General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump says, "Don't believe the polls....believe the unemployment numbers".
Herr Leader has been really pissed with the latest poll numbers showing him far behind Joe Biden at this time in the race. He wants it investigated.
At the same time, he said nothing about the latest unemployment numbers from his Administration, which some say were off by about 5 million workers?
As usual, Herr Leader is very selective with the numbers he chooses to believe and accept.
duforsure
(11,885 posts)And likely behind them doing it, and now is desperately trying to con people into believing anything he says as true. trumps always lied , and he's never been truthful when he uses them , so why would he use the real ones now . Same thing with polls, and likely he's corrupted some, and there is evidence he has been doing this , and he's corrupted the jobs lost numbers , and it could be around 60 million out of a job now, and nowhere near his claims. trump isn't capable of telling the truth , or stop being corrupt.
ProfessorGAC
(65,335 posts)Like selling a car because no rust when the engine is blown, the transmission is shot, and the strut mounts are broken.
"But, look how shiny it is!"
On Edit: what Donnie-boy boy is missing is that poll numbers are where they are because people DID look at the UE numbers!
underpants
(182,988 posts)He said so last Friday.
3Hotdogs
(12,456 posts)--- sorry. Work the numbers.
FakeNoose
(32,854 posts)Why is that, I wonder?
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)refuses to face reality. He is so good with numbers, according to him when obviously he can not read the writing on the wall. All the protesters were cheering for him, I would imagine. The enablers surrounding him are not doing him any favors by lying to him. He will HAVE to face reality soon. He is a loser, because he never was a winner. Only a cheat. A bloated, orange, repulsive, lying, unqualified, uneducated, dumb as a brick CHEAT. He should have spent more time actually doing the job instead of golfing and holding his Nazi rallies. More people would have avoided the Covid-19 pandemic if he had only read his daily briefings. He was busy watching Faux and taking advice from Hannity and Jared-of-no-trades Kushner. So now the entire country is in decline thanks to him and the gop cowards who are afraid of him.
FakeNoose
(32,854 posts)The USA will be Chump's 7th bankruptcy. He's impoverishing us and killing as many as he can before he's finally kicked out of the White House.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)40,000,000 unemployed is not really a great slogan, right? He is a fucking lying fuckwit of bigly proportions
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)JimGinPA
(14,811 posts)I spotted that one from space.
Solomon
(12,321 posts)The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)Said polling was usually wrong, so he was right, unemployment number was the way to go. Poor spelling and grammar as well....
BumRushDaShow
(129,884 posts)But dispatched.
pwb
(11,303 posts)to where it is . You suck trump.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Take a look at those numbers Trump is crowing about:
FakeNoose
(32,854 posts)I wonder how this 2020 recession compares to 1929.
Of course 1929 was the beginning of the Depression, and I'm wondering if that's where we are headed now? This is scary.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)That that little fish hook at the end of the current unemployment spike (more like a stalactite) is exaggerated a little bit, thanks to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' admitted screw up that they just can't help making.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)progree
(10,930 posts)The president said: "Hopefully George is looking down right now and saying, 'This is a great thing that's happening for our country. It's a great day for him, it's a great day for everybody. It's a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day."
Asked how the rate of unemployment among black Americans can be considered a "victory" as it continues to increase, the president told a reporter outside the White House, "You are really something."
# Black unemployment rate https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006
First 5 months of 2020: 6.0, 5.8, 6.7, 16.7, 16.8 Trump in 2016: "what have you got to lose?"
# White unemployment rate https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000003
First 5 months of 2020: 3.1, 3.1, 4.0, 14.2, 12.4
(and by the way, none of the above have been corrected for the "about 3 percentage point" error that the BLS admits to in its overall unemployment rate (see my #19). So if these were corrected, they would all be higher in March, April, and May.
BTW, the corrected overall unemployment rates for April and May are "almost 19.7% and "about 16.3%" rather than the 14.7% and 13.3% official numbers)
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)gab13by13
(21,480 posts)Trump said to add 6% to the reported unemployment number.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)Theres A Glaring, Misleading Error In The May Jobs Report: U.S. May Be At 20% Unemployment
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/06/08/theres-a-glaring-misleading-error-in-the-may-jobs-report-us-may-be-at-20-unemployment/#2bb96fd660d3
progree
(10,930 posts)The May UR figure is 13.3% + "about 3 percentage points".
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)... wants to explain how the continuing claims and the LFPR go up by the U3 UE goes down.
Red Don has politicized everything around him, there's no need to think BLS isn't one of them
progree
(10,930 posts)About the 3 months in a row on the BLS-admitted error in the unemployment rate, I posted here in this thread and in more detail at:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13560715
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13560826
and endlessly all over the place for more than a month (I've posted a lot about this problem in the April report too).
But the LFPR did go up from 60.2% in April to 60.8% in May. (The LFPR is not affected by the correction, BTW, since Labor Force = Employed + officially Unemployed, and the admitted error was classifying some officially Unemployed as Employed. I use the wording "officially unemployed" which requires that someone have looked for work in the past 4 weeks to be counted in that statistic -- which is different than how most of us think of unemployed).
And the separate and different Establishment Survey (with different rules) reported a 2.5 million jobs gain from April to May.
