Home > . > This Employment Number Smells So Bad My Nose Hurts

This Employment Number Smells So Bad My Nose Hurts

October 5, 2012

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released it employment numbers for September, 2012 today. And believe me, they really stink of political corruption!

Supposedly, the official unemployment rate conveniently dropped below the politically important threshold of 8% down to 7.8%. The “official” unemployment rate itself is already a bogus piece of manipulated crap because of the way it is calculated. In Guess Which Country Is Fiscally Conservative? I illustrate that if the Canadian unemployment rate calculation was used in the States the unemployment rate would be close to 11%. In #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History? I illustrate that if the unemployment rate was calculated today the way it was calculated for the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties, it would be over 14%!

• • • • • • • • • • • •
Liberals Are Drowning & Dragging America Down With Them
Throw Them A Lifeline: Nuclear Counterarguments
• • • • • • • • • • • •

So how did the BLS perform this sleight of hand? (See the Seasonally adjusted numbers in fourth line in this chart: BLS Household Survey, September, 2012.) Supposedly, there was this giant leap in Civilian Labor Force total for the month of September. In the previous twelve months the average move of the total number from one month to the next was 166,000 workers. But now we are asked to believe that for September the total magically jumped 873,000 workers! This after orders for manufactured goods dropped in September by the most in over three years: Largest drop in factory orders since 2009.

To put this in perspective, the largest month to month jump in employment during the Dot Com economy of the late 1990s was 615,000 from August to September of 1998 (second chart). But, now during the Obama Malaise we are supposed to believe that this total employment increase has eclipsed that 1998 one by 42%?!? Can anybody say they believe that with a straight face?

So, let’s lay this out. For the past twelve months total employment averaged a 0.11% increase per month, barely enough to cover the amount of new workers entering the workforce each month. But now, the month before the presidential election – SURPRISE! – total employment supposedly jumped an incredible 0.6%, FIVE TIMES the average amount for the previous twelve months! And this while manufacturing had its worst month in almost four years. Uh-huh…

Watch for this number to be drastically revised downward in a couple of months (hopefully, for the manipulators at the BLS, after their guy get’s re-elected – thanks to their manipulations).

Update: Dishonest Unemployment Numbers

Update 2: If it was a “statistical anomaly” as has been claimed (only Kool-Aid drinkers actually believe it is legitimate), it turns out it would have to have been a once in 700 years likelihood that just happened to occur in the favorable direction for the President just before an election (the anomaly could have jumped up the rate to 8.4 instead of down to 7.8 – lucky him). Why September’s Unemployment Number is Suspicious. So, as a comparison, what were the odds that it was instead a result of corruption? Well, that is impossible to calculate, but it seems likely to be a lot less than once in 700 years.

Update 3: Here we go again. It Looks Like The Huge Drop In Jobless Claims Was All Due To One Mystery State And the DoL didn’t discover this until after it was published because…??? I’d say Jack Welch is owed a whole bunch of apologies…

Update 4: The stock market certainly didn’t buy into the employment numbers. It has endured a nasty drop for six days in a row since the announcement.

Update 5: Found a good one at the liberal website, ThinkProgress: GOP Senator Denies Indisputable Facts On Obama’s Employment Record. GOP Sen. Rob Portman (OH) claimed that “unemployment is higher today than when the president took office. Unfortunately, in the meantime, we’ve created net zero jobs”. ThinkProgress states that the Senator was incorrect and gives a couple of links to supposedly prove him wrong. Except that their links don’t prove anything. The NY Times link states that the September number of 7.8% was the “lowest level since the month President Obama took office”, not what ThinkProgress claims, “unemployment is lower than the day President Obama took office”. The Times article also confirms its first statement with this: “The nation now has nearly the same number of jobs as when Mr. Obama took office in January 2009.” (My emphasis.) A quick look at the January, 2009 unemployment rate number confirms it was lower at 7.6%: The unemployment rate in January of 2009 was 7.6% (change the year in the dropdown to 2009 and click Find Unemployment Rate). ThinkProgress then claims that “the economy has created net positive jobs” presumably for the same time period. Their link goes to another ThinkProgress page that makes the same claim without any numbers to back it up. It links to another TP page that again provides no numbers. And that page links to a tweet with no numbers. So what are the numbers? Series Title: Total nonfarm: All Employees, Thousands, SA As of today, October 14/12, in January of 2009 there were a total of 133,561,000 employed workers in America. As of September of 2012 (the most recent monthly number available) there were a total of 133,500,000 employed workers, a net loss of 61,000 jobs (these numbers could change with future revisions, but this is what they say today, the day of the TP post). TP claimed, “The numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ September jobs report prove both of Portman’s claims wrong”. Except that the Senator (and Paul Ryan) was correct on both counts, and if ThinkProgress and the liberal commenters below the article had bothered to look for the real numbers they would not have made such fools of themselves. So much for their “Indisputable Facts”. (I find it interesting to read the groupthink of the hundreds of liberal commenters below the article.) (Ha – I just found a commenter that put out some real numbers with links, but the liberals will have none of it. Their groupthink and scoff reflex are too strong.)

Update 6: Well, it turns out that missing data from update number 3 was a result of an Obama campaign donor: Calif. official whose agency under-reported unemployment stats was Obama campaign donor Still waiting for an explanation for the corrupt numbers from the original story of this post, but we’ll probably find out sooner or later.

Update 7: More clarification a year later. Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report

• • • • • • • • • • • •
Liberals Are Drowning & Dragging America Down With Them
Throw Them A Lifeline: Nuclear Counterarguments
• • • • • • • • • • • •

Advertisements