How to fake unemployment numbers..
Tim Keating
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
Dol official UI#/workforce == (non-seasonally UE rate.)
9260K/145,693K == 6.4% unemployment rate.
-------
Add IN.....
"Disability rolls rise, skew labor data "
http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/economy/disability/index.htm
"Recent research finds a 60% jump in number of disability recipients
keeping unemployment low."
"The "labor force," 142.5 million strong, does not include people who
draw disability benefits from the Social Security Administration
(SSA). As of December 2002, there were about 5.5 million adults
getting disability benefits, totaling about $4.6 billion a month. "
OK.. so tack in 3,000K partially disabled, get federal checks, want
work, but not counted.
(9,260K+3,000K) / (145,639K + 3,000K) == 8.3% unemployment rate..
------
Factor in that there are the 9.2 Million self employed(*1) workers who
are paying estimated (self employment) taxes for LESS THAN a one(1)
million FULL TIME MINIMUN WAGE workers. (Shift another 7 to 8 million
from the employed to the unemployment category).
Take at least 80% of the self employed workers and put them in
unemployed category. 7.168 Million workers. If they're not filling
form 1040-ES's, then they're not making any money. (Equivalent to
unemployed)..
raw tax collection data.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/03013100.txt
corrected explanation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ujca4vcn7quj2hqkb8nqeskhtogco264ui%404ax.com&output=gplain
(*1)Note: For Feb 2003, they dropped this number back to 9.0Million.
(9,260K+3,000K+7,168K) / (145,639K+3000K) == 13.1% unemployment rate.
------
Add in the FACT, that there have been workforce adjustments which lop
off a couple of million (unemployed) workers each year, despite the
Census numbers that workforce should be growing by 2 Million per year.
Undo the recent changes to workforce participation percentages.
(revert back to 2000 average) It's obvious they want to work.
Just no work to be had.. That adds back in two percent of overall
work population.. 4.5 Million workers..
(9,260K+3,000K+7,168K+4,500K) / (145,639K+3,000K+4,500K) ==
15.6% unemployment rate.
----
Add in the FACT that the DOL changed(1994) the household survey data
collection method and resulting in the doubling of the non-parcipation
rate, from Five (5) to Ten (10) Percent(*2). The DOL accomplished
this feat by substituting a scientifically sound MAIL IN form, with
scientifically discredited IN PERSON interviews.
Well, I don't know about you, but being unemployed is not a badge of
honor. Most people do not like to admit that they are unemployed, and
would be even less likely to do so while being interviewed in person.
I.E. It demeans their social status and self esteem.
If they managed to convince/intimidate those households, with at
least one unemployed worker not to participate. That would add another
5.5 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures, thusly increasing
unemployment by another 2 to 3 of percent.
(*2) Page 181 http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpseetn.pdf
which used to be titled. "Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error"
But they deleted the front section of the report and now call it
"Household Data(‘‘A” tables, monthly; “D” tables, quarterly)"
(9,260K+3,000K+7,168K+4,500K+5,500K) /
(145,639K+3,000K+4,500K+ 5,500K) ==
18.6% unemployment rate.
Add in the FACT that the DOL certainly doesn't survey the millions of
unemployed homeless people and the respective homeless shelters.
Part of that 20% households not eligible figure.. (*2)
tack on 2 Million homeless that want work.
(9,260K+3,000K+7,168K+4,500K+5,500K + 2,000K) /
(145,639K+3,000K+4,500K+ 5,500K+2,000K) ==
19.6% unemployment rate.
-----
Start looking at difference between U6 for Jan/feb 2003.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
11.0%. or the DOL's claim for feb 2003, 10.8% verses U3 the official
rate.. (6,366K discouraged, marginally attached, part for economic
reasons workers)..
To be conservative, we have already accounted for some of these in the
SE category, thus I will chop this number in half.. 3,183K workers.
(Note: This number used to be part of the official unemployment
numbers back before the days of creative statistics were used.)
======(Summary)=======
Ok.. so far .. we have
Officially unemployed + Partially disabled not counted + Self
employed but no income + Arbitrary downward work force adjustments +
Household survey turned gestapo discouraged + Ignore the homeless +
Discouraged and involuntarily part time workers..
(9,260K+3,000K+7,168K+4,500K+5,500K+2,000K+3183K) /
(145,639K+3,000K+4,500K+ 5,500K+2,000K+3183K) ==
(34,611K / 163, 822 K) ==
.... Hold on to your hats/seats/whatever ...
.... Great depression number II, here we come ....
21.1 % unemployment rate.. +- 3%...
Tim Keating
in the US.
It seams quite a few people haven't clued into the fact the Fed's
have been lying for a very long time.
So here it is.. Not much has changed..
Redd
> >.... Hold on to your hats/seats/whatever ...
> > .... Great depression number II, here we come ....
> >
> > 21.1 % unemployment rate.. +- 3%...
>
Hey you forgot to count the Mexican day laborers who
do not find work. In my city alone there must be at least
a thousand wetbacks who live in the parks and under
bridges. How the hell could they participate in a mail
in survey.
