Latest GOP Conspiracy Theory: Bureau of Labor Statistics cooked the jobs report to benefit Obama

[Rey C.]

It's funny (and kind of sad) to see Jack Welch, formerly of GE, leading this baseless charge. Jack was a legendary CEO at GE... before he began cheating on his wife and doing things to benefit himself at the expense of shareholders. This is sad to me because Jack Welch was a champion of using data over opinions and gut feel to run a business. Under Welch, GE was a company that made Six Sigma REALLY work. And that program methodology is entirely about following the data! But here, Jack sees data he doesn't like and so he creates a story to dismiss it - much like failing dept. managers do when encountering Six Sigma project managers.

But according to this new (old? senile?) Wingnut Jack, the Muslim commie **** socialist Kenyan is getting a secret boost from those Moon Jews at BLS. Jack. Jack? Jack! Time for your meds, Jack. Where are your pants?! And stop touching the cat like that. :nono:


What happened to the guy who would fire a manager based on data and just say, "it is what it is and you did it to yourself"??? :dunno: Very sad to see Jack become one of the very people that he used to rail against.

11:17AM EST October 5. 2012 - Some of President Obama's critics don't believe the new jobs report.

After the Labor Department reported 114,000 new jobs -- yet a sharp drop in the unemployment rate, to 7.8% -- former General Electric CEO Jack Welch tweeted out:

"@jack_welch Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

A variety of other conservatives are also questioning the provenance of the new jobs numbers.

Their conspiracy theory drew intense skepticism, including Republicans who back GOP challenger Mitt Romney.

Tony Fratto, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, tweeted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics "is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility."

Whether jobs reports joins other Obama-related conspiracies -- his birth place, his religion -- remains to be seen.

Perhaps we'll have to wait until next month's jobs report.

In another tweet, Fratto said: "Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories. Good grief."

Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama, told Bloomberg Television: "No serious person would question the integrity of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These numbers are put together by career employees to use the same process every month.

"I think those comments are irresponsible."

The Bureau of Labor Statistic is a walled-off organization, designed to be beyond political influence.

As Ezra Klein of The Washington Post pointed out:

"As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, "anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled." Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don't you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000."

 

[mikexmoran]

I've read that they are offended, but I haven't read how they arrived at the number. The closest I've seen so far is that it is "complicated".

Yeah, Jack, like most Presidents (of companies and countries) cheated on his wife. So what?

I'd like to see that math and understand the possible defect level in the process to arrive at these numbers. Timing is suspicious.

It's funny (and kind of sad) to see Jack Welch, formerly of GE, leading this baseless charge. Jack was a legendary CEO at GE... before he began cheating on his wife and doing things to benefit himself at the expense of shareholders. This is sad to me because Jack Welch was a champion of using data over opinions and gut feel to run a business. Under Welch, GE was a company that made Six Sigma REALLY work. And that program methodology is entirely about following the data! But here, Jack sees data he doesn't like and so he creates a story to dismiss it - much like failing dept. managers do when encountering Six Sigma project managers.

But according to this new (old? senile?) Wingnut Jack, the Muslim commie **** socialist Kenyan is getting a secret boost from those Moon Jews at BLS. Jack. Jack? Jack! Time for your meds, Jack. Where are your pants?! And stop touching the cat like that. :nono:


What happened to the guy who would fire a manager based on data and just say, "it is what it is and you did it to yourself"??? :dunno: Very sad to see Jack become one of the very people that he used to rail against.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Obama Pulls a Magic Number Out of His Hat

What a remarkable coincidence. The day after Obama is spectacularly devastated in a debate, his Labor Department reports a miraculous drop in the unemployment rate:

The nation’s unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent in September from 8.1 percent in August even though just 114,000 jobs were added to private and public payrolls, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.

Under 8% at last, for the first time since Obama took office. Quite a milestone. You see, everything is getting better now. Massive waste and federal micromanagement are turning the ship around.

