Krugman weighs in so I can retire from the discussion!
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/lies-damned-lies-and-politics/
Excerpt: "First, about that jobs report: all the usual suspects have jumped on the routine BLS population adjustment to claim that the numbers were cooked. The real story here is that the BLS estimates unemployment based on a monthly survey; this tells us what fraction of workers are unemployed. To turn that into a number of unemployed, the BLS estimates total working-age population; but it updates those estimates only once a year. So there’s usually a step up or down in the totals each January, signifying nothing."
Also:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201202030017?newsref=www.eschatonblog.com
Excerpt: "The demographic adjustments had no effect on the unemployment rate, says Mary Bowler, the resident expert in these matters at the BLS. And when it comes to labor force estimates, the steep jump in the number of those not seeking work came entirely from the census adjustment, which added 1.25 million people to that group. If you take out the census adjustment, the labor force numbers stayed essentially the same, as reflected by the labor force participation rate of 63.7%. In other words, the spike in the number of people no longer looking for work is entirely the result of some people at the Labor Department adding numbers to their spread sheets rather than an actual observed shift anywhere in the real economy."
Even the WSJ has figured it out:
Blog Excerpt: "Here's what happened: According to the Census Bureau, the civilian population grew by 1.5 million people in 2011. But the growth wasn't distributed evenly. Most of the growth came among people 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, by people 16-24 years old. Both groups are less likely to work than people in their mid-20s to early 50s. So the share of the population that's working is actually lower than previously believed. Taking that into account, the employment-population ratio went up. The unemployment rate wasn't affected."
and more from the WSJ: "There was not a big increase in discouraged workers," economist Betsey Stevenson commented on Twitter. "What happened was Census found a bunch of old people we had assumed died."
Cactus comment: It really is a pity that the right has to make stuff up to save their theories. That's not an intellectually legitimate form of political engagement. I understand why those who aren't versed in this stuff follow the herd's leaders. But the leaders have responsibilities regarding the integrity of what they say. If I can work it out without any help just by reviewing the report, so can they. It is probably safe to assume their misrepresentations are deliberate and purposeful.
I wonder if the Republican herd will ever realise it is being led around by the nose.
In light of this, I should acknowledge a minor improvement to my argument, which I did not know when working the employment stats in the report. The reason that more retirees are acknowledged in January is not because they retire in December but because their retirement is acknowledged by the Labor Department, statistically-speaking, from the end of December. It doesn't sound like the actual month of retirement is known from a whole population perspective. The census data provided to BLS is annual.
| 