Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Government faked the unemployment numbers in the month before the 2012 election. A whole bunch of people should be fired over this   (nypost.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, elections in 2012  
•       •       •

938 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 9:15 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-19 03:10:01 AM  
www.godlikeproductions.com
 
2013-11-19 03:10:58 AM  
Excuse me while I wipe the spittle from my shirt
 
2013-11-19 03:17:17 AM  
One guy is caught faking poll responses and is fired for it.

This is Obama's Benghazi.
 
2013-11-19 04:03:53 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: One guy is caught faking poll responses and is fired for it.


two years before the election.


Completely inaccurate headline debunked in three posts? I predict a green light.
 
2013-11-19 04:53:58 AM  
It's the Post.  You expect journalism?

Or accuracy?

Or even the faintest acquaintance with the facts?

Or even the acknowledgement that there's such a thing as a fact?
 
2013-11-19 06:22:37 AM  
To summarize:

1) Not enough people were responding to census inquiries in a couple cities to meet standards
2) According to "a reliable souce", some workers made up some data to fill in the gap and avoid getting chewed out
3) ???
4) MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO REELECT 0BUMMER
 
2013-11-19 06:29:31 AM  

dookdookdook: To summarize:

1) Not enough people were responding to census inquiries in a couple cities to meet standards
2) According to "a reliable souce", some workers made up some data to fill in the gap and avoid getting chewed out
3) ???
4) MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO REELECT 0BUMMER


seemslegit.jpg
 
2013-11-19 07:57:19 AM  

kcoombs69: dookdookdook: To summarize:

1) Not enough people were responding to census inquiries in a couple cities to meet standards
2) According to "a reliable souce", some workers made up some data to fill in the gap and avoid getting chewed out
3) ???
4) MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO REELECT 0BUMMER

seemslegit.jpg


Especially coming from the New York Post.  only slightly more reliable than the National Enquirer
 
2013-11-19 08:30:51 AM  
I suspected that this turnover of employees was being done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being report each month. (The Labor Department does not use the Census Bureau for its other monthly survey of new jobs - commonly referred to as the Establishment Survey.)

Except it wouldn't. The CES doesn't ask companies how many "new" jobs there are, it asks how many jobs there are, and manages to do the subtraction itself. If you're just churning employees, your payroll stays the same and the number of new jobs is zero.
I'm willing to believe there are some overzealous employees who make stuff up to help boost their personal measurements and get a pat on the head at the end of the year. That happens in a lot of industries. But it's idiocy to say, "yeah, we found some guy doing this in 2010, so that explains why the numbers were so good in October 2012." Especially when he admits that the direction of the made up numbers wasn't dictated. And again, it never affected the jobs report, which hasn't been terribly out of whack with the unemployment report. You can hang your hat on the labor supply numbers if you want to make a point about any perceived discrepancies there.
What is clear is that this author doesn't understand how statistics work- "But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed."
That's absurd.
 
2013-11-19 08:43:54 AM  
We're through the derping glass, people.
 
2013-11-19 09:18:29 AM  
Even if they did it on purpose do you think it had an impact on the election? Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don't give a shiat about jobs. They keep electing Republicans into office.
 
2013-11-19 09:18:48 AM  
This is Oghazi's Benbama.
 
2013-11-19 09:20:51 AM  
Let's fire the online editor of the Weeners for okaying a story about speculation based on an anonymous source that, if extrapolated, could mean the possibility someone in the Department of Labor may have violated the terms of their employment.
 
2013-11-19 09:21:27 AM  
The New York Weeners!
 
2013-11-19 09:25:00 AM  
Why would a mod green light this?


This thread will be stale as last weeks muffins
 
2013-11-19 09:25:02 AM  
But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.

But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.


Even if everything else in the article is the gospel truth, that last sentence completely reeks of bullshiat.  What if he created a person, filled out a survey, and said they were unemployed - would that have "boost the number of fold reported as employed"?
 
