now have true freedom of the "press", where anyone can disseminate "news" without fear of censorship. Unfortunately, too many people cannot or will not recognize the difference between news and "news". There is a reason legitimate news source value journalistic ethics and competent editors.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this suggestion, but in the light of "something really does need to happen," I'd make a suggestion:

--An entity that advertises itself as a news source, that puts up "articles" that they choose to pass off as journalism, real or not, needs some sort of "licensing" that may or may not be attributed to something like peer review that (while certainly not always perfect), works pretty well in governing science publications.
--Any online "news agency" would need to meet certain standards from a 3rd party, bi-partisan board of reviewers (this would probably be huge, international, and quite possibly burdensome) that establishes guidelines that govern standards and practices for online publications. Organizations that meet and pass these standards carry a seal on their main page, advertising them as a legitimate journalistic site (you know, something like a DOCG that legitimizes a Chianti which meets the exacting standards of the Tuscany region). Heh, maybe even those that do not meet this standard receive a warning label on their website: "Warning, the content contained on these pages can not be guaranteed as true or not. Consume at your own risk. Assume that you are digesting lies." Or you know, something less abrasive...

Now, I tend to find a suggestion like that distasteful because it rejects the spirit and primary MO of the internet, but we can't continue to ignore the inherent risk in the internet model. It's high time we just accept that old standards in news organizations--personal accountability and individual orgs guided by their own ethical standards--is simply outdated and was never designed for the world we currently live in.
We still have great organizations out there, even if many of them aren't perfect, you can still pretty much trust that you aren't being explicitly lied to every time a mouth is open or text is plopped onto a webpage. But there is just far too much chaff, and it is obvious and clear that large numbers of people are either unwilling to do the work to sift through this or, much worse--simply do not care (a few decades of conditioning to accept confirmation bias as honest reporting)

And this is a bi-partisan issue and a bi-partisan problem. Yes, liberals do have their own sort of bubble and if that wasn't obvious after the results of this election, then I'm not sure how else to make that more explicit. I think a lot of this has to do with ignoring the "Revolutionary" wave of Obama's first campaign--against what became the new liberal elite--becoming complacent with this as he became more and more of an establishmentarian--and falling back into the trap of accepting that high-minded, pseudo-academic-but-really-corporatist solutioneering that the Clintons really brought to the table. Dems ignored the similar wave of populism from the classic liberal base was thoroughly behind Bernie, pretty much as they were behind Obama, and then further ignored how Trump caught a lot of that same sentiment (Revolution--end of elitism), whether or not the sides were simply different. ...OK, that is a bit off topic of the beginning of my post, but while I don't want to fall into the "both sides do it" FE, it should be clear enough to anyone that politics and social division in this country isn't going to be getting any better until citizens return to a place where they can actually admit that they trust their information streams--and of course by that I mean legitimate information streams.

You can scream all you want about ignorance and blaming the ignorant for distrusting legitimate news and opting for fake nonsense, but that isn't going to change their attitude. It will remain the exact same problem after you are done screaming at such people. What, then, is the actual solution for bringing the intractable back into the world of honest discourse?

 

[zinfamous]

Uhmmm, zerohedge? The site you are citing as to why the unemployment numbers from the government aren't good is the same site that told everyone to buy gold before it crashed and then blamed the crash alternatively on fake inflation numbers and then on a government conspiracy. It's Infowars but for the economic crowd.

Oh man...who was that guy over the previous 1.5 years that kept making the same threads about those zerohedge predictions and how the economy was heading for a total collapse by the end of ~2015 and the 2nd, and GREATEST! Depression ever?

I recall how he kept updating the same graph with a new red arrow each time.

 

[MongGrel]

Spicer looks like a deer in the headlights all the time, he doesn't spin as well as Kelly Anne.

I think she said fsck it, and he got stuck with the job, to be honest.

It is hard to think anything will be resolved, when the new POTUS seems hell bent on media suppression even before he took office, and has his cronies lying about something as minor as his inauguration attendance from day one.

It is just an example of how things will go in the future.

I'd still like to shoot that damned rifle Zin, but I do not even shoot my own shit a lot.