Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This thread is living proof that people will believe anything and deny anything as long as it meets their own biases. Herein, we learn of a boogieman manipulating government data to benefit the party in power - with not a shred of evidence of such. It's only believed because, well, it must be true! Afterall, Obama is in office!
This thread is living proof that people will believe anything and deny anything as long as it meets their own biases. Herein, we learn of a boogieman manipulating government data to benefit the party in power - with not a shred of evidence of such. It's only believed because, well, it must be true! Afterall, Obama is in office!
Your own posts back up your assertation
This thread is living proof that people will believe anything and deny anything as long as it meets their own biases. Herein, we learn of a boogieman manipulating government data to benefit the party in power - with not a shred of evidence of such. It's only believed because, well, it must be true! Afterall, Obama is in office!
Your own posts back up your assertation
Please show me one of my "assertations" that is not informed by data.
kthx.
When? For the CPS the reference week is the week that contains the 12th. Collection week is the week that contains the 19th, and Release Day is the first Friday of the next month. So for the November numbers, collection was from Nov 13-19. Initial processing and any follow-ups for clarification was done 21st to 25th (excluding the 24th, Thanksgiving). Final tallying (and seasonal adjustment) was done Nov 28-Dec 1st when it was sent to the printer, given to the Commissioner for final approval, and that night a copy was given to the President's Council of Econmic Advisors with release Dec 2nd. When was there time to make adjustments?And your evidence for this is what?
The after the fact adjustments. Were you not paying attention.
And almost no way to predict the multiplicitve effects of any change. Approx 440,000 worksites are surveyed, they vary by industry, size, location, so there are multiple weights and aggregation. Plus number of employees affects hours and wages. Then there's the birth-death model and seasonal adjustment. It's just way too complicated to do in the amount of time available, even if the civil servants at BLS had any motivation to do so.Ok, then explain how it is possible. What must be done to manipulate the numbers?
Don't be absurd.
Select *
from DBO.nonfarm cross join DBO.newjob
where nonfarm.fdate>'01/01/2011' and nonfarm.fdate,'12/31/2011' and newjob.state=inlist('CA','NV','AZ','GA','FL')
order by newjob.state
There are at least 40 ways to alter the return with one or two characters.
And GDP was recently revised DOWN. Just look at the CES revisions I linked to above...sometimes it's an increase, sometimes not.The reported 2.2% GDP reported was certainly more beneficial to Obama than the factual 1.6%
From Table 1 you'll not that the population increased. The changes to Labor Force and Not in Labor Force (the 2 components of the population) are NET changes. Some of the new entrants to the population logically must also join the labor force (as employed or unemployed) and this can be shown by looking at Labor Force Flows that 3,610,000 people not in the labor force became employed and 2,651,000 became unemployed. That's 6,261,000 gross new entrants to the Labor Force. Add in the 72,000 entrants to the population that entered the Labor Force (other inflows) and that's a gross of 6,333,000 new entrants (re-entrants).Are they?
{In November, the unemployment rate declined by 0.4 percentage point to 8.6 percent. From April through October, the rate held in a narrow range from 9.0 to 9.2 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 13.3 million, was down by 594,000 in November. The labor force, which is the sum of the unemployed and employed, was down by a little more than half that amount. (See table A-1.)}
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Show me where new entrants into the labor market are acknowledged in the above calculation?
That's a claim, not evidence.{"With the nomination of Robert Groves, President Obama has made clear that he intends to employ the political manipulation of census data for partisan gain," North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry cautioned. Other lawmakers called Groves an "incredibly troubling selection" who must be watched for "statistical sleight of hand."
That's done by Congress and the states in their gerrymandering, not by the Census.The manipulation of census data for the apportionment of congressional seats and allocation of federal money is widely acknowledged.
Except I didn't say that. Of course statistics can be. But the government econ statistics are so heavily monitored and checked that any "manipulation" is of twisting what the results mean, not of the data itself. There's just not enough time and too many people involved to make any real manipulation feasible. Plus, zero motivation on the part of the people making the calculations.Nothing makes me chuckle quite like a statistician demanding that statistics cannot possibly manipulated..
"When the numbers do not add up to reality how else do you explain it? When they no longer count people who are no longer receiving unemployment checks as unemployed you do the math."
Your own posts back up your assertation
Please show me one of my "assertations" that is not informed by data.
kthx.
\The government never lies' or is it just when a democrat is in control it never lies?