For the benefit of anyone naive enough to take this number seriously, Shadow Government Statistics is keeping track of reality:

The SGS line counts would-be workers who have given up trying to find employment under Obamunism, and are considered by the government not to exist. Like U6, it includes those forced to work part-time because they can’t find full-time work.

Legendary CEO Jack Welch has a succinct explanation for the Obama Regime managing to reduce unemployment even as so few new jobs are added:

 

[Rey C.]

I've read that they are offended, but I haven't read how they arrived at the number. The closest I've seen so far is that it is "complicated".

It's easy enough to find in various degrees of complexity and detail. Here's one: Bureau of Labor Statistics - Employment Situation Report [FULL TRANSCRIPT] For most people it gives a good enough explanation of the raw data collection techniques. There are others which go into even greater mathematical detail.

Yeah, Jack, like most Presidents (of companies and countries) cheated on his wife. So what?

This is something of an example of what I was talking about. You say, "Jack, like most Presidents (of companies and countries) cheated on his wife..." So at least 50.1% of company and national presidents cheat on their spouses? Do you have data to support this contention? I doubt it. So here again, we have a claim, totally unsupported by data, presented as a fact. And in my world, a claim or opinion not supported by data... is just an opinion.

No, in fact, while Jack Welsh was at GE, executives and managers were held to certain ethics and morals clauses in their contracts. My employer at that time was modeled after GE and we did the same. To carry on a public affair could quite easily result in that executive losing his job or being demoted. The thinking was, if you'll cheat on your spouse, then you might lie or cheat in your business dealings. But here we have a fellow, who is now branded as a known cheat and liar, accusing others of lying and cheating. My point is, that's rather ironic.

I'd like to see that math and understand the possible defect level in the process to arrive at these numbers. Timing is suspicious.

There are revisions to the BLS reports. There always have been. There always will be. This one will likely be revised, up or down, in the coming months as well. There is nothing oddly unique about it - other than some people not liking the reported data. And there is nothing suspicious about the timing. These reports are released on a defined schedule, which anyone who follows economic reporting knows about well ahead of time. There will be another report, for October 2012, released at 8:30AM on November 2, 2012. The report for November 2012 will be released at 8:30AM on December 7, 2012.

What some people fail to understand is the enormity of this data collection effort. For there to be a way to juice the data or results one way or the other, a widespread conspiracy of grand proportions would be necessary. It's not like there is only one or two people who put this report together and they could change some numbers here or there without being found out. How would one even begin to organize such a conspiracy among career bureaucrats and economists without being found out??? :dunno:

Again, this is just another situation where people see numbers that they don't like, so they question the legitimacy of the data and the data collectors. These people have no proof. They just refuse to believe anything that doesn't meet with their predefined mindset. You'll see the same type of thing happen with Congressional Budget Office reports from time to time (and not just among Republicans/conservatives). When the CBO issues something favorable to one side, they'll shout it to the world. When they don't like it, they'll often dismiss it and question the legitimacy. But this one sort of takes the cake for silliness. And as a one time fan and admirer of Welsh's business acumen, I'm sad to see him continue to tarnish a once fantastic reputation.

Jack Welch Doesn't Know What He's Tweeting About

 

[Sam Fisher]

Watch what Bill Clinton says at the end!

 

[Rey C.]

And as usual, Fisher lacks the knowledge to participate in a real discussion, so he responds by telling us what the price of tea is in China today. Good job, Sammy. Keep up the good work. :clap:

 

[Johan]

Tony Fratto, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, tweeted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics "is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility."

Even a member of the Bush administration says this so-called conspiracy is bullshit !
You can blame it for not being objective, he's a fucking Republican !

 

[bobjustbob]

As Rey C said above, and for the reasons given, you can't juice the numbers. This shit comes out every month and we all trusted these numbers until now. Once more, unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator of the overall growth in the economy. That's really what pisses off the nuts. Sure there is a measure of under employed that is way too high, but to say they cooked the books is insane.