2013-11-19 09:25:19 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-19 09:27:13 AM  
I hear Romney was really pissed that Obama went to Dave & Buster's the night before the election.
 
2013-11-19 09:29:09 AM  
Looks at the source and moves on to real news.
 
2013-11-19 09:34:12 AM  
Not this shiat again.

Seriously, I thought this went out with unskewing polls.
 
2013-11-19 09:35:17 AM  
Yeah, you can see the real unskewed numbers from Gallup, who does their own independent survey:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/gallup-daily-workforce.aspx

(7.1% unemployment reported on Nov 4, 2012)
 
2013-11-19 09:39:24 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Not this shiat again.

Seriously, I thought this went out with unskewing polls.


Hey didja hear about this Benghazi thing!?
 
2013-11-19 09:51:32 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: One guy is caught faking poll responses and is fired for it.

This is Obama's Benghazi.


This.

The GOP outrage machine is really losing it's knack for this.

What next?  OMFG1!!1!eleventy Obama used his teaspoon to drink soup!!!?!?!
 
2013-11-19 09:52:03 AM  

CPennypacker: Even if they did it on purpose do you think it had an impact on the election? Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don't give a shiat about jobs. They keep electing Republicans into office.


The unemployment numbers under Bush versus Obama would make your statement about as accurate as you claim the NY Post to be.
 
2013-11-19 09:52:23 AM  

i1.kym-cdn.com

 
2013-11-19 09:59:27 AM  

SlothB77: CPennypacker: Even if they did it on purpose do you think it had an impact on the election? Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don't give a shiat about jobs. They keep electing Republicans into office.

The unemployment numbers under Bush versus Obama would make your statement about as accurate as you claim the NY Post to be.


Are you ever not wrong?

Like, when you just say regular shiat are you wrong too? If you said it looked like it was a sunny day out, for example, do the people around you grab umbrellas?
 
2013-11-19 10:01:36 AM  
Yup. O'Buzzkill totes stole the election. RON PAUL IS KING!
 
2013-11-19 10:03:47 AM  
It must be an incredibly slow news week for this "story" to get any media attention whatsoever.   How in the world does a functional mindgo from a census taker padding his work log to a massive White House election-swinging conspiracy?

But we had ACORN collapse from much the same so this'll be what gets Obama impeached.
 
2013-11-19 10:05:18 AM  

SlothB77: CPennypacker: Even if they did it on purpose do you think it had an impact on the election? Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don't give a shiat about jobs. They keep electing Republicans into office.

The unemployment numbers under Bush versus Obama would make your statement about as accurate as you claim the NY Post to be.


data.bls.gov
 
2013-11-19 10:09:43 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: SlothB77: CPennypacker: Even if they did it on purpose do you think it had an impact on the election? Americans have made it abundantly clear that they don't give a shiat about jobs. They keep electing Republicans into office.

The unemployment numbers under Bush versus Obama would make your statement about as accurate as you claim the NY Post to be.

[data.bls.gov image 600x300]


Unemployment increased substantially in 2008. Barack Hussein Obama was elected in 2008. Therefore, the increase in unemployment is President Obama's fault.
 
2013-11-19 10:09:51 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Let's fire the online editor of the Weeners for okaying a story about speculation based on an anonymous source that, if extrapolated, could mean the possibility someone in the Department of Labor may have violated the terms of their employment.


Five him?  Based on past experience, he'll likely have his own nightly talk show in five years!
 
2013-11-19 10:16:52 AM  
The Obama administration?

Lying?

That would be such a shock at this point.
 
2013-11-19 10:20:15 AM  

SlothB77: The unemployment numbers under Bush versus Obama would make your statement about as accurate as you claim the NY Post to be.


This guy wants to hitch his wagon to Bush's worst job growth of any administration in 75 years.

This guy.
 
2013-11-19 10:20:36 AM  

BullBearMS: The Obama administration?

