Correction to the May Unemployment Chart June 8, 2009
Posted by geoff in News.trackback
[UPDATE: The chart has been updated with the data through May 2010 here Latest unemployment claims data is here.]
Several commenters both here and at other blogs have asked if the monthly markers shown for April and May are lined up correctly. I had thought about it when I first made the chart, but I’ve come to the conclusion that the commenters/bloggers were correct and the chart was in error. So here’s the new chart, where you can see that the effect of the correction is to move the actual unemployment rates one month to the left.
This, of course, makes the situation look even worse.
I’ve also added more points to show the monthly data since Oct ’08. The Obama team’s graph was plotted by quarters instead of months, so the numbers don’t quite line up.
Sorry for the mistake. At least nobody can claim that I was coming down too hard on Obama’s economic team.
Please do me a favor and spread the word that the corrected graph is available.
[FUN UPDATE: On May 11th, Christina Romer (she who made the original chart) said that unemployment could get as high as 9.5%. Any bets on whether she’s right?]
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Innocent Bystanders 
[…] The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted June 5, 2009 Posted by geoff in News. trackback UPDATE: Corrected graph available here. […]
[…] Correction to the May Unemployment Chart […]
Nice work. Thanks from the AOS readers.
Oh, the shame!
Hi Geoff, thanks very much for doing the work on this.
One suggestion though: add some headroom and add that third trend line to make crystal clear what’s really happening here. Leave nothing to the imagination.
vis: http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/img/UnemploymentTrend2009.jpg
See, Geoff, if you had stuck with triangles nobody would have been picking nits.
One suggestion though: add some headroom and add that third trend line to make crystal clear what’s really happening here. Leave nothing to the imagination.
I’m loathe to do that – it subjects the chart to unnecessary criticism. I think I’ll stick with letting the existing data handle the critique of the stimulus plan.
Come June, July, etc….you’re gonna need a bigger chart. Unless those 600,000 jobs pan out LOL
We’re lost.
Will somebody come find us please?
– I’m loathe to do that …
Gotcha.
Maybe just leave off the projection, that’ll eliminate any unnecessary criticism, right? And if nothing else, it makes the representation of the real, actual data as powerful as the fakery in the original chart.
My only point is this: the more we tiptoe around reality, instead of beating this administration and the left in general over the head with it, the more we play to their strength: widespread public ignorance. Whatever is left to the imagination will be filled in by the entrenched, Fifth Column media with the narrative they want to push.
Geoff
Hannity did your chart and sourced red state!
Hannity did your chart and sourced red state!
Wouldn’t you know? Ah well, I’ll make more charts.
I am watching and I see the Obama chart with out your points. I knew it was coming I was wondering if he would attribute it to you. The graphic said source red state.
>< that far away from fame and glory!
Or not.
I wasn’t ready for being mobbed by groupies anyway.
yeh the wife might not care for that much.
Look on the bright side — you can blame Redstate for the dots being too far to the right.
None of this would have happened if you had stuck with triangles like I told you. With triangles, nobody knows where the damn data point is. You could have just said, “the left apex, you morons.”
The nice thing about the blogosphere is how responsive it is: people point out your errors all the time, and you can correct things and disseminate the corrections really quickly.
The news media? Not so much.
BTW, I put “Unemployment Predictions for May” in the Classic Threads sidebar feature. I thought that was a pretty frickin’ hilarious thread.
Great job Geoff, thanks
I thought that was a pretty frickin’ hilarious thread.
I had a great time with that one. Too bad that one math guy seemed to take it seriously.
Meaning, I thought I was hilarious.
I really crack myself up sometimes.
Meaning, I thought I was hilarious.
How very unusual.
How very unusual.
I’m my biggest fan.
IMHO, there’s not much point in doing this if you can’t laugh your ass off at yourself.
Thanks NortonPete, Goy, and Giordy. I really have fun putting stuff like this together.
IMHO, there’s not much point in doing this if you can’t laugh your ass off at yourself.
Huh-unh. There’s trolls, too.
There is a new troll on May unemployment thread. I thought about insulting him, but I will give him some rope first
oops my bad it was
Unemployment predictions for May, and Geoff is picking on him already.
Huh-unh. There’s trolls, too.
Well, yeah, but I rarely rouse myself to that game any more. I give Invictus some credit for sucking me in.
More fun, really, to troll yourself.
Think about every running joke about me, e.g.,: (1) Clarinet Boy, (2) Wussy Crimefighter, (3) Anal Spelling Nazi, (4) Lutheran Bigot, (5) Site Administrator who edits his own comments, (5) Pwned by Dave with the IB Wimmens, (6) Site statistics fetish.
I created every one of them.
Invictus was also pretty impressive just for the severity of the ass-kicking he absorbed, and kept coming back, before he finally ran home to momma.
(7) Really bad shot with his Kimber, which is hard to do, since the Kimber damn near shoots itself.
There. Now I created one too.
I deserve some credit for bringing Invictus back for more…
Aw, Russ, that’s just mean. I’ve been to the range a few times since you saw me shoot a .45 for the first time.
I created every one of them.
Always best to supply the enemy with the ammo you’ve manufactured.
Then they don’t feel like making their own.
Invictus was also pretty impressive just for the severity of the ass-kicking he absorbed, and kept coming back, before he finally ran home to momma.
But he didn’t stay long enough for the creative insults to start. That would have been fun.
You’re right, MR.
You were actually frickin’ hilarious on that thread.
