tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post4762741340113994644..comments2024-02-20T19:58:27.733-06:00Comments on Jake's Wisconsin Funhouse: As predicted, Wisconsin job numbers revised way downUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post-27929429299753428312015-03-06T11:43:27.786-06:002015-03-06T11:43:27.786-06:00If it's banality rather than intentional bias ...If it's banality rather than intentional bias then I was correct that Jake's criticism of Schmid was too harsh to include that accusation.<br /><br />On the DWD, take <a href="http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2010/unemployment/101021_september_state.pdf" rel="nofollow">the last pre-2010 election release</a> for instance: there's a loss of nearly 10,000 jobs there yet the lead is about how much the unemployment rate dropped. The DWD has always put the shiniest gloss on the monthly report, see e.g. <a href="http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2009/unemployment/0509_state_lmi.pdf" rel="nofollow">this report from the depths of the Great Recession</a>, leading with the seasonally-<b>un</b>adjusted data. Putting a positive spin on the numbers - even to the point of contrivance - is not something introduced by Newson under the Walker Administration despite him being a Walkerbot.<br /><br />As to the number of DWD press releases, there were 119 in 2007, 128 in 2008, 105 in 2009, 196 in 2010, 128 in 2011, 168 in 2012, 150 in 2013 and 238 in 2014. That's a 25% increase from Doyle's last term to Walker's first, nowhere near the 200% one that you claim.GeoffThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17317722272565026078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post-91761471397058092322015-03-06T10:30:47.651-06:002015-03-06T10:30:47.651-06:00It isn't a matter of intentional institutional...It isn't a matter of intentional institutionalized bias, it is a matter of banality. <br /><br />MJS' sports scrivener, Don Walker, is another perfect example. If you want take a look at what someone in the field writes regarding the explicit MJS bias towards a very shaky rationale for the new arena and the reporting levels: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/category/nba/milwaukee-bucks/.<br /><br />If you look at the Schmid piece you will see that he cites the department's statement on jobs through the end of December 2014. The only source for jobs through the end of 2014 are the Monthly Reports. Then no more than a paragraph away, without using the statement to qualify the DWD statement on y/e 2014 jobs, having changed the subject of the paragraph, Schmid repeats the oft-mouthed statement that Walker used when the monthly numbers didn't look so good, that the monthly reports are inaccurate, subject to extensive revision, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />And, of course, the DWD release counts. Secretary Newsome is a virtual alter ego for Walker. The number of press releases from the DWD have tripled over the Doyle Admin. And content analysis would show that they are mostly glowing congratulations of the "Great Leader" mold.<br /><br />Banality is its own motivation.<br /><br />You are not correct.<br /><br />Dr. MorbiusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post-48532697733955623172015-03-06T09:59:42.252-06:002015-03-06T09:59:42.252-06:00No, I'm quite correct on the first count: ther...No, I'm quite correct on the first count: there are no Walker press releases about the preliminary 2014 value and I was explicit about why DWD themselves shouldn't be counted.<br /><br />On the second, that's subjective of course, but if there really were an institutionalized bias here as you have suggested is possible then you need to explain why the low-hanging fruit of the 54,100 figure wasn't trumpeted to death in the initial report of the December figures instead of being <b>completely</b> ignored by Schmid and the MJS.GeoffThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17317722272565026078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post-52306811510421661662015-03-06T07:32:11.449-06:002015-03-06T07:32:11.449-06:00Geoff- That's incorrect on both counts. Here&...Geoff- That's incorrect on both counts. <a href="http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2015/150127_private_sector_growth.htm" rel="nofollow"> Here's a DWD release from late January talking about "54,000 jobs gained." </a> And there's been plenty if related happy talk from Walker and company on the campaign trail to this effect.<br /><br /> As for Schmidt- there's no excusing what he did. He either is the laziest "journalist" ever, and stopped reading the release after page 2, or he ignored the revision entirely .<br /><br /> The only way he gets off the hook is if the right-wing bosses at the JS spiked him referring to the huge downward revisions. Possible, but not likelyJake formerly of the LPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15660401299391001751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3426800777521979578.post-17725903392307275372015-03-06T01:21:18.757-06:002015-03-06T01:21:18.757-06:00I think you're being a bit harsh on Schmid her...I think you're being a bit harsh on Schmid here: when the <a href="https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2014/unemployment/150122_december_state.pdf" rel="nofollow">December DWD report</a> came out with its "12-month gain in private-sector jobs by a statistically significant 54,100<br />from December 2013 to December 2014", <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsins-unemployment-rate-holds-at-52-in-december-b99431175z1-289483831.html" rel="nofollow">Schmid reported on it</a> and soberly led with the static unemployment rate of that report rather than the good preliminary gains for December and the apparently excellent 2014 total all while emphasizing the shortcomings of the monthly data.<br /><br />In comparison, then, Schmid didn't draw attention to - didn't mention, even - the preliminary unbenchmarked 2014 total gain figure now known to be bogus. Schmid's readers could have come to an inaccurate view of 2014's jobs performance that is wrong only by adding up each month's report; as far as giving the public the wrong impression goes it's a very subtle aggregate one.<br /><br />While the size of this revision is a big deal, I don't see any gubernatorial press releases emphasizing the preliminary-and-badly-wrong 54,100 number; Walker's spokesdrone <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/15/us-usa-politics-walker-idUSKBN0LJ0R320150215" rel="nofollow">mentioned it once</a> and that seems to have been the extend of the Walker Admin's happy talk. Presumably it was de-emphasized (I don't count DWD's emphasis since the DWD <i>always</i> pushes the sunniest spots of each monthly report no matter the party in power - it's part of their job to make Wisconsin look as bustling as possible) since 2014 rounded out Walker's complete failure to get anywhere close to his 250,000 promise. It wasn't really a popular myth that needed to be dispelled.<br /><br />You are of course quite right to criticize Schmid for not mentioning this revision at all, but I think you go too far in reading motivations into that. I have found him receptive to pointing out issues with the jobs data he reports and I've even gotten him to correct stories involving Wisconsin's job growth rankings on more than one occasion.GeoffThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17317722272565026078noreply@blogger.com