There's no denying the economy is slowing, and may have either entered a recession, or is on the brink of one. Maybe.
However, the media's hysterical response to Friday's February jobs report lacked any historical reference to how the labor market behaved in previous recessions.
Instead, press outlet after press outlet decided that the loss of 63,000 jobs in February was a clear signal the recession they've been calling for since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in September 2005 had finally begun.
In fact, as they fretted over this decline in non-farm payrolls, media chose not to ask and answer an important question:
How does a loss of 63,000 jobs compare to payroll declines at the beginning of previous recessions?
Interesting historical question, wouldn't you agree?
Let's begin our examination with the recession that started with a 7.8 percent decline in Gross Domestic Product the second quarter of 1980. That April, non-farm payrolls declined by 145,000, 2.3 times what was lost in February 2008.
Of course, since the total number of employees in April 1980 was a little under 91 million versus today's almost 138 million, this 145,000 loss represented even a far greater percentage decline.
Maybe more important, since February 2008 was the second month of job losses, a potentially better reference point would be the 431,000 jobs lost in May 1980, the second month of that year's recession. Compare that to the 63,000 payroll declines last month, and one has to question all the hysteria.
Moving forward, when the '81-'82 recession began with a 4.9 percent GDP slide in the fourth quarter of 1981, 100,000 jobs were lost that October, followed by 209,000 in November.
When a 3.0 percent GDP drop signalled the start of the '90-'91 recession, 161,000 jobs were lost in October followed by 144,000 in November.
The most recent recession in 2001 is a hard one to plot. After all, from a classical definition standpoint, there ended up never being too consecutive quarters of GDP declines. However, as most economists feel a recession began in March 2001, 281,000 jobs were lost in April of that year.
Add it all up, and in the first two months of the 1980 recession, 576,000 jobs were lost. In the '81-'82 recession, this number was 309,000. In '90-'91, the tally was 305,000. In 2001, the number was 311,000. This represents an average two-month loss in the beginning of the last four recessions of 375,000 jobs.
Yet, in the first two months of what media believe to be the recession of 2008, the total job loss has been 85,000, or roughly one-fifth the average of the last four recessions in the past three decades.
Hmmm. You think that might be why media outlets chose not to apply an historical reference to Friday's figures?
Of course, in the end, we may very well be in one as we speak, and the first quarter GDP to be reported in April might actually show its first decline since the third quarter of 2001.
And, the second quarter might also show a GDP decline thereby fitting the classical definition of a recession: two consecutive quarters of GDP declines, which frankly means that we won't actually know if we're in a recession until late August.
Sadly, media can't wait that long, especially not in an election year when economy-bashing will certainly help their Party take back the White House.
Does this mean the media are beginning to follow the same strategy they employed in 1992 when they assisted Bill Clinton in his run for the presidency? After all, despite the fact the 1990s recession actually ended in the second quarter of 1991, press outlets continued to portray a terrible economy so that Team Clinton could focus on their mantra, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"
And, for those that forgot when the recession ended that decade, please also be advised that as media members depicted bad economic times in 1992, the GDP grew by 3.3 percent that year, its strongest performance since 1989.
With this in mind, it seems imperative for New Media outlets to do everything within their power to make sure the electorate is getting the real economic news this year, for the mainstream press, all atwitter at the thought of regaining the White House, certainly can't be trusted to do so.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'd have to check, but it
March 8, 2008 - 16:00 ET by Chris NormanI'd have to check, but it seems that the media begins predicting daily an "imminent recession" beginning the first day a Republican president takes office.
Chris.... Bulls-Eye! Not
March 8, 2008 - 16:05 ET by bigtimerChris....
Bulls-Eye!
Nothing more to add to that...you said it all.
BT, Okay, I get the hint. I
March 8, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Chris NormanBT,
Okay, I get the hint. I won't say anything else ever again. :)
If a Dem is elected, it
March 8, 2008 - 16:25 ET by gopsteveIf a Dem is elected, it will be nice to hear how well the economy is doing from the msm.
Everything will be "A better than expected report on..." blah blah blah
And there will be no more
March 8, 2008 - 16:29 ET by Chris NormanAnd there will be no more questions about "how will the government pay for all of this?" - that question is reserved for tax cuts under the GOP.
Yep... that leftist would
March 8, 2008 - 16:31 ET by bigtimerYep... that leftist would be herald as the miracle maker in all areas of the economy...
Nothing new...
Btw, usually always happens the economic numbers in most areas always shows up better after the person with the 'R' behind his name leaves and the work that person and his administration did gives credit to the person with the 'D' behind their name takes office.
Never fails.
Drive-by media: Hysteria - Historical...Same Difference
March 8, 2008 - 17:01 ET by RMRSo Noel, are you saying the drive-by media chose hysteria over historical facts? and here I was thinking so highly of you.
