re: U.S. private employment growth eases but manufacturing shines: ADP

quote:

---

i wasn't talking about them changing gdp numbers. they changed jobs numbers.

---

you allege that they systematically altered jobs numbers for obama's benefit? we're still waiting for any shred of the extraordinary evidence you'd need to support this extraordinary claim.

any time.

quote:

---

sigh

---

none of those articles prove, provide evidence, or even imply that numbers were "monkeyed with".

however, the fact that you posted them as you did, with a sigh and in a failing effort to support your claim about numbers being fudged or whatever, does provide some pretty strong evidence that you were talking out of your arse.

quote:

---

the bls/white house would announce doctored numbers

---

repeatedly asserting this doesn't make it true. doing so knowing that you have no evidence makes you look like a liar though.

quote:

---

then, the numbers were quietly revised downward later.

---

still no link

quote:

---

which i substantiated with a quote/link.

---

it's like you don't even understand english. seriously, how can you not realize that although you claimed there were no quarters of 3+, there were several?

quote:

---

i have a feeling you're going to be exceedingly obstinate. you seem like the kind of person who can't accept when you're wrong.

---

to recap, you said:

1) there were no quarters of 3%+ GDP under obama. in reality, there were several.

2) gdp (and now jobs) numbers were systematically released/revised in a manner that was fraudulent, apparently in an effort to make obama look good. this claim remains wholly unsupported by anything you have posted.

and, the stuff that you have tried to provide as support doesn't even address the claim. it's just a bunch of articles about the economy/employment not growing fast enough- nothing about fraudulent revisions.

these are the claims i called you on, and they remain objectively wrong. deal with it

your talk about an instance of a downward revision.

do you actually think this proves that there are systematic revisions made to make obama look good?

it really sounds that way, which is just sad.

but if that's your notion of convincing evidence, here's not one but two (!) examples of upward revisions in 2015:

one from august
another from november

i guess since i have provided two anecdotes to your one, you'll conclude that the agencies have systematically put out initial headlines that were in fact too low?

quote:

---

gotcha. blithe hand waive

---

well, maybe provide some evidence that actually supports your claim. instead you make it sound like you don't even understand what you said

quote:

---

yes

---

well, that's quite a leap, to put it kindly.

quote:

---

interesting how you went from denial to admission. thank you. you can drop the smug bullcrap attitude. you were wrong

---

again, it's like you don't even understand english.

we all know the scheduled revisions happen and have discussed them here for years and years. numbers get revised after initial release-this is not news. you claim it's for a nefarious purpose- such a thing would be news.

but still, not a shred of evidence of it, despite repeated assertions.

worse, you don't even seem to understand what evidence of this would actually entail.

quote:

---

i wonder if you ever get tired of being wrong. july 2015 was initially revised upward but then revised again. SAD FACE

---

how embarrassing that you still think this proves some kind of point, as if final revisions are never upward (ex: that june one which was revised upwards three times).

if you want some meaningful evidence of intent to mislead with these releases and revisions, you'd need to convincingly demonstrate a systematic pattern of the direction of the corrections.

go ahead and look at the revision releases- they're all public. instead what you'll see is that upward revisions and downward revisions are about equally likely.

i can't believe i'd need to actually explain that to an adult.

quote:

---

it seems that obama's 2015 legacy was quite controversial

---

what's not controversial is that your claim about the purpose of the revisions remains completely unsupported

despite your having days and days between bumps of this thread to breathlessly google it

how sad

since "no you didn't" 90 can't be bothered to follow a link, now he has NO EXCUSE

ANOTHER HYSTERICALLY FALSE BLS UNEMPLOYMENT REPORT

It’s that time of the month again, where the Bureau of Lies and Scams issues their latest manipulated, massaged, and falsified unemployment data to the willfully ignorant masses. The MSM will unquestioningly regurgitate the lies with breathless enthusiasm. The Wall Street hucksters will interpret any data as positive for the stock market.

The two headlines flashing across TV screens and websites are diametrically opposed, but none of the talking heads will reveal they can’t both be true. Here are the two headlines from Marketwatch:

U.S. economy adds 173,000 jobs in August
Unemployment rate falls to 5.1%

It is too bad that most Americans are so preoccupied with the latest App on their iGadget, frantically finalizing their fantasy football roster, or so dumbed down by our so called public education system, they have absolutely no clue that it is mathematically impossible for the REAL unemployment rate to fall when only 173,000 jobs are added. The only way this can happen is if the BLS blatantly lies and tells you that hundreds of thousands of working age Americans again decided their lives were so fulfilled and finances so solid, that they don’t want to work anymore. As we all know, this is complete and utter bullshite.

U.S. politicians and government apparatchiks are following the advice of Jean-Claude Juncker:

“When it becomes serious, you have to lie.”

