If you think the numbers in the September jobs report were skewed to help President Barack Obama, a look into how the figures are calculated will prove you wrong.

Some conservatives have accused the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cooking the September jobs report numbers to help Obama. But given how the government collects and reports the monthly data, those claims are probably baseless.

The rallying cry of the conspiracy theorists was sounded by former General Electric CEO Jack Welch. After the BLS announced that the unemployment rate fell in September to 7.8 percent, the lowest level since January 2009, Welch tweeted: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers." Other prominent conservatives parroted the conspiracy theory.

But it just isn't so. The monthly jobs numbers are put together by career government analysts, using long-established statistical methods that are shielded from political influence. Until recently, the BLS was run by an appointee from the Bush administration, and it currently has no political appointees.

Here's how it works: The government surveys a random sample of roughly 60,000 households and 140,000 employers every month, according to Karen Kosanovich, senior economist at the BLS. Both the household and establishment surveys are scientifically random samples, meant to represent all U.S. residents and businesses.

For the household survey, on which the unemployment rate is based, representatives from the Census Bureau interview people by knocking on their doors or calling them on behalf of the BLS.

To break that down a bit further, the government does not actively choose whom to poll for the household survey. A computer program randomly decides on which households get included in the survey.

So that the figures are based on a representative sample, the government narrows down exactly how many people in different categories it will survey before the computer program does its work. For example, a certain number of people surveyed live in urban areas in Texas, in order to represent the share of total U.S. residents who live in urban areas in Texas. That same weighting is done for areas across the country.

The government minimizes variability by interviewing only so many new households every month. On a given month, roughly one-eighth of households surveyed are being interviewed by the government for the survey for the first time, according to Kosanovich. That is because the government interviews the same households up to eight times over a year and a half after randomly selecting them, in order to prevent the unemployment rate from changing because a given cohort was significantly different from the one before.

"We report the data that we get from the survey directly," Kosanovich said. "There's no political influence on our collection or data estimation or release of data."

Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is an independent agency that typically has only one political appointee: the commissioner. But BLS commissioner Keith Hall, a Bush appointee, left in January, and Congress has yet to confirm President Obama's nominee.

Others have noted that it is impossible for the BLS to have made these numbers up for political reasons. Hall told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that "the numbers are what they are." And Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein breaks down some of the numbers in the jobs report that are drawing the suspicion of conspiracy theorists.

The short story is that the job truthers' claims are baseless. No conspiracy here.

Loading Slideshow...
  • Workers are not reaping the gains of their extra productivity.

    Worker productivity grew 11 times more quickly than worker pay between 1979 and 2011: While <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/key-findings/" target="_blank">worker productivity rose 69 percent</a>, median hourly compensation rose just 6.5 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4u-change-total-economy/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]

  • CEO pay has skyrocketed.

    Maybe it's time to consider your CEO's massive pay package as a cut out of your own paycheck. <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/wages/" target="_hplink">CEO pay is more than 200 times</a> that of a typical worker, up from 30 times that of a typical worker in the late 1970s, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

  • There aren't enough jobs.

    At its current rate of job creation, the U.S. will not return to its pre-recession unemployment rate of around 5 percent before 2020, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

  • Job growth was slow even before the recession.

    From the Economic Policy Institute: "The business cycle from 2000-2007 is the weakest full business cycle on record for job creation, due to the fact that demand was insufficient to drive overall GDP gains that were robust enough to generate strong job growth." It appears that the middle class squeeze has hurt job creation and economic growth.

  • We are poorer than we could be.

    Households in the middle fifth of income distribution would have been making $18,897 more per year as of 2007 if their incomes had grown as quickly as overall average incomes between 1979 and 2007, according to the Economic Policy Institute. (The sizable income growth for top earners since 1979 skewed the overall average.)

  • The rich have captured most income growth.

    The top one percent captured 60 percent of total income growth between 1979 and 2007, while the bottom 90 percent was left with just 9 percent of the total, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Moreover, the top one percent's incomes rose 241 percent, in contrast to 11 percent growth for the bottom fifth and 19 percent growth for the middle fifth. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-income-figure-2a-real-median-family/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]

  • Wages have grown more quickly for the rich.

    Wages for the top one percent spiked 131 percent between 1979 and 2010, while wages for the bottom 90 percent of workers rose just 15 percent over that same period, according to the Economic Policy Institute. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4h-change-real-annual-wages/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]

  • The poorest Americans are earning less than in 1979.

    Americans in the bottom tenth of the wage distribution earned less last year than the lowest earners did in 1979, accounting for inflation, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, the real wages of the median worker rose only 6 percent between 1979 and 2011.

  • The American Dream is eroding.

    "Families headed by early baby boomers (born between 1945-1954) are the last generation (on average) to achieve higher living standards than the one that preceded them," the Economic Policy Institute says. Among families with incomes below $28,000 in 1994, less than 1 percent made it to the top fifth of incomes 10 years later, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

  • This has been a lost decade.

    On average, hourly pay has not grown at all since 2002 for workers with a college degree or with only a high school degree, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Wages have not grown for college graduates in nearly every occupation, and college graduates in the 70th income percentile or lower have had stagnant or falling wages since 2000. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4a-change-total-economy/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]

Earlier on HuffPost: