MASS LAYOFFS IN JANUARY 2004

[UpInArms]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mmls.nr0.htm

For release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Media contact: 691-5902 Wednesday, February 25, 2004

MASS LAYOFFS IN JANUARY 2004


In January 2004, there were 2,428 mass layoff actions by employers, as
measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the
month, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single
establishment, and the number of workers involved totaled 239,454. (See
table 1.) This marked the most events for a January and the third highest
January level of mass-layoff initial claims since the series began. Both
the number of layoff events and initial claims were higher than a year ago.
January 2004 marked only the third time in the last two years that initial
claims had increased over the year.

...more...

I do so hope that this is LBN - it is a press release dated today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(edited to add link - too mad when posting)

[mth44sc]

1. link n/t

[jenk]

2. I'm sure they'll tweak the numbers, watch unemployment fall to 5.5

[AZCat]

3. dupe link request, sorry n/t

[UpInArms]

4. link now added to original post

sorry all :(

[AZCat]

5. I am a bit confused by this part- can anyone clarify?

<snip>
| NOTE: Due to budget constraints in the Mass Layoff |
| Statistics (MLS) program, beginning with data for the |
| first quarter of 2004, the scope of quarterly extended |
| mass layoffs and plant closings, regularly reported in |
| the release, Extended Mass Layoffs in (Quarter), has been |
| redefined to cover only the private nonfarm economy. |
| Quarterly information on layoff events in agriculture |
| and government will no longer be collected. However, |
| the monthly reporting of the MLS program in the release, |
| Mass Layoffs in (Month), which is based only on admini- |
| strative data, will be unaffected and will continue to |
| cover the total economy.
<snip>

What does this mean? Are they saying that information on layoff events in agriculture and government will no longer be collected at all?

I don't understand what it means when it says that the monthly reporting is based "only on administrative data". Do they mean the Bush Administration provides the numbers, or am I interpreting this incorrectly?

[UpInArms]

6. this will make the second time that this

report has been un- or de- funded.

here's all I could find regarding recent budget cuts at the BoL

http://www.newsday.com/business/columnists/ny-bzzehren1228,0,4365885.column?coll=ny-business-columnists

Bad Stats

Allegations that the numbers kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are open to political pressure and manipulation are nothing new. (Nixon got hung up on that, among other things.) But the drumbeat of complaints has been growing louder.

Recent revisions of politically charged employment numbers have drawn attention to the problem. And while BLS statisticians defend their work, they also acknowledge they engage in a far too imperfect science for tracking developments and issuing data that carry much weight in determining everything from payments to Americans living on fixed incomes to the value of the stock market. Questions will be raised in the coming year year about the administration of the agency itself and whether funding cuts have made it more difficult for it to achieve its mandate. The numbers don't add up.

[mbperrin]

8. Admin data is hard paper, like unemployment claims, rather than

polling or watching business news releases. They don't seek them, so if they're not forwarded, they don't count.

And you're right, they're not counting the others at all!

[AZCat]

9. I smell a rat (see post #6)

Why are they going to begin this practice in 2004? So the budget has been cut- that seems ambiguous. I am glad the media is covering the inability of the Administration to stand behind their job creation numbers, but I wish more questions would be asked about this kind of manipulation.

Not that the Bush Admin is going to answer, of course.

[Crachet2004]

7. Hope this story gets BIG!

Jobs and the lies they have been telling about them are one of the Gop's weakest spots. They are manipulating the statistic in a very cynical attempt to make Bush look better.

[dbt]

10. KICK!

Back to the Front Page with yet another bit of truth that seems to have escaped the (mojo) filter of the media.

:evilgrin:
dbt
(Got to be good lookin' 'cause he's so hard to see.)

[54anickel]

11. Made the WA Post so far. n/t