Most of these numbers are generated via statistical sampling and model adjustment.
As more and more hard data becomes available through surveys and other sources, they revise the numbers - in some stats, several times. For example, GDP is revised at least twice after being reported for a quarter - and the second revision is over a year out.
Now, the real nut of the issue with they methodology behind these government stats is that they worked pretty well until 2007 going into 2008. None of these statistical series being published by the Fed, BLS, BEA, Census, et al, really have a grip on what happens to the economy during a debt deflation. Most all of our modern economic stats start in the post-WWII era. Most people don’t know how long it took to come up with a national unemployment figure during the Depression - we had no systemic, comprehensive study of unemployment in the 1930’s until about 1960 to 1962. Before that, the BLS didn’t track unemployment - they tracked things like injuries and deaths on the job, but not unemployment.
The fact that these statistical series are so grossly under-reporting various issues (eg, numbers of long-term unemployed, real unemployment) and lack of jobs being taken due to what I like to call “debt immobility” (people are upside-down on their mortgage, and for them to sell their house to take a job in another area *now* would require them selling at a huge loss and then having to go pay the bank the difference) are simply not accounted for in these statistical series and have to be created or inferred from other sources.
This, I believe, is going to cause problems for Obama as we plod onwards into the next downturn. They’re going to be crowing about the 7.something% unemployment rate... and lots of people aren’t going to believe him, because they’ll be looking around their families, neighborhoods, etc and saying “Barry, you’re simply full of crap. I’ve lived through 7% unemployment before... and this ain’t it.”
Agreed, NVD.
Personally, I believe the 15-16% figures - I’ve also heard 23% numbers - are far more accurate, using the U6 data. The U3 data is tainted and skewed lower.
I agree. The reason Obama is a one-term wonder is because of people’s seat of the pants experience with unemployment and inflation. They don’t care about published economic numbers. All they know is that their 25 year old kid lives at home, the wife lost her mortgage title job and can’t find anything close in pay, and they just got a pink slip. Meanwhile food and gas are up in cost.
Seat of the pants economics will cause the independents to dump Obama this coming election. I won’t call it a landslide, but people are going to vote their pocket books like usual, and Obama will lose by a goodly margin, in the same was as a failing football quarterback hears the crowd screaming for the 2nd string backup. The crowd doesn’t want to hear that the backup QB may suck, they just want a change to anybody else.
This election will be “anybody but Obama”. He’s done.
“Theyre going to be crowing about the 7.something% unemployment rate... and lots of people arent going to believe him, because theyll be looking around their families, neighborhoods, etc and saying Barry, youre simply full of crap. Ive lived through 7% unemployment before... and this aint it.
You’re right; I believe he will lose the election primarily based on the employment situation, and his discredited media won’t be able to do a thing to help him.