Fun With Numbers!

Ala making fun of numbers. Conspiracy theorists have come out of the woodwork recently (in US politics).

First, when polling data and results showed Obama consistently leading and ahead by five points....Republicans started questioning the validity and methodology of all polls. Murmurs about "rigged numbers" or skewed methodology and such. When Romney started polling ahead, suddenly the polls were fine after all? :rolleyes:

Then, suspicion around Sept's 7.8% unemployment rate. That couldn't possibly be right, the numbers must be "rigged". Even well regarded CEOs and economists could be found on CNBC and Fox News insinuating....a conspiracy must be at work. Yeah, BLS fudged the numbers so Obama can claim snail-slow growth and get re-elected. Or something. :rolleyes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1951781.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...e-so-exciting/


I'm not a fan of polls/surveys -- because their household sampling still relies on land-line phones, registered and likely voters, etc. -- and because there are so many of them, reported every day, they can lose value as snapshots in time and/or "trend lines".

I'm not a fan of the various labor stats either -- because the News doesn't do a good job of explaining payroll vs household surveys, U-3 or U-6, revisions or seasonal adjustments, etc. But this recent spat of conspiracy theories is just ridiculous.

Can anyone explain this new distrust in Numbers? Especially since candidates on both sides LOVE to cite numbers and % all the damn time?

Seriously? You're complaining about people not trusting numbers? Wow.

It's also amusing that you make this thread the same day the NY Times ran an editorial on the topic. You really need to join OG in asking the Obama's campaign to pay you for repeating all its talking points.

Such a thoughtful reply, one minute flat. :donkey:

I didn't read the NYT op-ed, but this has been floating around since last Friday. Even Jon Stewart has 'commented', so get a grip.

There's a difference between politicians using statistics in certain ways....and making accusations of conspiracy.



edit: But I did watch Meet the Press (which btw has a highlight clip at the bottom of huffpost link)....and read articles defending BLS, and the professionals whose reputations depend on being accurate and non-partisan, who were offended by the suggestion of a conspiracy. Loki, if you think this is part of Obama's campaign talking points, you missed the point entirely.

Golden rule of polling: A rogue poll is one with numbers you don't like.

Polls are notoriously unreliable. Anyone who takes any random poll and treats its numbers as gospel is a muppet pure and simple. They're fun and point to trends but they're not accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Can anyone explain this new distrust in Numbers? Especially since candidates on both sides LOVE to cite numbers and % all the damn time?

---

US unemployment is often referred as being below 10%, but independent studies show it is 22% very close to Spain. What is the difference? The difference is that official US figures do not consider people who gave up looking for a job, or those who try to survive on their own with underemployment to be unemployed.

If I eat two chicken and you eat none, as an average there is one chicken for everyone.

There are lies, and ther are statistics.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/...d_M09_data.gif

The numbers that actually matter (labor force participation ratio).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ar81

US unemployment is often referred as being below 10%, but independent studies show it is 22% very close to Spain. What is the difference? The difference is that official US figures do not consider people who gave up looking for a job, or those who try to survive on their own with underemployment to be unemployed.

If I eat two chicken and you eat none, as an average there is one chicken for everyone.

There are lies, and ther are statistics.

---

Nonsense, all nations don't count those not even pretending to look for a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The numbers that actually matter (labor force participation ratio).

---

If the source was BLS that ratio can't be reliable either, because all their numbers are rigged....according to the new conspiracy theorists. :rolleyes:

Much as I hate citing Fox News, it's hard to avoid the Labor Department going on the record with Fox saying that a large state (probably California) didn't process all its unemployment claims and so they sent lower unemployment claim numbers to the number crunchers:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2...ewed-downward/

This doesn't suggest a conspiracy, but rather points to how fallible the numbers can be and how it's proper to question sudden shifts in these kinds of numbers. Though I also find it a bit rich to see people dismissing the idea that the civil service doesn't/wouldn't massage some numbers over a period of time.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/1...a-communities/

Interesting link, Loki. :up:

We all know that people have, in general, lost faith in "Institutional Expertise", whether that comes from crony capitalists or 'government'. CEOs of large, multi-national conglomerates, and Congress, have historically low approval rates. Uh, that means the polls and surveys used to collect that data are still considered valid and legitimate, right?

There is no incentive for pollsters to lie (unlike corporate executives). If anything, they are judged by the accuracy of their predictions. I find it incredibly unlikely that some polling company would jeopardize its own economic well-being just to make it look like one of the political candidates is doing better/worse than is really the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Much as I hate citing Fox News, it's hard to avoid the Labor Department going on the record with Fox saying that a large state (probably California) didn't process all its unemployment claims and so they sent lower unemployment claim numbers to the number crunchers:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2...ewed-downward/

This doesn't suggest a conspiracy, but rather points to how fallible the numbers can be and how it's proper to question sudden shifts in these kinds of numbers. Though I also find it a bit rich to see people dismissing the idea that the civil service doesn't/wouldn't massage some numbers over a period of time.

---

See the second link in the OP. FFS. That's why Jack Welch et al having instantaneous hissy fits, and insinuating conspiracy theories is so outrageous. And pathetic. :mad:

I'd also encourage people to read the "Reasons to Prefer State Polls to National Polls" section from the following piece: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.../?ref=politics

To the extent that there's bias in polls, it's due to bad modeling assumptions, not because of partisan preferences.

It doesn't explain the latest CONSPIRACY bandwagon, though.

That can be explained by people not believing what goes against their preexisting beliefs. It also doesn't help that even mainstream Republicans have a terrible relationship with the mainstream media (not without reason), which makes them question anything coming out of that media, regardless of its merits. How many of the people attacking the validity of the polls or government employment figures have any experience at all with polling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That can be explained by people not believing what goes against their preexisting beliefs. It also doesn't help that even mainstream Republicans have a terrible relationship with the mainstream media (not without reason), which makes them question anything coming out of that media, regardless of its merits.

---

Republicans can't exactly whine about "main stream media" coverage, when they've become a minority/extremist controlled party.

Quote:

---

How many of the people attacking the validity of the polls or government employment figures have any experience at all with polling?

---

You're asking for numbers that no one tracks, to support a certain pre-existing belief? ;)

I'm just amazed that the main Republican line of attack against the "improving" economic numbers is to posit some conspiracy instead of pointing out how little unemployment figures correspond to the portion of the population without a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm just amazed that the main Republican line of attack against the "improving" economic numbers is to posit some conspiracy instead of pointing out how little unemployment figures correspond to the portion of the population without a job.

---

Agreed.

It's even more amazing that NEITHER candidate will address the larger slowing of a global economy, to which we are inextricably linked. Romney acts like a USA cheerleader, pronouncing that the 21st Century should be a US dominated century. Why? Because of American Exceptionalism? :rolleyes:

Why not? Would you rather see a China dominated century?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That can be explained by people not believing what goes against their preexisting beliefs. It also doesn't help that even mainstream Republicans have a terrible relationship with the mainstream media (not without reason), which makes them question anything coming out of that media, regardless of its merits. How many of the people attacking the validity of the polls or government employment figures have any experience at all with polling?

---

It always annoys me a lot. I'm fine with attacking some report based on, you know, actual reasons like methodology, reliability. Just saying 'that doesn't sound right' is not a good reason. It's a too easy way to dismiss valid criticism, often (thinking of our own national politics here, and one party in particular).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm just amazed that the main Republican line of attack against the "improving" economic numbers is to posit some conspiracy instead of pointing out how little unemployment figures correspond to the portion of the population without a job.

