[Updated to include Corev’s analysis of trends 4/16/2019] Recently, in response to my posting a graph of the most recent nonfarm payroll data, Reader CoRev wrote:
Can you provide the raw data used?
This request came despite the fact that the graph states explicitly:
Source: BLS March 2019 employment situation release, and author’s calculations.
In other words, despite my compulsive documentation, people still want to be led to the data. To illustrate how to get the data, note that in this case, one could go directly to the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) website, or just go to the St. Louis Fed’s FRED database. Most data series that one might be interested in are there.
In general, if one doesn’t want to go to FRED, or one can’t find the specific series there, go to the specific website.
- If BLS, then go to http://www.bls.gov
- If BEA, then go to http://www.bea.gov
- If Census, then go to http://www.census.gov
- If Federal Reserve Board, then go to http://www.federalreserve.gov/data.htm
- If IMF, World Economic Outlook database, then go to https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/SPROLLS/world-economic-outlook-databases
- If IMF, International Financial Statistics, then go to http://data.imf.org
- If World Bank, World Development Indicators, then go to https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-development-indicators
- If OECD, then go to https://stats.oecd.org/
- If BIS, then go to http://www.bis.org
Suppose one wanted an earlier vintage of a data series, then one should definitely first consult the St. Louis Fed’s ALFRED database.
DBnomics provides a gateway to several European websites.
Hence, for many issues, there is little excuse that one can’t access the data, now that the above links have been provided. Just sayin’.
Update, 4/16/2019, 9AM Pacific: Reader CoRev has provided his check-file on my trend analysis. Without comment, here it is:
Wait!!!! Menzie!!! You STILL haven’t hooked up my ISP yet and connected my ethernet cord!!!! And which ports on my computer do I use?!?!?!?! And WHEN are you coming too my house about 4 states down and show me which computer ports to use so I can read these raw data series??? What up with that Bro, you hate me er something, with your sarcasm…….. and stuff??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TjmHkVMEdI
I have some suspicions about the quality of data. Not conspiracy, but quality. For several years (5?)my business was somehow selected to be a sample for the Federal Government to determine the employment rate. So once a month I was called by telephone by someone in Washington (“Isaac”) (I think it was the BEA) to give a number of “how many full time, and how many part time employees” I had the previous month. I tried to beg off, but I was told “No, you represent all the small businesses in Oregon” Um, OK. Needless to say, sometimes I was harried, sometimes turnover was whacked, and I gave wildly varying numbers. Sometimes after Ione hung up, I realized I had given wrong into. Nevertheless I my numbers were thrown into the hopper, as one of the 50 states small business employment indicators.
Actually I’m pretty sure it was BLS, not BEA
I think Corev needs a link to Fox News data base.
@ dilbert dogbert
Nobody will believe this, but I honestly try not to play “pile on”. I mean I almost feel sorry for the guy. I can’t remember what movie I was watching, it was a documentary I think and it just really drove home how some of these people just never “get it”. They really believe this stuff in their head. I wanna say it was the Roger Ailes documentary but I don’t think that was it. Another one was when the Harley Davidson people got fired and they were interviewing them right after leaving the factory and still many of them like donald trump. It’s sad on so many levels. This is worse than Watergate even as these people don’t even want to know all the ways he craps on them.
Andrew Sullivan used to have something on his blog “The Dish” (Lost in the golden days of the blogging), I forgot the name but it was something like “Mental Health Relief” on his “The Dish blog. But I follow this lady on Youtube and on her Twitter account (I obviously don’t know her personally). I get quite a charge out of watching her commentary and her real life adventures. This is her playing with her niece and when I watch these little GIF clips my heart just melts and I thought some of Menzie’s regulars might enjoy it also. We’ll call it “Mental Health Break”.
https://twitter.com/alachia/status/1116187494037565440
https://twitter.com/alachia/status/1115408063459151872
Our newest grand daughter is giving my wife great joy. Cute and healthy. I would post photos of the grand daughter but don’t know if the daughter approves. We should be celebrating great grand children. We will take what we can get.
: )
Now what if the data does not fit the pre-approved message from Herr Trump? Oh yea – it is fake information. See Sammy’s comment as an example of how the Usual Suspects do this!
I am not surprised by how deeply I live in Menzie’s and several others heads.
