Results are in from Illinois' 67% tax rate increase

[ProudLefty]

Gosh, Pandora, those numbers seem to contradict the right-wing blog's numbers, eh?

Jobs created in Illinois since the tax increase was passed is:

Jul: 6,005,262
Feb: 5,916,702
dif: 88,560 jobs added.

Somehow that seems different that the screams of terror in the original post, eh?

 

[Pandora]

Gosh, Pandora, those numbers seem to contradict the right-wing blog's numbers, eh?

Jobs created in Illinois since the tax increase was passed is:

Jul: 6,005,262
Feb: 5,916,702
dif: 88,560 jobs added.

Somehow that seems different that the screams of terror in the original post, eh?

yeah that is why i wanted LA to look at them. I do not understand why both charts are so different. and I dont know what chart to believe.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Gosh, Pandora, those numbers seem to contradict the right-wing blog's numbers, eh?

Not sure what right-wing blog you're talking about, unless you're attempting another subtle fib. Your link just gives me a blank screen.

The numbers in the graph I posted, as it mentions, came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the U.S. Department of Labor, a division of the Federal Government that you folks are always telling us is the one that should be handling more and more of our daily lives.

Have you written to the U.S. Department of Labor to tell them that their numbers are wrong, and what the correct figures should be according to you?

 

[Pandora]

I showed the graph you posted to someone from work and they sent me this


http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/download/laus_ytd_july11.pdf



It looks like their numbers show improvement after the tax increase on jobs not a decline. Would you look at the website and help me understand why the numbers are so different and what numbers should we believe?

Not sure what right-wing blog you're talking about, unless you're attempting another subtle fib. Your link just gives me a blank screen.

The numbers in the graph I posted, as it mentions, came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the U.S. Department of Labor, a division of the Federal Government that you folks are always telling us is the one that should be handling more and more of our daily lives.

Have you written to the U.S. Department of Labor to tell them that their numbers are wrong, and what the correct figures should be according to you?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I showed the graph you posted to someone from work and they sent me this


http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/download/laus_ytd_july11.pdf



It looks like their numbers show improvement after the tax increase on jobs not a decline. Would you look at the website and help me understand why the numbers are so different and what numbers should we believe?

Still getting a blank screen for this link too (the filter they have here at work can be funny sometimes), so I took the first part of the URL you included (http://lmi.ides.state.il.us), cut/pasted it into my browser, got the starting screen for the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), and then tried to click my way through the various trees to try to find the data you probably meant.

Found a PDF called LAUS_YTD_STATE[1].pdf . It contains the data:

2011 YEAR TO DATE ESTIMATES FOR THE STATE, METROPOLITAN AREAS, MICROPOLITAN AREAS, COMBINED STATISTICAL AREAS
COUNTIES, CITIES, LOCAL WORKFORCE AREAS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS - NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
Scroll down to see full content of report
LABOR
UNEMPLOYED
AREA
YEAR
MO#
FORCE
EMPLOYED
NUMBER
RATE
STATE AND METROPOLITAN AREAS
ILLINOIS
2011
1
6,565,729
5,933,320
632,409
9.6
ILLINOIS
2011
2
6,532,580
5,916,702
615,878
9.4
ILLINOIS
2011
3
6,571,643
5,973,028
598,615
9.1
ILLINOIS
2011
4
6,569,973
6,002,532
567,441
8.6
ILLINOIS
2011
5
6,590,519
5,998,511
592,008
9.0
ILLINOIS
2011
6
6,684,379
6,035,330
649,049
9.7
ILLINOIS
2011
7
6,669,362
6,005,262
664,100
10.0

Is this the one?

I haven't a clue why this PDF says different things from the U.S. Dept. of Labor PDF. The numbers are in exactly the same ballpark, from 5.9 million to 6.05 million persons employed in various months, but why the figures for each months don't match, I don't know.

This newer PDF I found in the IDES site (Is it the one you were trying to point out?), contains the word "ESTIMATES", which the Federal one doesn't. But that's pretty thin. The Feds have been known to use estimates too, though they usually say so when they do it.

We may have to wait for ProudLefty's report on what the U.S. Department of Labor tells him after he reports to them that their numbers are wrong.

 

[Pandora]

Yes that is the page and I also noticed the word estimate in that page, it was not used in your page.

I don't know what one to believe

Still getting a blank screen for this link too (the filter they have here at work can be funny sometimes), so I took the first part of the URL you included (http://lmi.ides.state.il.us), cut/pasted it into my browser, got the starting screen for the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), and then tried to click my way through the various trees to try to find the data you probably meant.

