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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1913)	12/5/2003 2:07:46 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

I was going to warn Dave about confusing you with facts, but I see I'm too late. He was not citing "phony new age employment indicators" and neither has Larry Kudlow. Just because the CPS doesn't agree with your preconception about job growth doesn't mean it is wrong, phony, OR new. The Current Population Survey of the BLS, aka the "household survey", has been around since at least 1948. It is the basis for the widely discussed unemployment rate and often diverges from the CES (the "establishment survey" that gives us the non-farm payrolls number) over short periods, but shows the same general cycles and trends. The recent divergence, however, has been striking and all explanations I've heard (other than your irrational and baseless "phony new age" BS) attribute the divergence to the fact that the CES excludes self-employed people and small businesses, both a source of strength in recent years. Now, there is a minor issue with the CPS in that the BLS doesn't, for some reason, smooth out the changes in the population number it uses to calculate the total number of employed persons. Sidebar: You do understand that both the CPS and the CES are surveys and not actual counts, don't you? Both are estimates based on a small sample. Anyway, if you are looking at a change in the number across this adjustment (accross the ends of CY2002 or CY 1999 to be specific), you have to back out the part of the 12/02-01/03 increase that was attributable to this adjustment. But just looking at this year, thus not needing to adjust anything, we find that the number of people reporting that they are employed in a civilian job has increased by 1.07 million since January and almost 600k last month alone. This, my dear Lizzie, is a dramatic jump and is as much a fact as the non-farm payroll number also published today. The only thing dreamed up is your excuse for dismissing it.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1913)	12/5/2003 4:45:35 PM
From: Selectric II	Respond to of 90947

To Lizzie, from a mutual friend: Message 19566322 "To:Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1913) From: R. D. Buschman Friday, Dec 5, 2003 2:07 PM Respond to of 1932 I was going to warn Dave about confusing you with facts, but I see I'm too late. He was not citing "phony new age employment indicators" and neither has Larry Kudlow. Just because the CPS doesn't agree with your preconception about job growth doesn't mean it is wrong, phony, OR new. The Current Population Survey of the BLS, aka the "household survey", has been around since at least 1948. It is the basis for the widely discussed unemployment rate and often diverges from the CES (the "establishment survey" that gives us the non-farm payrolls number) over short periods, but shows the same general cycles and trends. The recent divergence, however, has been striking and all explanations I've heard (other than your irrational and baseless "phony new age" BS) attribute the divergence to the fact that the CES excludes self-employed people and small businesses, both a source of strength in recent years. Now, there is a minor issue with the CPS in that the BLS doesn't, for some reason, smooth out the changes in the population number it uses to calculate the total number of employed persons. Sidebar: You do understand that both the CPS and the CES are surveys and not actual counts, don't you? Both are estimates based on a small sample. Anyway, if you are looking at a change in the number across this adjustment (accross the ends of CY2002 or CY 1999 to be specific), you have to back out the part of the 12/02-01/03 increase that was attributable to this adjustment. But just looking at this year, thus not needing to adjust anything, we find that the number of people reporting that they are employed in a civilian job has increased by 1.07 million since January and almost 600k last month alone. This, my dear Lizzie, is a dramatic jump and is as much a fact as the non-farm payroll number also published today. The only thing dreamed up is your excuse for dismissing it. "