TopQuark: “Secondly, even if you did talk about the same thing and doubted the figures -— and, assuming that you, not BLS, were correct -— the BLS’schortcoming may be explained by lots of things: error, shorcoming of methodology, negligence, or deliberate manipulation of data (fraud).
So, what is your evidence that this manupulation and not error, methodological difficulties or something else? That is what I asked. You insist on your belief but offer not a shred of evidence. That is a pity: you appear to feel entitled to defame innocent people.
In this particular case you are gravely mistaken. Statistical data are collected by hundreds, if not thousands, of people, many of whom have advanced degrees in statistics and have allegence to their discipline. Great many of these people are in their positions for decades, hence worked under Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. as well. And, you want us to believe, they are marching in step, like good solders, to the orders of these different generals...”
Are you suggesting that the final unemployment figure is the one reported by these thousands of statistical experts?
These thousands that you refer to are only employed for groundwork. They are scattered and fragmented and not a united whole. They report it to their superiors, who perform further analysis and then report it again to their superiors. In the process of filtering through such layers of reporting, the thousands who actually collected and worked on the data are never in the know of what the actual figure is.
Collusion, whenever it happens, happens at the highest level of authority. It works in a similar fashion with profit figures and audits. Despite of hundreds of audit staff working on raw data the final profit figure is undeniably incorrectly reported to suit the directors motives... and that happens without the hundreds of ground staff not registering a word of protest as the main figures of inventory value are always hidden from them (if you want evidence of this, then simply look at the supposedly big 4 and their frauds coming out in open in the recent days)
Coming back to the figure of unemployment, the thousands you say are never in the know of any single factor critical to reporting and that is the place where fraud can be permeated by their superiors(what that critical factor is I do not know, as I am not a statistician, sorry)
That does not mean ‘all’ are dishonest, it does however mean that in places where it serves personal agenda (in politics especially) these distorted figures are rampant.
Are you suggesting that the final unemployment figure is the one reported by these thousands of statistical experts? These thousands that you refer to are only employed for groundwork. They are scattered and fragmented and not a united whole. They report it to their superiors, who perform further analysis and then report it again to their superiors.
I agree also with your conclusion as well: it does logically follow from what you just said that a collusion may still happen in principle:
In the process of filtering through such layers of reporting, the thousands who actually collected and worked on the data are never in the know of what the actual figure is.
Indeed, all people, all those thousands do not have common knowledge of how aggregation was done. However, at each level where aggregation is performed, there are some people that perform that aggregation. Moreover, people providing input into a given level of aggregation do have a feel for the aggregate (there are series that historically covary, etc.) There is nothing unusual here: an engineer does not look over the shoulders of workers who implement his design, but he would catch a deviation from his design in a heartbeat. That is all the more true if such deviations were done repeatedly. Those that provide inputs into level 3 aggregation do not have a feel for the level 6 aggregate number, but they do have a feel for the aggregate at level 3.
In sum, (i) a collusion would still be necessary at any given level where stepwise aggregation takes place, and (ii) it is quite detectable by those that provide inputs.
I would actually go further: I cannot claim to know specifics here since I never worked for the BLS, but I would be very surprised if various multi-level checks were not in place to avoid bias (even inadvertent bias). The reason for my confidence is that it is a standard procedure in data gathering and aggregation.
A well-known example is from surveys and census procedures. As you probably know, interviewers are often part-time workers that are completely disinterested in the integrity of the data and very much interested in doing less work. They are always tempted to fill out a dozen questionnaires at the kitchen table rather than actually walk to a dozen homes and conduct interviews at each. There are numerous checks and measures to detect this agency problem. Basic courses on survey methods emphasaize this problem and suggect specific measures for detection of such agency problems.
BLS procedures are nothing but surveys; I would be very suprisied if all those Ph.Ds at BLS, which is in focus of entire nation, would not know or fail to implement what every student of survey methods is taught. I cannot attest to which specific methods are implemented, but I have no doubt that some methods to prevern even an inadvertent bias --- let alone a collution -- are in place.
Finally, your argument, as well-constructed as it is, is different from mine. It shows specifically how a collusiuon may occur. But I never argued that it cannot occur. I only said that, whenever someone claims that it has occurred --- or as some on this trread claim that it has occurred continually for decades --- the burdern of proof is on the one making a claim. That is what I ask people: if you have proof, let's hear it; and, please reported to the FBI --- I want to see the perps in jail (no, I am not saying this sarcastically). In sum, I am not asking the accusers to do anything other than what our traditional values and law always asked: put up or shut up. Please see #151.
To me, this is different from what you have argued and with which I completely agree: collusion may happen in principle, despite measures against it that are put in place.
Thank you very much for your post.