USA Election 2004 (page 21)

sandy

Sure, Gore is a biatch too, in fact, he was Billary's Biatch for 8 years. Then there's KKK Byrd, Swimmer Kennedy, and that SOB Clinton himself...how's that.

Yeru, now that was funny!

Phantom Stranger

Job growth or job losses - which U.S. survey to believe?

From the International Herald Tribune

Edmund L. Andrews
Monday, February 23, 2004

WASHINGTON For more than a year, Bush administration officials and Republicans in Congress have seized on an intriguing statistical puzzle to suggest that job creation in the United States may be much stronger than it appears at first glance.

The puzzle is the big divergence between the two surveys that are used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure job creation and unemployment. The payroll survey, based on a monthly poll of 400,000 employers, shows a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001. The household survey, based on questions asked of 50,000 households, shows an increase of more than 500,000 jobs over the same period. If the payroll survey is correct, George W. Bush is on track to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to complete a term in office with fewer jobs than when he started. If the household survey is correct, Bush can claim credit for creating jobs despite the blows of a recession, terrorist attacks and two wars. The household survey also seems to support a political theory: that many people dropped from the company payrolls are not unemployed but rather self-employed. While the payroll survey suggests economic malaise, the household survey implies entrepreneurial energy.
"The household survey shows that we're at an all-time high in employment," Senator Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said at a hearing this month.

But administration officials are more cautious. "At this point, the gap between the payroll and the household data continues to be a puzzle," N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a speech this month. Unfortunately for the optimists, the Federal Reserve has concluded that the gloomy payroll data are essentially accurate and that the household survey is probably off-base.
"I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate," Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, said in congressional testimony on Feb. 11. "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow." To test the self-employment theory, the Fed adjusted the household survey by taking out all the kinds of workers who did not show up on the payroll survey - including self-employed people but also farm workers and family workers in family-run companies. Even then, Greenspan said, the discrepancy remains large. The Fed's conclusion was that the household survey's results had been inflated by overestimates of population growth. Because the household survey is a sample, the statistics bureau infers the total change in jobs by multiplying the ratio of employed to unemployed workers in the household survey by its estimate of the total population. If the population estimate is too high, the estimated number of jobs will also be too high.

The bureau bases its population estimate on the 2000 census, but it then updates that estimate yearly with data on births, deaths and immigration. But immigration numbers are largely guesswork, because so much immigration is illegal. Fed officials suspect the immigration estimate is inflated because it fails to reflect tighter immigration controls since Sept. 11, 2001, as well as declines caused by the economic slowdown. The bureau, in fact, lowered its population estimate in January.

Plugging the new estimate into previous household surveys, the bureau found that nearly half of the apparent increase in jobs during the past three years vanished. Not content, Greenspan also devised a "synthetic" population estimate by crossing the household survey's ratio of employed workers and work force data in the unemployment insurance system. The result? "A significantly slower pace" of population growth, according to the Fed chairman.

The good news for the job market is that both surveys are now pointing to increases in employment. The bad news is that compared with previous recoveries, both measures suggest that job growth remains well below par.

I guess FoxNews couldn't unearth such hard-to-find data...

(Note: The emphasis in the article is mine.)

czarofmischief

People are probably working under the table more.

CZAR

Badger

In the words of Don Henley:

"There is no right, there is no wrong...only data to manipulate."

Phantom Stranger

"The economy, by all measures, is improving, not dying. "

Well, we agree it's not dying, but there is no objective standard that can state that it is improving by all measures. No one is saying that the economy is dying... but if you get your ass laid off and then have to experience the invisible hand of capitalism smacking you into some other industry, you might feel differently.

Love_Truth

The good news for the job market is that both surveys are now pointing to increases in employment. The bad news is that compared with previous recoveries, both measures suggest that job growth remains well below par.

The point is that you don't choose the survey that bolsters your political views. You use both surveys to come up with the unemployment figures. And, as mentioned previously, the current 5.6 percent unemployment rate is lower than the average unemployment rates during the 1970s (6.4 percent), 1980s (7.3 percent) or 1990s (5.8 percent). In fact, unemployment is at its lowest average since the 1960s.

So, what's the problem?

Love_Truth

So, is 5.6 % unemployment good, or bad? (Hint- It's quite good)

And, how will Democrats RAISING taxes help the economy? (Hint- It won't)

czarofmischief

Well done, picard. well done.

CZAR

Phantom Stranger

I am reminded of sayings involving pigs and singing...

You just made a specious argument. You stated that US employment was better than stated in the media because they use misleading numbers - that the household survey was more accurate than the payroll survey.

You have been shown where the media publishes articles about both numbers. (The NYT/IHT had the objective article - FoxNews had the slanted one).

You have been shown where the Fed and the Bush Administration discount the numbers you cited. Alan Greenspan said we have to "use the payroll data", and I'm believing him, not you.

You have been shown that FoxNews used only one set of numbers too - the set that seemed to support their argument, the set that was discounted by the Fed and the Bush Administration.

And the only thing you can say is "look - what's the problem"?

Look, disagree with my political views all you want, but when you blow it, be an adult and own it.