I am going to make an early award for dumbest blog post of the year for this absolutely moronic piece showcasing the complete inability of the author to comprehend the data he is looking at. The sadder part of all of this, was while I was trying to find out just who the hat tipped individual was who came up with the stupid graph in the first place (a John Poehling according to ZeroHedge), I noticed that many other blogs picked this retarded screed up and ran it as some sort of fact. The only "fact" from this piece is that whoever came up with the "period 13 adjustments" to the non-farm payroll data likely did so in an office in the same building in Virginia where we filmed the moon landing.
Here is the telling quote from the above referenced tripe:
"Yet what could possibly be the biggest tell in the BLS tendentious spin of data comes courtesy of the BLS "period 13" data reporting, which is the full year adjustment the BLS gives at the end of every single year (it can be pulled from BLS data series CEU0000000001). And as John Poehling shows after parsing the data, in 72 years, there have been just 5 positive adjustments. And curiously, of these 5, the two largest ones by a huge margin occurred in the prior 2 years: 2008 and 2009, when year end adjustments (subsequently revised lower in the interim) added a total of 2.2 million jobs for the current administration. In 2010 there was no such luck, as the period 13 revision took out 1,243,000 jobs from the running total."
Let me debunk this as quickly as I can. The "period 13" that the author cites is nothing more than the yearly average of the employment data. Thus, in most years in which we added employment, the "period 13" (hereafter known as the annual average) will be lower than the December number. In years where we began the year with more employees than we ended it (like 08 and 09), the annual average will be higher than the December number. Look at that, simple math (this isn't even statistics, it is 3rd grade reading comprehension and math skills). We can only hope that whoever this "John Poehling" is that ZeroHedge gives credit to for coming up with this crap is not in fact managing anyone's money.
In other words, there is no such thing as a period 13 revision.
Update: It looks like Zero Hedge at least took the responsibility to pull this embarrassingly inaccurate post (sadly, it can still be found elsewhere on the blogosphere).
Update II: You can still find the article in full here. People would rather post things that agree with their worldview than take the time to see if what they are posting has any basis in fact/reality it seems.
Thursday Watch
18 minutes ago


8 comments:
"We can only hope that whoever this "John Poehling" is that ZeroHedge gives credit to for coming up with this crap is not in fact managing anyone's money."
I sincerely hope he IS managing lots of money. Why would anyone want the competition to be smarter ?
The comments on that blog are priceless.
BondDad,
The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows 13 months in the year, hence "PERIOD 13 ADJUSTMENT.
Maybe you should review the actual data.
Here you go DUMBASS........MONTH 13 IS WHAT?
eries Id: CEU0000000001
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total nonfarm
Industry: Total nonfarm
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Download:
Series Id Year Period Value
CEU0000000001 1939 M01 29296
CEU0000000001 1939 M02 29394
CEU0000000001 1939 M03 29804
CEU0000000001 1939 M04 29786
CEU0000000001 1939 M05 30145
CEU0000000001 1939 M06 30520
CEU0000000001 1939 M07 30472
CEU0000000001 1939 M08 30870
CEU0000000001 1939 M09 31608
CEU0000000001 1939 M10 31975
CEU0000000001 1939 M11 31837
CEU0000000001 1939 M12 32037
CEU0000000001 1939 M13 30645
CEU0000000001 1940 M01 30966
CEU0000000001 1940 M02 30995
CEU0000000001 1940 M03 31328
CEU0000000001 1940 M04 31397
CEU0000000001 1940 M05 31738
CEU0000000001 1940 M06 32016
CEU0000000001 1940 M07 32019
CEU0000000001 1940 M08 32586
CEU0000000001 1940 M09 33379
CEU0000000001 1940 M10 33806
CEU0000000001 1940 M11 34000
CEU0000000001 1940 M12 34653
CEU0000000001 1940 M13 32407
CEU0000000001 1941 M01 33833
CEU0000000001 1941 M02 34119
CEU0000000001 1941 M03 34592
CEU0000000001 1941 M04 35197
CEU0000000001 1941 M05 36062
CEU0000000001 1941 M06 36736
CEU0000000001 1941 M07 37262
CEU0000000001 1941 M08 37799
CEU0000000001 1941 M09 38354
CEU0000000001 1941 M10 38407
CEU0000000001 1941 M11 38293
CEU0000000001 1941 M12 38548
CEU0000000001 1941 M13 36600
BondDad,
Please go to the BLS website and pull the referenced data series.
There are 13 months shown hence the period 13 adjustment
I see the zero hedgites are so inept at reading comprehension that they can't tell what "Posted by SilverOz" means.
First of all, I (SilverOz) wrote this piece. Second of all Dumbass, the "13th month" is not any adjustment, it is the annual average employment for the given year (ie take Jan-Dec of a given year, divide by 12 and presto you get the "13th month"). If you look at the data in the table format (which the BLS has as default), they even label it "annual". Try some to develop some decent data comprehension before you make yourself look stupid in the future.
How does the average mentioned relate to the December number?
IT would seem to be irrelevant to the discussion.
IANAE (I am not an economist), but I think the point is that when the economy is growing (most of the time), employment (number of jobs) at the end of the year (including December) is higher than at the beginning of the year. On top of that, I think seasonal hiring helps goose numbers in December. So the 5 out of 72 years with a "positive" adjustment, i.e. an average employment number higher than the December employment number, would be pretty bad recessions where even the seasonal bonus in December was not enough to overcome the overall trend.
Post a Comment