 

[Sam Fisher]

And as usual, Fisher lacks the knowledge to participate in a real discussion, so he responds by telling us what the price of tea is in China today. Good job, Sammy. Keep up the good work. :clap:

 

[mikexmoran]

Good post

It's easy enough to find in various degrees of complexity and detail. Here's one: Bureau of Labor Statistics - Employment Situation Report [FULL TRANSCRIPT] For most people it gives a good enough explanation of the raw data collection techniques. There are others which go into even greater mathematical detail.

Yes, my background is Economics. The math does not add up and there are surveys. The only way it makes sense is if the workforce shrank. That may be the case. I don't think you would argue that was good.

This is something of an example of what I was talking about. You say, "Jack, like most Presidents (of companies and countries) cheated on his wife..." So at least 50.1% of company and national presidents cheat on their spouses? Do you have data to support this contention? I doubt it. So here again, we have a claim, totally unsupported by data, presented as a fact. And in my world, a claim or opinion not supported by data... is just an opinion.

No, in fact, while Jack Welsh was at GE, executives and managers were held to certain ethics and morals clauses in their contracts. My employer at that time was modeled after GE and we did the same. To carry on a public affair could quite easily result in that executive losing his job or being demoted. The thinking was, if you'll cheat on your spouse, then you might lie or cheat in your business dealings. But here we have a fellow, who is now branded as a known cheat and liar, accusing others of lying and cheating. My point is, that's rather ironic.

I know that would be someone's point. (It was the point of the first people to make it). I was being flippant on purpose. I don't agree with the premise. In terms of the social/personal ethics clause, while I may hold some of the same values. I'm not sure if you can produce the document that holds Jack to those ethical values though. So, that would make both of our statements an opinion. I don't think it matters.
Larry Flint wrote a book about the sex lives of the presidents. It does detail quite a bit of infidelity. Some very great people had what I would consider flaws. Nobody is perfect.

There are revisions to the BLS reports. There always have been. There always will be. This one will likely be revised, up or down, in the coming months as well. There is nothing oddly unique about it - other than some people not liking the reported data. And there is nothing suspicious about the timing. These reports are released on a defined schedule, which anyone who follows economic reporting knows about well ahead of time. There will be another report, for October 2012, released at 8:30AM on November 2, 2012. The report for November 2012 will be released at 8:30AM on December 7, 2012.

What some people fail to understand is the enormity of this data collection effort. For there to be a way to juice the data or results one way or the other, a widespread conspiracy of grand proportions would be necessary. It's not like there is only one or two people who put this report together and they could change some numbers here or there without being found out. How would one even begin to organize such a conspiracy among career bureaucrats and economists without being found out??? :dunno:

Again, this is just another situation where people see numbers that they don't like, so they question the legitimacy of the data and the data collectors. These people have no proof. They just refuse to believe anything that doesn't meet with their predefined mindset. You'll see the same type of thing happen with Congressional Budget Office reports from time to time (and not just among Republicans/conservatives). When the CBO issues something favorable to one side, they'll shout it to the world. When they don't like it, they'll often dismiss it and question the legitimacy. But this one sort of takes the cake for silliness. And as a one time fan and admirer of Welsh's business acumen, I'm sad to see him continue to tarnish a once fantastic reputation.

Jack Welch Doesn't Know What He's Tweeting About

Actually, this is my point. The number is an estimate. Leaving room for interpretation leaves room for valid argument.
Jack, nor I claimed to have proof. I said it was suspicious and Jack was a little more accusatory. I have a pretty good handle on how the numbers are determined. The full math is not shown, if you would like to walk me through it, I'm all ears. I have section that reviews this in a Government & Economics Class I teach.

Jack has certainly become more colorful and his tweet wasn't exactly "nice", but he isn't the only one that doesn't fully understand how the number dropped at this time.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/september-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Rey, I agree with your posting. I think we differ in tone and how and if we challenge it or not. That is just a point of view.

 

[Straight Shooter]

As Rey C said above, and for the reasons given, you can't juice the numbers. This shit comes out every month and we all trusted these numbers until now. Once more, unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator of the overall growth in the economy. That's really what pisses off the nuts. Sure there is a measure of under employed that is way too high, but to say they cooked the books is insane.