As an example of what is being done with this latest article, I use the World temperature data, and US data sources are: NOAA https://www.noaa.gov/, NASA https://www.nasa.gov/ and outside the US UK Met https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ and several others. Now all these data-sets come from, for the most part, the very same thermometers around the world, but these different sources do not give the identical average temperature. And that is the nature of most time series data, ergo the number of tests used. I did go to the BLS source, and could not identify the source for Menzie’s data. When providing sources my example in the referenced article: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Charts/chart7_JOBS_netchangeemployment.png would be preferred over a slightly improved go to this Fed Agency source. Otherwise we get these meaningless articles which appear only created to mock.
Being skeptical of analysis, asking questions and replication are core concepts of science. Providing the raw data is critical to replication. When those data source questions are ignored or incompletely answered, skepticism can grow into cynicism and distrust of the analysis. This site: https://retractionwatch.com/ collects a record of those peer reviewed papers that have been retracted, but no one, to my knowledge tracks blog articles and their analyses which have been shown to be less than open to replication or alternative analysis or agenda driven.
Living in Menzie’s mind can be uncomfortable due to his defensiveness as indicated by the articles he has recently written. Someone has to do it, though. would it have been different if I posed my questions differently?
AS
April 12, 2019 at 8:52 pm
Professor Chinn,
I was not questioning tests for unit root or questioning the appropriateness of your model. I was just musing about why “in the nature of the economy” dlog(payems) would not perhaps have autocorrelation in the residuals and be an AR or MA model instead of a random walk. May be a silly question or not a clear question.
Reply ↓
Menzie Chinn Post author
April 12, 2019 at 10:13 pm
AS: Oh…well that is a good question, for which I don’t have a good answer.
I doubt it, since I thought the autocorrelation issue was obvious with his data selection. Unlike AS I did question his selection of model.
Menzie, your touchiness to being questioned is getting worse.
“I am not surprised by how deeply I live in Menzie’s and several others heads.”
Ah such vanity. You are nothing but a lying troll. Full stop. Of course your lying is so insanely STOOOPID, it makes us all laugh. Get over yourself.
CoRev Replicating Menzie’s result is ridiculously easy. Anyone who hangs out at an econ blog ought to know where to find employment data from either BLS or FRED. FRED simply consolidates economic data from the BLS, BEA and various other domestic and foreign databases.
I thought the autocorrelation issue was obvious with his data selection. Unlike AS I did question his selection of model.
You misunderstood AS’s comment. There was no autocorrelation in the dlog(PAYEMS) data covering the sample range. AS was not questioning the model selection, he was simply curious as to why there might not have been a AR or MA signature in the residuals, which you might have expected. He was asking what economic factors might explain the lack of an ARMA signature in the correlogram. He wasn’t disputing the model itself.
You said you do question the model, so this might help you decide. There are really three possible models here (using logdifs of the 2010:01 thru 2016:12 data):
(1) A random walk with drift
(2) An ARIMA(1 0 0) w/o a constant
(3) An ARIMA(1 0 0) with a constant
Model number 1 gives you the smallest information criterion, with Schwarz-Bayesian of -953.6
Model number 2 gives you an AR coefficient of 0.77, an ugly correlogram and a larger Schwarz-Bayesian of -914.4
Model number 3 gives you a statistically insignificant AR coefficient and a Schwarz-Bayesian of -946.6
The choice is clear. Model number 1 (i.e., random walk with drift) is the winner.
CoRev: It’s just that you are the best representative of economics data incompetence at the current time. It used to be DickF, but he’s dropped off the map. I’ve been using/citing these same data sources for nonfarm payroll employment since, well, pretty much the beginning of my blogging time in 2005.
Menzie, with your description I represent the vast majority of the world’s population. While you are the best representative of an elitist university instructor unable to answer questions form that vast majority.
The more you, and your cohort of supporters, divert attention from the raw/source data, it just becomes more obvious you do not want an alternative analysis.
CoRev: Well, the vast majority of people who don’t know how to access FRED don’t also make smug comments on Econbrowser, pretending to understand I(1) vs. I(0) and the innate superiority of satellite-based temperature readings. Just sayin’…
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Smug
Just in case CoRev is his usual lost self, I have linked to the Urban Dictionary definitions of “smug”. All fit especially that last one from South Park!
For a moment, I was wondering “smug” might mean dumbest troll ever but then Urban Dictionary may need updating!