Lying?

That would be such a shock at this point.


You can avoid feeling the trauma and shame by attacking the source instead. I mean NYPost? More like NYPOOP amirite?
 
2013-11-19 10:20:56 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: What is clear is that this author doesn't understand how statistics work- "But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed."


He also words the fact that there are 60,000 surveys a month as "supposed to be scientific" but that each interview is supposed to represent 5,000 households. If that was true then the margin of error would be 0.36%. Even if this interviewer was supposedly completing three times the rate of interviews of his peers that would be a drop in the bucket to influence the results.

Let's ignore the fact that he was terminated two years before the election, or that his high numbers prompted suspicion that he was faking his numbers so the idea this is widespread means that these other fakers would also likely "perform" above average which there is no evidence of. The very fact that such faking would be done to try to convince BLS that you are doing more work than you are suggests they likely would try to make their results appear as random and in line with the real response rate as possible. Granted, that still would result in terribly off results because humans are bad at randomizing, but they wouldn't be purposely dramatically above or below their honest coworkers (unless you legitimately believe that the cheats made up the vast majority of interviewers or that there was an incentive to deliver certain responses as an interviewer despite such a goal making no sense for a polling organization of any sort.)

Honestly, if you were going to fake responses, the best way not to get caught would be to make sure that the percentage of each response was roughly identical to the previous period, seasonally "unadjust" them, and then mix up the order you supposedly got those responses in. These sorts of numbers rarely turn on a dime, so reporting consistency is safe.
 
2013-11-19 10:21:08 AM  

BullBearMS: The Obama administration?

Lying?

That would be such a shock at this point.


Low level census employees are "The Obama Administration" now?  Do you blame Obama when the mail's late, too?
 
2013-11-19 10:21:16 AM  

BullBearMS: The Obama administration?

Lying?

That would be such a shock at this point.


Great contribution, keep up the good work. A+ for effort.
 
2013-11-19 10:24:21 AM  
it's interesting to go back and read the threads about this on Oct 5 2012.   we were correct in calling out the numbers as bunk.
 
2013-11-19 10:26:16 AM  

dookdookdook: BullBearMS: The Obama administration?

Lying?

That would be such a shock at this point.

Low level census employees are "The Obama Administration" now?  Do you blame Obama when the mail's late, too?


Did the employee say that orders to fake the numbers came from those higher up?

Why yes. Yes he did.
 
2013-11-19 10:27:52 AM  

super_grass: BullBearMS: The Obama administration?

Lying?

That would be such a shock at this point.

You can avoid feeling the trauma and shame by attacking the source instead. I mean NYPost? More like NYPOOP amirite?


I'm sure that you can see that it would be highly unlikely that a politician who the majority of Americans said is not honest would ever tell a fib.
 
2013-11-19 10:33:14 AM  

colon_pow: it's interesting to go back and read the threads about this on Oct 5 2012.   we were correct in calling out the numbers as bunk.


Please reference the data showing your previous claims to be correct. At present, your previous claims are as well-supported as are the claims of creationists denying the existence of observed reality.
 
2013-11-19 10:33:23 AM  

BullBearMS: Did the employee say that orders to fake the numbers came from those higher up?

Why yes. Yes he did.


Do you know how many levels of "higher up" there are between a guy who does interviews for the census and Barack Obama?

Read the (tiny factual part of) the link.  The local offices in Philadelphia and NYC weren't meeting quotas, so they padded the data.  Even the idiot who wrote the article doesn't claim that there's any evidence that there was a political motive, only that it's a hypothetical possibility that just happens to mesh with all the insane conspiracy theories swimming around in his head.
 
2013-11-19 10:40:38 AM  
what's another scandal.  hell, this might distract from the obamacare debacle for a few days.  Maybe obama himself leaked this info.

where's the popcorn?
 
2013-11-19 10:45:30 AM  
 
2013-11-19 10:47:27 AM  

BullBearMS: Did the employee say that orders to fake the numbers came from those higher up?

Why yes. Yes he did.


You have a source claiming that in 2010 an employee of the Census Bureau was terminated for faking his results, but he claims that he was told he could fabricate responses in order to help cushion his response rate stats (which is just dumb; if that was policy, why did he suddenly go to triple the productivity of his peers when he started doing that? Clearly other employees were having a harder time collecting data despite this "you can just make it up" policy). Note this wasn't even a BLS employee, it was one of the temp workers hired in 2010 in order to complete the Constitutionally-required census. He was terminated but the concern is that the Census Bureau failed to inform other departments of the issue. Yes, census figures are used in computing the unemployment rate (primarily in weighting responses by location), but this guy was not actually involved in any BLS data collection.

That is your smoking gun that in 2012 the BLS coordinated to falsify their survey responses in fall of 2012 in order to win the election. Though to be fair the title is honest in a strange way: it does blame Census and not the BLS. To put this into context, the theory is that incorrect weighting of population density in 2010 could result in inaccurate unemployment data, and the fact that there is at least one census employee who reported false data could result in the numbers being higher or lower than is actually the case two years later. Remember that this isn't the only survey: there is no significant difference between the BLS unemployment rate and the various private industry measures out there (usually within 0.2% of each other.)
 
2013-11-19 10:54:51 AM  
what difference, at this point, does it matter?  obama campaigned on those great numbers and won his second term.  it's called hardball politics, and the ends justify the means.  so he lied about those numbers just like he lied about keeping your insurance.

he's one crafty chicago-style politician, I'll give you that.
 
2013-11-19 10:59:47 AM  

colon_pow: what difference, at this point, does it matter?  obama campaigned on those great numbers and won his second term.  it's called hardball politics, and the ends justify the means.  so he lied about those numbers just like he lied about keeping your insurance.

he's one crafty chicago-style politician, I'll give you that.


While I understand that, as a creationist, you are unfamiliar with the concept of intellectual honesty, the fact remains that your accusations lack any credibility until you actually reference data to support them.
 
2013-11-19 11:01:20 AM  

BullBearMS: Anybody know why that Lerner chick decided she needed immunity from prosecution before she would testify about this?

Maybe because House republicans would try to throw her in jail for saying "umm" too much if it meant they could make the IRS thing look like an actual scandal and not just sensible application scrutiny?

colon_pow: what's another scandal.  hell, this might distract from the obamacare debacle for a few days.  Maybe obama himself leaked this info.


So it's either 1) a massive conspiracy that goes to the highest levels of government, or 2) a complete fabrication intended to distract and confuse the american people.

Got it.
 
2013-11-19 11:02:39 AM  

Dimensio: colon_pow: what difference, at this point, does it matter?  obama campaigned on those great numbers and won his second term.  it's called hardball politics, and the ends justify the means.  so he lied about those numbers just like he lied about keeping your insurance.

he's one crafty chicago-style politician, I'll give you that.

While I understand that, as a creationist, you are unfamiliar with the concept of intellectual honesty, the fact remains that your accusations lack any credibility until you actually reference data to support them.


be patient.  this will play itself out.  obama needed those numbers to be below 8%, and he pulled it off.
 
2013-11-19 11:03:34 AM  

dookdookdook: BullBearMS: Anybody know why that Lerner chick decided she needed immunity from prosecution before she would testify about this?

Maybe because House republicans would try to throw her in jail for saying "umm" too much if it meant they could make the IRS thing look like an actual scandal and not just sensible application scrutiny?

colon_pow: what's another scandal.  hell, this might distract from the obamacare debacle for a few days.  Maybe obama himself leaked this info.

So it's either 1) a massive conspiracy that goes to the highest levels of government, or 2) a complete fabrication intended to distract and confuse the american people.

Got it.


or maybe a masterful mixture of the two.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report