posted 01-05-07
Mainstream keeps forgetting that an economist revealed that the Bush administration installed new modeling into the month end jobs evaluations that makes up imaginary jobs, and they have stopped informing Americans on how many jobs are needed every month anyway.
They are also ignoring that at least 3% more of abled bodied workers refuse to work than in the Clinton years, meaning that Bush's unemployment rate should be 7.5% instead of the 4.5% that they report even with their cooked numbers.
Finally (All from Common Sense):
US Bureau of Labor Statistics Creates Imaginary Jobs
« H E » Elections :: Culture :: email
posted 11-03-06
Yes, in January 2004 the Bureau of Labor Statistics introduced new methodology that creates new jobs when people lose jobs.
This is according to an analysis by an economist hired by News Corp, no less (News Corp is Fox News parent company).
He wrote on it in May 2004
From article: What Are They Smoking at the Labor Department? (Remember this was written for May 2004).
DON'T get too excited about all those new jobs that were supposed to
have been created in April.
I'm not going to waste a lot of my precious space on this, but the
bottom line is that most of the 288,000 jobs that the Labor Department
says were created last month may not really exist.
They could be figments of statisticians' optimism.
Anyone who plodded through my column last Thursday knows I predicted
that job growth in April would be better than the 160,000 to 170,000
jobs that the "pros" were anticipating.
But I also said, quite emphatically I hope, that the stronger growth
would be an illusion - the result of the Labor Department's computers
making happy predictions about seasonal job creation that could
neither be verified nor justified.
I'll explain one aspect.
Back in the March employment report, the government added 153,000
positions to its revised total of 337,000 new jobs because it thought
(but couldn't prove) loads of new companies were being created in this
economy.
That estimate comes from the Labor Department's "birth/death model."
You can look up these numbers on the Department's Web site.
As staggering as the assumption about new companies was in March, the
Labor Department got even more brazen in April.
Last Friday, it was disclosed that these imaginary jobs had been
increased by 117,000 to 270,000 for the latest month - because, I
guess, the stat jockeys got a vision from the gods of spring.
Without those extra 117,000 make-believe jobs, the total growth for
April would have been just 171,000 - sub-par for an economy that's
supposed to be growing at more than 4 percent a year, but right on the
pros' targets.
Take away all 270,000 make-believe jobs and, well, you have the sort
of pessimism that the political pollsters are seeing.
If I was the suspicious type (and if I thought Washington was smart
enough), I'd suspect a nasty motive behind the sudden surge in these
mystery jobs. But for now, let's just acknowledge their existence.
cicerone, I agree the jobs added statistic is difficult to impossible to determine, in my opinion, and I have already said as much. I never believed the numbers all that seriously at any time, going back to when they started using it. That is why I prefer the unemployment rate statistic, although flawed, I still believe to be more credible, and that is what I thought you were attacking here?
okie, You are dumb! There´s a direct relationship between Bush´s claim that he¨ll increase jobs and those unemployment stats the government puts out. Most people liike you don´t know the difference - even when Bush claims the unemployment in the US is low. GET REAL!
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, You are dumb! There´s a direct relationship between Bush´s claim that he¨ll increase jobs and those unemployment stats the government puts out. Most people liike you don´t know the difference - even when Bush claims the unemployment in the US is low. GET REAL!
cicerone, you are making no sense. You are like fighting a butterfly, you go from one point to another, in a disconnected fashion, posting your cut and paste stuff. You claimed umemployment figures were useless, then to back up your point, you used jobs added or lost figures, which you aslo claim are wrong.
I simply stated, which is consistent with what I have posted here in the past, that I prefer to use the unemployment figures rather than jobs added or lost figures. The stats are useful, or at least better than nothing however.
Back to a very simple point of your argument, I think, as you shift around, I simply asked you to provide evidence of why according to your math that a certain number of jobs had to be added each month just to keep up with the status quo. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any of your evidence yet.