Menzie, stick to a subject with which you have some knowledge: “… the innate superiority of satellite-based temperature readings. Just sayin’…” Care to compare area of coverage?
Only an elitist would consider being questioned as smug. Why is it so threatening to provide the data?
CoRev: You think I should stick to a subject with which I have some knowledge? Why are *you* then asking me about trends? I think I’ve had more econometrics courses on time series than you have. Probably have written more (peer reviewed) papers on the subject than you have. I may be wrong — if so please provide your cv and we can count your peer reviewed articles on time series analysis…
On satellite data, we have debated — I wasn’t convinced by your arguments.
Menzie, yes we have debated this subject before, but you deflected from my request to discuss the coverage differences between the satellite and surface data. Also, in your reference to our debate, probably failed to watch this video I also provided, https://vimeo.com/14366077 Which, about the temperature records, concluded with: “…a very poor experiment…We started metric at the very coldest period.” (paraphrased) Cherry picking data is not science!
Did you pick cherries? Dunn,o without ALL the raw/source data, and by starting at a low point it leaves a doubt. BTW, you picked a really bad example to show your knowledge.
As to you not being convinced about the value of the satellite data over surface, why am I not surprised. You really do need to convince the climate science/earth sciences community as they continue to use space-based data for measuring. The latest is a CO2 measurement device going aboard the Space Station.
You also asked this: “Why are *you* then asking me about trends?” Because that’s what people trying to learn do! Without providing ALL the data used, you have left doubts about your trend’s validity. Your lack of openness leaves doubts you are trying to hide something or are not objective.
“The more you, and your cohort of supporters, divert attention from the raw/source data, it just becomes more obvious you do not want an alternative analysis.”
Seriously? He is not diverting attention from the source data. He has CLEARLY explained it to you and Princeton Stevie Magoo. Now if you are too dumb to get this then you no clue what “alternative analysis” even means.
CoRev The more you, and your cohort of supporters, divert attention from the raw/source data, it just becomes more obvious you do not want an alternative analysis.
Okay, now that you know the raw/source data and where to find it, dazzle us with your alternative analysis.
@ Menzie
I am hopeful none of this stuff from our usual suspects “gets to you” and that you find as much comedic relief in comments such as the following as I do. From our resident rocket scientist JBH who hasn’t enough smarts to access widely used and widely quoted government data, much of the web addresses of which could just be found on a Google search alone:
“Every single comment I make on this site about the economy has been tested in the fire of my own empirical analysis.”
I’ve seen JBH’s comments tested by empirical analysis:
https://youtu.be/4HtjgQd2qPE?t=18
JBH’s “comments tested by fire” don’t get very far down the road and you always see JBH scurrying around the truck, screaming loudly “I know this cannot be burning!!! Hay cannot burn until someone lights a match to it!!!! This is connected to Satanists and the carbon dioxide conspiracy!!!!! Janie!!! Janie!!! This is going to be a long day, get my Alex Jones prostate medicine!!!”
Before bragging about how much time you spend in others’ heads, CR, you should try spending more quality time in your own. Currently, there’s way too much empty space there.
CoRev has a point.
The respective graph reads: “BLS March 2019 employment situation release…”
There is no such document. What pops up is this in Google:
Employment Situation Summary – Bureau of Labor Statistics, or this
Employment Situation News Release – Bureau of Labor Statistics, or perhaps this
The Employment Situation – March 2019 – Bureau of Labor Statistics
None of them has the data used in the graph.
But then it appears the data doesn’t come from BLS at all: “Here is the dataset used, directly downloaded from FRED”
So this appears to be BLS data via FRED.
Why does this matter? First, in my experience, FRED data is sometimes out of date compared to the original source. This is hardly surprising. FRED has an enormous number of datasets, and at least some of these are likely updated manually. So it could take a few days for FRED to catch up to the source material which may be available earlier on the source agency’s website
Second, and this is a more general point, if an author states that it’s BLS data, then the author has represented the fidelity of FRED’s dataset to the original data source. You’re saying, in effect, that you are representing to the reader that you are confident that the FRED numbers are right. Do you know that, or just believe it to be true? This may not matter much for a blog post, but when people are investing a billion dollars on your numbers, it may matter — and certainly matter for legal liability.
I would add that I would normally hyperlink the source. If the source name is misquoted, as it was here, then the hyperlink will take the reader to the right web page regardless.
