The Bureau of Labor Statistics Wouldn’t Fudge Unemployment Numbers
Right Before a Presidential Election, Would They?
by Bill Sardi: What
May Become the World’s First Proven Cancer Preventive (and Something
Bigger) Ignored by Big Pharma
It’s a fact,
you’re not going to get re-elected if unemployment rates are high.
So just fudge the numbers and re-correct them at a later date (Jan.
2013) which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) typically does on
a regular basis.
new jobs numbers, this time for September ’12, reflects what America
is becoming – a country that is fooling itself with phony numbers
that go unchallenged by the nation’s news press. For example, 2.2%
is the target rate of inflation published by the nation’s central
bank – The Federal Reserve. But the actual
rate of inflation is more like 9.3% (ShadowStats.com).
Obama reeling backwards from the fresh thrashing in the first televised
Presidential debate of the campaign, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
stepped up to the plate and released
a made-to-order report that says the unemployment rate dropped
unexpectedly from 8.1 to 7.8%.
and Mark Lander, writing
at a New York Times blog, said without questioning: "Jobs
Report Brings Unexpected Good News for Obama." CNN also punted
and republished the government numbers without question, saying
rate tumbles" in their headline story. The
Washington Post also sang the same wrong song.
depends upon federal government funding, said: "A
rare banner day on the jobs front, at least at first glance.
The official unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent to 7.8…"
nay-sayers "conspiracy theorists"
Electric CEO Jack Welch, former General Electric CEO, took the brunt
of the left-wing critics for questioning the BLS new jobs numbers.
After the BLS announced that the unemployment
rate fell in September to 7.8 percent, the
lowest level since January 2009, Welch tweeted:
"Unbelievable jobs numbers… these Chicago guys will do anything…
can't debate so change numbers."
Eggen writing for the Washington Post said: "Welch
is getting a lot of attention for an
unfounded accusation that the Obama administration somehow cooked
the positive jobs numbers issued Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
Eggen then went on to point a finger at the last President who attempted
to fudge employment numbers – a Republican (Richard M. Nixon). Talk
about partisan political reporting.
Science Monitor reported that Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis
"appeared on CNBC
to refute allegations that any massaging of the data had occurred."
She said: "You know I am insulted when I hear that because
we have a very professional civil service organization where you
have top economists working" at the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS), she said. "It is really ludicrous
to hear that kind of statement."
an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "flatly dismissed
the idea that there was any way the White House or Obama campaign
could have had a hand in how the numbers turned out," said
News report. "The data are not manipulated for political
reasons. I've been involved in the process myself for almost three
decades. There's never been any political manipulation of the data,
period," Haugen told CBSNews.com.
the liberal Huffington Post went all out in its defense of the Obama
Administration jobs numbers in its headline report entitled: "Here's
Why The Jobs Report Conspiracy Theory Is Baseless."
conservatives have accused the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of cooking the September
jobs report numbers to help Obama. But given how the government
collects and reports the monthly data, those claims are probably
But it just
isn't so. The monthly jobs numbers are put together by career
government analysts, using long-established statistical methods
that are shielded from political influence. Until recently, the
BLS was run by an appointee from the Bush administration, and
it currently has no political appointees.
short story is that the job truthers' claims are baseless. No
the target number for new jobs?
of 2012 the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce reported that 20 million new jobs will be
needed over next decade. That amounts to 166,666 per month, assuming
more job losses don’t raise that figure.
writing at BusinessInsider.com
says: "The US needs to create around 170-200k net new jobs
a month to drive the unemployment rate toward 7%.
citing the Hamilton
Project (Brookings Institute), wrote in January 2012 at
the Washington Post, said adding
200,000 jobs per month it would take till 2024 for the labor market
The news media
as well as the President himself are guilty of doublespeak here.
writing a headline report entitled "Obama’s Magic Number? 150,000
Jobs Per Month" at a New York Times blog in Feb of 2012,
said: "Here’s a spoiler: reports that say more than 150,000
jobs have been created can generally be interpreted as good news
for Mr. Obama. Reports
that come in at under 150,000 jobs could put him on a trajectory
John Thune said: "today's job figures are well below the
250,000 to 500,000 jobs per month that Vice
President Biden forecast (in April of 2010)."
Here is a
video clip of President
Obama taking credit for 290,000 new jobs in April of 2010 (go
to 0:46 minute point). He went on to say in that taped speech that:
"While (those numbers are) welcome, we have a lot of work to
do." The September ‘12 gain in new jobs was miserable 114,000.
How do you take credit for 290,000 new jobs and then think 114,000
new jobs over two years later will buoy you to re-election?
at TheStreet.com, says: "In the weakest recovery since
the Great Depression, nearly the entire reduction in unemployment
from its 10% peak in October 2009 has been accomplished through
a significant drop in the percentage of adults participating in
the labor force either working or looking for work. Were
the adult participation the same today, the unemployment rate would
be 9.8%. The most effective jobs program appears to be to convince
working-aged adults they don't need a job."
at Slate.com, says the "BLS reports today that the economy
added 114,000 new jobs (with, I remind you, a +/- 100,000 confidence
interval) in September." What was that margin of error again?
explanation of how the jobs numbers were contrived
Williams of ShadowStats.com in his most recent October 5, 2012 commentary
#473 surmises how the BLS produced "deliberately-inconsistent
numbers" regarding new jobs.
consistently reported the Federal Government fudges numbers that
measure the economy and jobs. While the BLS says the unemployment
number is 7.8% for Sept. ’12, ShadowStats
says it is really 22.8%. I’ll let Mr. John Williams do the rest
of the talking here:
August-to-September change in the headline unemployment rate almost
certainly was not a 0.3% decline. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) knows the reported change in unemployment was wrong – other
than by extreme coincidence – and it knows what consistent reporting
actually showed. Only politics prevents the BLS from releasing
the correct number, whether the unemployment rate actually declined,
held even, or rose as predicted by consensus forecasters.
The lack of transparency here in the data preparation allows for
direct political manipulation.
is that the BLS knowingly has been preparing the seasonally-adjusted
headline unemployment numbers on an inconsistent and non-comparable
basis for some time. The September number was prepared using
a different set of seasonal factors than was used in coming up
with the August number. The reporting difference can be
large, when proper consistent month-to-month changes are used.
The BLS has
the correct number and could publish it…. Now would be a particularly
good time for the BLS to come clean on its unemployment estimates,
even if the numbers "confuse" data users."
on to say:
has been discussed frequently, reporting of month-to-month changes
in both payroll employment and the unemployment rate is of such
poor quality that the headline labor data have become worthless
as indicators of current economic activity. Problems with
seasonal-factor distortions – created by the economic collapse
and exacerbated by the use of concurrent seasonal factors – have
widened the likely margins of reporting error in the payroll survey
to something beyond the usual +/- 129,000 jobs at the 95% confidence
level (see Hyperinflation
2012), and the monthly headline unemployment numbers simply
no longer are comparable on a month-to-month basis.
him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political
topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com.
latest book is Downsizing
© 2012 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California.
This article has been written exclusively for www.LewRockwell.com
and other parties who wish to refer to it should link rather than
post at other URLs.
Best of Bill Sardi