Your illustration is worth repeating. Agreed McGentrix. If tax policy was applied to the classroom and in the sports world, we would have a fairer world, right? And the same old teams would have to give up winning every year. It isn't fair to allow the people that practice the most and work the hardest to win every time. Just give the losers the trophies without playing the game, and everything could be more fair.
okie, I'm not here to do your homework. Go find it yourself; but we all know you won't, because you're afriad of what you might find.
What you need to do is prove my point wrong by YOUR research.
Happy hunting.
Nice copout, cicerone. You make a grand claim, unsupported, then when I ask for your evidence, you tell me to do the research! Not that I expected anything more.
Citigroup to cut 17,000 jobs
By Eric Dash Published: April 11, 2007
NEW YORK: Citigroup announced Wednesday that it would eliminate or reassign more than 26,500 jobs as part of a sweeping overhaul to cut costs and streamline the global bank's sprawling operations.
Under intense pressure from investors, the company announced plans to lay off more than 17,000 workers, with the first pink slips coming this week. About 9,500 jobs will be moved to locations overseas or around the United States where the cost of doing business is lower, from more expensive locations like London, Hong Kong and New York, where the company's headquarters are based.
Two-thirds of those jobs will be eliminated through attrition.
Roughly 8 percent of Citigroup's 327,000 workers, from entry-level consumer bankers to senior executives in the investment bank, will be affected by the restructuring. All five of its major business divisions will face cuts.
"Ultimately these changes will streamline Citi and make us leaner, more efficient, and better able to take advantage of high-revenue opportunities," Charles Prince 3rd, Citigroup's chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement.
To cover the cost of the restructuring, Citigroup said it would take a $1.38 billion pretax charge against earnings in the first quarter of 2007, and another $200 million over subsequent quarters the rest of the year. However, Citigroup expects the initiative to yield about $2.1 billion in cost savings in 2007 and for that number to grow to $4.76 billion by 2009.
The restructuring is Citigroup's first major overhaul since the banking giant was forged by a merger nearly a decade ago, and has been anxiously awaited by Wall Street since plans for the restructuring were announced in December.
It comes as Prince faces mounting criticism from shareholders frustrated by expenses that are rising twice as fast as revenues.
On Tuesday, Citigroup shares closed at $52.40, up 82 cents, in anticipation of Wednesday's announcement. But shares have barely budged since Prince took over as chief executive in October 2003.
On Wall Street, investors and analysts had been expecting the restructuring to reduce operating expenses by at least $2 billion a year. But whether or not the reorganization alone can fuel growth at Citigroup remains an open question.
Not only have Citigroup's expenses been high, but revenue growth, particularly in the United States consumer division, has been sluggish.
Prince must confront both problems amid a challenging operating environment.
"2007 is a pivotal year for the company," said Jason Goldberg, banking analyst at Lehman Brothers. "It just takes a long time to turn an oil tanker, and one of the things we hope this restructuring does is make Citigroup a bit more nimble."
Over the past three months, Citigroup's chief operating officer, Robert Druskin, has been working with consultants from Mercer Oliver Wyman, a boutique firm specializing in the financial services industry, to conduct a broad-based "structural review." Their task: to flush out big expenses that have bogged down the company as it has bulked up.
Citigroup also expects to achieve cost savings by streamlining technology, shuttering offices and consolidating purchasing and other operations.
cicerone imposter wrote:They are also ignoring that at least 3% more of abled bodied workers refuse to work than in the Clinton years, meaning that Bush's unemployment rate should be 7.5% instead of the 4.5% that they report even with their cooked numbers.