Let me add as a final thought that I like FRED and loathe the BLS database. I can never find anything on it. My recommendation: If you want to reform your database service, use the EIA as a template. That’s a well organized source covering hundreds of data series, and it is easy to understand and use.
OMG – we knew Princeton Steven was a complete moron but there is such a document:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
OK it is entitled THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — MARCH 2019
Did Menzie get the title exactly right. WTF cares? I get your name wrong all the name as your vision reminds me of Stevie Wonder. Of course that Stevie is a great musician while Princeton Stevie is more of a Mr. Magoo.
BTW Stevie Magoo – if you had the mental abilities to check with FRED (of course you don’t), you would note they cite BLS for the data they present.
Everyone knows this except our two village morons – CoRev and Stevie Magoo!
“Let me add as a final thought that I like FRED and loathe the BLS database. I can never find anything on it.”
This is an incredibly stupid comment especially for someone in the previous post that claimed JOLTS data is superior to BLS data. Of course, it is BLS that compiles the JOLTS series:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm
Yes self styled policy “expert” Princeton Stevie Magoo proves he has no clue at all. Which is why NO ONE bothers with his worthless blog!
Thanks, Steven, I see these responses all the time in Climate Blogs and even peer reviewed papers. It’s a shame what passes for analysis these days.
One blind mice following another blind mice. Can’t wait for the cats to show up!
CoRev It’s a shame what passes for analysis these days.
Yes, it is. I suppose that just shows the dangers of unskilled labor.
2slugs, “I suppose that just shows the dangers of unskilled labor.” or biased reporting.
I’m going to guess Menzie wanted to signal he was using BLS numbers, but hates the database as much as I do, and just sourced it from FRED — which is the logical thing to do, in my opinion. Just should have sourced it differently.
Again, this is a blog post, so the standards are not that high, unless you are conflating ‘surveys’ with ‘studies’.
But for the readers in general, I think the sourcing issue is important. This was a constant source of my annoyance with our analysts at DW, who would typically source every graph as ‘DW’. I would inform them that this meant we were the primary source of the data, ie, we went out and surveyed, say, drillship operators. Very occasionally we did this, but mostly we used data from third parties, IEA, EIA, Drilling Info, etc.
Now, this matters when you have had a couple of clients blow up, and I have.
One involved a Chinese company making an IPO on NASDAQ, and the Chairman of the Board ran off with a good chunk the capital raise, $40 million.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-sinotech-idUSBRE83M1EN20120423
This was the settlement: https://www.reuters.com/article/sinotech-banks-settlement/corrected-sinotech-banks-to-pay-20-mln-to-end-shareholder-fraud-lawsuit-idUSL2N0CI0J220130326 Had we become ensnared in the matter, it would have destroyed our consultancy.
And I’d add that from the time we submitted our final report until it appeared in the offering prospectus, we made perhaps 50 revisions. 50 revisions after final. And then CoB just runs off with the money. Just like that. After all the diligence everyone did.
Another client, an Indian guy named Anjan and his head of strategy (legal counsel?) Mary participated in a scheme to defraud the Navy. I provided them due diligence on an autonomous underwater vehicle to be used as the object of government funding. I failed the unit, and the CEO just lit into me. As a consultant, you’re under tremendous pressure at times to comply with a client’s wishes. If I had caved, well, I am sure that meeting was on tape at the FBI. I recall they were arrested just a couple of days after our last meeting.
So, if you’re in the diligence and investment support business, some of your clients will be dishonest people. And they don’t always seem it at all. The Chinese guys had good credentials. And the business concept looked sound, to become the first independent oil field services company in China. As mainland Chinese, they were new to the whole capitalism thing, but otherwise, they seemed like pretty typical engineers. Nice guys.
The Mary mentioned above, she’s also a very nice person. Smart, personable, exudes competence. I liked her. That the CEO was corrupt, well, I didn’t need the FBI to tell me. But Mary, that was a surprise.
We dodged a bullet there as well.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/boston/press-releases/2013/mastermind-of-multi-million-dollar-naval-fraud-scheme-sentenced-to-10-years-in-federal-prison
So if you think I’m a little paranoid about trying to get the numbers right and make sure everything is properly documented and sourced, well, yes I am. And for young readers, this is a lesson well worth taking away. People whom you like and seem reasonable and personable are perfectly capable of serious criminal behavior, not least cheating you. As a result, when you make a report, we have to do so under the assumption that you will have to defend it in most unpleasant circumstances, in court. Documentation matters.
