A thread recently about how official stats on unemployment,

[raccoon]

inflation, and poverty were way understated because of the way they're calculated--can anybody give me a link to it?

Come to think of it, maybe it wasn’t the whole thread, just a post. If anyone can give me a link to it, I’d be gratified.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Please do not post the same thing in multiple forums

It is against the rules.

[rfranklin]

2. It seems that they just stop counting people...

who run out of unemployment benefits. I think that in countries like Germany--which the R's claim have much higher unemployment--actually continue to provide unemployment benefits as long as people are unemployed, thus giving a true count.

In jobs created, they just pull the numbers out of thin air using some whacked out theories.

[progree]

7. They DO count people who run out of benefits

Unfortunately the myth that they don't count people who have run out of benefits is just something that "sounds good" and so has spread. I've heard it on (left-wing) talk radio a number of times. It is sad, because (A) it is not true and (B) it hurts our credibility as most people know this isn't true.

The unemployment rate is determined by a random survey of 60,000 households, sort of a "jobs polls", where they ask people if they are employed or not -- and if they say they are unemployed then they are asked if they have sought work in the last 4 weeks. (If they answer yes, they are counted as unemployed. If they answer no, they are not counted as unemployed). It has nothing to do with running out of benefits, being unemployed a short time or a long time or anything like that.

You can find out more about it at the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at www.bls.gov

I also disagree in your characterization of "jobs created". That is based on a survey of 400,000 employers.

None of this is perfect but it certainly isn't totally out to sea.

I'm sorry, but it just bothers me a tremendous amount. A Democracy depends on an informed electorate, otherwise its not really a democracy.

[Greyhound]

3. I think you may be referring to the interview with an economist that

has specialized in forecasting inflation/interest rates for the Fortune 50, I just can't remember his name. The interview was for weedon.com, unfortunately they site is a subscription-only site for financial consultants.

The gist of the article is that he began to investigate why the formulas they had used to accurately forecast for years had stopped working. He found that the gov began "tweaking" and "fudging" in 1960, and has continued to skew the numbers in every administration since.

Bottom line; real unemployment is 12% - 15%, real inflation is running about 9%, wages have declined by about 25% in the last two decades.

[raccoon]

5. That sounds like it. nt

[publius_jr]

4. gillespieresearch.com

I don't recall that thread, but John Williams does a good job discussing the manipulation behind goverment statistics. It's unfortunate that most of the content on his site (http://www.gillespieresearch.com) requires a subscription, which being targeted at corporate clients costs a whopping $175/yr. (You might want to look at the trial subscription.) Still, the free info is very informative. I like the following chart:



And regarding employment/unemployment reporting, see http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/article/id=341 .

A lot of good, free info can is linked at http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/ .

Hope this helps.

[raccoon]

6. Thanks for those link, publius. nt

[Greyhound]

8. I just saw that he died

So sad ;( he was one of the truth tellers.