Reply With Quote
Please do share with us, then, how seasonal adjustment affected the reported figure.
Just because thats what you do when you need to come to a conclusion does not mean that the department of labor does it. I know how the numbers are figured and they are seasonally adjusted which seems to be oblivious to ST posters and GOP reps alike.
Please do share with us, then, how seasonal adjustment affected the reported figure.
The DOL admits that their numbers are just semi-educated guesses...why do you want to deny it?
Link? i attribute this to you once again making up with at best incomplete knowledge and filling in the rest. You do that constantly.
The DOL admits that their numbers are just semi-educated guesses...why do you want to deny it?
That's not an answer to my question. You said you knew. Please explain to us, in your own words, how seasonal adjustment affected the reported number, and to what degree.
The sample size is 60,000 out of 300 million. What do you call that?
The article talks about series. How do you normalize a series? You come up with a cofactor to compensate. I don't know about the specifics of their methodology but a better question would be do you think that winter retail hirings would be significant enough to be recognized when analyzing the past series of employment figures?
Its pretty simple. Things like increased demand due to harvest and holiday retail shows up annually. Every year there is a cofactor before the function that attempts to translate or normalize that out. You trend the numbers down versus numbers in the middle of winter when construction and the like is dormant across much of the country they normalize upwards.
Polling and you not having a clue how its done.
Polling a small statistical sample is called an educated guess.
It just varies the degree of error. Like I said you have no clue. You just don't like any improvement in economic numbers leading up to the election.
Well... it's been that way for a long time.
... and the U.S. workforce is not 300 million.
My question here (as it always is when people bring up this subject) is "Do you think that they change the approach from month to month when calculating unemployment figures?"
Because if you don't, then generally, a decrease in the percentage (especially one of this magnitude) is a good thing.
Probably, I would guess.
How significant? You don't seem to know, either.
If your point was to point out a commonplace you thought was overlooked, thanks, but I would hazard a guess that most of the posters in this thread have heard of seasonal adjustments before.
Without more detailed info, you're just making an educated guess.
You ing idiot. You are trying to imply motive when I am clearly ONLY talking about the lack of reliability of the DOL statistics. They are equally unreliable whether they say it's 10 or 8. Why do you think they always come back and "adjust" them a few weeks later?
Actually their website doesn't say anything about adjusting for Christmas hiring but it DOES specifically say they adjust for winter weather keeping people from working outside...
So we should ignore that its done then?
The point is that they consider the issue. Its been widely talked about and it was a big issue 5 years ago.
You can try this pseudo-Chump socratic method if you like. I am not afraid of having my idea scrutinized and I am not afraid of being wrong as long as the truth is the final outcome.
What basis do you have for this? Just doesn't feel right to you? And its a running adjustment. When the cofactor is dependent on previous values its constantly being adjusted. At least I got you to actually look rather then just confirm what you already thought and move on.
Their comments did not reflect it; most specifically the GOP politician initially quoted.
Who said so?
So then kindly direct your animus to the quoted politician instead of making broad ascriptions of ignorance based on very limited info.
It's just possible some of us were already aware, in a very general way -- like you -- that the government adjusts the number to reflect seasonal patterns of activity.
ppl here think the DOL started using this jobs formula as soon as Barack came to power
truth is the same formula has been used for decades and the # is just to reference it historically, which is the correct way to use it.
no it is not the real # of the unemployed today
Who said so, Che'?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