They're rooting against the economy. What else am I to believe when I see remarks like this? Instead of questioning the new jobs numbers shouldn't we as Americans, left or right, be applauding them?

 

[Rey C.]

I don't expect someone like Fisher to even know what day of the week it is. But Jack Welsh was one of the most successful CEO's in corporate history - named "Manager of the Century" by Fortune magazine. And not just any corporation, but a huge, profitable, multinational conglomerate. So he had to fully understand economic data in order to do his job as effectively as he did. He knows better. I'm certain that he knows better. To hear someone of his caliber prattle on like a generic, paranoid schizo wingnut makes me very sad. I don't have to agree with the guy or his political views. But it saddens me when someone I've admired for many years says something so incredibly stupid in his later years. Maybe he's getting senile. Maybe that new young wife is holding out on him and he's got a bad case of "deadly sperm buildup". :dunno: But this is not the Jack Welsh of the 1980's-90's. That much I do know.

Here's what confuses many people... and rightfully so. There are actually two pieces of data that feed into this discussion: the Household Survey (approximately 60,000 households) and the Payroll Survey/Current Employment Statistics (approximately 400,000 businesses - roughly one third of the estimated total population). And they measure different things. The unemployment rate is created from the smaller Household Survey. The "jobs creation" number is derived from the Current Employment Statistics. But they're typically spoken of together = confusion. And as we now know, when some people get confused, they begin seeing black helicopters in the dark of night. And it appears that some are questioning the data results, yet they don't understand the process. They just know that they don't like what they see. The smaller household survey displays much more short term variation because of the smaller sample size. But over time, the trend of the two surveys tends to match up incredibly well. Those who actually understand statistics know that the trend is MUCH more important than just snapshot numbers (whether you "like" the numbers or not). Trends matter more! This is the data collection and analysis process in general terms from the BLS website. From there it's basic math. You have a numerator. You have a denominator. You perform the calculation and you have a ratio or a percentage, however you choose to present it:

The raw data had arrived at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), like always, on Wednesday the week before the report’s release: millions of characters representing survey information from 55,000 households; and then, a few days later, monthly payroll data from 486,000 businesses. Kosanovich’s boss posted a two-page schedule on the office wall, detailing the tasks ahead for a team of more than 20 economists. They would be required to make a series of six deadlines. Their work would undergo 15 fact checks and then 15 clearance reviews. They would sit together in a windowless conference room and read aloud from their eventual creation, a three-page news release and 24 data tables, debating commas and verbs for hours on end.

They would do it all with absolute discretion during an eight-day security lockdown, signing confidentiality agreements each morning, encrypting their computers and locking data into a safe every time they walked 10 yards away to use a bathroom. “Is your workstation secure?” asked a sign in the hallway. They all remembered the last security miscue, in November 2008 — the accidental transmission of some data to one wire service a full 25 seconds before the report’s scheduled release, an incident that had necessitated a series of internal investigations and revisions.

“We always tape paper over the windows of the conference room or draw the shades,” Kosanovich said about her typical routine during a lockdown. She made a habit of refraining from answering phone calls or e-mails from unknown numbers and never discussing data outside her office. For eight days, nobody visited her team’s floor at BLS without a security clearance. The custodial staff did not empty their trash until the report was released.

The lockdown was an exercise in tedium and precision, but those have been the hallmarks of BLS for 125 years. The agency remains strictly nonpartisan and intentionally bland. It measures the economy without ever opining on it. “The glass here is never half-empty or half-full,” Kosanovich said, repeating a popular BLS motto. “It’s an eight-ounce glass with four ounces of liquid.”

So to those who are still of the belief that somehow, some way, Ol' Obama Man and his Marxist henchmen secretly infiltrated the BLS last night and planted their own juiced reports to knock the wind out of Romney's debate win, I suggest that you lay off the spy movies, watching Fox News and reading Soldier of Fortune for two weeks... and then call me in the morning if the voices still won't go away. I have an electric fence that I use to keep the horses out of the yard. In a pinch, I feel (somewhat) qualified to do electro-shock therapy on those for whom there is no other option. :tinhat: :lurk: :jester:

 

[Rey C.]

