But it's not just government scientists who have given up their credibility. Government statisticians are well on their way to being exposed as being the same kind of frauds as well.
Take a look at this chart showing what the author terms "Reported and Implied Unemployment Rate and Difference." You'll want to click on it to enlarge it:
Tyler Durden, the author, provides the details over at Zero Hedge:
Implied Unemployment Rate Rises To 11.5%, Spread To Propaganda Number Surges To 30 Year HighThere are those out there - Obama sycophants all - who poo poo the notion that 1.2 million Americans were summarily dropped from the rolls of "the employable" yesterday, wanting us to believe that it didn't happen, that it was simply a correction on the part of the BLS.
Sick of the BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] propaganda? Then do the following calculation with us: using BLS data, the US civilian non-institutional population was 242,269 [sic] in January, an increase of 1.7 million month over month: apply the long-term average labor force participation rate of 65.8% to this number (because as chart 2 below shows, people are not retiring as the popular propaganda goes: in fact labor participation in those aged 55 and over has been soaring as more and more old people have to work overtime, forget retiring), and you get 159.4 million: that is what the real labor force should be. The BLS reported one? 154.4 million: a tiny 5 million difference. Then add these people who the BLS is purposefully ignoring yet who most certainly are in dire need of labor and/or a job to the 12.758 million reported unemployed by the BLS and you get 17.776 million in real unemployed workers. What does this mean? That using just the BLS denominator in calculating the unemployed rate of 154.4 million, the real unemployment rate actually rose in January to 11.5%. Compare that with the BLS reported decline from 8.5% to 8.3%. It also means that the spread between the reported and implied unemployment rate just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%. And that is how with a calculator and just one minute of math, one strips away countless hours of BLS propaganda. [link]
So, what, that's a good thing? That's supposed to boost confidence in the numbers the government provides? Oops, sorry, we over-counted the number of employable Americans by 1,200,000 and so the real unemployment rate went down - in one day? Media Matters for America - never known to be too attached to facts - dismisses the argument saying, "as economic experts have explained, that number reflected an increase in population from 2010 Census figures and is not the result of how many people 'dropped out' of the labor force last month."
A drop in the number of employable Americans is a reflection of an increase in population? What does that even mean?
No matter how you try to dress up that pig, the Labor Department does itself no favors by making such dramatic alterations to its statistics (let alone analysis). If the government's numbers can't be trusted, the government can't be trusted. Bottom line.
- - -
* As I've stated before, by following the path set forth by the BLS, all Americans could be unemployed and the unemployment rate would be zero. Which makes the stat less than worthless. Look at the number of employed and decide how America is doing economically. For that info, see "Labor force participation rate at 30-year low." And be very concerned.
- - -
On that note, the same BLS reported that we grew 243,000 jobs last month. If the numbers are to be trusted, that's a good thing.
- - -
Questions worth asking. Questions needing answers.