{"id":32351,"date":"2018-01-09T09:06:27","date_gmt":"2018-01-09T14:06:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=32351"},"modified":"2018-01-09T09:06:27","modified_gmt":"2018-01-09T14:06:27","slug":"lied-to-again-7","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=32351","title":{"rendered":"Lied To (Again)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday <a href=\"https:\/\/nypost.com\/2018\/01\/08\/labor-departments-december-jobs-report-highly-misleading\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The New York Post<\/a> posted an article about the <a class=\"zem_slink\" title=\"United States Department of Labor\" href=\"http:\/\/maps.google.com\/maps?ll=38.8925361111,-77.0144277778&amp;spn=0.01,0.01&amp;q=38.8925361111,-77.0144277778 (United%20States%20Department%20of%20Labor)&amp;t=h\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"geolocation noopener\">Labor Department<\/a>&#8216;s December <a class=\"zem_slink\" title=\"report\" href=\"http:\/\/www.bls.gov\/news.release\/empsit.nr0.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"homepage noopener\">jobs report<\/a>. I am probably not the only one who wondered why the jobs added number was lower than expected (I see signs of <a class=\"zem_slink\" title=\"Economic recovery\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Economic_recovery\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener wikipedia\">economic recovery<\/a> all around me&#8211;new shops, new construction, formerly unemployed people going back to work, people getting bonuses, etc.). Well, it seems that there was more to the numbers than I thought.<\/p>\n<p>The article reports:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>But the number was kept artificially low by a <a class=\"zem_slink\" title=\"Seasonal adjustment\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Seasonal_adjustment\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener wikipedia\">seasonal adjustment<\/a> that wasn\u2019t comparable to the one done a year earlier, in December 2016.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>And it\u2019s unusual for one December\u2019s adjustment to be so different from the previous December.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>If the adjustments had been consistent, last Friday\u2019s number would have shown growth of another 133,000. Add the growth that was announced (148,000 jobs) and the seasonal adjustment difference (133,000) and this December\u2019s growth would have been a very, very healthy 281,000 jobs.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>How to lie with statistics.<\/p>\n<p>It gets worse:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>There was another adjustment that made Friday\u2019s job number look worse than it would have been.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>In the December figure released last Friday, the government deducted 38,000 jobs that it thinks were lost but can\u2019t prove were lost because they happened inside very small companies.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>A year earlier, in December 2016, only 17,000 jobs were deducted for this reason.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>Again, if Labor has simply remained consistent, December\u2019s jobs gains could have been as high as 300,000.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>As I\u2019ve explained many times before, the government\u2019s economic statistics are not expected to be completely accurate the first time they are announced \u2014 even though Wall Street and the media treat them like they are.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong>That\u2019s why the government does numerous revisions.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>I guess the only numbers we can actually believe are the ones in the final revision!<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about the Labor Department&#8216;s December jobs report. I am probably not the only one who wondered why the jobs added number was lower than expected (I see signs of economic recovery all &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/?p=32351\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[3357,6618,8967,2788,657,2040],"class_list":["post-32351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-donald-trump","tag-economic-recovery","tag-jobs-report","tag-labor-department","tag-new-york-post","tag-seasonal-adjustment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32351","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=32351"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32351\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32352,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32351\/revisions\/32352"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=32351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=32351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rightwinggranny.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=32351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}