how did i know this would be your pathetic response?
lets not forget this is a government agency doing this.
lets not forget this is the same government agency that was calling first big wave of UI recipient drop offs a good thing, you know, those people who's benefits EXPIRED.

what is the number of people they poll?
i might as well poll my house alone to determine my cities unemployment rate.

and BTW, we are talking government statistics...so keep your lame comments out of this.

 

-----signature-----

election year mathematics

 

-----signature-----

time to look for a godamn job you welfare bums

 

-----signature-----

Well you can believe they fake the information if you want, no one can prove to you otherwise. Not that you should care much about their methodology if you think they're fakes.


They have two surveys, the first is Establishment (which gets info from business establishments), er misread at first. Here they explain their sample size.
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn1.htm

"The sample includes about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, which cover approximately 486,000 individual worksites drawn from a sampling frame of Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax accounts covering roughly 9 million establishments."

The second, household survey, is 72k households every month. They describe how accurate that is here:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_f.htm

"It includes about 72,000 households from 754 sample areas, or PSUs, and maintains a 1.9-percent CV on national monthly estimates of unemployment level. This translates into a change of 0.2 percentage point in the unemployment rate being significant at a 90-percent confidence level. For each of the 50 States and for the District of Columbia, the design maintains a CV of at most 8 percent on the annual average estimate of unemployment level, assuming a 6-percent unemployment rate. Due to the national reliability criterion, estimates for several large States are substantially more reliable than the State design criterion requires. Annual average unemployment estimates for California, Florida, New York, and Texas, for example, carry a CV of less than 4 percent."

 

-----signature-----

How we count unemployment has long been flawed. Unfortunately the political fallout for changing it to something more accurate would be disastrous for any incumbent.

The numbers are getting better and that's what is really behind the reactions. Democrats love it and ignore the flaws, Republicans point out the flaws and ignore that they counted things the same way.

 

-----signature-----

I think unemployment is a lot better figure when you are actually in a healthy economy. Coming out of a recession, what is more important is number of jobs being created, and of what type/market.

Basically the employment situation this month didn't really change for better or worse. Why did less people start looking for work? There are tons of reasons job seeker numbers fluctuate, you don't know the answer unless you look closely. It could be good, bad, or neutral.

 

-----signature-----

government spin ... yes lev, we know you don;t understand

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

I recognize when an organization shows comprehensive and thorough analysis methods. That said, it could still be poorly executed. I have seen no evidence of this.

Do you have any credible source showing the BLS statistics are off? (shadowstats isn't credible, it is a for profit scam)

 

-----signature-----

you easily dismiss shadowstats but fully trust the government.

 

-----signature-----