Shame on you.
Noel, well then - no wonder ABC called it a "record job losses."
March 8, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Gary HallNoel, well then - no wonder ABC called it a "record job losses."
... and, of course, you know how much I appeciated your post today. (;~>
Of course the MSM also
March 8, 2008 - 19:04 ET by dscottOf course the MSM also neglected to tell everyone that even with the reduction in work positions, there was also a reduction in unemployment! This is par for the course in the dishonest reporting of the MSM acting as the propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party. Why didn't they report all the facts? Here are the facts they failed to report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm So why didn't they report 195,000 fewer people were unemployed? Why didn't they report unemployment dropped from 4.9% to 4.8% from January to February? Why did they cover up the obvious implication when employment in total numbers drop by 255,000, yet 195,000 fewer people were unemployed????? The obvious answer they are trying to cover up is that 450,000 illegal aliens have left in one month due to the economy and the crack down on employers. As a result, 195,000 American Citizens got more jobs last month. That's a huge number! Be watching the March unemployment number folks, if we see another month like this it will be confirmation that the government has really taken the illegal immigration issue seriously. At this pace by November, another 1.6 million illegals will not be in the work force and another 800,000 American Citizens will have jobs driving down the unemployment rate to the neighborhood of 4.5%. By that time the Dems and their mouthpieces the MSM propaganda machine will no longer be able to cover up or spin the issues. Yeap, there is a silverlining in this slow down, it is going to force the Dems to acknowledge their failed policy of supporting illegals. So far as reported here 2.4 million illegals have left since August 2007, http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/03/07/is-the-usas-adult-population-and-workforce-shrinking-if-so-why/
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Yes, it has started, and
March 8, 2008 - 22:53 ET by GregEYes, it has started, and for the media, putting the 63,000 in any sort of perspective is of no value to them. Unless there was a Democrat president in office right now, then the time would be allotted for full explanations.
They're getting what they want, and since it's not big enough, they provide nothing in comparison. No perspective, therefore it's huge. And they've wanted it for a couple years and now it's showing signs of what they want and predict. Of course a stopped clock it also right twice a day, so it's only a matter of time. No economy can go straight up indefinitely. In the downturns, people lose jobs, things slow, people do get hurt, and no, it's not pleasant.
The media power hard at work, and in America's face 24/7 to ram home the agenda. Simply amazing that news media in recent decades has come to this.
Media see recession (AP is the Media)
March 9, 2008 - 16:48 ET by wiley catNoel,
Isn't this turning out not to be the media, but mostly the Associated Press (AP)? Both of your articles (here and the ABC: Drop..) have been filled with great data and commenters have also provided additional in-depth data and exposed the sloppy reporting with respect to the profile of those represented by the figures, and the effect of the tightening and enforcing immigration laws. It might be worth noting that the federal government has done very little to improve the illegal immigration situation, and the large majority of enforcement actions have been due to state and local government activities. I have quoted most of the entire articles as they appeared in my local paper (emphasis mine), and especially the reporters' prejudicial and presumptive language.
A cadre of NB reviewers, each assigned to a reporter, could not keep up with what appears to be a concerted effort by AP managers and editors to purposely distort and misreport national news in total support of fundamentalist anti-capitalist dogma. These are not journalists writing these pieces, they are frustrated polemicists or dramatists, ("probably" lazy or ill-taught) bent on weaving a binding web of propaganda instead of reporting news in a straightforward and factual way. And they are willingly and consciously assisted by the editors at my local paper, who write the headlines.
Front Page Headlines: "Cracking under pressure" with Subtitle :"Jobs erased nationwide by largest amount in five years"
byline: Jeannine Aversa AP
1st paragraph:
Dangerous cracks are appearing in the nation's job market. Employers slashed jobs by the largest amount in five years - and hundreds and thousands of people dropped out of the labor force-an ominous sign that the country is falling toward a recession or has toppled into one.
For the second straight month, nervous employers got rid of jobs nationwide. In February, they sliced payrolls by 63,000, even deeper than the 22,000 positions cut in January, the Labor Department reported Friday. The grim snapshot of the country's employment climate underscored the heavy toll the housing and credit debacles are taking on companies, jobseekers and the economy as a whole.
"It sounds like the recession bell is ringing for the U.S. economy, although it is still faint," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group. (An unknown guru, perhaps?)
(Then in the next two paragraphs is a speculation on the "Fed's" responses, and listing of the job categories losing workers, followed by:) ...All those cuts swamped job gains at hospitals and other health care sites, bars and restaurants, legal services and the government.
(The next two paragraphs quote President Bush, with his "...It's clear the economy has slowed." statement, and follow with the following definitive sentence: ...The weak employment report pushed an increasing number of private economists into the camp that the economy is probably shrinking now....) (Who are they, probably?)