This doesn't make any sense. By definition, the term "unemployment" refers to people who seek work but can't get it. Able-bodied or not, workers who "refuse to work" (your words) do not seek work. The BLS acts properly by not counting them as unemployed. Words have meanings, and what you describe is not the generally understood meaning of the word "unemployment".
cicerone imposter wrote:posted 01-05-07
Mainstream keeps forgetting that an economist revealed that the Bush administration installed new modeling into the month end jobs evaluations that makes up imaginary jobs, and they have stopped informing Americans on how many jobs are needed every month anyway.
They are also ignoring that at least 3% more of abled bodied workers refuse to work than in the Clinton years, meaning that Bush's unemployment rate should be 7.5% instead of the 4.5% that they report even with their cooked numbers.
I'm going to guess that this 3% of workers who refuse to work are on some sort of govt aide to support their lazyness. 3% in a country of over 200 million is a nice chunk of people. We should figure out who these people are and kick them off of all aids they receive. There shouldn't be a free ride in this country.
I must also say that if that 3% is correct then I wouldn't publish those # either. Only those willing to work and get jobs should be reported. That 3% is robbing the American people who do work. Now you know why Conservatives don't like welfare.
Thomas wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:They are also ignoring that at least 3% more of abled bodied workers refuse to work than in the Clinton years, meaning that Bush's unemployment rate should be 7.5% instead of the 4.5% that they report even with their cooked numbers.
This doesn't make any sense. By definition, the term "unemployment" refers to people who seek work but can't get it. Able-bodied or not, workers who "refuse to work" (your words) do not seek work. The BLS acts properly by not counting them as unemployed. Words have meanings, and what you describe is not the generally understood meaning of the word "unemployment".
I just checked with the Bureau of Labor Statistic's website, and your numbers don't check out, CI. According to it, the
labor force participation rate peaked at just over 67% under Clinton, dropped to about 65.5% under Bush, then recovered to just under 66%. That's way short of the 3% dropouts off the labor force that you are implying.
I don't agree with CI's numbers per se, but there are some interesting points to consider:
Quote:
I just checked with the Bureau of Labor Statistic's website, and your numbers don't check out, CI. According to it, the labor force participation rate peaked at just over 67% under Clinton, dropped to about 65.5% under Bush, then recovered to just under 66%. That's way short of the 3% dropouts off the labor force that you are implying.
So, it's more like 1%. And let's not even say 'dropouts' but people who aren't working for various reasons. This still represents at least 3 million people who aren't working for various reasons, and there aren't 3 million jobs sitting empty; these jobs just don't exist any longer.
Also, CI had posted last week about the 'seasonal adjustment' and how inaccurate it is; given this, can we really trust the jobs numbers at all? They seem to be gross estimates at best, but they are treated as if they were gospel by many.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Also, CI had posted last week about the 'seasonal adjustment' and how inaccurate it is; given this, can we really trust the jobs numbers at all?
Sure. If you have a problem with seasonal adjustments, just work with annual numbers. Most statements about the state of the economy refer to periods of one year or longer. CI's comparison between Bush and Clinton is one example. Because any seasonal adjustments by the BLS average out over a year, so do any errors in these adjustments.
Cycloptichorn wrote: They seem to be gross estimates at best, but they are treated as if they were gospel by many.
I'm not one of them. These numbers aren't perfect. But at least they're produced using consistent standards of measurement, by an institution even Paul Krugman finds reliable. I'll take their data over a partisan's wishful thinking anytime.
Thomas wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Also, CI had posted last week about the 'seasonal adjustment' and how inaccurate it is; given this, can we really trust the jobs numbers at all?
Sure. If you have a problem with seasonal adjustments, just work with annual numbers. Most statements about the state of the economy refer to periods of one year or longer. CI's comparison between Bush and Clinton is one example. Because any seasonal adjustments by the BLS average out over a year, so do any errors in these adjustments.
Cycloptichorn wrote: They seem to be gross estimates at best, but they are treated as if they were gospel by many.
I'm not one of them. These numbers aren't perfect. But at least they're produced using consistent standards of measurement, by an institution even Paul Krugman finds reliable. I'll take their data over a partisan's wishful thinking anytime.
