30 Jan 12
How accurate are the unemployment numbers?
http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/12/unemployment-drops-to-8-6-how-numbers-lie/
Are Obama's numbers accurate in the last state of the union address?
President Obama was referencing private-sector jobs exclusively when talking about jobs lost before his time in office, according to the White House official. Based on this private-sector jobs chart, the economy lost 3.506 jobs in the six months before his inauguration, not four million.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainDid you read the scale of the graph ? It's in thousands, so that 3,506 millions of jobs. It's still not 4 million thought, anyone knows where that number comes from ?
How accurate are the unemployment numbers?
http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/12/unemployment-drops-to-8-6-how-numbers-lie/
Are Obama's numbers accurate in the last state of the union address?
President Obama was referencing private-sector jobs exclusively when talking about jobs lost before his time in office, according to the White House offi ...[text shortened]... uration, not four million.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
Second, unemployment figures are accurate. For decades, they have been calculated the same way, though every time someone wants to score a political point, they bring up "but it's not taking into account those no longer looking" as if it's some sort of sinister manipulation of the data. It's not, take off the tin foil hat.
30 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by BartsFrom my understanding Obama was counting lost jobs prior to the stimulus package taking effect. When I'm not on my iPhone I'll double check the numbers.
Did you read the scale of the graph ? It's in thousands, so that 3,506 millions of jobs. It's still not 4 million thought, anyone knows where that number comes from ?
Second, unemployment figures are accurate. For decades, they have been calculated the same way, though every time someone wants to score a political point, they bring up "but it's not taking i it's some sort of sinister manipulation of the data. It's not, take off the tin foil hat.
PS: How in the world does someone not know the chart is in thousands?
30 Jan 12
2 edits
Unemployment figures are accurate as long as one recognizes what they measure (i.e. usually not underemployment, there are separate figures for that) and as long as you don't compare figures between countries, as statistics offices can have different definitions of unemployment. They should be used to monitor trends within countries over time.
Perhaps a better measure (if you do want to compare countries) is employment rate, as this rate always takes into account people who choose not to work for whatever reason (e.g. lazy housewives, people who don't bother looking for work because they think they won't find any, etc.). In this measure the US has an employment rate of 66.7%, compared to the list-topping Switzerland with 78.6% (OECD 2010 survey).
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Well that's one way to justify your time online. Look at this screenshot honey, I don't just sit here for hours talking tripe, I stick up for the sisterhood whenever I can as well too, look....cue romantic music as he shows her the screenshot, tears well in wifeys's eyes as she reaffirms gushingly as to how much she loves and why she's so glad she married lunkhead......fade music...
Ha!
You try staying at home with 3 or 4 kids all day for a few weeks and then tell us how "lazy" stay at home moms are.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by BartsRight, it is not 4 million jobs as Obama claimed. That is the whole point. What is your point?
Did you read the scale of the graph ? It's in thousands, so that 3,506 millions of jobs. It's still not 4 million thought, anyone knows where that number comes from ?
Second, unemployment figures are accurate. For decades, they have been calculated the same way, though every time someone wants to score a political point, they bring up "but it's not taking i ...[text shortened]... it's some sort of sinister manipulation of the data. It's not, take off the tin foil hat.
I never said it was a sinister manipulation of data. I am saying that it may not be accurate because of how it is figured. What you have overlooked is that there may be more discouraged workers who gave up looking than there was a year ago, for example. I don't think it is wise to believe short term changes in the numbers as a result of that.
The tinfoil hat comment is unwarranted. That is very insulting and narrow minded of you. How many people have you seen wearing tinfoil hats? I don't see any around here. Maybe you live in a bad area.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell, first of all Obama said we lost nearly 4 million jobs in the six months before he took office. At a hair over 3.5 million jobs lost, that's not an inaccurate statement.
Right, it is not 4 million jobs as Obama claimed. That is the whole point. What is your point?
I never said it was a sinister manipulation of data. I am saying that it may not be accurate because of how it is figured. What you have overlooked is that there may be more discouraged workers who gave up looking than there was a year ago, for example. I do ...[text shortened]... have you seen wearing tinfoil hats? I don't see any around here. Maybe you live in a bad area.
Workers who gave up looking are irrelevant to that particular statistic. It does factor into unemployment numbers, but that's a separate stat.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd USAP commented that the reference might have been to the 4 million lost before Obama could enact his policies. If you count the last 4 months before he became president + the first 2 that he was (before anyone could reasonably assume anything he did had a significant impact on employment) you're pretty close to 4 million, if not over. By the way, you seem to be saying "3.506 or 3,506 million, what the difference, neither is 4 million". Which sounds rather strange.
Right, it is not 4 million jobs as Obama claimed. That is the whole point. What is your point?
I never said it was a sinister manipulation of data. I am saying that it may not be accurate because of how it is figured. What you have overlooked is that there may be more discouraged workers who gave up looking than there was a year ago, for example. I do ...[text shortened]... have you seen wearing tinfoil hats? I don't see any around here. Maybe you live in a bad area.
As for the second point, you linked to an article that has the title "How numbers lie". I don't believe it is unfair of me to say you are insinuating that the data is somehow manipulated or at the very least grossly misrepresented.
The data is accurate, it is exactly (give or take a margin of error) the unemployment figure. And it is calculated exactly as the American government says it is calculated.
If your point is that looking at something like workforce participation rate is more informative, than make that point. Don't talk about the "accuracy" of numbers that are very accurate or post links that insinuate that the government is lying. If you don't want any more tin-foil-hat comments, then I suggest you take a bit more care when composing your OPs, if your post comes across as if you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks the government is hiding the truth about the economic situation from us, then you're going to get that kind of comments.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by BartsThe Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey from where the employment figures are derived is a survey so it is not exact. The sample is rather large (60,000 households) so the margin of error is somewhat small as to the overall numbers but obviously increases when you start talking about subsets of the data. The numbers usually get revised as the BLS rushes the prior month's numbers on the first Friday of the next month.
And USAP commented that the reference might have been to the 4 million lost before Obama could enact his policies. If you count the last 4 months before he became president + the first 2 that he was (before anyone could reasonably assume anything he did had a significant impact on employment) you're pretty close to 4 million, if not over. By the way, you seem ...[text shortened]... bout the economic situation from us, then you're going to get that kind of comments.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the info, so that margin of error is definitely there.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey from where the employment figures are derived is a survey so it is not exact. The sample is rather large (60,000 households) so the margin of error is somewhat small as to the overall numbers but obviously increases when you start talking about subsets of the data. The numbers usually get revised as the BLS rushes the prior month's numbers on the first Friday of the next month.
30 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainA mere 3,506 jobs I am sure is within the margin of error, and as stated instead refers to that x 1000. Further, after reading through the comments here, the conclusion is that Obama's numbers in the state of the union address were accurate, and that the basis of the numbers is known and unchanged, and thus not technically misleading. Lastly, is anyone offended that Obama would round 3.51 to 4 in his general statement. Is stating that 3.506 million is nearly 4 million really that misleading.
Are Obama's numbers accurate in the last state of the union address?
President Obama was referencing private-sector jobs exclusively when talking about jobs lost before his time in office, according to the White House official. Based on this private-sector jobs chart, the economy lost 3.506 jobs in the six months before his inauguration, not four million.