Steven Kopits: OK, here’s my algorithm. Sometimes, when I need to get some detailed series not on FRED, I will download a bunch from BLS (which admittedly is less user friendly than FRED). In my enormous “download” file, I have a mix of BLS and FRED XLS files.
Then, sometimes, I get the data originally from the state statistical source (DWD for Wisconsin), and add to an earlier BLS series at the state level. That’s because the state agencies sometimes (not always) report earlier. Then when BLS updates, I try to refer to BLS series even when I know that I originally got the data from DWD.
Pretty sure I got the BLS nonfarm payroll series from BLS but you are right, it is *possible* I downloaded from FRED (I know the file I posted in response to CoRev’s request is definitely from FRED).
It has been demonstrated over and over that what FRED is showing on the series in question in a fully updated replication of what BLS shows with the figures being exactly right. I guess in Princeton Stevie boy’s world this is proof it is FAKE data.
OK, so if I understand this correctly, you maintain some files on your computer which you occasionally top up with external inputs from various public sources? Do I have that right?
Hmmm. I would probably source it FRED and BLS, in this case. Maybe BLS (FRED). In this case, it’s really all easily sourced from a single FRED file, less your analytics.
Yeah, ok, I think the key is to make sure it can be reproduced if someone asks.
Bengazi! Emails! Wikileaks! Yes – we know where you get your “data”. LOL!
BTW you hate BLS so you use FRED which you falsely accuse of being inaccurate. Good to know you prefer inaccurate data even if you have no clue what FRED does. Oh that’s right – you never have a clue. Babble on!
Steven Kopits: Yes. Consider WI DWD. For whatever reason, when the state agency first releases the data, it’s in a PDF, and they don’t report the entire time series. They revise previous month as well. So I know I can use the previously released BLS series for WI, and add in the new month, and revise the previous month. BLS data matches exactly DWD data (and is true for all states) when BLS releases the data. Typically, if I am relying on DWD and BLS data, I cite DWD and BLS.
In general, I don’t use exotic data. If I do, I will source more precisely.
Steven Kopits: If it’s a paper for peer review, for sure. If it’s a memo for the president, for sure fact check and double check sources. (You can judge for yourself whether the Executive Office of the President is currently doing that). If it’s a blogpost, I try to go beyond the call, and source appropriately so that people can reproduce the results. That I think is sufficient.
“You can judge for yourself whether the Executive Office of the President is currently doing that)”.
Interesting query. You know Princeton Steven has been lobbying hard to work as an analyst for Trump. And even with those low standards, Princeton Steven has not been hired. Go figure!
Menzie, ” If it’s a blogpost, I try to go beyond the call, and source appropriately so that people can reproduce the results. That I think is sufficient.“, but until this last set of comments have you shown your sources for the data set you have stored and used. Still we have not seen the raw data used.
My original request as quoted by you: “Reader CoRev wrote:
Can you provide the raw data used?
This request came despite the fact that the graph states explicitly:
Source: BLS March 2019 employment situation release, and author’s calculations.”
Had you just answered, I didn’t keep the data or some other rational reasoning, this post would not have been needed.
But, again, you chose to take the low road of mocking conservatives who ask reasonable questions. If this were the first such example it wouldn’t point to your motivations, but its not the first.
Yes, we conservatives do live in your head!
CoRev: Most reasonable people would understand the trend line as “the author’s calculations”. Apologies for the misunderstanding of what reasonable people would understand.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
All Employees: Total Nonfarm Payrolls (PAYEMS)
The series Menzie used. Per FRED – here is the source (right there at the bottom of the graph clearly displayed):
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Release: Employment Situation
Gee – Princeton Steven claimed that this Employment Situation from BLS does not exist!
Can a self style policy “expert” be more clueless?
I just cannot resist this:
“First, in my experience, FRED data is sometimes out of date compared to the original source”.
Ah Princeton Steven – you have ZERO experience with these matters. No – you just make up intellectual garbage as you go. But please look at what the FRED graph says:
“Mar 2019: 150,816
Updated: Apr 5, 2019”
It IS up to date. And as usual you did not bother to check before running your ignorant mouth again! Look – this is not that hard but you clearly cannot do it!
The original source:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (BLS)
Note the date is early April 5. FRED’s data was updated right after that (April 5).
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, April 5, 2019
I say that because one of our Usual Suspects will be cute by noting we are now at April 13 which of course is not relevant to the latest BS from Princeton Stevie. But let’s check the number reported by BLS:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
150,816 thousand. Precisely what FRED reported.
Yes – the Usual Suspects are the most clueless people ever and Princeton Stephen is their leader. The blind leading the blind!
I didn’t say Menzie’s numbers were wrong. I said they were incorrectly sourced.
This is not the source of Menzie’s numbers: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
And by the way. do all the other numbers Menzie uses correspond to BLS data?
Menzie cites other sources when he cites non-labor statistics. I guess it is beyond your mental abilities to get that even if he makes it as clear as can be. Please stop Stephen – we know you are an incessant whiner and a general moron. No need to remind us over and over again.
Steven Kopits: This is incredibly nit-picky. If I look at the top line of the table you reference, you will see the three last months of data match *exactly* what I have. If you are saying the preceding data don’t show up, wll that much is true. Of course, if someone cites the last BEA release of GDP data, you will note the corresponding release does not have quarterly data going back further than a couple years — and yet people will plot such data and attribute to the last GDP release. Are they all “misattributing” too? I sincerely doubt most informed people would agree with you.
Princeton Steven is putting forth two contradictionary arguments – neither based on a lick of understanding here.
Argument (a) is that what FRED produces might be different from what BLS produces because it is not up to date. Of course FRED did update the employment series on the same day as the latest BLS release (a release he first denied existed).
Argument (b) is BLS is too hard to use (seriously?) so he relies on FRED instead.
Now if FRED were not reliable (which is a bogus claim) why rely on it as opposed to the original source? I guess this is how it is done in his little office of policy “analysis”!
You’re a pro, Menzie. You should have the habits of pros. If you got the data from FRED, source it. And link it.
Steven Kopits: Well, in this case, I did. Look at the ten last posts, and tell me which one you think I have misattributed the data. Then I can give you the source XLS file to look at to see if I am lying. Geez.
FRED sources it. But you are too stupid to read their footnotes. God I’m loving this as I have always thought you were the dumbest troll ever. And you have done an incredible job of confirming my hypothesis. QED!
Menzie: You could not have said it better. Incredibly nit-picky. There is no call for any regular on this site to quibble with you about not capitalizing employment and situation when citing as the source of the graph this most important monthly report of all. It goes without saying that nearly everyone here has gone to this report at one time or another, and surely knows that if you want the data further back than the current 3 months, this report will lead you to it. All you have to do is read far enough down. Access to historical data is a clearly marked set of links, at the bottom immediately below all the A and B table links.
Steven, who often has insightful things to say, lays himself open to ridicule with nit-picking like this. But even more importantly, his grasp of economics leaves a great deal to be desired. I judge (having read umpteen of his comments) that Steve is a B-grade Principles level or perhaps C-grade Intermediate level in economic understanding. And I’m really saying this for his benefit, as he’s even more open to ridicule on his lack of economic understanding. Not that ridicule is ever called for on a professional site like this. Other than to counter as a last straw when you finally get fed up with what’s thrown at you.
Specifically?
God – you really are STUPID. Have you not noticed that FRED attributes its numbers to BLS and that FRED did update its numbers the same day the BLS release came out. In other words, your numerous pieces of whining and bitching have been groundless. And had you bothered to check – you would have known this before you wrote all that incessant garbage.
Look Stephen – we all know you are a complete moron so please relax. You are trying too hard to prove what we already know.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
does not match what FRED is reporting? Yea it does as I noted earlier. So whether Menzie went to FRED and to BLS, he would have gotten the same figures for his graph. And FRED’s update was on the same date as the latest BLS release.
As usual you are grasping at straws and coming up empty. But hey – wasting everyone’s time with your ignorant whining is all you got!
You can’t make this stuff up! The lawyers for Roger Stone want the full Mueller report with no redactions!
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/read-roger-stone-asks-judge-for-full-copy-of-mueller-report
OK! Can they also get Barr’s color codings just for kicks. Hey send these traitors the full report and make another copy for the press!
And can we finally get the full evidence on BridgeGate as Chris Christie seriously needs help with that diet of his. I hear prison guards play rough!