Found a PDF called LAUS_YTD_STATE[1].pdf . It contains the data:

2011 YEAR TO DATE ESTIMATES FOR THE STATE, METROPOLITAN AREAS, MICROPOLITAN AREAS, COMBINED STATISTICAL AREAS
COUNTIES, CITIES, LOCAL WORKFORCE AREAS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS - NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
Scroll down to see full content of report
LABOR
UNEMPLOYED
AREA
YEAR
MO#
FORCE
EMPLOYED
NUMBER
RATE
STATE AND METROPOLITAN AREAS
ILLINOIS
2011
1
6,565,729
5,933,320
632,409
9.6
ILLINOIS
2011
2
6,532,580
5,916,702
615,878
9.4
ILLINOIS
2011
3
6,571,643
5,973,028
598,615
9.1
ILLINOIS
2011
4
6,569,973
6,002,532
567,441
8.6
ILLINOIS
2011
5
6,590,519
5,998,511
592,008
9.0
ILLINOIS
2011
6
6,684,379
6,035,330
649,049
9.7
ILLINOIS
2011
7
6,669,362
6,005,262
664,100
10.0

Is this the one?

I haven't a clue why this PDF says different things from the U.S. Dept. of Labor PDF. The numbers are in exactly the same ballpark, from 5.9 million to 6.05 million persons employed in various months, but why the figures for each months don't match, I don't know.

This newer PDF I found in the IDES site (Is it the one you were trying to point out?), contains the word "ESTIMATES", which the Federal one doesn't. But that's pretty thin. The Feds have been known to use estimates too, though they usually say so when they do it.

We may have to wait for ProudLefty's report on what the U.S. Department of Labor tells him after he reports to them that their numbers are wrong.

 

[ProudLefty]

I have seen stuff from The AmericanThinker before that didn't quite jibe with the original source, but be that as it may, both reports show changes which are trivial in one direction or the other.

It is a graph designed by AmericanThinker to accent the changes by leaving off the bottom 90% of the graph. If the American Thinker showed the whole graph, the line would look pretty flat.

In other words, this is a hit piece. The 67% change is a matter of using the truth to tell a lie. Companies don't vacate their factories over a 2% change in the tax rate, which is what the rate change was.

 

[Dr.Who]

Gosh, Pandora, those numbers seem to contradict the right-wing blog's numbers, eh?

Jobs created in Illinois since the tax increase was passed is:

Jul: 6,005,262
Feb: 5,916,702
dif: 88,560 jobs added.

Somehow that seems different that the screams of terror in the original post, eh?

I am not understanding what you are saying. Doesn't July come after February? Wouldn't the 88k be jobs lost?

 

[GenSeneca]

I am not understanding what you are saying. Doesn't July come after February? Wouldn't the 88k be jobs lost?

To the Progressives, you're the one who is seeing things backwards...

 

[Pandora]

I am not understanding what you are saying. Doesn't July come after February? Wouldn't the 88k be jobs lost?

Will you look at these two charts

The one Little Acorn posted

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/graph_for_the_day_for_august_25_2011.html




and this one that someone from work sent me

http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/download/laus_ytd_july11.pdf



They are both for the same state at the same time but they are different.

What one would you believe?

 

[Dr.Who]

Will you look at these two charts

The one Little Acorn posted

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/graph_for_the_day_for_august_25_2011.html




and this one that someone from work sent me

http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/download/laus_ytd_july11.pdf


They are both for the same state at the same time but they are different.

What one would you believe?

The one from AT shows in the graph that there are less jobs in ill from Feb to July. I have seen that in words too in several other sources. And the unemployment rate went up during that time. It is self consistent and consistent with other sources.

The one from your friend shows that people "employed" went up in that time frame but also and in contradiction that the unemployment rate went up too. It is not self consistent nor is it consistent with other sources. Clearly there is a problem here. Since it is a gov source I would assume that they are using some very special definition of what an employed person is that does not mean the same thing that everyone else means when they would use those words.

 

[Pandora]

The one from AT shows in the graph that there are less jobs in ill from Feb to July. I have seen that in words too in several other sources. And the unemployment rate went up during that time. It is self consistent and consistent with other sources.

The one from your friend shows that people "employed" went up in that time frame but also and in contradiction that the unemployment rate went up too. It is not self consistent nor is it consistent with other sources. Clearly there is a problem here. Since it is a gov source I would assume that they are using some very special definition of what an employed person is that does not mean the same thing that everyone else means when they would use those words.

Thank you for looking at it. I might write them a letter and ask them about it.