I understand that.
To my first point, though - if we were to look at the number of
actual jobs created/lost in the US, do we factor in the lower labor participation rate? Or am I doing my statistics wrong?
Hope you are looking forward to your journey!
Cycloptichorn
Thomas wrote: labor force participation rate[/url] peaked at just over 67% under Clinton, dropped to about 65.5% under Bush, then recovered to just under 66%. That's way short of the 3% dropouts off the labor force that you are implying.
I've already pointed out to cicerone that the folks that are considered employable that aren't seeking employment have always included those that don't have to work, don't wish to work, or are temporarily choosing not to work, and all kinds of reasons. Statistics are difficult to analyze, but one could even envision a scenario where less labor force participation could mean economic times are better, perhaps spouses can afford to stay home with the kids or simply not work. We also have retired folks that retire, then decide to work again, and so forth.
Instead, cicerone apparently classifies most people not working as those people that "gave up." We also have an underground economy that is difficult to enumerate.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't agree with CI's numbers per se, but there are some interesting points to consider:
Quote:
I just checked with the Bureau of Labor Statistic's website, and your numbers don't check out, CI. According to it, the labor force participation rate peaked at just over 67% under Clinton, dropped to about 65.5% under Bush, then recovered to just under 66%. That's way short of the 3% dropouts off the labor force that you are implying.
So, it's more like 1%. And let's not even say 'dropouts' but people who aren't working for various reasons. This still represents at least 3 million people who aren't working for various reasons, and there aren't 3 million jobs sitting empty; these jobs just don't exist any longer.
Also, CI had posted last week about the 'seasonal adjustment' and how inaccurate it is; given this, can we really trust the jobs numbers at all? They seem to be gross estimates at best, but they are treated as if they were gospel by many.
Cycloptichorn
There are 3 million or more jobs out there, but they are being taken by illegal aliens. Remember what the saying is? "There are jobs out there that Americas won't do." So the jobs are there, but Americas think they are to good to work construction and leads to companies just not hiring those that are willing.
If we removed (deported) the illegals, then there would be plenty of jobs in the US but people have to be willing to work them for the system to work. Not everyone can be a CEO and not everyone is capable of being a CEO. You must start at the bottom to work your way up.
How many teenagers do you see working fast food jobs? Not many because they think they are above such jobs. This is only going to get worse as time goes on. We need to instill in our young people that when starting out or when the going gets tough that no job is below you.
The statements credited to me were not "my" numbers. I posted an article from the net, and that's the best I could find.
Trying to prove government numbers with other government numbers is a lost cause when it's about our "unemployment" in the US.
Generally speaking, we must look at the big numbers that seems to imply that new jobs created under Bush is too low to keep up with demand while our work force increases with the general population of our country for the past six years. In support of this argument, we also find that more middle class families are losing health insurance; by some six million more. If jobs are keeping up with demand, than it's a funny way to do so; middle class getting poorer with more service industry jobs that barely provides a living wage. To support this opinion, I have seen many articles during the past several years. I'm not ready to ignore them - especially now - when more Americans are beginning to lose their homes.
Call me a cynic.
Cycloptichorn wrote:To my first point, though - if we were to look at the number of actual jobs created/lost in the US, do we factor in the lower labor participation rate? Or am I doing my statistics wrong?
No, the labor force participation rate has nothing to do with the number of jobs created. In America these days, the number of jobs offered is steadily growing. You were mistaken to say in your earlier post that "these jobs just don't exist any longer". But although new jobs are continually being created, they aren't being created fast enough to keep up with the size of the labor force. The labor force is expanding at a faster rate than the number of jobs does -- mostly through graduates from highschool and colleges, but also through immigration. Hence, the number of participants in the labor force is growing with the number of offered jobs, but the
rate of participation is dropping.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Hope you are looking forward to your journey!
I do!