On another note a respected economist commented on
the Bush administration's policy of letting the dollar
fall against foreign currencies. He said "it smacks of
desperation ". I wonder what he meant.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/19/news/economy/dollar/index.htm
Tim Keating
Well I did throw in the +- to cover errors.
Additionally .. on the upside is the fact that 16.6% percent of the
households visited are NOT eligible!! I have a hard time believing
that 16.6% are second and/or vacant homes.
There is a lot of room for cherry picking the sample.
InsuranceBroker
>From: "Redd" javatek?@usa.com
>Date: 5/19/2003 10:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <FDgya.1140$jH2...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com>
>Hey you forgot to count the Mexican day laborers who
>do not find work. In my city alone there must be at least
>a thousand wetbacks who live in the parks and under
>bridges.
On any warm day in Morristown, NJ the area looks like the assembly area for the
troops to attack the Alamo. THe true numbers will never be known but it has to
be in the 10's of thousand.
> How the hell could they participate in a mail
>in survey.
Or phone surveys.
>On another note a respected economist commented on
>the Bush administration's policy of letting the dollar
>fall against foreign currencies. He said "it smacks of
>desperation ". I wonder what he meant.
Desperation is all Bush has. He has a short time till the election and already
only 43 percent approve of his handling the economy. BTW 43 percent is not
much different than the number of votes he got in the election.
The United States presently is in the worse economy shape in my life time. It
has warmed up and I can ride my bike again. It is amazing that just about
everyone that I know over 50 is out of work.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
James Bowery
refinement to keep the hole-pokers from doing their dirty work.
The problem is so bad there is every opportunity to be conservative and
still have a horrifying statistic.
"Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote
> > Officially unemployed + Partially disabled not counted + Self
> >employed but no income + Arbitrary downward work force adjustments +
> >Household survey turned gestapo discouraged + Ignore the homeless +
> >Discouraged and involuntarily part time workers..
> >
> >(9,260K+3,000K+7,168K+4,500K+5,500K+2,000K+3183K) /
> > (145,639K+3,000K+4,500K+ 5,500K+2,000K+3183K) ==
> >
> >(34,611K / 163, 822 K) ==
> >
> >.... Hold on to your hats/seats/whatever ...
> > .... Great depression number II, here we come ....
> >
> > 21.1 % unemployment rate.. +- 3%...
I realize you accounted for some of the potential overlap between categories
but it would be good to do an estimate here of exactly how additive each of
these categories are.
I'd suggest the following:
If there are any by-State tables for the various categories, please consider
submitting them to the by-State correlator at:
http://clanarchy.com/cgi-bin/correlate.cgi
I'll put in more work (write custom screen scrapers, etc.) than I usually do
to include these by-State statistics so all you need to do is provide the
URLs for the appropriate tables, or, if they aren't at specific URLs, then
the nearest URL and directions for how to navigate to the table. (Much of
the US Census tables are set up so as to not have an associated URL -- you
have to go to http://factfinder.census.gov with knowledge of how to
navigate).
Then with the correlation coefficients between the variables in hand it
should be possible to measure how additive they are. If they are completely
independent then they are quite additive.
Tim Keating
<jabo...@earthdespamagelink.net> wrote:
>These are important angles on unemployment statistics and they need
>refinement to keep the hole-pokers from doing their dirty work.
>
>The problem is so bad there is every opportunity to be conservative and
>still have a horrifying statistic.
>
>"Tim Keating" <NotForJ...@directinternet11.com1> wrote
>> > Officially unemployed + Partially disabled not counted + Self
>> >employed but no income + Arbitrary downward work force adjustments +
>> >Household survey turned gestapo discouraged + Ignore the homeless +
>> >Discouraged and involuntarily part time workers..
>> >
>> >(9,260K+3,000K+7,168K+4,500K+5,500K+2,000K+3183K) /
>> > (145,639K+3,000K+4,500K+ 5,500K+2,000K+3183K) ==
>> >
>> >(34,611K / 163, 822 K) ==
>> >
>> >.... Hold on to your hats/seats/whatever ...
>> > .... Great depression number II, here we come ....
>> >
>> > 21.1 % unemployment rate.. +- 3%...
>
>I realize you accounted for some of the potential overlap between categories
>but it would be good to do an estimate here of exactly how additive each of
>these categories are.
I did not include ALL the numbers I could have..
(allowance for overlap).. and I included +-3%.. (18.1% to
24.1% range)
I only used fraction of several categories.
55% of dis-abled (most partially) collecting gov checks.
80% of self employed.
50% of workers currently listed as discouraged/part time for eco
reasons.
Some statistics can't be broken down to a state by state level..
I.E. Quarterly Estimated tax payments are only accounted for at the
federal level.. (SE tax receipts verses Self employed).. Or just
try to get an official state by state estimate of the numbers of
homeless?
Finally, state data often lags federal data by several months and just
a couple of missing (non-published, backwards) states invalidates the
analysis.
James Bowery
to:
Its widely read by people considering themselves aspiring journalists.
I put a copy of your analysis up for comment in my k5 diary at: