Economy lost 400,000 jobs or gained 100,000

[pspr]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

No, I got your point just fine. I'm adding my perspective to the absurdity of the situation. If there was one, clear and consistent measure that was constant across the world and measured unemployment, there would be no room for massaging data.

Whatever

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from pspr:

Whatever

LOL...so you're mad that I agree with you?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Another very strange statistical anomaly in the data released by the BS...er...BLS this month.

From ZH

The 20-24 age group added jobs in the September time frame for the first time since the history of the data set.

More on this here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-05/strangest-number-todays-jobs-number

 

[pspr]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

LOL...so you're mad that I agree with you?

Not mad. Just don't see the point in nit picking over numbers that are always subject to inaccuracies which has little to do with the point being made.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from pspr:

Not mad. Just don't see the point in nit picking over numbers that are always subject to inaccuracies which have little to do with the point being made.

We have to nitpick them to find out where the stories don't match, if at all. The BLS makes the system so friggen complex in the hopes that no one can root out where the issues are, but all they end up doing is making it harder for them to hide the questionable data in the method. They'd be better off just lying outright, as no one would be able to prove anything.

 

[denner]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

We have to nitpick them to find out where the stories don't match, if at all. The BLS makes the system so friggen complex in the hopes that no one can root out where the issues are, but all they end up doing is making it harder for them to hide the questionable data in the method. They'd be better off just lying outright, as no one would be able to prove anything.

The fact that they can "revise" them months later in some footnote manner does help their cause either. All this bullshit about the headline number that (let's put it bluntly) IS fraudulent makes a mockery of this entire situation.

As you've pointed out repeatedly, the labor participation rate is about the best thing we've got nowadays.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from denner:

The fact that they can "revise" them months later in some footnote manner does help their cause either. All this bullshit about the headline number that (let's put it bluntly) IS fraudulent makes a mockery of this entire situation.

As you've pointed out repeatedly, the labor participation rate is about the best thing we've got nowadays.

Precisely. The whole game is a sham, and the more complex they make it, the more difficult it is to maintain a facade - as there's clearly no way to lie in all of the data.

 

[L-Kabong]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

The problem is created because of the multiple versions of unemployment. If you look at how most of the western world reports their unemployment data, it is people looking for work that cannot get it. Simple. But we split all this data out and don't consider certain folks unemployed simply because they don't meet criteria. Discouraged job seekers don't count WTF.

The media, of course eager to pick up on positive spin, goes right for the U3 when that doesn't include any of the other issues. If we were to go with the U3, we'd believe that we're economically rocketing towards a much better picture nationally. Does anyone that isn't smoking dope believe that?

Tsingy, I think EVEN a doper would understand that too. The BLS methodology has always been subject to justifiable criticism. It paints a rosier picture than the reality - regardless of who's running the show.

The problem is we always want to assign the failings of the methodology to our opposition party in the executive branch. They - the politicians - laugh at us when were sniping at each other rather than holding thier feet to the fire. Every single administration in the last 100 years has spun things to thier advantage. And if Romney wins in November, you can bet he will too in 2016. The only difference will be the cast of characters on this thread will have shifted sides.

I have been voting since 1980. I am jaded. Frankly, its 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other for me.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from L-Kabong:

Tsingy, I think EVEN a doper would understand that too. The BLS methodology has always been subject to justifiable criticism. It paints a rosier picture than the reality - regardless of who's running the show.

The problem is we always want to assign the failings of the methodology to our opposition party in the executive branch. They - the politicians - laugh at us when were sniping at each other rather than holding thier feet to the fire. Every single administration in the last 100 years has spun things to thier advantage. And if Romney wins in November, you can bet he will too in 2016. The only difference will be the cast of characters on this thread will have shifted sides.

I have been voting since 1980. I am jaded. Frankly, its 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other for me.

You don't get it: both sides are the same but the OTHER SIDE IS WORSE!

Understand? ; )

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

You don't get it: both sides are the same but the OTHER SIDE IS WORSE!

Understand? ; )

'

which is why the beast must be starved.