I mean, you were sincerely trying to dialogue and find common ground with a committed lefty troll.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
It might be interesting to include the jobs that have been “saved” by the stimulus so far as well. According to Politico today (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23467.html) the Administration claims it has saved 150,000 jobs. Adding those jobs would provide a “without stimulus” line for the current month. Of course I think that number is nonsense, but it would indicate furhter how far off the projections were.
I mean, you were sincerely trying to dialogue with a committed lefty troll.
Did you read what he wrote at Invictus’s site? Nobody could have resisted coming back after reading that.
But he didn’t stay long enough for the creative insults to start. That would have been fun.
True dat. He left before we started calling him a nancy boy.
It might be interesting to include the jobs that have been “saved” by the stimulus so far as well.
I think I’m going to do another chart on that pretty soon, so I probably won’t add to the clutter of the current chart. But those 150,000 jobs saved would make a point for May that’s about 1/5 of the way from May down to April. Pretty insignificant, as you point out.
The thing that ticks me off the most about the original chart is that I believe that it was the source of all of the “4 million jobs created or saved” nonsense.
Saddest thing about the May chart: the Aceolanche dwarfed the Instalanche.
Of course we didn’t have lauraw at Instapundit constantly bumping the post up.
In my entire intertubes experience, the only time I achieved some level of understanding, respect, and consensus with an ideological opponent was when I got involved in creation/evolution debates with hard-core atheists like the Kommisar and Andy at World Wide Rant. That was work, because I really had to understand the science as well as they did. They would spot the bullshit in an instant if you did not.
I still count them as friends, and they respected my perspective, however wrong they thought it was.
the Aceolanche dwarfed the Instalanche
I guess Glenn went down for half a day about 3 minutes after he linked you, and when he came back you were below one of his frickin’ vacation photos. Go figure.
I guess Glenn went down for half a day about 3 minutes after he linked you, and when he came back you were below one of his frickin’ vacation photos. Go figure.
I was hoping to double up with the mongo Ace wave and a typical Instalanche. That would have been some serious hits.
I have yet to equal a post at JYB, where I got a Diggolanche worth 24,000 hits in a day. That was amazing. See-Dubya generously told me that I could do that anytime I wanted to.
Think about every running joke about me, e.g.,: (1) Clarinet Boy, (2) Wussy Crimefighter, (3) Anal Spelling Nazi, (4) Lutheran Bigot, (5) Site Administrator who edits his own comments, (5) Pwned by Dave with the IB Wimmens, (6) Site statistics fetish.
*Julio the Pool Boy breathes a sigh of relief.
Seriously, Russ, shooting Dave’s Kimber was the first time I had shot a .45. The recoil and noise were not bad, but I was not prepared for the impressive muzzle flash.
*Julio the Pool Boy breathes a sigh of relief.
…as he hides in Michael’s rennovated kitchen.
If my policies had been enacted in late Jan/early Feb, we would have saved and/or created 1.2 million jobs. How do I know? The same way the Obama economic team knows.
Geoff, give the word and I’ll drop another comment over at Invictus’ site, and lure him back for more. All his blog posts seem to have a range of 0-2 anonymous comments…anyone notice that?
I’m not saying that a .45 doesn’t produce a manly muzzle flash, but next time I venture down Texas way I’ll bring along my .357 magnum with some 110 grain hollowpoints. The muzzle flash on that ol’ pig is enough to etch the shadow of the targets permanently onto the backstop of your shooting range.
Geoff, give the word and I’ll drop another comment over at Invictus’ site, and lure him back for more.
Naw, I don’t feel morally right about luring them in and then abusing them. It’s only justifiable when they’ve come in of their own accord to pester us.
Yup Russ is right.
The 357 is the bomb!
Zeke and Tony Llamas
For you Texas people
– I’m not saying that a .45 doesn’t produce a manly muzzle flash…
Sheesh, maybe in a really dark indoor range or a night shoot.
But you’re right that the Kimber shoots perfectly all by itself. Even at 25 yd. …
In all honesty, I can’t say for sure that I started Julio the Pool Boy. I just don’t remember. Mighta been that prick Calvinist Brewfan. Maybe someone else like Brewfan started it and I adopted it.
Another Zeke Pic
Goy, I subsequently bought the Kimber Ultra CDP II.
My wife bought one too.
I have 2 Kimbers goy they are the bomb!
Ultra carry II
and TLE (full size)
– I subsequently bought the Kimber Ultra CDP II.
Have always coveted one, but the grip is too small for my bear paws.
I have one of the original full-size Custom Royals in blue stainless. It is my very favorite gun. Not named ‘Vera’.
I have big hands too. Kimber textured the shit out of that gun. The rosewood grips are cross-hatched by hand in the custom shop.
The barrel is machined to Olympic match grade.
– The rosewood grips are cross-hatched by hand in the custom shop.
Yep. Even back then. The ones that came with mine were immediately put into storage and replaced with Hogues or something (I forget).
The first pic of Zeke, ahhh, he even has some straw in his mouth to go with the boots.
We’re watching tonight’s Hannity show right now. Cathy got it on DVR.
Hey, Geoff’s chart!!!!
(Cosmetically changed, but the same chart.)
Quote from Hannity: “This is a great chart, but the blogger named ‘Geoff’ should have used triangles for drama, and his data points are a little bit too far to the right.”
Did Hannity happen to note the uncanny coincidence… that this now-asymptotic-looking rise in unemployment started at precisely the time – early 2007 – when the newly-elected Democrat majority made itself felt in the business world? Or that it only really starts to take off at the point where we elect a Democrat President?
Has anyone mentioned, anywhere, that *up until that time* the tax revenue and spending trends had us on track for a balanced budget by… October of 2008?
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/01/when_will_the_b.html
Did Hannity happen to note the uncanny coincidence… that this now-asymptotic-looking rise in unemployment started at precisely the time – early 2007 – when the newly-elected Democrat majority made itself felt in the business world? Or that it only really starts to take off at the point where we elect a Democrat President?
Oddly enough, no. Sean Hannity just seemed to be grumpy because Goeff was using dots instead of triangles.
Sean Hannity just seemed to be grumpy because Goeff was using dots instead of triangles.
I’ll just blame Red State.
– Sean Hannity just seemed to be grumpy because Goeff was using dots instead of triangles.
Great. Just great. Our political leadership is off wandering in the bipartisan, pseudo-hopey-changey wasteland and our political punditry is having OCD over powerpoint aesthetics.
WAWATF.
Kidding aside, Geoff, it was a thrill for me to see that chart pop up on network TV.
You could tell that Hannity’s staff just kinda reworked it cosmetically to avoid any possible copyright issue involving material that they cribbed off the internet. Which was an entirely appropriate thing for them to do.
The message is getting out.
The message is getting out.
That’s great. I remember back in April when I first started comparing the predictions to the data. I couldn’t believe that nobody else was picking up on this. I mean – there was the prediction right there! But the post(s) at my site went nowhere, of course, so getting to post on it here was huge.
The real credit, though, goes to you, lauraw, and The Hostages, for promoting it so much. When I was young I always thought, “Who needs marketers? If it’s good, the product will sell itself!” What a maroon. But even realizing the value of marketing, I can’t bring myself to do it very often.
So thanks for the help and the venue.
I couldn’t believe that nobody else was picking up on this.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I can’t believe it either. It’s such an obvious thing to do. I mean, this was not rocket science.
Fact is, you are the only person who thought to do it.
There are so many more messages that need to get out.
Like the fact that the supposed cost savings in the health care industry are largely extrapolated (without any apparent massaging) from treatments of Medicare patients in their last 6 months of life.
It will be very important over the next 3 1/2 years to track the estimates and projections the Administration and Congress put out, follow up with simple, concise visual representation of actual data vs. projections, and then market to and co-ordinate with whatever media will listen to get this information in front of the public. Honestly, this would be a very important service no matter who holds the White House. Obama’s projection chart with Geoff’s actual data is incredibly effective, I’ve shown it to many of my friends and family who could care less about politics, but care about the economy, and it blows every one of them away. It’s simple to understand and clear in its implications.
I haven’t poked around enough on the old threads, but it sounds like Geoff is the resident chart nerd. Any plans to do this on a large scale? I think an effort like this could swing an election. Maybe start an offshoot of this site or a new one all-together, recruit some more chart-minded number crunchers, decent researchers and graphics guys (ask daveintexas to hold off on verbally abusing the newbies away for a while), and work to develop relationships with the blogosphere, radio, t.v., print, etc.
treatments of Medicare patients in their last 6 months of life.
Yeah, I read about that somewhere. I bet we read the same post.
But forget that. I think we need a chart about (1) smokers, and (2) people who do not wear a helmet when driving a motorcycle.
This chart could dramatically illustrate, with triangles, that people like me are a net benefit in terms of public expenditures for our care, and we should be encouraged with tax cuts.
Here’s my old post on the weakness of the health care cost-saving numbers. It’s long and dry, so I’d like to figure out a way to package the message in a peppy, get-it-at-a-glance sort of way.
it sounds like Geoff is the resident chart nerd.
…and love expert. Hello.
But yes, I’m infamous for making graphs and doing analysis of background documents. I just recently started posting more at IB instead of my own little hovel, so I don’t have much of my oeuvre here.
Seriously, every biker who cracks his skull on the pavement and dies, saves the country a huge amount of Social Security and Medicare payments.
and (2) people who do not wear a helmet when driving a motorcycle.
I kinda sorta have a post sorta like that, but it doesn’t make that point. Though I think it could.
Turns out motorcycle fatalities have been increasing, despite helmet laws.
so I don’t have much of my oeuvre here
Geez, knock off the Fwench terms. I’ve told you this before. You get no points for Fwench here.
Geez, knock off the Fwench terms. I’ve told you this before. You get no points for Fwench here.
Hey, I took a lot of French classes way back when. You telling me that’s now a toxic asset?
“…and love expert. Hello.”
a legend in your own mind, I’m sure. Aren’t we all?
Turns out motorcycle fatalities have been increasing, despite helmet laws.
I’m guessing that’s because bikers as a demographic group are increasingly geriatric, and have slower reaction times to deal with demanding situations.
Just my guess.
and have slower reaction times to deal with demanding situations.
…like lighting a cigarette.
I remember reading an article about how Harley Davidson is scared shitless that its entire customer base will be dead in 20 years.
I remember reading an article about how Harley Davidson is scared shitless that its entire customer base will be dead in 20 years.
I can never hear “Harley Davidson” without thinking of that stupid song from the 80s.
“Harley David-son of a bitch
James Dean road his into a ditch”
…like lighting a cigarette.
That just takes a fairing and a wind-proof Zippo, courtesy of Lipstick.
BTW, Lipstick, that lighter works great in the windy concrete canyons of downtown Dallas.
They need not worry, HD is too big to fail.
All right, I’ve got to get some more work done. Night, gents.