When? For the CPS the reference week is the week that contains the 12th. Collection week is the week that contains the 19th, and Release Day is the first Friday of the next month. So for the November numbers, collection was from Nov 13-19. Initial processing and any follow-ups for clarification was done 21st to 25th (excluding the 24th, Thanksgiving). Final tallying (and seasonal adjustment) was done Nov 28-Dec 1st when it was sent to the printer, given to the Commissioner for final approval, and that night a copy was given to the President's Council of Econmic Advisors with release Dec 2nd. When was there time to make adjustments?And your evidence for this is what?
The after the fact adjustments. Were you not paying attention.
For the CES, reference week was the pay period that contains the 12th, respondents had until the 26th to report, and final week as above with the birth-death model added in. There will be 2 revisions to account for late reporting as many businesses don't make the intiial deadline. Here's the list of all revisions since 1979 and you'll see no clear pattern.
And almost no way to predict the multiplicitve effects of any change. Approx 440,000 worksites are surveyed, they vary by industry, size, location, so there are multiple weights and aggregation. Plus number of employees affects hours and wages. Then there's the birth-death model and seasonal adjustment. It's just way too complicated to do in the amount of time available, even if the civil servants at BLS had any motivation to do so.
And GDP was recently revised DOWN. Just look at the CES revisions I linked to above...sometimes it's an increase, sometimes not.
From Table 1 you'll not that the population increased. The changes to Labor Force and Not in Labor Force (the 2 components of the population) are NET changes. Some of the new entrants to the population logically must also join the labor force (as employed or unemployed) and this can be shown by looking at Labor Force Flows that 3,610,000 people not in the labor force became employed and 2,651,000 became unemployed. That's 6,261,000 gross new entrants to the Labor Force. Add in the 72,000 entrants to the population that entered the Labor Force (other inflows) and that's a gross of 6,333,000 new entrants (re-entrants).
Or easier, in Table A-11 there are entries for New Entrants and Re entrants.
That's a claim, not evidence.
That's done by Congress and the states in their gerrymandering, not by the Census.The manipulation of census data for the apportionment of congressional seats and allocation of federal money is widely acknowledged.
Except I didn't say that. Of course statistics can be. But the government econ statistics are so heavily monitored and checked that any "manipulation" is of twisting what the results mean, not of the data itself. There's just not enough time and too many people involved to make any real manipulation feasible. Plus, zero motivation on the part of the people making the calculations.Nothing makes me chuckle quite like a statistician demanding that statistics cannot possibly manipulated..
Who does the fact checking?Except I didn't say that. Of course statistics can be. But the government econ statistics are so heavily monitored and checked that any "manipulation" is of twisting what the results mean, not of the data itself.
Please show me one of my "assertations" that is not informed by data.
kthx.
\The government never lies' or is it just when a democrat is in control it never lies?
Who said that?
\The government never lies' or is it just when a democrat is in control it never lies?
Who said that?
Do you agree or disagree?
Who does the fact checking?
The government never lies' or is it just when a democrat is in control it never lies?
The government never lies' or is it just when a democrat is in control it never lies?
I live by that.
You bet.
What are the three great lies ?
I'll call you backThe government never lies' or is it just when a democrat is in control it never lies?
I live by that.
You bet.
What are the three great lies ?
1. It's in the mail
2. I love you.
3. Yes, I'll respect you in the morning.
This is what I saidWho said that?
Do you agree or disagree?
Disagree with what?
\The government never lies' or is it just when a democrat is in control it never lies?
I am asking you is you agree or disagree with my comment?Who said that?
Do you agree or disagree?
This is what I saidDo you agree or disagree?
Disagree with what?
this is the question you asked
I am asking you is you agree or disagree with my comment?Who said that?
Do you agree or disagree?
He's going to dodge, of course. I'm not sure how he thinks he can criticize methodolgy he refuses to read."When the numbers do not add up to reality how else do you explain it? When they no longer count people who are no longer receiving unemployment checks as unemployed you do the math."
How else can one interpret that quote, other than to mean you don't think they count people who are no longer receiving unemployment checks.
This is what I saidDisagree with what?
this is the question you asked
I am asking you is you agree or disagree with my comment?
Do you agree or disagree?
Oh, I disagree with your comment. I believe the government sometimes lies, and I believe it happens when either party is in control.
I also believe that both my dad and my wife have lied. That doesn't mean everything they say is a lie, and it didn't doesnt' serve as evidence that a statement one of them makes today is a lie.
I'm still waiting for your evidence.
I believe the government sometimes lies, and I believe it happens when either party is in control.
They will find a reason why this is not good.
