This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
BLS Issues Update On Perpetual Upward Data Bias: 366,000 Overestimate For Year Ended March 2010
The BLS, as part of the NFP report, has issued its preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision, which confirms that the BLS is really just BS. According to the report, for the period ended March 2010, the BLS has overestimated jobs by 366,000 (0.3%), or just over 30K jobs per month. While not as bad as the prior benchmark revision of almost one million for the period ending March 2009, this continue to be a blow to both the credibility and the data tracking capability of the US Bureau of Truth. By industry, the biggest hit was to the trade, transportation and utilities industry (-144K), Manufacturing (-114K) and Leisure and Hospitality (-91K). Luckily, losses in these critical sectors were offset by even more bankers than had been previously expected: Professional and business services ended up being revised higher by 14K.
From the Excerpt:
Preliminary Estimates of Benchmark Revisions to the Establishment Survey
In accordance with usual practice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is announcing its preliminary estimates of the upcoming annual bench-mark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 4, 2011, with the publication of the January 2011 Employment Situation news release. Each year, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey employment estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March derived from state unemployment insurance tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For national CES employment series, the average of the absolute values of the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years is 0.3 percent at the total nonfarm level. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates a downward adjustment to March 2010 total nonfarm employment of 366,000 (-0.3 percent).
Table B shows the March 2010 preliminary benchmark revisions by major industry sector. As is typically the case, many of the individual industry series show larger percentage revisions than the total nonfarm series, primarily because statistical sampling error is greater at more detailed levels than at a total level.
d
»
- 4855 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
TD, why hasn't this been posted yet?
The Abysmal Track Record of Mark Zandi:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/zandi/
We are waiting for his appointment to Larry Summers' position to be official.
Like the budget it may never become "official".
If Zandi and Austin Goolsbee look like twins is it because they think the same ?
All whining on my part aside, Tyler did a nice job explaining what happens with these revisions.
department of fraud
reversal in dollar and gold
someone intervene?
So much intervention about nobody knows the value of anything.
Wasn't this revision to be upward by 900K ?
Also, all gains in employment in the household survey can be traced to the 600K+ increase in part time employment. Most of that was due to slack business, economic conditions and only part time jobs being available. More and more people are working part time or in temporary services jobs summarized in the establishment survey.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if most of those 600K folks are the ones who had their extended UE benefits restored. They just now classify them as Professional Unemployment Check Collector.
Whatever it takes to make the numbers look better...
Chart: ES and ZB
...and After
http://99ercharts.blogspot.com/2010/10/es-zb_08.html
You know, while viewing one or two charts might give the impression that we are reaching a turning point, when one pulls back and looks at various charts from many different sectors and asset classes, the term "explosion" comes to mind.
I've been in the business for 25 years and I can't ever really remember so much pent up pressure across so many asset classes during that time. Not even 2008 was like this.
The Bureau of Lies and Statistics continues it's reality warping ways. Nothing new here, move along.
Their moto. 'eveything we say is the truth, except this'
Must save the banksters, they are the economy.
366,000...month by month they lied. And today, the market reacts and the commentators comment on the good numbers within the bad. Well, here is a comment... bullshit. Fuck you BLS. Fuck you TPTB.
What happened to stop the lootin' start the prosecutin'...prognosticators to the rear, prosecutors to the fore...oh yeah they nabbed the CHiPS guy....how are those Magnetar guys? Oh, still rich.
At least they are trying to make gold more affordable today...give 'em that.
Folks in China and the USSR used to line up to read the publicly posted Pravda and Xinhua at bulletin boards in parks across the land. After reading the headlines and scanning the quotes and statistics, most came away knowing "the truth" - namely the inverse of what was being published.
Think of the trillions of man hours and trillions in capital flowing into "media" these last decades. Add this to government bureaucracies and their budgets and resources. And the net result is a work product that in order to have any utility must be disbelieved?
Wait until "Stimulus 2" has a provision for the government to financially support Corporate media. Then you really will be a believer.
Maybe we are going back to bear skins and stone knives.
Gov't workers are paid to make up stuff. I almost don't blame them.
But the media is supposed to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they will. The media is incompetent and corrupt.
I'm thinking the extra 14k are lobbyists.
366K adjustment? waaayyyy better than expected!
buy buy buy!!!!!!!!
I added up the Birth/Death adjustment y-o-y March from the BLS site...they add up to 336,000, so pretty much every addition was fantasy.
For the third year in a row, most of the Birth-Death jobs were fantasy jobs.
So the BLS is effectively saying the b/d model does nothing except skew the numbers, and the best way to estimate actual employment trends is to simply subtract out the b/d adjustments. Nice that they finally quietly admit it, I guess.
Unfortunately, simply subtracting b/d adjustments on a monthly basis throws off the BLS's seasonal adjustments, as those interact with b/d in some undecipherable way. So estimating next year's downward revision to this year's numbers isn't as simple as just subtracting the 682k of b/d adjustments for April-September 2010. But it seems safe to estimate that the downward revision for April-September 2010 will chop off at least another 340k jobs.
Applying that adjustment, it looks like total employment recovered from a trough of 129.3m in Dec 09 to a peak of 130.1m in May 10 from which it has already fallen back to 129.5m. And that's an optimistic estimate.