Let’s dig into the BLS reported bullshite and extract some facts which will obliterate the government reported lies:

The BLS is reporting an unemployment rate of 5.1%, the lowest since April of 2008. If the unemployment rate is really 5.1%, then why does the Federal Reserve need to keep interest rates at 0%? The Fed Discount rate in April 2008 was 2.5%. GDP was only growing at 2.0% in 2008. Today it is supposedly growing at 3.7%. The Fed would not have emergency level interest rates in place if the unemployment rate was really 5.1%.

The Establishment Survey says we added 173,000 jobs in August. You won’t hear the bimbos on CNBC or Fox mention that the excel spreadsheet generated fake guess birth death adjustment totaled 111,000 in August. Even though we know for an absolute fact that more small businesses have been closing than opening over the last five years, the BLS continues to use historical data to pretend that small businesses are creating more jobs. The 111,000 is absolutely false. In reality, there are 50,000 or more small business jobs being destroyed each month. If the BLS was forced to be truthful, the total number of new jobs in August would be about ZERO.

Now for the plunge in the unemployment rate. That comes from the household survey. The fact is that 220,000 more Americans entered the work force in August. According to this survey, 196,000 more Americans were employed. In the real world this would result in the unemployment rate going UP. Not in the Bizarro world of the BLS. They expect the peasants to believe that 261,000 Americans, of their own free will, voluntarily left the workforce in August because they don’t need a job to pay the bills, feed themselves, and keep a roof over their heads. The idiocy of this ridiculous assumption is breathtaking to behold. Only an Ivy League educated economist, CNBC shill, or complete and utter moron could believe this drivel.

The government wants you to believe the economy is improving. Since January, 1.5 million Americans have supposedly dropped out of the workforce. Meanwhile, only 835,000 more Americans got jobs. But the unemployment rate has supposedly dropped from 5.7% to 5.1%. It would be hysterical if it wasn’t so sad. They are going with the Big Lie.

The Participation rate of 62.6% is the lowest since 1977. Since December 2007, 14.9 million Americans have “willingly” left the workforce while only 4 million new jobs have been created. That’s a recovery in the oligarch books.



Average hourly earnings rose a “fantastic” 2.2% over the last year. I’m sure the average household, experiencing inflation of 5% or more per year, are thrilled to see their wages going up by 2.2%. Wages of the 140 million non-supervisors was below 2.0%. The chart below reveals the fraud of a reported 5.1% unemployment rate. The law of supply and demand applies in all economic areas. If there really were so few unemployed people in America, wage increases would not be stagnant for the last six years. In 2007/2008 when the unemployment rate was this low, wage increases were in the 3.5% range.



There are now 94 million Americans supposedly not in the workforce, there are another 8 million classified as unemployed. So we have 149 million employed Americans going to work to support 102 million non-working Americans, and their offspring. It’s even worse than that. Of the 149 million employed Americans, 26 million are working part-time and another 9 million are self employed (selling their old shite on Ebay). That sure sounds like a healthy prosperous economy to me.

The breakdown of the 173,000 new jobs is even more revealing. The number of high paying goods producing jobs grew by NEGATIVE 24,000. That’s right. We don’t need to produce anything in this country. We added 164,000 low paying Obama shite jobs. We added fry cooks, housekeepers, bed pan emptiers, bartenders, social workers and government union teachers. And you will be thrilled to know there was a surge in government drone employment by 33,000. The Federal, State, and Local governments are bloated and they’re essentially bankrupt, but they keep hiring more drones to control us. Great news!!!
Now for another smell test. The number of people on food stamps has historically been correlated to how well the economy is really doing. When the economy is improving and unemployment is low, the number of people on food stamps falls. The last time the unemployment rate was this low was April 2008. At that time there were 27 million Americans on foodstamps, costing American taxpayers $35 billion per year. Today there are 46 million Americans on foodstamps, costing American taxpayers $70 billion per year. The number of people on foodstamps has barely budged in the last four years of dramatic economic recovery and plunging unemployment rate.



The lies will continue until morale improves. At the current rate, the BLS will be reporting a 0% unemployment rate in another couple years, as 200 million Americans sit at home watching Jerry Springer and living the good life.

quote:

---

It’s hilarious how this board has shifted from being for free trade and making America economically stronger to supporting asinine protectionist policies that only benefit small subsets of society who are too stubborn and unwilling to change their professions to get with the times, all because Trump is President. I hope none of you downvoting classify yourselves as classical liberals, libertarians, or even Republicans.

