I_C_Weener: I just would like them to use the same calculation to compare one month to another.

If we did that, we'd be using population estimates from the 1800's.

Zerohedge.com's Tyler Durden

Stopped reading there.

sprawl15: I_C_Weener: I just would like them to use the same calculation to compare one month to another.

If we did that, we'd be using population estimates from the 1800's.

That sounds like it would line up perfectly with Republican priorities.

Just as Bush "changed" it with the results from the 2000 census, and Bush changed it with the results from the 1990 census, and Reagan changed it with the results from the 1980 census, etc. etc. etc.

Just look at my non-outraged face

I have no idea if the subject has any merit or not, because the author was trying too hard to be clever and not hard enough being informative.

James!: It's also important to note that contrary to what is being sold by right wing blogs these are not people who magically left the workforce in December. The total number of people in the workforce has been lowered to account for the new census data. They estimated high based on old data and then corrected it. These people were never actually in the workforce.

Shh...you're getting in the way of trying to spin good news as something bad. These guys love their country too much for you to ruin their attempt to paint this country as a lost cause.

this is me not reading a moonie times article.

jaylectricity: Who's counting? How do they know whether I'm doing work or not?

They don't know exactly what each individual is doing, and it's not really all that relevant when you're calculating statistics on this scale. They do however have detailed information on on-the-books payrolls, government payrolls, etc., and they know how large the working population is via census data.

I think what the article is saying is that the Obama administration is calculating the unemployment rate by changing the way they define the size of the labor force. They are claiming that the Obama administration isn't counting the 1.2M people who "left the workforce," whatever that means. To the Obama administration.

Those who are unemployed, but are no longer collecting unemployment and/or are no longer obtaining federal or state job placement services, may not be counted as "unemployed". They're just "other people who don't have any work and probably won't have a job any time soon" or something.

So, they're no longer part of the "workforce," because they've stopped looking or have just been unsuccessful in finding a job for too long.

It's all politi-math anyway. Employment is a leading indicator going into recessions, and lagging coming out, so we won't be able to make any sense of this data for some time, though both parties will try to use it to their advantage.

It is amazing how Zero Hedge puts out incorrect information, it is almost immediately seized upon by Drudge and Santelli, and that drives the Republican narrative over the jobs number. Unreal.

/no, 1 million people did not drop out of the labor force from Dec to Jan you idiots

Stopped reading at "Washington Times".

When was the last time they reported on anything factual? To be honest, I forgot that paper was still around.

Wendy's Chili: Zerohedge.com's Tyler Durden

Stopped reading there.

That asshole again? What is this, a new Disney Recording Artist? All of a sudden, everytime somebody is wrong about the economy, he's the guy they quote.

An opinion piece that references a piece written by a anonymous writer.

Must be a slow day and Fark needs the traffic.

Stabone33: I think what the article is saying is that the Obama administration is calculating the unemployment rate by changing the way they define the size of the labor force. They are claiming that the Obama administration isn't counting the 1.2M people who "left the workforce," whatever that means. To the Obama administration.

Those who are unemployed, but are no longer collecting unemployment and/or are no longer obtaining federal or state job placement services, may not be counted as "unemployed". They're just "other people who don't have any work and probably won't have a job any time soon" or something.

The difference between the former and the latter are the U3 and U6 numbers respectively. If you quit looking for work because prospects suck, you don't fall out of the labor force...you just get bumped from U3 to U6. People that are out of the labor force are people who would not work even if given the opportunity; old people, children, dead people, etc.

They're claiming that Obama took 1.2 million out of the working pool - something that would affect both U3 and U6 numbers. And it's true, he did. But not because 1.2 million people stole Obama's magical time machine and retired at 90, it's because census data showed our estimates for current labor distribution were off by 1.2 million people.

I'm so glad this is Washington Times article. There is clearly nothing to worry about.

James!: I_C_Weener: rumpelstiltskin: I don't understand your question. Are you saying there is a difference in how the survey results are collected? Are you saying there is a difference in how the survey results are interpreted? What exactly has changed between 2009 and 2012? Why can't I compare the results?

That is what I want to know. If they change system, to be more accurate, then can they use the current more accurate system to compare 2009 to today? I don't know enough about it, but it always seems to be the argument from one side to the other depending on the election year that the method of calculation (or in this case the assumed discount numbers) are changed to be more accurate. If so, then how do we compare current numbers with historic numbers?

They didn't change the way anything was calculated. That is a lie that's being used by bloggers with less than honorable intentions. This is the first month they are using 2010 census information instead of estimations based on 2000 census information.


I was listening to the congressional hearings on employment last week on C-Span... There have been some small changes in how they analyze the data, but apparently the biggest change is on who they count as unemployed. They've been steadily pushing the labor participation rate down for a long time now, which makes unemployment artificially look better than it really is, and on top of that they mentioned another subtle method or two of not counting some small portion of unemployed people.

But even while they were gently (IMHO) whitewashing the padding of the numbers everyone had to admit that there were a lot of underemployed, that it was a big problem we needed to address and that the steady drop of the labor participation rate was probably a problem too.

I_C_Weener: the current method of calculation to past numbers under the current method of calculation?

The current method of calculation is the same as the past method of calculation. Nothing changed.

They estimated the size of the workforce and they were wrong high. If you go back and try to recalculate unemployment data, then I'm assuming other calculations would make unemployment numbers more Obama positive for 2010.

News flash, idiot author: the civilian labor force is going to continue to shrink over the next several years, as the largest group of baby boomers begin to head into retirement. Don't let little things like facts stand in the way of great propaganda, though... keep farking that chicken; the rational adults will be over here actually fixing this country's problems.

People like this are exactly why we are so farked up right now. It boggles the mind that they have even the remotest chance of being given the opportunity to run this country again.

Dusk-You-n-Me: People of all persuasions lie; but the right has a whole institutional structure of lying that has no counterpart on the left.

Other than ALL THE MEDIA EVERYWHERE!!!

Stabone33: Those who are unemployed, but are no longer collecting unemployment and/or are no longer obtaining federal or state job placement services, may not be counted as "unemployed". They're just "other people who don't have any work and probably won't have a job any time soon" or something.

So, they're no longer part of the "workforce," because they've stopped looking or have just been unsuccessful in finding a job for too long.

This is not a new way to calculate it. It definitely isn't something Obama dreamed up to help his 2012 Presidential campaign.

And, it isn't the exact point this article is trying to make. The article is intentionally misinterpreting a calculation done based on an estimate.

bulldg4life: I_C_Weener: the current method of calculation to past numbers under the current method of calculation?

The current method of calculation is the same as the past method of calculation. Nothing changed.

They estimated the size of the workforce and they were wrong high. If you go back and try to recalculate unemployment data, then I'm assuming other calculations would make unemployment numbers more Obama positive for 2010.

Statistically speaking the right thing to do would be use the available data to try and interpolate what the true population numbers were for each year between 2000 and 2010 to adjust the employment rate accordingly. I think you're right that it would probably make the numbers from the last 2 years look slightly better.

mongbiohazard: They've been steadily pushing the labor participation rate down for a long time now,

Citation please. "They" don't "push it down." It's a statistical survey, and if people quit looking for work, they're no longer counted as unemployed -- which tends to happen when they're out of work for several years. The bureau of labor statistics tells exactly how they get their numbers.

I've got an able bodied 'friend' who sits around watching Fox News all day and getting more delusional with each passing year, and if they called him, he's not being counted as unemployed.

Dusk-You-n-Me: People of all persuasions lie; but the right has a whole institutional structure of lying *that has no counterpart on the left.

*what an institutional, structured lie might look like.

jaylectricity: Edsel: jaylectricity: Who's counting? How do they know whether I'm doing work or not?

They don't know exactly what each individual is doing, and it's not really all that relevant when you're calculating statistics on this scale. They do however have detailed information on on-the-books payrolls, government payrolls, etc., and they know how large the working population is via census data.

So it's all speculation? Because I guarantee that these statisticians have no idea whether I'm working or not. There are other people like me, I know them personally. So how do these statisticians know how many people are actually not working?

It's "estimation" not speculation". It's not like they're using an abacus to count individual people. On the scale we're talking about, even if you're off by a few thousand it only results in a few tenths of a percent difference in the calculated unemployment rate. And PS, if you are working on the books, then yes, they know when you are your friends are working.