BHO - 59 weeks of jobless numbers "revisions"

[aegsm76]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/05/02/emac/

Snippets

"as analysts dig into the government job numbers, questions are increasingly being raised about the reliability of the data, from questionable revisions in the weekly jobless numbers to the odd changes in unemployment rates."

"For 59 out of the last 60 weeks, the weekly jobless numbers have been revised, after the fact, always in the same direction: higher. That's unheard of.

Those revisions higher make the present week’s unemployment number look better in comparison"

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/05/02/emac/

Snippets

"as analysts dig into the government job numbers, questions are increasingly being raised about the reliability of the data, from questionable revisions in the weekly jobless numbers to the odd changes in unemployment rates."

"For 59 out of the last 60 weeks, the weekly jobless numbers have been revised, after the fact, always in the same direction: higher. That's unheard of.

Those revisions higher make the present week’s unemployment number look better in comparison"

Maybe the data change is due to "compression".......

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/05/02/emac/

Snippets

"as analysts dig into the government job numbers, questions are increasingly being raised about the reliability of the data, from questionable revisions in the weekly jobless numbers to the odd changes in unemployment rates."

"For 59 out of the last 60 weeks, the weekly jobless numbers have been revised, after the fact, always in the same direction: higher. That's unheard of.

Those revisions higher make the present week’s unemployment number look better in comparison"

That was a nice paragraph in that rather long article. Too bad she never got back to talking about what those "revisions" were. She just said they were revised. Funny how such a major issue only makes for 1 paragraph in that long article.

Most of the article was about how we should look at the not working vs. working numbers to get unemployment data. I can agree with that premise to some extent. But ultimately that isn't a really good comparable indicator either and thats what this is all about for us (comparisons). So if there was a way to get data on how many people wanted jobs and how many didn't I'd say that's what we should do. Other than that it's just a best effort situation and the other side can always critisize the results.

[deacon blues]

Why would they revise the numbers each time, and the revisions are always higher jobless numbers? Who determines those numbers and revisions? Is it an agency under the guidance of the executive branch? If so, could the pressure to keep their jobs influence their numbers and revisions?

[deacon blues]

Another ominous sign for the Obama reelection effort...