...

Good Sammy! Good boy! He's such a good boy! Yes, he is! :yesyes:

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

I guess it has:

Reagan Dec 81 8.5
82 10.8
83 8.3
84 7.3

Are these revisionist numbers now too?

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Politics is so fun. I'm a Republican, and I'll be the first (I may actually be the first) to say that you can't just discount the jobless numbers because a positive number came out at an inconvenient time. I have no doubt that those who are now saying these numbers are fishy, are the same guys who would be defending them to the end of the earth if the jobless rate went up three tenths of a percent, instead of down.

From a political standpoint, the Republicans aren't going to to help themselves by whining about corruption. Did it help the dems to whine about alleged corruption in the Bush administration? No. All you can do is move on and work with what you have.

The way I see it, we should ALL be happy that the number has improved. If you're a Democrat, it helps your candidate, and let's face it, your candidate needs a LOT of help when it comes to his economic record. If you're a Republican, it takes an arrow out of Mitt Romney's quiver, but that quiver is still jam packed with arrows when it comes to examples he can point out for what a lousy economy this has been during the Obama regime.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the great movie speeches of all time! We need more guys like Col. Jessup these days.

 

[bobjustbob]

They're rooting against the economy. What else am I to believe when I see remarks like this? Instead of questioning the new jobs numbers shouldn't we as Americans, left or right, be applauding them?

Here's the report from the BLS:

Friday, October 5, 2012


The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to
7.8 percent in September, and nonfarm payroll employment
increased by 114,000. In 2012, job gains have averaged 146,000
per month, compared with 153,000 per month in 2011.

In September, health care employment rose by 44,000, largely
in ambulatory health care services. Over the last 12 months,
health care employment has risen by 295,000.

Transportation and warehousing employment increased by
17,000 in September. Employment in this industry has risen by
104,000 over the year.

Manufacturing employment edged down over the month
(-16,000), with declines in computer and electronic products
(-6,000) and in printing and related activities (-3,000). On
net, manufacturing employment has been unchanged since April.

Employment in temporary help services was essentially
unchanged in September and August. During the prior 12 months,
the industry had added an average of 20,000 jobs per month.
Employment in financial activities edged up in September
(+13,000), reflecting modest gains in credit intermediation
(+6,000) and real estate (+7,000). Employment in other major
industries changed little in September.

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 7 cents in September to $23.58. Over the past
12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.8 percent.
From August 2011 to August 2012, the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 1.7 percent.

Turning to measures from the survey of households, the
unemployment rate decreased by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8
percent in September. For the first 8 months of the year, the
rate held in a narrow range of 8.1 to 8.3 percent. The number of
unemployed persons declined by 456,000 to 12.1 million in
September. There was a large decrease (-206,000) in unemployment
among 20- to 24-year-olds. Among all unemployed persons, the
proportion who had been jobless for 27 weeks or longer was 40.1
percent, essentially unchanged from the prior month but down from
44.7 percent a year earlier.

Total employment, as measured by the household survey, rose
by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little change. On
a month-to-month basis, the household survey employment measure
is more variable than the payroll employment measure due to the
smaller household survey sample. Over longer periods, the
changes in household and payroll survey employment tend to track
more closely.

In September, employment of persons age 20 to 24 years rose
by 368,000. The September gain for this group follows a decline
in August. Over the 2-month period, employment for 20- to 24-
year-olds was little changed.

The employment-population ratio rose 0.4 percentage point in
September to 58.7 percent, following 2 months in which the ratio
had edged down. The overall trend in the employment-population
ratio for this year has been flat. The labor ***** participation
rate was little changed in September. Like the employment-
population ratio, the labor ***** participation rate has been
essentially flat in 2012.

