danivon wrote:Isn't that what the grey parts show - when the country was in negative growth?

rickyp wrote:fate

Almost all the samples are more Democratic than the 2008 electorate. If you believe that's what 2012 looks like, go to Vegas.

All polls ask people to self describe. When people have changed their mind about their party affiliation, (as oppossed to their party registration) the self described afillition changes.

But since all the other general attitudes indicate Obama is winning in the battle of ideas, and the economy is beleived to be going in the right direction..... the polls are probably right.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Isn't that what the grey parts show - when the country was in negative growth?

yes, but the trend lines are based on start of office as opposed to end of recession.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Isn't that what the grey parts show - when the country was in negative growth?

yes, but the trend lines are based on start of office as opposed to end of recession.

True, but it doesn't take much to try and compare what happens to each line starting from the point the recession ended.

Scaling may be an issue, but there are simple ways to deal with that.

So, you are BOTH wrong to conflate the MCSI with political VI polling.

rickyp wrote:It isn't about the economy so much as how people feel about the direction of the economy.

Any poll series can produce an outlier result. That’s true even of larger sample surveys, even when the sample is properly balanced, and even without malicious intent to tweak the results. It’s more likely to happen with smaller samples than larger samples, but can happen any time in surveys. That’s why it’s important to look at trending more than a single result within polling series, although some applications (jobless rates, elections) are intended more for single-result reporting.

In today’s case, the establishment survey showed a result that corresponds closely to other economic trends and that doesn’t deviate much from the intraseries trend. The household survey, from which the jobless rate is derived, showed a very large deviation from its own trending and from the growth data in the economy. The last time we had that many added in the household survey, the GDP growth rate was around 9%, and it’s currently 1.5%.

That’s why people who understand data and surveys look skeptically at the result of the household survey. It doesn’t mean a conspiracy is in place; it does strongly suggest that this month’s sample of 60,000 households threw an outlier, especially when compared with the establishment survey and other economic data. If so, it will likely correct itself in the next report. That’s not “trutherism” or denial, but straightforward data analysis.

danivon wrote:Interesting. Were increased car sales outliers too? Was the increase in the MCSI an outlier?

I note that in the graph where they note variation between the U-3 and U-6 rates, there was a similar gap quite recently, before they came back together. Look at March-July 2011. The orange line does the same thing as now - goes up while the black line heads down. And a bit later on? The orange line moves down faster to move back into line with the falling black line.

Which makes it look like the one going up was the 'outlier'. Same situation now.

Also, it's clear that the economy is generally in a confused state. Some sectors and areas are recovering faster than others, some are stagnating, some may even be in decline. The 'general' trends for particular measures will, as a result, be less consistent than during a period of solid growth or of recession.

As I said on the other thread, they are not 'great' jobs numbers, but they could be worse (and if they were, you'd not be wondering about outliers or contradictions with other indicators, you'd be slamming Obama again).

So, other than conjecture and post-hoc stat comparisons (along with a little wishful thinking), is there any actual evidence that the jobs figures have been fiddled?

The last time we had that many added in the household survey, the GDP growth rate was around 9%, and it’s currently 1.5%.

This report is part of a broader trend that we’ve seen over the past few years, in which job gains have been concentrated in lower-wage positions. And this isn’t just spin from the Romney campaign. Over the summer, the liberal National Employment Law Project released a report that was highlighted in the Atlantic, which focused on this trend. The report found that:

– Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.

– Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.

This is illustrated by the NELP chart above. Though Obama has touted modest job gains during the recovery as evidence things are getting better, looking merely at the headline jobs and unemployment number obscures the fact that the middle class has still struggled to find quality jobs, while more Americans are settling for lower-paying work.

Doctor Fate wrote:The last time we had that many added in the household survey, the GDP growth rate was around 9%, and it’s currently 1.5%.

The GDP is in the tank. There are many negative indicators.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The last time we had that many added in the household survey, the GDP growth rate was around 9%, and it’s currently 1.5%.

Repeating the same observation based on post-hoc stat analysis is still using post-hoc stat analysis. I asked if you had anything else. Seems not, or you'd present it rather than cutting and pasting your own words.

Unfortunately, it is the middle class that has lost the most during this economic downturn. According to Bloomberg, 95 percent of the jobs lost during the recession were middle class jobs. That is an absolutely astounding figure. Yes, some executives lost their jobs during the last recession as did some minimum-wage workers. But overwhelmingly the jobs that were lost were middle income jobs. Sadly, the limited number of jobs that have been added since the end of the last recession have mostly been low income jobs. A higher percentage of Americans are working low income jobs than ever before, and the cost of living continues to rise at a very brisk pace. This is causing an erosion of the middle class unlike anything we have ever seen in American history.

The GDP is in the tank. There are many negative indicators.

Last I saw, it was still growing. Let's see what the Q3 figures are. And we are seeing positive indicators too, like I said.

Doctor Fate wrote:You're so observant--you just ignored most of my post, like how jobs being created in no way replace the jobs lost in terms of income.

The GDP is in the tank. There are many negative indicators.

Last I saw, it was still growing. Let's see what the Q3 figures are. And we are seeing positive indicators too, like I said.

Yet, you post none, therefore, based on your argumentation, I have to presume there are none.