Can the White House change Unemployment Numbers?

[Munchmasterman]

“It is also important to understand the way the data for the survey are compiled and published. The survey involves hundreds of people at various stages in the process of collecting and compiling the data. Even if Galvin or some other top official in the bureau wanted to lie about the numbers, they couldn't possibly do it alone. Suppose they just changed the unemployment rate from a "true" rate of 8.1% to a bogus 7.8% rate. They would have the problem that this 7.8% number was inconsistent with the data on unemployment rates for whites and African-Americans. Or it would turn out to be inconsistent with the data on unemployment for young people and old people. If the perp just changed the overall unemployment rate, hundreds of experts would quickly find that numbers did not add up. The drop in the unemployment rate would not be consistent with other data in the survey. This would be easily detected. In order to successfully manipulate the data, it would be necessary to change hundreds of numbers that get reported each month. This would require the cooperation of dozens of top people at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Maybe in Welch's world, it is possible to go around with a big wad of money and buy off people at the drop of a hat, but the idea that someone from the Obama administration wandered through the top echelons of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to buy their cooperation in fixing the unemployment numbers is absurd on its face. Perhaps someone could be found who would be willing to be bought, but the rest would be singing their story on the national news.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/baker-welch-unemployment/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


I thought this was obvious.
Go figure.

[CJ7]

yes, the Oval Office can skew the numbers to suit their liking ..

if you dont believe it just ask any simpleton rightwinger on the block !!!!

one second the idiots scream Obie couldnt lead a horse to water, then turn on a dime and give him enough credit to make the BLS swing the numbers his way ..

cute aint they?

[indexec]

Check this out concerning the weekly job numbers that came out today

A sharp drop in the number of weekly jobless claims filed last week was caused by the failure of one large state to report all of its claims, a Labor Department spokesman confirmed

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2...#ixzz291YzMFcQ

[markroxny]

"He" did "it"...."again?"

SMH

[LexusLover]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/OPINION/baker-welch-unemployment/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

There I emphasized it for you. Now it's more obvious to everyone.

I read it through twice and no where was it mentioned that the numbers could be wrong.

In 2000 when things looked tight approaching the general election the BLS reported in October with figures used in September .. after having modified the methodology of "counting" jobless and redefining the terms, resulting in an increase in those with jobs.

After the elections the AFL-CIO was raising hell with the Clinton administration and reported on the website in December 2000 their corrected figures that turned more accurate and confirmed that in the last 3rd of the year there existed a decrease in employment and an increase in the unemployment rate. As was inconsistnt with previous reports.

Does it really matter who screwed up? Does it really matter who cooked the books? Does it really matter if it is intentional or just carelessness, e.g. California failing to report jobless claims ... btw .. is someone filing a jobless claim ... "unemployed"?

It does appear that many from both sides are criticizing the rate published .. not all .. but it doesn't pass the smell test ... regardless of whose stink is on it.

Smoke and mirrors over a meaningless ALLEGED decrease in "unemployment" as defined ... .3% when the man said it would 5.6% if you had me all that money to pass out ....

isn't that the real issue .... he needs a miracle to get it down to 5.6% by election day. Just like he had better get his ass in gear if he expects to close GITMO by election day.

I know. The film did it.

[gnadfly]

Your post is hypothetical strawman bs. Sure the numbers can be manipulated. Even Mark Twain knows it.

Munchmasterman x 13,000 = 0



But thanks for normal non-blue font.

[CuteOldGuy]

Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report
The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[JD Barleycorn]

So now even WTF, Assup, and the rest know that California was left out of the report. Yes, the numbers are wrong. Who runs California? Yep, Jerry Brown and the democratic party. So all a person from the White House has to do is call the state BLS in California and suggest that they take a week off with pay. Those reports can be submitted later.

[LexusLover]

Can the White House change Unemployment Numbers?

They better. They promised to change them. Down to 5.6% by May 2012.

They still have about 3 weeks to go.

