Your comment is broadly misleading. In fact, I would say that "shadow stats" guys like you have enabled the destruction of the system by creating the space to cast doubt on the valid methods used by BLS. BLS unemployment metrics have a valid basis and where they differ from Eurostat those differences are minor and with rational basis (such as 16 vs. 15 year old starting age).

▲

_heimdall 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is tough, though, for me to fully buy labor statistics when it has become the norm recently for them to be revised down. This spans back into Biden's term as well so it isn't one party either.

With a valid measure I would expect a roughly even distribution over time between underestimates and overestimates. For a valid measure worth considering I'd also expect the stat to be released later when revisions are less likely because more actual data has been collected

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> With a valid measure I would expect a roughly even distribution over time between underestimates and overestimates

This is a valid hypothesis. It’s wrong, and I’ll explain why. (It’s a bad and invalid thing to conclude.)

If measurement errors were iid, you’d be correct. But they’re not. They’re well documented for not being so. Earlier survey results are biased by directional response bias inasmuch as the employers with the lease changes respond first. So the earliest releases tend to match whatever was going on before. Then the employers who had to do paperwork respond. And then, finally, someone gets around to calling the folks who never got back. Some of them aren’t around anymore.

So yeah, the directional tendency in revisions is well documented. And for a long time, the early releases were appreciated. But maybe American statistical and media literacy is such that only final releases should be released, which would mean we’d always be working with data 6 months to a year out of date.

▲

svnt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is a reasonable position, however the assumption that it is the administration that is gaming them vs other motivated parties is open for discussion.

▲

jeffbee 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It is in fact not at all reasonable. They are saying that the BLS stats can't be trusted because they totally misunderstand the survey methodology. That isn't a reason!

	▲	svnt an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I’d counter that if we were doing a good job gathering data that these structural biases could be compensated for with more conservative initial numbers. At some point a lack of decision to take compensating action becomes faking the numbers.

▲

throw0101c 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It is tough, though, for me to fully buy labor statistics when it has become the norm recently for them to be revised down.

There have been revisions since the forever, and this is because they depend in part of surveys, and if companies (and the people with-in them) don't bother responding in a timely or accurate manner then that's going to throw the sampling off.

> CES estimates are considered preliminary when first published each month because not all respondents report their payroll data by the initial release of employment, hours, and earnings. BLS continues to collect payroll data and revises estimates twice before the annual benchmark update (see benchmark revisions section below).

* https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ces/presentation.htm#revisions

Post-COVID surveying seems to have become more difficult (and BLS budget stagnation/cuts haven't helped). This has been a known issue for a while; see Odd Lots episode "Some of America's Most Important Economic Data Is Decaying":

> Gathering official economic data is a huge process in the best of times. But a bunch of different things have now combined to make that process even harder. People aren't responding to surveys like they used to. Survey responses have also become a lot more divided along political lines. And at the same time, the Trump administration wants to cut back on government spending, and the worry is that fewer official resources will make tracking the US economy even harder for statistical departments that were already stretched. Bill Beach was commissioner of labor statistics and head of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics during Trump's first presidency and also during President Biden's. On this episode, we talk to him about the importance of official data and why the rails for economic data are deteriorating so quickly.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfgpqVixeIw

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't say stuff like this very often, but are you actually blaming a victim for dealing with the reality of government bsing its own stats instead of the government that allowed this bs to continue? BLS had only one thing going for it and it is mostly that it was used for long enough time that changing methodology would prevent us from being able to compare it prior time ranges. That is it. Otherwise, the methodology itself is seriously flawed ( and likely was from get go, but these days, it is absolutely the worst possible mix of options ).

Honestly, your comment made me mildly angry. That said, can you say why you believe parent's comment is misleading?

▲

jeffbee 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you have a substantive complaint to make about the BLS methodology? So far all I see in your remark is shadowstats vibes.

▲

salawat 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey. Not once. If their methodology is built on that + unemployment data from State Unemployment agencies + data from payroll processors, anyone not collecting state unemployment benefits is invisible to the system, and half of the payroll is actually not even consituted of U.S. Citizens.

Admittedly, if I could find a single instance of someone willing to vouch or share insight on having filled out a BLS survey, that'd cure a healthy chunk of skepticism. There's still be the other distortions in the data to account for, but I'd at least have an instance proving that yeah, there is somebody filling out these surveys and it isn't just something they say they do to make their magic unemployment number sound legit.

Note, I'm in a massive sceptical shit phase at the moment. Last decade has burned my optimism hard. So when it comes to my ability to assume benevolent intent right now, there's a heavy bias against doing it, and a heavier bias in the direction of "what would be the easiest way to keep the System limping along?" The answer to that is "say you do one thing, in reality do another, and as long as no one comes lookin', it's gold." The finance industry runs on Trust moreso than anything else, and there ain't much to be said for Trusting anything you can't verify these days. Not from other humans.

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey I’ve never met a single chicken farmer. Does that mean I should be sceptical about them existing? Like, what sort of metric is this for truth finding? > to assume benevolent intent No need. Markets move on these data. The rich and powerful bet their money on what they say.
	▲	jeffbee an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I've never met a single person willing to attest to filling out a BLS survey. Unless you have introduced yourself with this question to thousands of people, this is a totally meaningless statement. It says more about your social circle, your grasp of descriptive statistics, and the weird online stew you are soaking your brain in than it says about the CPS.

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can't tell if you are serious or not. Lets assume for a moment that there was once a benefit to BLS survey methodology ( I would argue otherwise, but w/e ). Is it a good methodology today?

So my main argument ( and frankly the only argument that should matter ) is that is a bad fit for the goal of estimating values ( even though we do know its failure modes ). Is that not enough?

▲

patmorgan23 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What are the alternatives, and do other countries labor statistics agencies use them?

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Alternative is to build something better. Just about anything is better than the current survey system. What I would propose is something akin to "derived real-data unemployment system". All this data exists now, but is distributed. It can be stitched together, but if one was so inclined.

<< do other countries

No, it doesn't mean I am wrong.

	▲	jeffbee an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"BLS CPS is worse than a hypothetical better thing" is tautological, void, and without meaning.

▲

enraged_camel 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You made the argument and provided zero supporting evidence. As it stands, it's merely an opinion, and appears to be an uninformed one until you prove otherwise. That's what people are asking you to do.

	▲	iugtmkbdfil834 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sigh, your supporting evidence is a record of someone saying something, which itself is merely an opinion.. men in glass houses and all that. The interesting thing about my opinion is that while it may not be AS informed as yours, it is notably above the average level of knowledge when it comes to BLS. << That's what people are asking you to do. No. What I am being asked to do is: "Show me a better way, but I only accept a better way that is already utilized by someone else". Not a recipe for a thoughtful exchange of ideas.