---

Hate to joke that all their voters are conspiracy guys anyway, with a muslim president born in Kenia about to turn the country into a communist society :p

But really, conspiracy allegations can be unsubstantiated, they get stuck in the heads of people quicker, and it's frankly a lot simpler to explain (would be harder to actually implement it without any whistleblowers, how many people work there again that would all have to shut up while cooking the books of potential political dynamite?). And it also concedes the point that unemployment is indeed dropping, even if it's meaningless that's probably not what you want to do in a political campaign?

CEO of a major company probably has some insight in the labor market. One doesn't need to be a polling expert to cast doubt on something that doesn't pass the smell test. After all its not like "experts" across a variety of subjects haven't "massaged" data to fit their agendas.

My view though is that its often a case of incompetence then a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

CEO of a major company probably has some insight in the labor market. One doesn't need to be a polling expert to cast doubt on something that doesn't pass the smell test. After all its not like "experts" across a variety of subjects haven't "massaged" data to fit their agendas.

My view though is that its often a case of incompetence then a conspiracy.

---

Then complaints about incompetency are more bias than conspiratorial. Same methods, same math as previous labor and jobs reports. It's not like they changed things in mid-stream that altered the data. (That was done during Clinton's first administration, close to the next election).

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign...-politics.html

Taking odds on whether this becomes a big story? I'm going to guess no; it's only a story when Republicans do/say something stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Taking odds on whether this becomes a big story? I'm going to guess no; it's only a story when Republicans do/say something stupid.

---

You can probably find a place to make that bet -- placing odds on numbers of people who don't believe poll numbers, or which news outlets pick up the story and run with it. That's both kinda funny and pathetic. :sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Why not? Would you rather see a China dominated century?

---

When it comes to Numbers....the 21st century will be "dominated" by any developing nation playing catch-up to already developed nations. That means Asian and African places that are consuming/buying food, resources, energy, technology...as necessary commodities. Those are the billions of people who will dominate trade and growth for everyone else.

It's a tricky dance when it comes to China. Their cheap labor and imported "stuff" has made it easier for the US to maintain our standard of living without raising wages. That means even poor people can afford a cell phone, microwave, big TV, and plenty of shoes. It's the Walmart Effect.



*It's also tricky for Romney to dance this tune. On the one hand, he wants to clamp down on China as a currency manipulator (even though the US does the same), and accuse the Obama Administration of not upholding trade agreements (even though they have).

On the other hand, he's been capitalizing on "emerging markets" that include China, and can thank much of his success to financial engineering. Either in hedge funds, corporate buy-outs, private equity leveraged loans, carry-trades or preferred tax status, plenty of his profits run through China. Reminiscent of the Silk Trail.

Romney wants to play both sides, but hopes the American voter won't notice. He just promises "more good jobs and better wages for the middle class"! The crowds cheer and wave tiny flags. Tax Cuts and less gov't spending (except when it comes to military spending), the standard GOP mantra, without specific numbers. He's making a pretty big "bet" based on loose facts and visceral voting.*

Wow, you said a lot, but did not answer the question..

You running for President too?

I gave my opinion -- developing/emerging BRIC economies will dominate, because they're growing.

But you blew right over why Romney's statement <that the US should dominate the 21st century> has any credibility, and isn't just a blustery campaign promise meant to tap voter sentiments about American Exceptionalism. USA #1! :cheerleader:

Would you rather see a China dominated century?

I think that's asking the wrong question. We should want other nations to grow and develop, so their people can move up the ladders of opportunity and improve their lives. Also so we can sell them our stuff, including tourism to the US.

Yes I agree with your premise. Now if there is a country on top of said pile of successful countries, would you rather it be China?

It doesn't matter to me "who is on top". But if it's China that might lead to more openness for their society, and two billion people wanting more 'Free Trade and Capitalism', with mutually exchanged benefits. Better to be friends than foes. Why are you afraid of China?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Why are you afraid of China?

---

:bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

:bulb:

---

I meant fear of their growing economy. China is still heavily dependent on other nations for their energy and commodity imports.