What does this have to do with what I said? I didn’t question whether or not the household survey data always finds more jobs than the payroll data (because it usually does). I asked if you believed the magnitude of jobs per household reported the survey.
ETA> Are you taking offense to what I said about 1983? It’s true.
(I suppose you’ll try to get me on a technicality where I should have said “since 1983”.)
And I don’t know why that double posted instead of editing.
Of course not. But that survey is adjusted on a per-capita basis to average for the whole country, right? Otherwise it would be pretty pointless to survey 60K households and just give the “raw numbers” of jobs created ONLY for those 60K households. So don’t they take the # of jobs from those 60K households, and multiply it by (# of households in America)/60K ?
It didn’t seem that unusual for the household survey to differ by up to a million more than the payroll survey- so why is it particularly unusual for it to differ by 700-800K?
I’m not sure you understand how the survey works. According to the BLS
IOW, they are using the survey of 60K households to estimate the number of jobs created for all households.
There are a lot of people, not all of whom are partisan, who believe the household survey number is bogus. It doesn’t have to be intentional bogosity - just sampling variance or some other kind of error.
Seriously, it’s a big anomoly. The establishment survey points to slowing job growth. The GDP numbers indicate a slowing economy. The manufacturing index just dropped into recessionary territory. Most other financial measures indicate either a declining or stagnant quarter. Yet somehow we’re supposed to believe the household survey, which indicates job growth that should only occur in an economy growing at around 5%? It’s just not credible.
Of course, if you want to be conspiratorial, I could point out that the establishment survey is done by the BLS, but the household survey is done by the Census Bureau. Anyone remember what Obama did in 2009? He changed the reporting structure of the Census bureau so that it reported directly to the White House instead of to the Commerce Committee that was responsible for oversight…
But honestly, I think it’s just variance. But there’s absolutely no way it can be accurate given all the other numbers around it. Lucky for Obama that this error occurred when it did to take attention away from the drubbing he got the other night.
The way the survey works is that if they sample 10% of the population and discover that 1,000 of them got jobs, they can extrapolate from that and assume that 10,000 jobs were created across the entire economy. They’re not saying that all those jobs were created just in the sample group.
You’re right that the survey has a history of variance, but that this variance is historically large. You’re also right in that the household survey is seriously out of whack with the other economic data that came out today. Given its historical inaccuracy, it should be taken with a pretty large grain of salt.
If the GOP keeps strangling facts, they will die. And we’ll be left with nothing to fight with but our fists.
To add: obviously the surveys can be off. Indeed, they’re *usually *off, as indicated by the adjustment to the earlier numbers in this report. But the notion floated by Fox News et al. (and noted by Sam Stone) that the numbers were doctored is rank nonsense. And it seems like each week we get closer to the point where there is no common reality. I don’t know what happens at that point.
I just said that to tweak you a bit. Right after it I said that I didn’t believe that, and that the numbers are just a very lucky anomaly for Obama.
But I do believe they are an anomaly. They just make no sense at all when you look at all the other numbers that came out. Almost all of them point to a slowing economy and weakening job growth. But the household survey shows a jobs boom of historic proportions. No one believes that.
I didn’t say you supported it, just noted it, prompting my comments.
Unlike you, much of the right-wing is actively asserting that Obama cooked the books.
I mean, think about that. How far have we come that if the President catches a break on jobs numbers that the right-wing’s principal reaction is that the President cheated?
I guess we’ll know we’re really over the cliff when even the candidate takes that line. So far as I know, Romney hasn’t done so yet.
Looks like the jobs report deflated the spirits in Camp Romney. Aw- poor little things!
Still beating that dead horse, I see. :rolleyes:
Today’s Republican Party – actively rooting for bad news.
Romney had it easy…He actually knew who he would be debating against. Obama had no idea who he would be debating against: Would it be against the “severely conservative” Romney or the moderate Republican governor Romney? Would it be against the Romney who wants to require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions or the one who just wouldn’t undo the 1996 law that made it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions if they’ve had continuous insurance coverage? Etc., etc.
It’s true that Republicans have been trying to talk down the economy, just as Democrats did during the Bush years.
However, guess what Republicans haven’t done that Democrats did? Root for failure in war.
It’s not hard to respond to what is actually said. If Obama understood his own record, he would have been fine. Romney knew more about what was in Dodd-Frank than Obama did.
AND *that s Treason. For anyone in America to want the news to be bad *so they can gain political ground is unAmerican.
The Labor Department is one and the same department that provided the news last month and every month since the 1930’s, with the same indices and rubrics they always use. To believe that a chugging along Bureaucracy who employs Americans of all political stripes is sinister enough to cook the books before the election is just plain bullshit
The news was fine for Republicans last month, but when Americans are actually going back to work and the economy is actually picking up and the DOW is bullish once again is good news. It’s a modest recovery and how dare the Conservative wingnuts try to slow the economy down by their scare tactics.
I’m going to be generous here, and assume you are already ashamed of that last remark.
Bullshit. Romney’s goons found an ommission in Dodd-Frank and exploited it. Big fucking deal, that doesn’t negate the bill and the structure necessary to keep assholes like Romney and his fucking greedy wallstreet crew out of the banks.
He can’t argue for no legislation to run rough shod over people like this asshole did at Bain, so they have to nitpick at the legislation that’s there.
Hmm, I wonder why Obama didn’t come back with that rebuttal? I’m sure he will, once someone tells him what’s in the bill. Since Axelrod doesn’t know that it’ll probably have to wait until they can get an economic advisor on the phone. Does Obama even have any of those anymore or did they all leave?
Do you really have such a cartoonish view of the world, adaher, in which the President doesn’t have economic advisors or know the basics of his own policies, or is this just rhetoric to get a rise out of liberals?