The purpose one has for the statistics strongly colours whether one agrees or not with the methodology. For the purposes of descriptive economic sociology, the official numbers are bunk and the seasonal adjustments are misleading. Maybe not so much for the purposes of econometric modeling or business projection. Statistics that are "true" from one perspective may be false from another. That doesn't stop people from using them to "prove" things they don't. Hence Disraeli's [attributed] "lies, damn lies and statistics".
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Harry Pollard <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks for the post. I am aware of the problems you mention, but the > incongruity of a 37,000 increase in jobs leading to a drop in unemployment > stats from 9.8% to 9.0% in one month casts doubt on the whole exercise, at > least, as I see it. > > > > While I’m about it I don’t like “seasonally adjusted” figures. I know why > they do it, but think the raw untouched figures give a better picture. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sandwichman > > *Sent:* Friday, April 29, 2011 8:31 AM > *To:* [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, > EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] 5 government statistics you can't trust - > Business - Eye on the Economy - msnbc.com > > > > Harry, > > The unemployment rate and the number of jobs created are products of two > distinct surveys. The unemployment rate comes from a survey of households > and the jobs number comes from a survey of business establishments. Those > two surveys are not always in perfect agreement with each other in the short > term, although they tend to converge over time. There is also the fact that > "discouraged workers" are not counted in the "official" unemployment rate > (there are several measures of underemployment that includes them: see > "alternative measures of labor underutilization" > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm. For example, the U6 > measure at 15.7%, (seasonally adjusted) is almost twice the official U3 > measure of 8.8%. > > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Harry Pollard < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting, Arthur. > > > > I have been a critic of government statistics for a long time. > > > > It surprises me that (I think it was January) when US jobs increased by a > tiny 37,000, the unemployed percentage dropped from 9.8% to 9.0%. > > > > I haven’t heard the explanation for this – but probably never will (unless > a Dissenter knows). > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Cordell > *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:54 AM > *To:* 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > *Subject:* [Futurework] 5 government statistics you can't trust - Business > - Eye on the Economy - msnbc.com > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42599084/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > -- > Sandwichman > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