Sorry I’m late at this, but Geoff, it was GREAT to see your chart on Hannity. We even backed up the program to see it again. Woo-hoo!
Recently I set our DVR to record his show and queue up to 7 hours before it deletes the older programs.
BTW, Lipstick, that lighter works great in the windy concrete canyons of downtown Dallas.
🙂
so I don’t have much of my oeuvre here
*wide-eyed awe*
You…lay eggs?
If they hold still.
You…lay eggs?
All too often, m’dear, all too often.
9. TwoMillion Jobs – June 8, 2009
We’re lost.
Will somebody come find us please?
*** Fires up GPS ***
You with about 10 million others, are in China…..
Seriously, every biker who cracks his skull on the pavement and dies, saves the country a huge amount of Social Security and Medicare payments.
I’m sorry. I tried. Really, I did.
Now back off before I rip your endocrine system out through your nostril!
Way to go Geoff!
You’re a great American.
geoff, thanks for making the left maroon dot shifting update! I for one hope that you dont run out of Y axises…that would a mess. Having to extend team 44’s Y axises to accommodate actual figures would not be good.
Having to extend team 44’s Y axises to accommodate actual figures would not be good.
If it gets that bad, I’ll probably have plenty of time to do it.
If it gets that bad, I’ll probably have plenty of time to do it.
I think just sticking maroon dots on top of the header would make a statement.
^ I dont know a reasonable triangle would fit right between the “e” at the end of “Rate” and the “W” of “With”. that would look to be about 10.8-11% at the end of 2009.
EMPIRICAL PROOF: Obama Stimulus = FAIL…
Remember we had a graph trotted out with Obama’s economic team when they proposed their “stimulus”, and projected unemployment (and GDP!) with and without their stimulus?
Well, another blogger has plotted that first graph against actual results.
K…
[…] "stimulus", and projected unemployment (and GDP!) with and without their stimulus? Well, another blogger has plotted that first graph against actual results. Keep in mind – the stimulus passed, of course. […]
Anyone interested in some troll whacking? I’ve got a huge George Soros fan, (who claims to be a conservative) haunting this old post:
Could use a little help…
The AUTO sector ALONE is going to push it THROUGH 11% in under the next 5 months. At the rate PRE auto wipeout, we were looking at 10% soon. WITH the AUTO cascade of bankruptcies which are coming (from parts suppliers/dealers/body shops/repair centers, etc) I would not in the least be surprised it goes to 15%
George W Bush and dimwit former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao missed monthly jobs creation targets for 8 years. In the US, it takes the creation of 100K-130K new jobs created per month just to absorb new graduates into the workforce. These two Republican morons proved Republican tax cuts don’t work; the labor pool available in India and China is too large.
Put your bills on Elaine Chao’s desk by sending them THROUGH Mitch McConnell R-Ky her husband. Make cetain Mitch is the embarrassment of the Senate by his mail bags.
For the 100K-130K number, the Chinese have to know this baseline number. I don’t understand how the Chinese cannot know it, so all the Chinese will..refuse to hold refuse to buy is puzzling BS.
In all honesty, I can’t say for sure that I started Julio the Pool Boy. I just don’t remember. Mighta been that prick Calvinist Brewfan. Maybe someone else like Brewfan started it and I adopted it.
You are correct Pleadings Breath! It was the result of a story you told about this great pool guy you had in Texas and how after you moved east he just happened to show up there. I seized the opportunity to portray you as a clueless cuckold.
Good times, good times.
[…] here for the link to the article with the graph used […]
[…] From a dude who actually bothered to look, just for you Vienna School. […]
“George W Bush and dimwit former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao missed monthly jobs creation targets for 8 years. In the US, it takes the creation of 100K-130K new jobs created per month just to absorb new graduates into the workforce. These two Republican morons proved Republican tax cuts don’t work; the labor pool available in India and China is too large.”
Got that folks? It’s the government that creates the the jobby-jobs…
top notch post, Geoff.
On behalf of the Soot and Ashes blog,…
.
Obammmmy Gimme Cheese!!!
.
.
[…] another blogger has plotted that first graph against actual […]
Love the new look! Not too little, not too much, just enough to make the chart self-explanatory.
[…] The graph has been corrected.) Tagged with: Obama, Stimulus no comments yet « Daniel Hannan on Euro elections […]
102:
Yeah, in places such as N Korea, the old USSR, and Cuba. How’s that gone?
Thanks for the assist, guys. Obots are out in full force, aren’t they?
You can click on the Flag Counter, go to the Flag Map, zoom in, and see for yourself. We don’t have North Korea, Iran, the Krapistans in central Asia, and some central African shitholes.
Re. Central African shitholes: I caught a connecting flight in Burundi once. They looked like a bunch of non-blog clicking shirkers. It’s not stereotyping if it’s TRUE.
Who in hell catches a connecting flight in Burundi? Someone supplying illegal arms to rebel forces, perhaps? Somebody trading hard to get pouches of Big League Chew to gangs of street children in exchange for their cooperation in drug trafficking? Something’s bad in Burundi. Skinbad.
[…] The author of the graph above has revised the graph, saying he was off by one month. This doesn’t change much, but makes the stimulus […]
Who in hell catches a connecting flight in Burundi?
Someone trying to get from Nairobi to Kinshasa, obviously.
The 727 had about 5 peeling paint jobs from airlines it had been passed down to until it couldn’t go any lower. Air Cameroon. No kidding.
Your graph is still wrong, just not as bad as it was originally.
“Q1 2009” refers to the March 09 data for the end of Q1. March should be plotted on the Q1 line, and December should be plotted at the midpoint between Q3 and Q1.
It is possible that the graph you use was constructed using “start of Q1” (January?) data, but you can’t tell from reading that white paper from January. To my eye, the Q3 2008 value (6.2% seasonally adjusted) is about right on the graph, so that might be a starting point. The Q4 was likely a wrong estimate, and the Q1 2009 value was a wild guess.
Since the Q1 2009 data is the average for the quarter, I put the mid-month of the quarter over the Q1 data. So February is above the Q1 tick. That way the monthly data follows the quarterly data more closely and accurately.
It is possible that the graph you use was constructed using “start of Q1″ (January?) data
That’s the way it was originally plotted, and it is incorrect.
^The dots/triangles/whatever they are threw him off
Former Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg had to say about Friday’s BLS report:
“The headline nonfarm payroll figure came in above expectations at -345,000 in May – the consensus was looking for something closer to -525,000. The markets are treating this as yet another in the line-up of ‘green shoots’ because the decline was less severe than it was in April (-504,000), March (-652,000), February (-681,000) and January (-741,000). However, let’s not forget that the FAIRY TALE Birth-Death model from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) added 220,000 to the headline – so adjusting for that, we would have actually seen a 565,000 headline job decline.”
[…] Correction to the May Unemployment Chart Several commenters both here and at other blogs have asked if the monthly markers shown for April and May are lined up […] […]
^ Woo-hoo.
Kudos, AGAIN Geoff.
William makes a good point. Wait until the auto dealers close down and the rest of the auto industry. It will not be pretty.
O Stimulation, Stimulation! Wherefore Art Thou, Stimulation?…
Still no stimulation, Juliet? Maybe you should convince Romeo to order some Enzyte. Two months ago, I shared a graph depicting the Obama economic team’s projections of future unemployment rates in two different scenarios – with and without the stimulu…
[…] now, from Innocent Bystanders, the same projection with the real unemployment figures through May […]
Thanks, geoff.
I was thrown off by something else. I had looked at the Q1 2007 data for the *regular* unemployment rate, which was 4.5 in March (and quite a bit higher in January), not the *seasonally* adjusted data. The regular data for March 2007 matched the start point for the graph, so I figured that is how they plotted the data.
I have since obtained the seasonally adjusted time series and verified that the graph in the paper matches the average value for each quarter, so plotting Feb 2009 at Q1 2009 is approximately correct.
I still stand by my original observation that the authors had to know their projection of the Q1 point and the worst case scenario was bogus even without the Jan 2009 data point because it assumed we were already in a recovery. (Remember that unemployment is a lagging indicator.) No one was saying we were already in recovery in January. And since the Q1 2009 point should be 8.07 rather than about 7.55 *before* any effect of the stimulus would be seen, all of the blue curves are much lower (maybe 2% lower) than they should have been.
I firmly believe that they cooked the numbers so they would not be showing a “without” curve that was heading to 11 or 12%, maybe more. Must be, because this Great Recession is clearly worse than the 82-83 recession when unemployment hit 10.8%, the worst one in my memory.
This is just a note for Goy, as we all learned from the recent “housing values will continue to increase” assumptions, one cannot assume that the current rate, or slope of a line will continue to be the same in the future.
Unemployment could unexpectedly decline next month, just because the line looks like it is going up does not mean it will continue to go up.
You cannot simply draw a line with the same slope that continues on into the future. You have to some econometric data that indicates that the unemployment rate will reach 11% by Q3. Some reason to believe that we are going to lose that many jobs, besides the fact that we lost that many jobs last quarter/month.
Forecasting, predicting the future of econometric values, an incredibly difficult and inexact art/science. I don’t think that the Obama team was right, and I think they had a lot of reasons to choose to be wrong. But in the future, if you think a forecast is so terrible or poorly motivated, I would challenge you to create your own and see how you stack up, rather than wait until the data is in so you can crow about how wrong someone else was.
Unemployment could unexpectedly decline next month
In fact I had expected it to decline this month, and was disappointed (actually shocked) when it didn’t. It’s got to start flattening pretty soon, I think.
But I’m not sure we’re out of the woods. The company where I work is about to lay off 600 engineers (1/3 of the work force). They’ve been one of the few bright spots in the economy over the past few years, but the cuts in the defense budget are now hurting them.
That’s one of my big complaints about Obama’s stimulation approach: normally you stimulate at the top, which trickles down and motivates people to get to the top. He’s stimulating at the bottom, which goes nowhere in the economy and motivates people to stay at the bottom.
In everything he does, he keeps his social worker perspective close at hand.
But I’m not sure we’re out of the woods.
I don’t think we are either.
The company where I work is about to lay off 600 engineers (1/3 of the work force).
I’m hearing this sort of thing everywhere.
I would challenge you to create your own and see how you stack up, rather than wait until the data is in so you can crow about how wrong someone else was.
I’m not sure how much more obtuse somebody can be but I think you’re pushing the boundary.
[…] Here’s another: […]
I’ve never been to your site before — linked via ObsidianWings via Andrew Sullivan. Interesting stuff!!!
[…] it probably will, but this graph, put together by Innocent Bystanders (flagged by Sullivan) is pretty horrifying for someone to get back into the job market in the next […]
Huh. Strange bedfellows and all that.
In other news: California considers Ditching Welfare:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/california-considers-ditching-welfare/
Whatever the banks are carrying on their books as “assets” in the form of consumer debt–credit card debt, student loans, car loans, mortgages–they will never collect.
