Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

What, exactly is the claim that the September unemployment numbers are falsified about, anyway?

Posted by   + Show Post

So it has been repeatedly stated in threads on this board that the report is somehow false, or misleading in some way.  What is behind this claim?  Do people really think that the numbers are false?  Do they think that the number is only down because of people who have dropped out of the workforce?   Are there really people who think Obama can influence the BLS to put out false numbers?

It seems to be the latest Republican talking point.  

ETA Here is the link to the Sept report.  You can also read past reports and look up stats, even for the "real" unemployment number.  They will explain what each number means and who it will include, it is an interesting site. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

by on Oct. 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Replies (51-60):
AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM
2 moms liked this
The people who actually collect and report the numbers said that if there was a way to falsify the numbers so they'd look better, presidents would do it constantly and they wouldn't show such a small bounce if they could make the number lie and make it a big bounce. The numbers aren't false or tampered with. The actions of the conservatives have tried to drive the entire country into ruin because of Obama's presidency and him doing anything well will make them look bad. Four years of shooting their countrymen in the feet is a hard to habit to break and they have no desire to see America improve until he is out of office. All other Americans be damned.

Quoting Healthystart30:

It started with two republicans tweeting this as a fact, and the rest ran with it. Now bunch of people including Romney supporters have repeatedly said that there is no way that they could have falsified these numbers and people still choose to run with it.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:51 PM
Yeah, but the OP is saying the report has compensted for that because that number has not changed so the numbera that HAVE changed must be the number of people who are on the unemployment rolls. So what evidence is there that THOSE numbers are falsified? At least, I think that is what she is trying to get at.


Quoting KairisMama:

I always find the number to be BS since it no longer takes into account those who have exhausted UE but have not found work. Or those who never qualified for UE to begin with but have been out of work.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Yes, the main unemployment number is always falsely low.

Quoting KairisMama:

I always find the number to be BS since it no longer takes into account those who have exhausted UE but have not found work. Or those who never qualified for UE to begin with but have been out of work.


LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:53 PM
Your "suddenly" bullshit is what I take excepton to. It is NOT suddenly, DEMS said the same shit under Bush.


Quoting stacymomof2:

Ah.  That sounds about right.  Here they have been releasing the same type of report forever, certainly it hasn't changed in THIS admin, and people are acting like Obama is playing with the numbers, suddenly everyone is acting like we are all so stupid that we didn't know about the "real" unemployment number which can be heard every single time this report comes out.  It's nothing new, at all.  Obama is not playing with the stats.  (although he may be highlighting the good numbers and glossing over the drop in manufacturing jobs.)  

Quoting Healthystart30:

It started with two republicans tweeting this as a fact, and the rest ran with it. Now bunch of people including Romney supporters have repeatedly said that there is no way that they could have falsified these numbers and people still choose to run with it.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:54 PM

If you go to the BLS link you will find all sorts of statistics and information about them.  They tell you specifically who is included in what number.  There are several breakdown of the info.

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting TB78:

All I know is that if they are accepting temporary holiday work as reducing the unemployment rate it should not count because when they poll the numbers again after the holidays are done then of course the numbers are going to fluctuate. I heard some claim that people have been employed in the private sector. What is the "private sector"?

I would like to know the actual wording of the surveys that go out to the individuals.  I assume, if it is asking if you are employed, even a person working temp work would answer yes.  Some may very well lose the job after the holidays, some may very well find themselves fired and others may very well find themselves offered a permanent position.  Just like every day life.

I would think the numbers would change, regardless, as many people work temp jobs that are not holiday related.  *shrug*

The private sector is business not controlled or run by the State. It is not govt jobs.  Wal Mart, as a poor example, is a business in the private sector.


stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Pretty close.  It also counts how many people went from officially "unemployed" meaning they are on unemployment and that number has gone down considerably.  And since the disaffected workers number did not have a corresponding jump, and the people who are reporting being employed is up, this seems like pretty good news on the whole.  It also means that people who are entering the workforce as new workers are finding jobs.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Yeah, but the OP is saying the report has compensted for that because that number has not changed so the numbera that HAVE changed must be the number of people who are on the unemployment rolls. So what evidence is there that THOSE numbers are falsified? At least, I think that is what she is trying to get at.