---

The US can’t maintain a healthy job market while running a 600 billion dollar trade deficit. The math over the long haul doesn’t work for American workers or consumers.

quote:

---

quote: i wasn't talking about them changing gdp numbers. they changed jobs numbers. you allege that they systematically altered jobs numbers for obama's benefit? we're still waiting for any shred of the extraordinary evidence you'd need to support this extraordinary claim. any time. quote: sigh none of those articles prove, provide evidence, or even imply that numbers were "monkeyed with". however, the fact that you posted them as you did, with a sigh and in a failing effort to support your claim about numbers being fudged or whatever, does provide some pretty strong evidence that you were talking out of your arse. quote: the bls/white house would announce doctored numbers repeatedly asserting this doesn't make it true. doing so knowing that you have no evidence makes you look like a liar though. quote: then, the numbers were quietly revised downward later. still no link quote: which i substantiated with a quote/link. it's like you don't even understand english. seriously, how can you not realize that although you claimed there were no quarters of 3+, there were several? quote: i have a feeling you're going to be exceedingly obstinate. you seem like the kind of person who can't accept when you're wrong. to recap, you said: 1) there were no quarters of 3%+ GDP under obama. in reality, there were several. 2) gdp (and now jobs) numbers were systematically released/revised in a manner that was fraudulent, apparently in an effort to make obama look good. this claim remains wholly unsupported by anything you have posted. and, the stuff that you have tried to provide as support doesn't even address the claim. it's just a bunch of articles about the economy/employment not growing fast enough- nothing about fraudulent revisions. these are the claims i called you on, and they remain objectively wrong. deal with it

---

You put a shite load of effort in that wall of text when all you really wanted to say was,

quote:

---

Fixing lopsided trade deals that hurt the US isn't protectionism.

---

$20 billion or so in aid to farmers hurt by retaliatory tariffs is though

quote:

---

you're moving the goalposts by asking for more

---

i've said what the goalposts are the entire time bruv.

your 2011 article, while citing a different type of revision than the monthly ones, falls every bit as short as your other cherrypicked anecdotes.

which i will patiently explain to you, as you continue to demonstrate your consistent, thorough lack of understanding of what you bumble while trying to cite

quote:

---

the whole point that was being made is that obama would trot out head scratching numbers

---

quickly, your point was that they manipulated them.

quote:

---

then, obama's crew had a history of downward revision after the fact which aligned with what observers already knew

---

i've linked the data for monthly revisions on jobs numbers, if you see this "history" there you're imagining things, as evidenced by a simple tally of negatives/positives in revisions

now, what you're bringing up here is the re-basing of 2009-2010 from the 2011 benchmarking. the problem with that is that there are rebenchmarkings every year, and your guy only talks about the 2011 one. it is true that they all or nearly all got revised downward in that 2011 re-benchmarking.

want to know what happened to the 2010 data in the benchmarking that followed that? 8/12 months got revised up. the one after that? 12/12 got revised up. for the 2009 data following the end of the recession, the majority went up the 2012 rebenchmarking, and in 2013 every single one of them did.

would you like me to show you the current data values for the monthly jobchange reports after the all the rebenchmarkings following the 2011 one in your article?

i'd happily do it in a fred graph, because the re-benchmarkings are all publicly available too. i'll tell you now, you won't see evidence of manipulation in it.

quote:

---

we can clearly see that obama was misleading people about the numbers.

---

that is the exact opposite of what invaluable rebenchmarking process does. in fact it ensures that the survey samples do not arbitrarily change while years are in progress, and later it determines if maybe they should, perhaps due to structural shifts in the economy. you know, like what we saw in the wake of the financial crisis.

let me know if you wanna see that comprehensive comparison, instead of just the 2011 one.

quote:

---

i've said what the goalposts are the entire time bruv

---

and i responded by saying you only need to establish the pattern. asking for more is moving the goalposts.

quote:

---

while citing a different type of revision than the monthly ones

---

i knew this would happen. 90, the revisions are only part of the story as i explained.

quote:

---

cherrypicked anecdotes

---

of course you would call it this since you don't like what they say

quote:

---

if you see this "history" there you're imagining things

---

when a chart shows a clear pattern, it's not imagination. i'm sorry you don't understand that. as i said in the other thread, it's not everyone else. it's you.

quote:

---

as evidenced by a simple tally of negatives/positives in revisions

---

not the story and i understand why you are trying to make it the story. you realize that i have already acknowledged that the subsequent revisions were admittedly closer to what everyone expected based on other indicators, right? those are not really the problem but keep trying to introduce those irrelevancies

quote:

---

want to know what happened to the 2010 data in the benchmarking that followed that?

---

completely irrelevant. you know why, right?

quote:

---

i'll tell you now, you won't see evidence of manipulation in it.

---

the evidence was already there as noted in the data/charts. the assessments years after the fact matter none.

quote:

---

that is the exact opposite of what invaluable rebenchmarking process does

---

sure, if obama could see the future, which he couldn't. you are using a rhetorical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc.