[smiley]

Ah.... my favorite statistical trick.

real jobless numbers

[dsula]

what does 'reported' und 'revised' mean?

[kublikhan]

"reported" numbers are the early numbers that get reported and are the ones you usually hear about in the news. "revised" numbers are the adjusted numbers after all of the latest information is taken into account. They come out later than the reported numbers so are more accurate. But everyone wants to know the latest and greatest numbers. For example, the early "reported" numbers for October are now available. Also, the "revised" numbers for September are also available. The September numbers are more accurate since there was more time to compile they and adjust for several factors. The October numbers will eventually be revised as well. The numbers will be more accurate if you just wait a month to report them. But no one wants to wait so we all hear the unrevised numbers. It is the price you pay for getting your information early.

[Tyler_JC]

The stock market responds to the revised numbers.

It's the general public that doesn't seem to care much.

Most government data comes in three sets. Advance report, preliminary report, and revised (final) report.

The data tends to get more accurate after each report because there is more information available.

It's not a statistical trick. Trickery would be only publishing the advance report and then ignoring the new information that counter-acts the previous reports.

Sometimes, the revised reports shows that the economy was better than previously reported. Should this also be called trickery?

[vision-master]

The stock market responds to the revised numbers.

It's the general public that doesn't seem to care much.

Most government data comes in three sets. Advance report, preliminary report, and revised (final) report.

The data tends to get more accurate after each report because there is more information available.

It's not a statistical trick. Trickery would be only publishing the advance report and then ignoring the new information that counter-acts the previous reports.

Sometimes, the revised reports shows that the economy was better than previously reported. Should this also be called trickery?

Do these reports tally the long term unemployed too? Like those out of work for a year or more? I mean, they ain't got no J either.

[frankthetank]

V-

I don't think they do.

[Tyler_JC]

They measure the long term unemployed, but they wouldn't be counted as recent job losses.

They are counted under the category of U4 unemployment.

The most commonly reported unemployment figure is the U3 number.

* U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
* U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
* U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
* U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
* U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
* U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but can not due to economic reasons.

If a lot of the workforce is working part time because they can't find full time work, they record those numbers.

The government isn't directly lying to you about those numbers.

It's the media that chooses to focus on U3 because they have always used that metric.

The US economy has shifted in the past decades towards a break between U3 and U6.

If we started reporting U6 (total unemployment, underemployment, and part time wanting full time), the reported unemployment rate would double overnight and it would no longer be backward compatible.

[smiley]

It's not a statistical trick. Trickery would be only publishing the advance report and then ignoring the new information that counter-acts the previous reports.

No that would be fraud. And I have no problem with the number being revised. I do have a problem with one way revisions. In my field we call that a bias, and I think in this case that is an appropriate term.

And yes this will not fool the market analysts, but it does fool the general public. Revised numbers are rarely reported in mainstream media, and they certainly don't stick as much as the new ones.

That leaves the trickery part. In order to make that claim stick I have to believe that the bias is applied intentionally instead of the result of a model which for some reason is somehat off-target.

Over the past years I have seen countless examples of these kind of revisions. I have seen them in housing prices, jobjess claims inflation numbers, crime numbers etc.

To give an example: I wrote an tread about the IEA oil production numbers a while back. In this case it is actually worse because the revisions are not reported.
How to achieve everlasting growth

IMO there are only two reasons why this happens.

1) They want to sketch a rosier picture to the public as not to scare anyone.
2) The numbers are composed by a group of eternal optimists, who unfaded by the harsh reality of the last set of revisions attack the next report with the same level of optimism.

[vision-master]

They measure the long term unemployed, but they wouldn't be counted as recent job losses.

They are counted under the category of U4 unemployment.

The most commonly reported unemployment figure is the U3 number.

* U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
* U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
* U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
* U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
* U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
* U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but can not due to economic reasons.

If a lot of the workforce is working part time because they can't find full time work, they record those numbers.

The government isn't directly lying to you about those numbers.

It's the media that chooses to focus on U3 because they have always used that metric.

The US economy has shifted in the past decades towards a break between U3 and U6.

If we started reporting U6 (total unemployment, underemployment, and part time wanting full time), the reported unemployment rate would double overnight and it would no longer be backward compatible.

Where is the up "U" arse category

[TheDude]

To give an example: I wrote an tread about the IEA oil production numbers a while back. In this case it is actually worse because the revisions are not reported.
How to achieve everlasting growth

IMO there are only two reasons why this happens.

1) They want to sketch a rosier picture to the public as not to scare anyone.
2) The numbers are composed by a group of eternal optimists, who unfaded by the harsh reality of the last set of revisions attack the next report with the same level of optimism.

Well-fleshed out article by Khebab on this: The Oil Drum | A Look at the EIA Revision Pattern. John Williams covers the deceit in unemployment figures over at ShadowStats, too.