@ pgl
You probably already know this being an NYC-er, but that was concluded a long time ago—Christie’s staff was the sacrificial lamb on that one–he has ZERO ethics, watching his own staff hang for following his marching orders on the bridge and yet ABC TV network gives him a job and pays him. There were emergency vehicles (and pregnant women?? this was over FOUR DAYS OF NYC GRIDLOCK) that were blocked from people who needed help. PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF CHRISTIE’S ORDER TO SHUT DOWN THE TWO LANES
The Christie hiring by ABC is a good example of why I sometimes don’t even get angry when right-wingers blather on about “MSM” being horrid. When ABC TV network hires the likes of Chris Christie to provide commentary on a national level it’s really hard to argue with. And what did Julian Assange do that was so bad??—other than give citizens information the NYT and WaPo don’t because they’re too busy playing “butt buddy” with their high ranking sources. Honest to God, you ever hear the audio of Maggie Haberman “interviewing” donald trump inside the White House?? I’m semi-surprised she hasn’t blown him yet. Get real. I’m trying to imagine Sam Donaldson nodding his head like a Barbie doll and speaking in soft tones to Saint Ronnie to keep a White House interview going. What a damned joke. So I’m supposed to be angry at Julian Assange because he’s giving citizens info they wouldn’t other wise have?? What a damned joke.
Christie is beyond scum. I laugh when he says “I told my prosecutors ….”. Like they did not know how to do their jobs before Bush gave him that position. Oh wait – he did bring his team a lot of doughnuts every morning. What a guy!
Princeton Steven has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the dumbest troll ever with this worthless back and forth over FRED v. BLS.
But forget that for a moment. Go back to his claim that Federal spending is out of control. His source? NADA. Now we have pointed to the awesome detailed data from www,bea,gov.
Does this troll have a clue what we are talking about? Of course not. Seriously – I think Princeton Steven has just made the case that the village idiot Stephen Moore should be on the FED. OK he shouldn’t but Trump’s next pick would be Princeton Stevie boy. Incompetence reigns!!!
Pgl, stop digging. You have shown yourself to be clueless. At least Menzie has admitted he mis-attributed his full range of sources used, and has yet to provide ALL the data he used.
Menzie and your (the cohorts) actions are typical in the Climate Science world, even in some peer reviewed papers. Creating a smoke screen to avoid providing the actual data for replication or further analysis. That’s a bad practice whether a blog or formal paper.
Menzie has admitted that you and Princeton Steven were right??? My Lord – you win. Dumbest comment EVER!
CoRev has yet to provide ALL the data he used.
Huh? Are you the only person on this site who doesn’t know where to find the establishment payroll numbers??? Why don’t you go to the BLS website and find it yourself. If it takes you more than 20 seconds, then you’re doing some very wrong.
providing the actual data for replication or further analysis.
More BS. The data he used is in plain sight. Replicating the stochastic trend is not a problem if you understand even first year time series analysis. It’s so simple that you could even do it with that P.O.S. software Excel. And you’re even confusing your own arguments about climate science data. You have never complained about not having access to the data used to construct temperature anomalies. That’s available to anyone. You’re gripe has always been that you wanted to know the raw, unfiltered and uncorrected data…as though you had the skill set to correct the data yourself. So if you wanted to apply that similar complaint to the payroll data used by Menzie, then you’d want to know how BLS seasonally adjusts the raw data to arrive at seasonally adjusted data. Of course, you could get that too. In fact, why don’t you? Let’s see if you can improve upon the way BLS seasonally adjusts data. Then let us know your results along with all of the intermediate diagnostic tests you used. We should all get a good chuckle out of that one. And we’re still waiting for your dazzling “alternative analysis” of the stochastic trend model that you seemed so confident you could provide us.
One last thing. You mentioned satellite data. You know of course that the satellite data you see has also been scrubbed and corrected. Now it so happens that I know many of those same satellite folks at UAH and Marshall/Redstone. By and large they are very smart folks, but I wouldn’t put too much trust in their time series analysis skills.
CoRev: I don’t recall “admitting” anything of the sort. Please re-read the relevant thread. In fact you have the link to the raw data now, since you insisted. If you have done something with the data that shows I’ve mischaracterized the construction of the trend line, I would be much obliged.
Menzie: If a researcher could gather the data, probably a well-nigh prohibitively costly endeavor, might they find that the amount of fluoride in the water correlates to lack of careful reading? (Part tongue in cheek, part not.)