[…] Correction to the May Unemployment Chart Several commenters both here and at other blogs have asked if the monthly markers shown for April and May are lined up […] […]
Congratulation on the chart! It is showing up all over the web.
I just saw it on Don Luskin’s website credited to a “Dave Duval”.
Adding earlier months would be interesting.
Also you should add a marker for obama’s announcement in Feb 2007 and the corresponding job loss followed by the steep rise when he become the dem nominee in Aug 2008.
Point being, all of the unemployment increase is due to obama’s presence.
[…] Yeoman’s work at Innocent Bystanders […]
geoff – excellent work on chart! truely viral and awe inspiring… and not just a little scarry
Unemployment data (a thousand words’ worth)…
Holy cow! Click to enlarge: So, how’s that Hopenchange workin’ out for ya?……
Huh, so this wasn’t posted on geoff’s own blog huh?
bummer
*runs
[…] everywhere, from Newsweek to FactCheck.org to Ace of Spades. It deserves widespread attention. Correction to the May Unemployment Chart Innocent Bystanders You can't spend your way out of a recession. Government spending makes things worse. The Obama […]
Months still don’t line up right. March should be right on the 1Q line. Data used in the original chart in Romer-Bernstein report are 3 month moving average seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, sampled quarterly. Using correct data and lining up the points correctly makes the divergence even greater.
Data in the Romer-Bernsten report are just the quarterly averages (not moving averages), so the mid-month for each quarter is plotted over the the quarter hash. That way, visually, the average for the months of the quarter is the same as the quarterly data.
Oh my, such fame from one graph. I can promise you that it drove my leftwingers BONKERS at my Houston Chron blog. I can’t wait to post the Newsweek article.
[…] of the Moment: "Never laugh at live dragons" – J.R.R. Tolkien Click Here for More Broken News Obama "confused" and "disoriented" on jobs, stimulus. Predictions versus reality. Obama stays awake at night, thinking of ways to spend your money. Flashback: Obama camped smeared […]
[…] even with the stimulus, is at 9.4 percent. The following chart is from “Geoff,” who blogs at Innocent Bystanders. It’s data was backed up by FactCheck.org. It shows the Obama projections along with the […]
[…] second chart was created by “Geoff” at the Web site Innocent Bystanders. We’ve checked it and can vouch for its accuracy. The […]
Why are you charting Fiscal Year information based on the Calendar year? Last time I checked, March was in Q2 of FY09, April and May are in Q3 of FY09. What’s more, why no chart that includes Q4? As the chart stands, you can only show data for 3 quarters. That’s if you count each column between Q1 and Q1 of each year.
Very, very, very inaccurate in my opinion. And yes, I just retired from the government. Before Mr. Obama took office.
And yes, I just retired from the government.
Well, that’s fuckin’ evident.
>> Why are you charting Fiscal Year information based on the Calendar year?
Because Obama did. Send him a correcty note. DO IT NOW!
Well, that’s fuckin’ evident.
Heh heh.
What’s more, why no chart that includes Q4? As the chart stands, you can only show data for 3 quarters.
Hahahahaha
This guy’s very, very funny.But I’ll forgive for having a hard time reading the abscissa of Obama’s chart – it’s difficult to interpret.
Though Palemoon’s gone to great lengths to make it even more difficult than it is.
Geoff, saying “this guy” in reference to a woman. Are you blind? And did you bother to read the article and the chart creators admission?
“I’ve also added more points to show the monthly data since Oct ‘08. The Obama team’s graph was plotted by quarters instead of months, so the numbers don’t quite line up.”
So why did the fellow modify the chart to suit his agenda? He admits his own formula didn’t line up, so therefore he had to engineer the chart to make it work.
What was it that Rohrschach said? “Give me smallest finger on man’s hand. I’ll produce information. Computer unnecessary.”
You have to remember Geoff, the stated goal of the Act was to create 3 million jobs by the end of 2010. It does not list any other goals. In the paragraph preceeding the chart in it’s original form, states essentially that there is no way to predict how high unemployment will go. The goal, remember, is to create jobs for all of those millions who have lost or are losing jobs.
The only thing this modified chart on this misguided blog factors in, in the unemployment. And if the blogger thinks it’s going to stay under 10%, he’s WRONG on that too. It’s going way above it.
Are you blind? And did you bother to read the article and the chart creators admission?
Are you blind? Can’t you tell that I’m the one who made the chart and wrote the post?
He admits his own formula didn’t line up, so therefore he had to engineer the chart to make it work.
Not at all. Not even close. I guess you just don’t understand what you’re looking at. I’ll try to explain it once, and then you’re on your own.
Obama’s team plotted their projections on a quarterly basis. They made the part of the plot that’s in blue – it’s copied directly from their report to make sure that there are no changes to what they said.
To give the most recent data, I’m plotting the CBO’s monthly data in maroon on the same plot they used. The question is, how should the months line up with the quarterly data? There’s only one fair way:
Since the end-of-quarter data represents the average for that quarter, I’ve put the average data for the middle month of each quarter over the hash mark for that quarter. That way, the data for the 3 months of each quarter surrounds the predicted value for the quarter.
You have to remember Geoff, the stated goal of the Act was to create 3 million jobs by the end of 2010.
3.6 million. You have to remember, PM, that the stated criticism was that the Act would not have the near-term job creation that it was predicted to have, and that its most significant effects would be felt when the economy was already healing itself. In addition, it was felt that the Act committed funds well after the crisis had passed, and that it was spending the money in an inefficient way.
