New adjustment to tomorrow's jobs numbers?

[KayLaw]

I was cooking and listening to MSNBC and a woman mentioned something about applying a new adjustment to the jobs figure. Does anyone know anything about this? She also said the number is very important to both campaigns, which, of course, I knew. Now I'm wondering how easy or difficult to - I'll just say it - cheat. Is there any kind of watchdog to prevent dishonest reporting?

[Free2BMe]

1. many do not file for unemployment

or go off the unemployment rolls and are still unemployed..These fall through the cracks and run into the thousands.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. No watchdog I know of...

And I follow that stiff kind of closely. Frankly, I am very suspicious of any numbers that come out of DoCommerce these days.

[Texas_Dem]

3. I don't think you were the only one cooking something!

[zoeb]

4. first they project the figures which lately have been way off..

then the *real* number comes out tomorrow...then they may adjust them up or down after a short period of time...it seems like this year they have adjusted downward more than upward. currently the administration would not extend unemployment benefits and many are still unemployed but there is no accounting of these jobless folks.
The economy must create 150k jobs a month to keep up with new people entering the work force. Anything over that is a good thing.

[snowbear]

5. tomorrow's numbers...

Some people are probably sick of me asking if they could actually fudge tomorrow's numbers.

But I'm incredibly concerned about the timing of the report-- Just prior to the DOMESTIC ISSUES DEBATE. Not to mention that the head of the Bureau of Labor is a Bush-crazed fanatic.

On the post I sent earlier today, I was reassured by most that responded that I was worrying too much (Thanks guys :grouphug: )

But I'm still concerned that they'll announce some incredible off-the-charts number.

This morning, American Morning said that economists were projecting a 150,000 increase for September.. Now they're saying it could top over 200,000..

Why do I have this horrible feeling that they're going to produce **BOGUS** numbers in the morning??? :shrug:

*Keith Olbermann just said some anaylist say there could be a loss. The guy on there said it will probably be more likely the + 200,000 gain..

I just don't trust them... :(

[seabeyond]

6. first time in fourty something years, last feb this report wasnt

put out. bushco said they needed to figure a different way doing the numbers. also the mcdonald manufacture jobs. after that the numbers in march went up for first time and alomost every month they have gone up. adjustments, (lower) come about a month later and hard to hear and find out.

i am saying they have been cheating for a long time

[lsuguy]

7. too late to help Bush much

Voting models show that last minute changes in economic data have minimal effect, if any. Bush's goose was cooked on jobs long ago. That's supported by the fact that even if tomorrow's numbers come out spectacular for Bush, already this week there have been two very very bad jobs reports, and Kerry will be all over him if he starts trying to celebrate.

[punpirate]

8. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is...

... supposed to be non-partisan. However, this past late-winter/early spring, they began to use a new statistical model which changed to what the BLS calls a "birth/death" model which predicts (badly) the amount of employment generated by new companies taking over a market when a company fails or leaves the country. It means that the numbers are no longer either accurate or representative.

In all months since then, the published number might be, say, 150,000 new jobs. Of those, perhaps 15,000-25,000 are derived from hard numbers. The rest are generated by the birth/death model.

It's a fundamentally flawed model, but on the side of the administration. The BLS says its effect on the actual numbers is supposed to be marginal, but, in fact, it's inflated the job creation numbers by as much as 85-90% in most months since its introduction.

Cheers.

[KayLaw]

13. Punpirate

We posted at the same time. As far as I can tell, these same numbers, sans birth/death model, would indicate job losses all these months. Under Bush 1, Clinton, Ragan, anyone else, there wouldn't have been even these little gains. I wish a Democrat would mention this as it seems important to me.

[punpirate]

16. Let's hope it gets worked into the debate...

... tomorrow night.

Part of the problem is the general inability of the system as currently structured to accurately measure people who have dropped out of the labor market--that's a significant and telling number.

If you haven't read Eric Jaffa's analysis at,:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_06_07_fake_job_numbers_from_the_bush_administration.asp

you definitely should. It brings up a lot of questions about BLS methods, and he also makes the case that the simple means of determining accurate numbers from FICA payments by employers is valid. BLS simply doesn't do that.

Even if the numbers were accurate, they don't fully reflect the inability of the economy to replace already lost jobs--approximately 150,000 new jobs are necessary every month to meet the number of people entering the job market for the first time--graduating high school and college students, etc.

Overall, there's been significant job loss in Bush's tenure, and you're right--Kerry/Edwards needs to ram that fact home with the voting public.

Cheers.

[KayLaw]

9. Oh boy

I didn't realize I was the only one so concerned and I don't feel reassured at all. I read about the birth/death model which adds nonexistent jobs, but today I was hoping there was some way to make sure they're not just coming up with some high number.

Well, we'll know early in the morning. Your answer was funny Texas Dem, and you're probably right. :hi:

[snippy]

10. This is an anuual adjustment to jobs numbers which already have been

reported on a monthly basis. The adjustment is based on tax reports gathered from the States which is considered to be the most accurate source of information. The adjustment being released tomorrow will cover the months from April 2003 to March 2004. The White House released a report earlier this week projecting an upwards total adjustment of 288,000 jobs created in that 12 month period.

The number of jobs created in September is a separate number. The consensus number for that is 145,000, but the "whisper number" is closer to 200,000. Any significant deviation from the expected jobs number for September or the adjustments to the other numbers may have quite an impact in the stock and bond markets tomorrow and likely will be mentioned repeatedly in the debate.

[Bleacher Creature]

11. Does this really matter?

I'm asking the question because I really don't know. I mean, if you are living in a community hit hard by job losses, do you really care about stats from the federal government? It really seems to me that people base their opinion on the economy based on their own experience. Are they employed? Are they seeing other people losing their jobs? Are their wages falling behind?

In 1992, Bush Sr. tried and convince people that the economy was improving -- also by using #s. I just don't think people are going to change their minds because the BLS tells them things are better.

[liberal N proud]

12. Unless the unemployment rate magically went to 1% and

3 million jobs were created, this president is still a miserable failure.

[DemMother]

14. This story is a good explanation of what might happen tomorrow

From Reuters:

"Bush Expects Upward Revision to U.S. Jobs Data

"The Bush administration expects revised data due on Friday to show the pace of job creation in the year leading up to March was much swifter than had been believed, economists who received a White House memo on the subject said on Tuesday.

The memo by the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimates that payroll figures for the March 2003-March 2004 period will be revised upward by 288,000 jobs, the economists said. Current data shows only 709,000 jobs were created in that period."

Includes skepticism from other economists, including:

"While many economists expect to see some upward revision, many are not as optimistic as the White House economists. "It may be that this memo overstates the case," a congressional aide said."

Also this for the October release tomorrow:

"Wall Street economists expect non-farm employers added 148,000 workers to their payrolls in September, a modest gain that would likely do little to reduce unemployment."

I read that they're hoping to lump both numbers together to get a figure of 500,000 (revision plus Sept. job gains), which they probably figure would mislead the public.

The September jobs, if they are around 150,000 would be just enough to keep up with population growth (I think that figure is 140,000).

Here's the link:

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/ROC/20041005/2004-10-05T154645Z_01_N05297583_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-ECONOMY-JOBS-MEMO-COL

[leftofthedial]

15. the bush labor department has decided to multiply the jobs created by 1000

they believe that this would be the most fair representation of the jobs that might have been created

these numbers are propaganda, like the chocolate rations in 1984.

they have to preserve the illusion of reality. that is all that keeps them from lying even more blatantly.