more cowbell!!
http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/10/02/bush_boom.html

I wouldn't ring the cowbell yet.

The WSJ said today it would be a bad idea to revise upwards based on the Household Survey, citing the Cleveland Fed's study saying it can't be trusted on population projections & it's generated numbers. The Fed also says that if the usable data within the Household Survey is analyzed, it too suggests that the recovery continues without the normal level of recovery job creation after previous economic Recessions.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109693799501436155,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature

Upward revisions to the payroll survey have nothing to do with the household survey. The annual benchmark revisions and estimates are based on unemployment insurance tax records which are only available on a lagged basis.

Cedarford is determined to "stay the course" on his erroneous reading of the articles in question.

You may wish to read the WSJ essay I linked to, ACE.

I read it.

Look, you're a valuable poster, and I don't want to insult you. But you're like someone who just learned one thing and won't stop talking about that one thing.

Yes, the household survey is considered unreliable by most economists. Yes, the employer survey is the survey that is "real" for most analysts.

But you continue insisting that the upward revision will be based on the household survey, despite being told a dozen times that the household survey has NOTHING to do with the upward revision. The upward revision is based on a re-reading of the data that went into creating the monthly jobs creation numbers in the first place, with special reliance on weekly unemployment claims.

Until you can actually cite an article that actually says what you want it to say -- "The revision is based on the household survey" -- I'm not going to respond to your posts on these subjects. You have something in your head with no evidence to back it up and you just keep repeating it.

The point about this cycle not being very different from previous jobs-poor recoveries is well-taken, on the other hand.

I'm sorry if that was snotty. But I just don't know how many more times we can go around this mulberry bush. The Yes it is/No it isn't thing is getting old.

ACE - I am not trying to engage in a pissing contest. I am just pointing out that the Bush people have trotted out the Household Survey as proof that Bush's tax cuts have created huge, unaccounted for jobs since 2002, and tried pressuring the BLS to raise job created revision figures on that basis. Which the Fed also regularly weighs in on and basically says - BS.

From the WSJ article:

Even with positive revisions, Democrats probably will be able to attack Mr. Bush as the first president to oversee no net job creation since Herbert Hoover. Republicans have countered that the Bureau of Labor Statistics' household survey shows employment actually up 1.9 million, or 1.4%, under Mr. Bush. But a study published earlier this year by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland finds the household survey, examined more closely, tells a much less positive story

Working in HR consulting, I can tell you there is little pressure on employers to raise wages. This is still regarded as a jobless recovery unlike all past standard Recession recoveries. Due to globalization, things have changed. I think from the context of your 3:04 PM post you agree, though the wording is different. And supply side economists still try to puff the Household Survey into jobless revisionism.

It bears on a major policy area - that needs serious review, despite Club for Growth threats against recalcitrants. Tax cuts going to the wealthiest have been an inefficient method of creating jobs. As a fiscal conservative, if America wishes to borrow 1 trillion from Asian, German, French, and Arab bankers - I want to see that put into investment in the country rather than mansion-expanding. The notion that loads of extra money in the pockets of the rich would result in them more wisely putting it into capital investment & new job creation is proving to be faulty. They are using their gains from those those borrowed taxpayer dollars to invest in goverment debt instruments or just spending it on lifestyle augmentation. Better the foreign borrowed money be invested in areas we absolutely know will create jobs and in projects we know will benefit all Americans. We lose 336 billion in annual GNP productivity because we can't afford 86 billion in highway improvements. We need 30 billion in broadband investment to get another 100 billion a year in GNP growth and match what is going on in Europe and Asia. . We also know that direct investment of 1 billion in America's infrastructure creates 50,000 good middle class jobs from past projects. With oil at 51 a barrel, we know we need to have some significant Fed dollars going into a long-overdue energy policy - supporting pipeline construction, facilitating regulatory bodies efficiently reviewing and approving new exploration, and supporting conservation and new energy technologies.

We also know that Venture Capitalists are insisting that new technology business models maximize outsourcing from the start - and not have to transition from American to Chinese workers later, even if that means delaying production for the 6-12 months needed to train and gear up the Guandong factories.

So ACE - it is just for me a question of policy altering. Borrowed money for tax cuts targeting the wealthiest have not achieved the objectives initially laid out to justify them. The Household Surveys the last holdouts raise up to show the tax cuts are doing the trick, are believed to be Hokey. The last major tax-cutter, Ronald Reagan, had no problem shifting course and signing the 1986 tax reform package that forced the wealthy to pay their fair share and put money into the 600 ship Fleet construction, SDI, high tech tax breaks, and major infrastructure upgrade bills on railroads, highways, and long-neglected bridges.

Working as an HR consultant makes you an economist now? That's convenient.

I'm sure you just love the sight your own writing, but would it be so hard for you to stay on topic?

Ace's posts on this subject have NOTHING to do with either 1) the household survey, 2) tax cuts, or 3) outsourcing.

For the umpteenth flipping time, upcoming revisions to the payroll survey have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY. Shiva H. Vishnu....

Moreover, the WSJ does not publish "essays" on its news pages. It publishes news articles.