The only thing this modified chart on this misguided blog factors in, in the unemployment.
There are many other posts on many other aspects of the economy. This just happens to be a popular comparison of what Obama’s team said to what actually is happening. And it’s made the critics of the Stimulus look good.
Hey Geoff, what did Rumsfeld say in late 2003 about how swimmingly the war in Iraq was going? and 2004, 2005, 2006? Oh right, no plan survives the first contact intact.
Did you make up grandiose charts to show how misguided Mr. Rumsfeld’s war was? And why haven’t I heard anything about avian flu since he’s been gone? Suspicious.
Still, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. You are trying to compare Q2 2009 to the stated goals of the end of Q4 2010. Of course these charts are going to be off, and your deliberate, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, skewing of the numbers further to the left proves that. May 2009 is NOT dead center of the 2nd Quarter, the fiscal year, or calendar year, yet you show it as such. How can you deny that? June is the end of Q3, not Q4. I tell you what, I can’t wait to see what you have to show for October. You’ll probably state that it is the 6th “Quarter” right? ;o)
>> Still, you are trying to compare apples to oranges…
You just broke my irony meter, Mr. “comparing warfare to unemployment projections and results” Man.
I believe I shall now compare apples to hang gliders.
You sir, are a goof.
ITS BUSHES FAULT THE CHART IS WRONG YOU FARKIN’ WINGNUT RETHUGLICAN WHORES!! IF RUMSFELD WOULD HAVE MADE A CHART IN 2002 WE WOULD NEVER HAVE INVADED GRENADA! PLOT THAT CHART BOY!!11!!
To think a whole bunch of Palemoons are soon to be running our healthcare system…
*thud*
And why haven’t I heard anything about avian flu since he’s been gone? Suspicious.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp, wheeze* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(I am assuming that that was a joke and that our new troll wasn’t seriously suggesting a link between Rumsfeld and avian flu. Nevertheless, still funny.)
May 2009 is NOT dead center of the 2nd Quarter, the fiscal year, or calendar year, yet you show it as such.
It’s not? Second quarter of the calendar year is April, May, June. Yes, June is the end of the fiscal year Q3, but the Obama team appears to have been using calendar years when they made that chart. They don’t actually specify in the text, but they refer to the end of Q4 2010 as the end of the two-year period of the plan. That means that Q1 2009 is the beginning. So if they were using fiscal years, they were assuming that the stimulus would start in October 2008, in the past. Ergo, they must have been using calendar years.
It takes an uncommon mind to put this jigsaw puzzle together, Peel.
During the avian flu hysteria, lefties were screaming for Bush to allocate money towards creating a vaccine for an epidemic that did not exist.
Clearly that was a Rumsfeldian plot to draw attention away from….away from…
*gazes out window at sinister chemtrails in the sky*
BOO
Did you make up grandiose charts to show how misguided Mr. Rumsfeld’s war was?
Well, liberals certainly tried to.
Brew:
It pisses me off to no end that I am going to probably lose my health insurance (or job) to help pay for Paleomoon and his welfare friends’ health care.
[…] (Hat Tip: Innocent Bystanders.) […]
[…] Innocent Bystanders corrected the graph to line up the dots correctly. The slope is actually steeper in the corrected version. Not […]
I wrote an article about the graph this last week that clarifies many of the issues raised in the last week, but forgot to post the link here. (Click on my “name” above.) Although it grew out of some other news, it is essentially a follow-up to my comments at 115 and 124.
Feel free to grab that graph for future use as long as you credit it.
My version of the graph shows all of the previous month’s data but separates them from the quarterly averages that are the basis of the “data” part of the graph and, presumably, the prediction. The most important point I make is that the Q1 point where the two models are supposed to agree was, itself, a seriously flawed prediction. I highlight this with a line that shows where the blue line should have been when they wrote the article in January. It should clarify to Jim@144, Palemoon@150, and many others what geoff@156 is trying to explain, and addresses the question geoff@154 has about the graph itself. Some points look wrong if you don’t plot the averages.
My graph also shows what Brain@141 and UoC@140, as well as those of all other political persuasions, might not want to see – which is that the problem was accelerating in the wrong direction well before the new President or the new Congress could act. The situation on January 20 was much worse than most would say in public then, or even now.
However, the bulk of my comments are about the fact that unemployment is a lagging indicator and how an inflection point is the first thing to look for. Unemployment cannot suddenly drop, as geoff@126 had expected, particularly in a minor depression / Great Recession like this one. The “flattening” will follow an inflection point, which will be signaled by a steady, hopefully sharp, drop in new jobless claims as stimulus money starts to be spent after July 1.
This will take a while. For a variety of reasons, this has felt like it was much worse than any recession I experienced, including the one circa 1974-1975. What that means to me is that as long as reports say things like “worst in 34 years”, I know we are probably not at the bottom yet. I will be pleasantly surprised if it is not worse than the one in 1974.
And just to be clear: I am convinced that if Bush had done the lame-duck Coolidge thing in 2008, that point on my graph for Q1 would have been a whole lot worse than it was. He deserves a lot of credit for ignoring those who attacked their initial intervention without sending a message of despair at how bad it could get. Although a number of policies of the past 5 years likely led to this, I expect his experts will get a lot of credit for acting quickly enough that we will never see how bad it could have been.
The most important point I make is that the Q1 point where the two models are supposed to agree was, itself, a seriously flawed prediction.
