What's so hard to understand? The dip in the UR can be explained by a rise in the number of underemployed and/or a rise in the number of people whose benefits have run out but still can't get work or have stopped looking for work.
Based on the facts as we know them, yes, this probably correct... at least as far as the underemployed and part-timers are concerned.
If the unemployment figure is challenge, it should be able to be explained.
It has been explained. You've chosen not to pay attention to the explanation.
It is perfectly fair to challenge the numbers.
Yes, it is. But in challenging
any process, it's always helpful to understand the fundamental workings of the process before beginning the challenge.
All statistics are not created equally.
True.
They are taking statistical sampling from two different sources
Yes, but they are presenting these
two different data sets as
two different measures: the Household Survey (unemployment rate) is taken from the Current Population Survey and the Employer Survey (number of employees, hours worked, and earnings) is taken from the Current Economic Statistics. The fact that they are both part of the "Jobs Report" and are released together confuses some people. They
ain't the same thing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Open kimono time!" because I'm pretty open and simply speak my mind.
This:
I don't think it is crazy to think that Obama may have influenced it. If I had to put money on it, I probably would bet that he did not. However, I really haven't heard anything that has proven the challenge wrong. Just lots of mocking and "outrage".
Please explain just
how he could have done this. Any good or fun theory is fine. That's all. Again, you cannot claim that the possibility remains open until someone else proves that it did
not happen. If you want to challenge the methodology or integrity of the sampling or reporting, then
you must offer some theory as to how the data may have become corrupted or compromised. You'd bet that he didn't, but at the same time, you haven't heard anything to
prove that he didn't. Uh... huh! :surprise: Luckily, none of you Earthlings has tried to make me prove that I'm
not from Mars. You'd be sorry.
Have ray gun, will travel. :yesyes:
I wasn't challenging statistical sampling (even if in the case the numerator and denominator are derived from different sources with different rules),
But the numerator and the denominator used to calculate
the unemployment rate are from the same source: the Current Population Survey.
I was asking to show all of your work. That is high school, not university.
The full sample data would be adequate.
My work??? My work for what?
My work generally involves manufacturing facilities. I'd be happy to show you my work but I'll need to have a contract and a rather large check in front of me before sharing it. Provide me with a youngish, dark-haired assistant with big boobs and a curvy butt and I'll knock 20% off my going rate. Fair?
What these guys at BLS are doing is a world away (and above) what I do. Even when I've done work for military contractors at secure facilities, we're talking apples and moon rocks.
I wouldn't bet on a conspiracy. It is in my nature to challenge numbers and the rules. I'll keep doing so, even if people think it is not ok to challenge the government. (I'm a bit surprised how far to the right some folks are on this board.)
As offensive as I may seem at times, I'm usually
(except with Fisher) not
trying to be offensive. I just wasn't born with a great deal of patience once I think that someone isn't making a full, genuine effort to get their head around a basic point - which is why I no longer teach Six Sigma or statistics classes at the local college. And they do not miss me one bit - nor I them.
As I've already stated at least twice, people get confused by these numbers, in part because two different things are being spoken about and there are two different sources for the two different reports. The Employer Survey and the Household Survey are two different reports, yet people mix & match them in discussions and try to get them to agree with each other - yet short term, they seldom do. But over time, the two reports will generally demonstrate a similar
trend pattern. Do you follow stocks? OK. Well, the DJIA 30 and the S&P 500 are two different indices of vastly different constructions. But over time, they
may demonstrate a similar trend pattern, up or down. But what do people say when they talk about the Dow going up or down? They'll say "
the stock market did so & so today". The Dow is NOT "the stock market" - the S&P 500 is a better/more accurate representation of the actual stock market. So in speaking about the Household Survey, the month-to-month blips tend to be more pronounced as it comes from the smaller sample, Current Population Survey, which is the one used to calculate the unemployment rate. No conspiracy. No tricks. No smoke & mirrors. It is simply the nature of what is being measured and the sample size used to measure that population. If you want to talk about job creation or something else, the better measure is the Employer Survey.
To your methodology question, last I checked, the BLS assumes a confidence interval of 95% and a margin of error of 0.196 in building the model for the (Current Population Survey derived) "unemployment rate" itself and a .2352 margin of error for changes in the rate. Since the change of 0.3 was outside of the margin of error (.2352), the change would be considered "statistically significant". Now, the possible reasons behind that are another matter. But I have absolutely
no intention of going into a discussion about statistical significance, margins of error, confidence intervals or p-values.
P.S. That's right: I'm only fun at parties if I've had a lot to drink. ^^^This shit^^^ is my idea of "fun".
