I, like many others here, are anxiously awaiting the next set of employment/jobless figures. How accurate will they be, and how many "approximations, assumptions and adjustments" will go into the making of such an important (for the election) set of statistics?
To: Willie Green
2 posted on
09/02/2004 8:22:34 AM PDT by
sionnsar
(Iran Azadi ||| Resource for Traditional Anglicans: trad-anglican.faithweb.com)
To: FairWitness
"Missouri made an error when it failed to include teachers on summer vacation among the employed,"
Yeah, that will skew the results.
3 posted on
09/02/2004 8:25:02 AM PDT by
nuconvert
(Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
To: FairWitness
Like I've been saying all along, the numbers have been jimmied by the economists to make Bush look bad: Clark said the Missouri error was made by an analyst who did not count teachers as employed over the summer. The analyst has been reporting figures that way for several years, so that is likely to cause further revisions of past employment data, he said.
5 posted on
09/02/2004 8:35:23 AM PDT by
Brilliant
To: FairWitness
The Bush WH team needs to stress the household survey jobs report instead of the big business survey report the media harps on.
The household survey jobs report has consistently been indicating that huge numbers of jobs are being created every month.
Why doesn't the WH emphasize this good news?
7 posted on
09/02/2004 8:46:48 AM PDT by
citizen
(Write-in Tom Tancredo for President/Jeff Flake VP 2004!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson