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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (48045)	4/5/2004 10:39:45 PM
From: AC Flyer	Respond to of 74559

>>How comes they change it after publishing it, then?<< There's a short answer to this question and also a long answer. The long answer probably contains enough statistical substance for 10 PhD dissertations. So, here's the short answer. "They" (the Bureau of Labor Statistics) change it after publishing it because that's what they've always done. Why? Because as time passes the quality of the data available to the BLS improves? Why? Because as time passes, "they" learn more about those factors affecting employment that "they" were forced to estimate previously. In fact, the following disclaimer accompanies every month's Employment Situation report: "[I]n the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months are based on substantially incomplete returns; for this reason, these estimates are labeled preliminary in the tables. It is only after two successive revisions to a monthly estimate, when nearly all sample reports have been received, that the estimate is considered final." Even then, preliminary revisions are not the end of the story. Even after all the establishment responses are submitted for the payroll survey, the final estimate is still based on a sample, not on the entire universe of establishments. Those estimates are significantly revised once per year when the comprehensive universe of payroll employers is incorporated into the benchmark. Furthermore, "final data are subject to annual benchmark revisions, and a single year's benchmark is not the end of seasonal adjustments." heritage.org For example, the so-called "jobless recovery" of 1992 that arguably cost George H.W. Bush re-election, turned out after the fact to be a mirage: "In April 1991, total nonfarm employment was a preliminary 109.3 million. Today, that number is listed as 108.5 million. In October 1992, the payroll count was announced as 108.4 million. Today, the October 1992 payroll survey measure of total nonfarm employment is listed as 109.0 million." We have a similar situation today, except that the gap between the payroll survey and the household survey is at an unprecedented 3 million, with the household survey showing 2.2 million jobs created since 2001 and the payroll survey showing 700,000 jobs lost. Now, if you were George Bush, and you wanted to influence perceptions of employment, would you do it by having the BLS emphasize the payroll survey, as they currently do? The BLS is feeling a lot of heat because there is much credible evidence that the official employment numbers are significantly underestimating total employment. Why? Because the BLS continues to emphasize the establishment (payroll) survey - that counts (estimates, actually) heads at a representative sample of established businesses. The Congressional Budget Office is now leaning away from the payroll survey and towards the household survey: the CBO's January 2004 Economic Outlook modified its earlier support for the payroll survey, suggesting that "it is less clear which survey provides a more accurate picture of labor market conditions in the second half of 2003." The CBO notes that tax withholding also seems to be consistent with stronger employment growth." Here - hot off the presses - is the BLS's defense of the establishment survey vs. the household survey. bls.gov