Trump's budget director claims Obama was 'manipulating' jobs data

[mystery-ak]

Trump's budget director claims Obama was 'manipulating' jobs data
by Jill Disis   @jdisis March 12, 2017: 3:32 PM ET

President Trump's budget director claims the Obama administration was "manipulating" jobs data.

Mick Mulvaney told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday that he has long thought the previous administration framed data to make the unemployment rate "look smaller than it actually was."

"What you should really look at is the number of jobs created," Mulvaney said on "State of the Union." "We've thought for a long time, I did, that the Obama administration was manipulating the numbers, in terms of the number of people in the workforce, to make the unemployment rate -- that percentage rate -- look smaller than it actually was."

more
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/12/news/economy/mick-mulvaney-obama-jobs-data/

[Sanguine]

NO WAY! (shocked face)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I guess it's unnecessary to ask for evidence for these claims anymore since these clowns never have any?

[r9etb]

I guess it's unnecessary to ask for evidence for these claims anymore since these clowns never have any?

In this case I think there probably is evidence, and it was stated so at the time in media articles -- how the official unemployment rate wasn't a good indicator of the actual unemployment picture.

Now, whether or not they'll actually lay the numbers out there, with e-mails supporting the claim of active manipulation .... of course that's a different matter.  The Trump team seems to think that innuendo is enough.

[Sanguine]

In this case I think there probably is evidence, and it was stated so at the time in media articles -- how the official unemployment rate wasn't a good indicator of the actual unemployment picture.

Now, whether or not they'll actually lay the numbers out there, with e-mails supporting the claim of active manipulation .... of course that's a different matter.  The Trump team seems to think that innuendo is enough.

I think we're all smart enough to understand that the numbers the administration touted were meaningless.  Why do we need Trump's team to lay it out for us?

[r9etb]

I think we're all smart enough to understand that the numbers the administration touted were meaningless.  Why do we need Trump's team to lay it out for us?

Well, they have "said" it.  But they haven't "laid it out," in the sense of proving their claim.

I think the strategy here is twofold.  First, it's their way of pushing back against the accusations of the left.  The latest round of accusations from Trump will, for now, take the the latest accusations of his opponents out of the news.  Eventually, however, these will be treated as "crying wolf," unless the Trump team can start backing them up.

The second part is to keep Trump's low-information base energized.  These are people who demonstrably do not care about evidence or proof, so long as the accusation agrees with what they already "know;"  and who can be counted upon to make excuses for whatever Trump says or does.

[anubias]

I heard on CNN the day that Trump's job numbers came out that the numbers don't truly reflect the underlying workforce that is no longer working.  Did you know there are actually people out there that have given up on trying to find work?  CNN was aghast to discover this and Trump's Admin needs to report them instead of hiding behind a fake unemployment rate.

[Sanguine]

I heard on CNN the day that Trump's job numbers came out that the numbers don't truly reflect the underlying workforce that is no longer working.  Did you know there are actually people out there that have given up on trying to find work?  CNN was aghast to discover this and Trump's Admin needs to report them instead of hiding behind a fake unemployment rate.

That's hilarious!

[Cripplecreek]

Course he was. We've gotten nothing but manipulated jobs data for at least 30 years now and that's not going to change.

[Frank Cannon]

What a genius. All anyone needed to do is look at the U-6 unemployment numbers to see that Obama was full of it. Currently that number is almost 10% unemployment.

[driftdiver]

I guess it's unnecessary to ask for evidence for these claims anymore since these clowns never have any?

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

So in other words you think Obama was truthful in his job stats and we have a healthy work force now.   Right..........

[r9etb]

So in other words you think Obama was truthful in his job stats and we have a healthy work force now.   Right..........

Oh, please.  You're better than that, dd.

[GtHawk]

I heard on CNN the day that Trump's job numbers came out that the numbers don't truly reflect the underlying workforce that is no longer working.  Did you know there are actually people out there that have given up on trying to find work?  CNN was aghast to discover this and Trump's Admin needs to report them instead of hiding behind a fake unemployment rate.

Uh, yeah I was one of them. I spent two years searching and applying, testing and interviewing and despite being in the top three or even two, for some reason the younger, cheaper to employ person always won out. So, I gave up had the surgeries to try and repair the damage from working and took my medical disability. I guess in a sense I was lucky that I was so physically screwed up, or it would be much harder than it is to just squeak by. But at least I got that whopping 0.3% cost of living adjustment January 1st.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

So in other words you think Obama was truthful in his job stats and we have a healthy work force now.   Right..........

