Hm.

Bruce, keep us informed? Those were good numbers but if there was a discrepency in the math then.....dishonesty is not good.

>>David,
>>
>>Thomas, Jim, and the like are in the crowd that is currently in the political mode of "good news for all is bad news for us". The Bureau of Labor Stats has used the same methods for counting new jobs since time immemorial but when it doesn't fit their worldview they poke holes in it.
>>
>>Just don't argue with them, it does no good. They lost their objectivity and pragmatism a long time ago.
>
>Hey, wait a minute John, I actually work at BLS! :-)
>
>We only have 1 political appointee at the top at BLS, and she's pretty darn moderate (we only get very-collegiate & not-very-political types at the top here, from whatever party's in the White House). We're much more independent here than some DOL agencies/people like Elaine Chao, etc. (and if you saw Sunday's 60 Minutes and the story on the MNSHA Bush appointees' coal-sludge contracting scandal...that IS something to make one pause and wonder, I agree).
>
>But BLS itself, even though under DOL-oversight, is still is quite independent from politics, with only that 1 appointee at the very top. It's very intentional, to keep us apolitical, since our numbers can have major financial & political repercussions (as this thread is about).
>
>That said, the OEUS (Employment/Unemployment office section), has had some occasional serious (non-political) data problems in the past. Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical about that jump myself, knowing this, and there are data-checks being done, as I understand. You might see a "correction" next month or two, possibly :-)
>
>To make things worse, the news apparently somehow leaked out ahead of time from the Bush Administration economic team somewhere (since they're the only ones who have access to the numbers in advance, and the people here are locked up overnight so they can't release early). Anyway, that apparent "employment-jump leak" triggered that huge 60 second buy-period on Wall St right before the 8:30 AM release last week. Investigations by Congress are underway about this.
>
>This does look a bit odd, the jump + leak + profiteering, all-in-all, I must say...and I'm certainly curious about next month.