Thanks Fred. It's interesting stuff -- but, unfortunately, not entirely surprising.
Re: Update in jobless by DOL
Fred Goodman
1/5/2012 4:33:40 PM
My impression is that it is currently at its worst because the employment numbers are so lousy and have been getting worse. As we get closer to the election the revisions are getting even larger and will continue in that direction in my opinion.
However, I only started to record the old and the new values each week a year ago when I noticed that the revisions were almost always in the same direction, so I cannot provide the data back more than a year.
I'll try to uncover some older data to see if the problem has been getting worse as I suspect.
Fred, you have probably answered this. But this comment thread is long and I have forgotten. But what I want to know is this: have the DOL numbers always been this fluid, or is it a problem that seems to be related to this particular administration?
The data is in.
Last week the Department of Labor "reported an increase of 15,000 new jobless and I will gladly book a bet that it will turn out to be more than that after next week's revision."
The DOL revised the number of initial jobless for December 24 was actually 387 thousand instead of the 381 thousand they reported a week ago. Consequently, the increase in jobless turned out to be 23 thousand last week instead of the 15 thousand they reported.
Any guesses about how the revise the improvement of 15 thousand they reported for December 31?
Re: Not to beat a dead horse
Fred Goodman
1/4/2012 6:34:44 PM
Absolutely, my point precisely.
Within that context, the reporting of an increase is dishonest. They should report that "construction spending is unchanged" or that "changes in construction spending are not statistically significant".
It's made worse by the fact that many reporters can't or don't see the problem.
Re: Great Thread
yalanand
1/4/2012 4:30:17 AM
This is the reason I became a technical analyst rather than a fundamental analyst.
@Fred, thanks for the post. To be frank I had believed more in fundamental analysis rather than technical analysis. But after reading your article I am forced to change my opinion.
This information in support of my post came from today's economic report:
The US Census Bureau reported minor changes in private residential and nonresidential construction, the former moved up and the later turned lower. Public construction has been falling at around an 8% annual rate since June with total construction flat at 0.14% annual rate.
What makes the news for me though is their style of reporting an example of which appears below.
"The U.S. Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce announced today that construction spending during November 2011 was estimated at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $807.1 billion, 1.2 percent (±1.6%)* above the revised [emphais added] October estimate of $797.4 billion
.* 90% confidence interval includes zero. The U.S. Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero. 798.5 was released on December 1st."
The revision of the November data in December was a tiny amount -- just 0.15% -- but that tiny revision represents 14% of the reported "improvement." Even so, what I like the most is the footnote that specifies there was no change at all, but which will not stop the media from quoting the positve change and omitting the fact that there was really difference.
Re: Revised numbers?
driven
1/2/2012 7:43:56 AM
You're right - I see it as more evidence of entitlement and arrogance
The blogs and comments posted on Investor Uprising do not reflect the views of Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, or its sponsors. Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, and its sponsors do not assume responsibility for any comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Tweet This