Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robnhood who wrote (220532)	2/11/2003 9:33:10 PM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Respond to of 436258

JOBS DATA TWISTED BY U.S. CENSUS By JOHN CRUDELE nypost.com February 11, 2003 – THE unemployment rate fell in January by an unbelievable - as in, not believable - amount. But in the months and years ahead, the jobless number could be abnormally high, because Hispanics don't work as much as other people. Hey, don't get mad at me! It's the U.S. government's idea. Here's what is going on: Starting with the employment numbers released last Friday, the Labor Department began using the 2000 Census figures for the U.S. population, not the 1990 numbers. The raw data coming from the 2000 Census showed the Labor Department was undercounting Hispanics in the work force. So, Labor rejiggered its job numbers. But here's the catch. Hispanics have an "empirically verifiable" unemployment rate that is higher than that of whites, says my source at the Labor Department. Translation: They don't work as much. So, in the future, the government expects this change in the Hispanic count to worsen unemployment data. By how much? Nobody knows. All this means is that Labor Department numbers shouldn't be watched on a month-to-month basis. They are useful only for long-term trends, if even then. Look at them each month and they are really a joke, including the assumption about Hispanics. If I were David Letterman - and my bank account wishes that were so - and this were TV, I'd now be holding up a placard so you could see the half-dozen things that make these government numbers so unbelievable. Let's try it. * 1. Washington now has a built-in excuse for when the unemployment rate rises, as it will in the months ahead. The politicians can blame the Census change - including the Hispanic numbers. * 2. December's unemployment rate of 6.0 percent isn't comparable with the 5.7 percent number reported last Friday, even though you couldn't tell that from the coverage. In the press release the government says it could not "composite the data," which in bureaucrat-ese means that certain adjustments that are usually made couldn't be done. (Think of it this way: Comparing the December and January numbers is like comparing Jennifer Lopez's bottom with Dolly Parton's top. Both are impressive numbers, but they are really not the same thing.) * 3. The government says there were 101,000 new jobs created by retailers in January, despite the fact that the holiday shopping season is over. Oh yeah? Where? Manning the customer service booth at the unemployment office? * 4. The government says that overall there were 143,000 new jobs in January - but there also were 55,000 more jobs lost in December than first believed. (Obviously they forget to count Santa and his elves.) * 5. The unemployment rate jumped to 11 percent in January, from 9.6 percent the month before, when you count workers who are "marginally attached" or only have part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work. That larger number also includes discouraged workers, plus regular unemployed. (The government calls this the U-6 unemployment rate - but you really need one of those U-2 spy planes to find this unpleasant fact in the press release.) Back in August 2002, my crack economics team and I came up with a theory: that the terrorist attack in 2001 would fool the government's economic calculations. The so-called "seasonal adjustments" would be - what's the technical term I'm looking for? - screwed up. That is exactly what has happened. Based on the stats, the economy was made to look stronger than it really was around September, and weaker than it was during Christmas. Because December is being shown to be statistically worse than it really was, January now looks better than it was. The revised increase reported last Friday in the number of jobs lost in December continues that pattern of deception. What's happening with the economy now? Slow growth, few jobs, nothing special. * Please send e-mail to: jcrudele@nypost.com