If you read the report, it turns out that dignifying the analysis with the term “model” is fantastically generous. But Q1 didn’t have to be as bad as it was – the Geithner/Obama missteps early on did a lot of damage. And the stimulus package itself has caused more fear than hope.
Unemployment cannot suddenly drop, as geoff@126 had expected
I should have been more clear: I expected the increase in unemployment to drop – not the level of unemployment itself. In other words, I expected the 2nd derivative to go negative, and for May to be the inflection point. I think we all understand that failing the advent of some step-function-inducing artificial intervention, the unemployment curve is going to have to transition to a downward slope on a painfully slow, smooth arc.
drop in new jobless claims as stimulus money starts to be spent after July 1.
Most of the “stimulus” money is really “band-aid” money, and will not do anything to increase GDP over the long term. They’ve chosen to spend the money in very inefficient ways, if increasing GDP is their goal. Which it is.
I will be pleasantly surprised if it is not worse than the one in 1974.
Stagflation, here we come!
[…] unholy bloat of ObamaCare. Toss in Heritage’s now-famous graph of Obama’s deficits and Innocent Bystanders’ chart of how dismally the stimulus has failed to stem unemployment and you’re 90 percent of the way […]
[…] taken by Congress and the Obama administration has positively affected the economy in even the slightest measure. Congress has expanded government to the detriment of the individual; it continues to explore and […]
[…] Elsewhere today, Gibbs declared that it’s okay to start judging the success of the stimulus now. Over to you, Innocent Bystanders! […]
[…] Elsewhere today, Gibbs declared that it’s okay to start judging the success of the stimulus. Over to you, Innocent Bystanders! […]
[…] loss. A very telling graph, superimposing Obama’s own prediction with actual numbers, from Innocent Bystanders, makes this very […]
[…] Steffi is wrong, too. The President predicted that unemployment would peak at 8 percent next year with his Stimulus Plan in place. Without it, the prediction was actually nine […]
[…] second chart was created by "Geoff" at the Web site Innocent Bystanders. We’ve checked it and can vouch for its accuracy. The […]
[…] In January and early February, indeed since November, Barack Obama converted his massive campaign effort into a push for the stimulus package. He promised us that waste would not be tolerated, that every penny would be scrutinized. He summoned and summarily destroyed strawmen to show that inaction was not an option. We were told that this was the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. If we do nothing, he said, unemployment might go past 9%. If, however, we followed his advice, unemployment would topoff at 8%. […]
[…] in February of 2009 when the unemployment rate was still at 7.6% He promised the spending would keep the rate from going above 8%. It is now 9.5%, with no signs that it will improve in the near future. The state numbers are even […]
[…] The corrected chart for May. […]
[…] The corrected chart for May. […]
[…] the federal deficit spiraling out of control, with unemployment approaching 10 percent, and with confidence in the Obama economic plan waning, it might be useful to go back and look at […]
I like your blog. I just wanted to say that I’ve been hit hard by unemployment and I just wanted to chime in 🙂 Great post
Interesting points. And I’d like to see where we would be if Bush was still in office and we didn’t have obama’s stimulus package!
[…] should remember that Obama thought the unemployment rate would only reach 9 percent if the stimulation package didn’t […]
Why isn’t this major miscalculation reported on the Network news? … if Bush was still president this would be all over the news; additionally why don’t we see anything about the Obama administration’s abominable management of the H1N1 vaccine availability — this is worse tha Katrina and the Obama administration has know about this for months. I voted (and campaigned) for Obama and I have no confidence in his ability to lead or manage and the peope he has put in positions of leadership are also incompetent.
Where is the change and where is the leadership???????
Disappointed: You need to get current with the latest version of the chart, posted here.
In answer to your question, I have no idea. I first started posting on this in March, because I was stunned that no one in the MSM had picked up on it. By June most of the blogosphere was tuned in, as was the GOP. The discrepancy was mentioned in many news stories, but I don’t believe they’ve ever plotted it up..
The economic has bottom out now. I think you can find the way for economic stimulus in your own.
[…] back before he was sworn in, when his economic team was pushing that chart that showed unemployment topping out at eight percent or so if we gave him whatever moneybomb he asked for? Those days are looooong gone; now, instead of […]
[…] back before he was sworn in, when his economic team was pushing that chart that showed unemployment topping out at eight percent or so if we gave him whatever moneybomb he asked for? Those days are looooong gone; now, instead of […]
Never thought about the ‘other’ definition of Lurker.
How about “First time Caller, Long Time Listener”?
Or not.
How about ‘spammer’. See ya, bitch.
i am under huge impression. gratzzz
Добротный пост
[…] you’ve seen this graph — and by now, all conservative blog readers have — then you know the lesson to take […]
Please include Maroon dots of actual unemployment to current date
PG, the most recent version I have seen is here. The unemployment rate has stayed pretty flat around 9% since then.
The chart had made its point by then, when even the Obama administration admitted that the stimulus package had totally failed to meet expectations, and Obama himself conceded that the “shovel-ready jobs” were not actually there.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has squandered enormous amounts of money in ways that have retarded a normal recovery.
I actually updated it and posted it at AoSHQ last month. I’ll do the same this month.
[…] (pdf).So how does that shape up with actual unemployment numbers so far? Here's a chart from Innocent Bystandards juxtaposing the administration predictions with the real rate growth. FactCheck.org verified […]
тебе пока! Жду вас наМобильном сайте у нас лучший супер мобильный софт.Ура!
No, we don’t want your mobile phone service.