Among the employed, the number of **********y part time
workers increased by 582,000 to 8.6 million in September.

In summary, the unemployment rate declined from 8.1 to 7.8
percent, and nonfarm payroll employment increased by 114,000.




From what I see, warehousing and transportation boosts equals goods being moved to companies that ordered them. These goods are purchased because there is money to buy them. Manufacturing was flat but we should see a pick up since goods are now flowing out of the warehouse and more are on order. Financials and real estate are up which is another sign that money is beginning to circulate.

Now remember what I said about these numbers being a lagging indicator? These jobs were created last month because of the demand for them from prior months activities. There was not a burst of money at the beginning of October and companies scrambled to fill positions. The economic climate had started getting better since the springtime. Edged up at a rate for employers to start hiring for the demand. Good news for everyone except for those that would rather keep every hammer they find to beat down a presidental candidate.

 

[Bearded_Menace]

As Rey C said above, and for the reasons given, you can't juice the numbers. This shit comes out every month and we all trusted these numbers until now. Once more, unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator of the overall growth in the economy. That's really what pisses off the nuts. Sure there is a measure of under employed that is way too high, but to say they cooked the books is insane.

This! This is probably the best argument one could make for the right's nearly fanatical attempt to topple and discredit Obama at every turn. Over the last couple of months on Fox news, all you hear is guys like Sean Hannity using these same numbers to drone on and on and on about how much of a failure Obama is. All of a sudden they wanna cry foul and say that the numbers are useless once they no longer work in their favor. Give me a fucking break! I am a registered independent and do not pledge allegiance to any political party or particular ideology. The right, however, is really working my nerves with this bullshit that has been going on since February 2009.

Fact of the matter is, the recovery isn't perfect. It is slow and the rate of underemployment is awful. However, one has to be a fool of elephantine proportions to believe that we aren't doing somewhat better than we were towards the end of 2008. One doesn't bounce back from a gunshot wound to the face so quickly. It will take time for a wound like that to heal. Republicans are the last ones who need to be complaining about the recovery given that they are the ones who pulled the fucking trigger then ran off like a thief in the night leaving a giant mess for someone else to clean up.

 

[Dman25]

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.

 

[bobjustbob]

You've got the good seat in the center. Here I am on the right and see this kind of shit carted out. Hannity, Rush, Maddow, Olbermann (where ever the hell he is now) are all the same. The loudest mouths shouting the most insane thoughts coming into their heads. And people taking this as God's spoken word. They are not news people, they are entertainers. I hold onto my conservative values and most on the left respect them. But I can't stand when this juiced numbers and citizenship crap comes up even when proven wrong. I can't make my argument because people start thinking that I am one of these nuts. As for the issue of job numbers, I don't care who is in office. The better they are the more money I can make. Supply and demand. Everybody that gets a new job opens one up for me to step into.

 

[Rey C.]

You've got the good seat in the center. Here I am on the right and see this kind of shit carted out. Hannity, Rush, Maddow, Olbermann (where ever the hell he is now) are all the same. The loudest mouths shouting the most insane thoughts coming into their heads. And people taking this as God's spoken word. They are not news people, they are entertainers. I hold onto my conservative values and most on the left respect them. But I can't stand when this juiced numbers and citizenship crap comes up even when proven wrong. I can't make my argument because people start thinking that I am one of these nuts. As for the issue of job numbers, I don't care who is in office. The better they are the more money I can make. Supply and demand. Everybody that gets a new job opens one up for me to step into.

Bob, if the (new) right would latch onto people like you to make their points, a great many more people would at least be able to understand your views, if not find points of agreement. Like many others, I'm a person who will not walk with certain messengers, even if I agree with the message. Whether speaking about politics, religion or even sports, there are just some birds that I won't fly with... ya know?

IMO, there are way too many fools these days being allowed time at the mic. And as we see in this case, acting a fool is a good way to get yourself some time at the mic. We're not moving forward, in large part, because the various sides spend way too much time playing partisan politics and certain politicians are trying to satisfy the most extreme elements of one party or the other.