[Guest123018-4]

As is typical they got the effect they wanted.
They were able to post that numbers are way down indicating the economy grew even though it did not.

Very few people pay any attention to what comes after the report which has been a solid history of revisions each time. This is just another example of manipulation of the numbers by the government.

[Whirlaway]

Of course the WH can "change " the numbers - through policy or fraud.

What a dumb question.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/OPINION/baker-welch-unemployment/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

There I emphasized it for you. Now it's more obvious to everyone.
You didn't emphasize it for me. It's up to you to do the reading

I read it through twice and no where was it mentioned that the numbers could be wrong. It didn't mention it because it is obvious there could be a mistake. This article isn't about wrong numbers. It's about fake numbers. (Wrong meaning there was some type of error and fake meaning fictitious entries made. A mistake is possible. A conspiracy isn't. See below.)

In 2000 when things looked tight approaching the general election the BLS reported in October with figures used in September .. after having modified the methodology of "counting" jobless and redefining the terms, resulting in an increase in those with jobs.

After the elections the AFL-CIO was raising hell with the Clinton administration and reported on the website in December 2000 their corrected figures that turned more accurate and confirmed that in the last 3rd of the year there existed a decrease in employment and an increase in the unemployment rate. As was inconsistnt with previous reports.

Does it really matter who screwed up? Does it really matter who cooked the books? Does it really matter if it is intentional or just carelessness, e.g. California failing to report jobless claims ... btw .. is someone filing a jobless claim ... "unemployed"?

It does appear that many from both sides are criticizing the rate published .. not all .. but it doesn't pass the smell test ... regardless of whose stink is on it.

Smoke and mirrors over a meaningless ALLEGED decrease in "unemployment" as defined ... .3% when the man said it would 5.6% if you had me all that money to pass out ....

isn't that the real issue .... he needs a miracle to get it down to 5.6% by election day. Just like he had better get his ass in gear if he expects to close GITMO by election day.

I know. The film did it.

You failed to mention that your reply is just your opinion. Uninformed opinion since you don't know who generates the numbers, how the numbers are plugged into the equation, and why it is statistically unlikely the books are cooked. The article's point is that when you say the books are cooked, you are saying there is a large conspiracy doing it. From a non-partisan entity.

I posted the link in plain sight. I didn't try to hide it was an opinion piece. But being an opinion piece doesn't mean it can't contain facts or common sense (see bold black below). The WH doesn't post the numbers, they repeat the numbers the BLS posts. The fact that a mistake was caught proves the premise of the opinion piece. You know "but the idea that someone from the Obama administration wandered through the top echelons of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to buy their cooperation in fixing the unemployment numbers is absurd on its face. Perhaps someone could be found who would be willing to be bought, but the rest would be singing their story on the national news.”
You read through twice and you saw what wasn't mentioned.
You read through twice and you missed the highlighted part?

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Of course the WH can "change " the numbers - through policy or fraud.

What a dumb question.

No such thing as a dumb question.

Plenty of dumb answers though.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can the White House change Unemployment Numbers?

They better. They promised to change them. Down to 5.6% by May 2012.

They still have about 3 weeks to go.

Repeat the lie often enough and you will believe it.


American Crossroads made the following false statement.
"This is what President Obama said the jobless rate would be if we passed the stimulus: 5.6 percent."

"The report, designed to help Obama argue for an aggressive response to the burgeoning jobs crisis, featured projections for the effect of a stimulus plan.

Those estimates include a chart, "Unemployment Rate With and Without Recovery Plan," that displays a post-stimulus jobless rate around 5.6 percent in mid 2012, like the chart in the American Crossroads ad.

But Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser, also wrote that their estimates were "subject to significant margins of error," and "considerable uncertainty."

We’ve previously ruled that the report was not a promise, but a projection, noting its several caveats."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-rate-would-b/

Learn to do some research.

[Whirlaway]

Of course not, if you happen to be dumber than rocks.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No such thing as a dumb question.