Then, 8 paragraphs down, the good news, followed by the bad news:
The unemployment rate actually dipped slightly from 4.9 percent to 4.8 percent, as 450,000 people left the labor force for any number of reasons. Economists thought many people probably gave up looking for work. (...and probably moved to a state friendlier to illegal immigrants or went back to their legal country and home?) (Thanks to dscott: http://newsbusters.o...)
In the 9th paragraph: "It stands to reason that a large share of the people left because they didn't feel like anything was there for them - that the market was too weak to be searching for a job at this point," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. (Must be a real guru?)
(The next two paragraphs outline actual actions by the Fed and note that the Dow Jones industrals are down 80 points.) (What's up with that?)
12th paragraph: Crumbling employment conditions are feeding fears the economy will fall victim to all the stresses....Now people and businesses alike are more cautious, spelling more trouble for the economy.
14th-16th paragraph: The elimination of 63,000 jobs in February was the most since March 2003 and marked the second month in a row of job losses. The last time the economy suffered two consecutive months of job losses was in May and June of 2003, when the labor market was still struggling to recover from the blows of the 2001 recession.
"Businesses got cold feet, and when that happens the easiest thing to do is to put hiring on hold and wait until the dust clears," said Ken Mayland, economist at ClearView Economics. (Another guru?)
Economic growth slowed to a near standstill of just a 0.6 percent pace in the final quarter of last year. Before Friday's employment report , many thought growth would weaken further-around a 0.4 percent pace. Now however, a growing number think the economy is contracting. (Even better news is bad news.)
17th paragraph: (reporting the "...most pessimistic assessment heard out of the White House..")
20th paragraph: Speaker Pelosi ...called the employment figures troubling and spoke of charting a "new direction for our economy that breaks with the failed Bush administration policies."
21st-23rd paragraph: "On the employment front, workers with jobs saw modest wage gains.
Average hourly earnings for jobholders rose to $17.80 in February, a 0.3 percent increase from the previous month. Over the last 12 months, wages were up 3.7 percent. With lofty energy and food prices, though, workers may feel like their paychecks are shrinking.
Spreading fallout from the housing and credit debacles are the main factors behind the economic slowdown. People and businesses alike are feeling the strain and have turned cautious. Adding to the stresses on pcketbooks, budgets and the economy: skyrocketing energy prices. Oil prices have set a string of record highs in recent days. Gasoline prices have marched higher, too.
To help shore up the economy...(reference to the Fed reducing interest rates ending with-)...the biggest one-month reduction in a quarter century.
This was followed up with this report on Page 13A Business:
Headline: Stocks fall sharply after weak jobs report
Byline: Tim Paradis, AP
"Stocks tumbled for a second consecutive session Friday after the government's February jobs report revealed employers slashed payrolls last month, compounding fears that the U.S. economy is succumbing to recession. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 146 points, bringing its two-day slide to 370.
This week's decline in the three major stock indexes(sic) to their lowest settlements since 2006 came despite the Federal Reserve's announcement that it would take steps to aid the credit markets.
The Labor Department's report that employers cut jobs by 63,000last month - the most since March 2003 - unnerved investors worried about the health of the economy and who had been expecting a 25,000 gain in jobs. While the unemployment rate fell to 4.8 percent, the decline reflects people leaving the labor force.
(discussion of Fed's strategies - 2 paragraphs)
Paragraph 6: Craig Peckham, an equity trading strategist at Jefferies & Co., said besides the weak job figures, investors were worried about an apparent lack of effectiveness of the Fed's campaign. (Another guru?)
"There is a growing sense that the Fed is trying to pull out all the stops and use all the tools they have but with little net effect," he said. "It just doesn't appear to be the quick-fix that investors had been hoping for. What we've seen is people continuing to press very bearish bets."
It's been a rough week for Wall Street - the Dow fell 3.04 percent, the S&P fell 2.80 percent and the Nasdaq fell 2.60 percent.
(Next paragraph, gratuitous musings on "Wall Streets" motivations and the "well-being of the consumer" being the "key to investors' hopes")
Paul Nolte, director of investments at Hinsdale Associates, (another unknown guru?) said the job losses in February weren't surprising. "The trend for the last year and a half has been either job losses or very small gains. That is what you would expect in a contracting economy and we think the economy has been in a recession for two or three months," he said.
It really is outrageous to have national reporting which is so shallow and lacking in substance and information, just to try and bend every situation into that narrow ideology which results in loss of personal freedom and responsibility, and to try and implement a de-facto economy where everyone works for the state, and the incomes of the "puppet-masters" (those who usurp the power of the state for their own wealth and aggrandizement) is not reportable or accountable to anyone (the equal sharing of misery - or more and more people sharing less and less money in the economy).