You're right about continued claims going up:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CCSA
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/CCSA.txt
Continued Claims, week ending
2020-04-18 18011000 <- week ending 4/18. The BLS sample week for UR was 4/12 - 4/18
2020-04-25 22377000
2020-05-02 22548000
2020-05-09 24912000
2020-05-16 20838000 <- week ending 5/16. The BLS sample week for UR was 5/10 - 5/16
2020-05-23 21487000
Whereas the corrected number of unemployed from Friday's jobs report is about 25.718 M
obtained via taking the official number: 20.985 million
and ratioing it up by the corrected official unemployment rate / official unemployment rate
20.985 M * 16.3%/13.3% = 25.718 M
And whereas the corrected UR incongruously went down from "almost" 19.7% to "about" 16.3%
That said, the BLS UR comes from a survey of 60,000 households done during the sample week that includes the 12th of the month.
The unemployment claims comes from the state unemployment offices and are people filing claims. (Not counted: those who haven't filed claims or have tried over and over and over again and again and haven't succeeded. I don't know how claims filed but rejected or not yet accepted are counted or not).
They are different sources using widely different methodologies for different purposes. But I would expect the actual officially unemployed, as obtained in the Household Survey, to considerably exceed by a large margin those who are continuing to claim unemployment benefits beyond 1 week. So I don't know what to tell you about that.
But I'm not an expert on this subject, and I don't know anyone on DU that is. I will wait for someone with acknowledged expertise in this area (and not just some rando pundit) to explain that and how the two sets of data cannot possibly exist at the same time -- at least one must be wrong (above and beyond the already admitted March, April, and May errors, sigh).
turbinetree
(24,745 posts)progree
(10,930 posts)the authors of the jobs report that came out Friday -- said the unemployment rate was low by "about 3 percentage points" -- that error translates into about 4.7 million additional unemployed, or 5 million with rounding.
So it's not anything that is in dispute, when the organization that is responsible for producing the report says its low by about 3 percentage points. If "some" say that it was off by 5 million or 4.7 million and 3 percentage points, that's great, they should, because the BLS admits it and tells us right in the original report (except they only tell us "about 3 percentage points", and leave it to us to do the math.)
If "some others" don't say it's off, they are simply ignorant.
(And all this is aside from the discussion about how 25.72 million -- the corrected number of unemployed in the May report -- again something left to us to do the correction -- is only a little higher than the 21.49 million continuing claims for unemployment insurance benefits in their latest report of that, Thursday, 6/4/20)
This is from the report that came out Friday 830 AM ET -- at the same time as the original (and only) report's release (just to dispel another common myth -- it was not some correction they made later. Another myth: they corrected it. No they did not, the only "correction" they made was to tell us the unemployment rate was wrong by about 3 percentage points. They never actually provided a corrected figure. In fact, they explicitely said they didn't correct it).
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
|
|
| Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on May 2020 Establishment and Household Survey Data
|
|
| Data collection for both surveys was affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
| In the establishment survey, approximately one-fifth of the data is collected at four
| regional data collection centers. Although these centers were closed, about three-
| quarters of the interviewers at these centers worked remotely to collect data by
| telephone. Additionally, BLS encouraged businesses to report electronically. The
| collection rate for the establishment survey in May was 69 percent, slightly lower
| than collection rates prior to the pandemic. The household survey is generally
| collected through in-person and telephone interviews, but personal interviews were
| not conducted for the safety of interviewers and respondents. The household survey
| response rate, at 67 percent, was about 15 percentage points lower than in months
| prior to the pandemic.
|
| In the establishment survey, workers who are paid by their employer for all or any
| part of the pay period including the 12th of the month are counted as employed, even
| if they were not actually at their jobs. Workers who are temporarily or permanently
| absent from their jobs and are not being paid are not counted as employed, even if
| they are continuing to receive benefits.
|
| The estimation methods used in the establishment survey were the same for May as they
| were for April. However, after further research, BLS extended the modifications that
| were made to the April birth-death model back to March, which accounted for a portion
| of the revision to March data. For more information, see
| www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf.
|
| In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, unemployed, or not
| in the labor force based on their answers to a series of questions about their
| activities during the survey reference week (May 10th through May 16th). Workers who
| indicate they were not working during the entire survey reference week and expect to
| be recalled to their jobs should be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. In
| May, a large number of persons were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff.
|
| However, there was also a large number of workers who were classified as employed but
| absent from work. As was the case in March and April, household survey interviewers
| were instructed to classify employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-
| related business closures as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, it is apparent
| that not all such workers were so classified. BLS and the Census Bureau are
| investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are taking
| additional steps to address the issue.
|
| If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to "other
| reasons" (over and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May) had
| been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate
| would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported (on a not seasonally
| adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data from the household
| survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are
| taken to reclassify survey responses.
|
| More information is available at
| www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-may-2020.pdf.
||_____________________________________________________________________
So the official unemployment rate, which in their report is 13.3%, is low by "about 3 percentage points" meaning that it should be "about" 16.3%. But it was left up to the reader to do the math. And to seasonally adjust the "about 3 percentage points". Nice.
What's more, it happened in March ("almost 1 percentage point" ) and April ("almost 5 percentage points" )
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13560715
and what's more, it's not just one or two numbers that are wrong (and uncorrected in the report or on their website or anywhere else). Its a whole slew of subdemographics of the unemployment rate and the unemployed numbers --
black unemployment, white, male, female, the different age groups, U-4, U-5, U-6, And their demographic subgroups, states and other geographic entities. And the Employed numbers and subdemographics.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13560826
kentuck
(111,110 posts)progree
(10,930 posts)definitely wasn't. There is so much understandable confusion on this subject. (The only understandable thing about this subject, is that the confusion is understandable, LOL)
I've been spending about half the time I have had available since the report came out Friday morning up through now and continuing no doubt for days more, dealing with misunderstandings about it.
And thanks much for the thread