The job stats are pretty trusted among economists and statisticians. They do not tell the whole picture, true. Median wages have indeed been stagnant for a long time now.


But I don't think Obama was purposefully manipulating them. They're pretty trust by economists.

[Sanguine]

The job stats are pretty trusted among economists and statisticians. They do not tell the whole picture, true. Median wages have indeed been stagnant for a long time now.


But I don't think Obama was purposefully manipulating them. They're pretty trust by economists.

Of course he was.  He was using the U-3 number only and that only tells a small portion of the story. 

[r9etb]

Of course he was.  He was using the U-3 number only and that only tells a small portion of the story.

Hold on a second.  Now you're moving the goalposts.  Reporting a favorable-looking U-3 number isn't "manipulation."

If the U-3 number was computed correctly (whatever that means), then the claims that Obama "manipulated" them are false. 

For Trump's charge to stick, the U-3 number must a) have been fraudulently computed and reported in the first place, and b) the fraud must have been computed at Obama's bidding.

So...?

[Sanguine]

Hold on a second.  Now you're moving the goalposts.  Reporting a favorable-looking U-3 number isn't "manipulation."

If the U-3 number was computed correctly (whatever that means), then the claims that Obama "manipulated" them are false. 

For Trump's charge to stick, the U-3 number must a) have been fraudulently computed and reported in the first place, and b) the fraud must have been computed at Obama's bidding.

So...?

Nope, read my comment again, most particularly the "only" part.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Hold on a second.  Now you're moving the goalposts.  Reporting a favorable-looking U-3 number isn't "manipulation."

If the U-3 number was computed correctly (whatever that means), then the claims that Obama "manipulated" them are false. 

For Trump's charge to stick, the U-3 number must a) have been fraudulently computed and reported in the first place, and b) the fraud must have been computed at Obama's bidding.

So...?

Exactly. "Manipulating the numbers" and simply reporting the more favorable number are two different things.


There are merits to the argument that the U-6 measure is more accurate than the u-3 measure, but that's not saying that Obama is "manipulating" numbers.

[r9etb]

Nope, read my comment again, most particularly the "only" part.

Nope.  Your use of the word "only" doesn't change anything.

Obama announcing a correctly-computed standard statistic (U-3) is not "manipulation."  Using that particular statistic was no doubt politically motivated, but the number itself is not necessarily false.

Trump's team is claiming something different -- that the numbers were manipulated, by Obama (or at least at his direction), presumably to make things look rosier than they actually were.

That's a pretty large claim.  Where's the proof?

[r9etb]

Exactly. "Manipulating the numbers" and simply reporting the more favorable number are two different things.

It's things like this that remind me that "low-information voter" is a label that is not limited to one side of the political spectrum....

[Sanguine]

Nope.  Your use of the word "only" doesn't change anything.

Obama announcing a correctly-computed standard statistic (U-3) is not "manipulation."  Using that particular statistic was no doubt politically motivated, but the number itself is not necessarily false.

Trump's team is claiming something different -- that the numbers were manipulated, by Obama (or at least at his direction), presumably to make things look rosier than they actually were.

That's a pretty large claim.  Where's the proof?

Who's moving the goalposts?  I didn't say anything about false numbers - I claimed manipulation and by extension, lying by omission. 

Try reading it again without the preconceptions.

[driftdiver]

Oh, please.  You're better than that, dd.

@r9etb
It has to be one or the other.   Either Obamas were wrong or Trump is wrong.   You can't have it both ways.

I wish Trump wasn't our President, but he is.   So far he's been a damn sight better than Hillary would have been.   People are so caught up in disagreeing that they stop thinking.

[r9etb]

@r9etb
It has to be one or the other.   Either Obamas were wrong or Trump is wrong.   You can't have it both ways.

I wish Trump wasn't our President, but he is.   So far he's been a damn sight better than Hillary would have been.   People are so caught up in disagreeing that they stop thinking.

To review, you said, "So in other words you think Obama was truthful in his job stats and we have a healthy work force now.   Right.........."

That's a personal attack, based on a fallacious bit of mind-reading.

You're better than that.