Quoting KairisMama:

I always find the number to be BS since it no longer takes into account those who have exhausted UE but have not found work. Or those who never qualified for UE to begin with but have been out of work.


stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 8:05 PM
1 mom liked this

I mean suddenly like this week that is all I am hearing.  Look at the person in this thread who was trying to school me on how the long term unemployed skew the numbers.  Like it's something NEW. Nearly every conservative on this board is claiming the unemployment numbers were falsified.  Sure that may have happened under Bush, but I haven't been hearing it nearly as much as I have since the Sept report came out.  It is repeated over and over, with people acting like everyone is too stupid to know that, and calling the BLS numbers false and that the BLS can be influenced by the admin.  Silly.

Even when Reagan made the change to adjust the rate to include members of the military and to exclude the long term unemployed, thereby changing the rate substantially, the BLS's response to it was to release the other numbers along with the "official" number.  

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Your "suddenly" bullshit is what I take excepton to. It is NOT suddenly, DEMS said the same shit under Bush.


Quoting stacymomof2:

Ah.  That sounds about right.  Here they have been releasing the same type of report forever, certainly it hasn't changed in THIS admin, and people are acting like Obama is playing with the numbers, suddenly everyone is acting like we are all so stupid that we didn't know about the "real" unemployment number which can be heard every single time this report comes out.  It's nothing new, at all.  Obama is not playing with the stats.  (although he may be highlighting the good numbers and glossing over the drop in manufacturing jobs.)  

Quoting Healthystart30:

It started with two republicans tweeting this as a fact, and the rest ran with it. Now bunch of people including Romney supporters have repeatedly said that there is no way that they could have falsified these numbers and people still choose to run with it.




LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Yeah, and that was true years ago, too. That is my point - these reports are aleays lauded by the party in charge and demonized by the opposition. If you want to know why, try asking those on BOTH sides who do it instead of imlying it is a one sided phenomenon (phenomena??) that just "suddenly" croppwd up.


Quoting stacymomof2:

Pretty close.  It also counts how many people went from officially "unemployed" meaning they are on unemployment and that number has gone down considerably.  And since the disaffected workers number did not have a corresponding jump, and the people who are reporting being employed is up, this seems like pretty good news on the whole.  It also means that people who are entering the workforce as new workers are finding jobs.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Yeah, but the OP is saying the report has compensted for that because that number has not changed so the numbera that HAVE changed must be the number of people who are on the unemployment rolls. So what evidence is there that THOSE numbers are falsified? At least, I think that is what she is trying to get at.





Quoting KairisMama:

I always find the number to be BS since it no longer takes into account those who have exhausted UE but have not found work. Or those who never qualified for UE to begin with but have been out of work.




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
toomanypoodles
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 8:09 PM

 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Do you think the BLS report is false?

Quoting toomanypoodles:

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting toomanypoodles:

 Falsified numbers!?!?  GASP!  Say it isn't so!

Exactly how are the numbers falsified?  You do have an opinion on this, yes?  

Nah...I'm waiting for FACTS.


 I don't have enough info yet...just heard it's in question.  But at this point, nothing would surprise me.  Desperation causes people to put false information out there.

stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Oct. 7, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Honestly, I have never, until right now, heard the claim that the numbers were "falsified."  I have heard of people neglecting to mention the higher number, I have heard of people highlighting the good numbers and downplaying the bad.  But I have never before heard the numbers were "falsified" ever, from either party, until this month.  And the explanation people are giving is that the real rate is higher.  Except the real rate has always been higher, and people haven't claimed the reports were "falsified" before.

ETA look at poodles post above mine.  She is questioning the BLS falsifying data.  That is something I have never heard before.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Yeah, and that was true years ago, too. That is my point - these reports are aleays lauded by the party in charge and demonized by the opposition. If you want to know why, try asking those on BOTH sides who do it instead of imlying it is a one sided phenomenon (phenomena??) that just "suddenly" croppwd up.


Quoting stacymomof2:

Pretty close.  It also counts how many people went from officially "unemployed" meaning they are on unemployment and that number has gone down considerably.  And since the disaffected workers number did not have a corresponding jump, and the people who are reporting being employed is up, this seems like pretty good news on the whole.  It also means that people who are entering the workforce as new workers are finding jobs.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Yeah, but the OP is saying the report has compensted for that because that number has not changed so the numbera that HAVE changed must be the number of people who are on the unemployment rolls. So what evidence is there that THOSE numbers are falsified? At least, I think that is what she is trying to get at.





Quoting KairisMama:

I always find the number to be BS since it no longer takes into account those who have exhausted UE but have not found work. Or those who never qualified for UE to begin with but have been out of work.





Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN