Data indicates that DOL rigged claims of recent job growth

Okay, I'll take that bet. Suggested wager terms: we'll check back in a year, and if I can't find this info available on the net, I will admit that you were right, and I was wrong; that the DOL had indeed made the source information disappear as you predicted. If I find it, you will acknowledge that you were wrong, and I was right.

What do you think? Do you feel confident enough in your prediction to take such a risk?

You actually missed some of the more interesting items on that page. In particular, point 3, which says:

This imputation is probably a much larger estimation than is the residual of point 4, which you mentioned. I don't see any rationale for accepting this, probably larger, estimate and not the other. They also mention, in point number 7, when this estimation procedure is likely to yield bad estimates:

Well, if this "correction" were applied to the right number (it's not, but the effect is probably minimal), and if it were applied correctly (it's not, overstating the "correction" by a factor of about 3), the result would not be what net growth really was. It would be the net growth in previously existing businesses, plus an estimate of employment growth in new businesses, buttuming it exactly matched the losses in closed down businesses (versus what they would have been had they grown at the average rate). I don't see why that would be any more "real" than an estimate based on historical seasonality of new business creation.

-- Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.