Despite all the gloom and doom, the employment picture in April was much better than economists had expected, and, maybe more important, quite different than the Hooveresque, Depression Era picture media members have been painting for months.
Makes you wonder if in press rooms all around America, as well as in Democrat campaign headquarters across the fruited plain, there was a huge sigh of disappointment at 8:30 AM EDT when the Labor Department released the data.
Critical updates at end of post including FAR better-than-expected factory orders report!
As such, without further ado, here's the news most people in the nation actually hoping for a good economy will be glad to hear:
Nonfarm payroll employment was little changed in April (-20,000), following job losses that totaled 240,000 in the first 3 months of the year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The unemployment rate, at 5.0 percent, also was little changed in April.
To put this in some perspective, both numbers are far better than what analysts were predicting. As reported by Bloomberg moments before the data was released:
Payrolls shrank by 75,000 workers after decreasing by 80,000 in March, according to the median estimate of 82 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News before the Labor Department's report. The jobless rate rose to a three-year high of 5.2 percent, the survey also showed.
Hmmm. So this was MUCH better than expected, for not only did the economy shed less jobs than predicted, but also the unemployment rate DROPPED to 5.0 percent instead of rising to 5.2.
It's going to be delicious to watch how all the liberal media members trying to convey Depression-like conditions in the nation in order to get a Democrat in the White House are going to negatively spin this one.
Stay tuned.
*****Update. Since it seems a metaphysical certitude media will, once again, refuse to give any historical reference to the jobs losses we've been seeing so far this year, here are the payroll declines in the first four months of the previous four recessions:
- 1980: 1,159,000
- 1981-82: 914,000
- 1990-91: 484,000
- 2001: 578,000
This means the average four-month loss of jobs at the beginning of the previous four recessions was 783,000. By contrast, we've lost 260,000 non-farm workers since December, or exactly one-third the recent average.
I'm sure media will inform the citizens of this.
*****Update II: Is the AP's Jeannine Aversa reading NewsBusters?
After all, we've been all over her poor economics writing for months. Yet, today, she surprised me with the following headline and opening paragraphs:
Friday May 2, 9:21 am ET
Employers cut fewer jobs in April, jobless rate falls to 5 percent
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics WriterWASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers cut far fewer jobs in April than in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent, a better-than-expected showing that nonetheless still revealed strains in the nation's crucial labor market.For the fourth month in a row, the economy lost jobs, the Labor Department reported Friday. But in April the losses totaled 20,000, an improvement from the 81,000 reductions in payrolls logged in March. Job losses for both February and March turned out to be a bit deeper than previously reported.
The latest snapshot of the nationwide employment conditions -- while clearly still weak -- was better than many economists were anticipating. They were bracing for job cuts of 75,000 and for the unemployment rate to climb to 5.2 percent.
Nice job, Jeannine. This is what's called reporting the news and not distorting it. Whatever got into your coffee this morning, please keep using it.
*****Update III: Factory orders for March were just released, and the data is stunning -- up 1.4 percent. Estimates were for a 0.2 percent rise. WOW!!!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
A Better Threadline
May 2, 2008 - 09:35 ET by V the KJob Losses Not Nearly As Bad As Anticipated: Democrats, Media Hardest Hit.
Diffferent headlines
May 2, 2008 - 09:45 ET by Prester JohnCNN Money: Job losses continue
http://money.cnn.com/
CBS Marketwatch: April drops just 20,000 jobs
http://www.marketwatch.com/?siteid=bigcharts
Yahoo Finance/AP: Employers Cut Fewer Jobs in April, Jobless Rate Falls
http://finance.yahoo.com/?u
Fox News: U.S. Loses 20k Jobs in April
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/loses-k-jobs-april/
Looking forward to the general election
May 2, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Gat New YorkOnly then will the media focus on what we have to say.
With morons on the left proclaiming this the worst economy since the Great Depression, how are they going to answer the facts that unemployment is down, that the stock market has been rising, that gold is down and the dollar is advancing?
This appears to be a very soft landing and a very well managed economy by this President who:
1. took over an economy not only in recession but ridden with corporate scandals and people losing their savings,
2. piloted this economy through the economic shock that came with 9/11 (which would not have happened if Clinton had the guts to fire).
3. a major mortgage mess.
4. and an extraordinary increase in energy costs.
Looking forward to the general election
May 2, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Gat New YorkOnly then will the media focus on what we have to say.
With morons on the left proclaiming this the worst economy since the Great Depression, how are they going to answer the facts that unemployment is down, that the stock market has been rising, that gold is down and the dollar is advancing?
This appears to be a very soft landing and a very well managed economy by this President who:
1. took over an economy not only in recession but ridden with corporate scandals and people losing their savings,
2. piloted this economy through the economic shock that came with 9/11 (which would not have happened if Clinton had the guts to fire).
3. a major mortgage mess.
4. and an extraordinary increase in energy costs.
As I commented in the other
May 2, 2008 - 09:45 ET by motherbeltAs I commented in the other thread, I expect the spin will be "Despite the recession...." because we are in a recession, you know. <sarc>
MB,
May 2, 2008 - 12:03 ET by ThisnThatThe real headline is going to be:
The Democratic 2006 Congress Thwarts Bush's Recession
As a result of the rise of Democrats in the 2006 Congressional takeover, Democratic leaders were able to prevent the nation from falling into the worst depression since the 1930's. Despite attempts by the Republican President and his congressional Republican lackeys to panic Americans, Democratic ear-marks and the stimulus package passed by Congress are now showing positive results in everyone's pocketbooks. "It goes to show how we Democrats are truely the best managers of this nation's economy" said Senators Schumer/Kennedy/Clinton/Kerry during today's hurridly-prepared press briefing.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Ok, if things are so wonderful economics-wise
May 2, 2008 - 09:48 ET by sarcasmoThen why do I see stories like this and this today on Drudge? (Note, same comment applies to Tom Blumner's thread today.)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Mr. Obvious Says...
May 2, 2008 - 09:54 ET by TinianThen why do I see stories like this and this today on Drudge?
Because the Fed is doing its job.
Got any other questions with obvious answers?
Mr. Obvious
May 2, 2008 - 09:56 ET by sarcasmoDoesn't see the consequences. Why do we EVER have downturns if the "heroin fix" is available. (And you're even easier to refute on this than you were on Ron Paul, which is quite a feat of refutability, dude!)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Mr. Obvious Says...
May 2, 2008 - 11:22 ET by TinianWhy do we EVER have downturns if the "heroin fix" is available.
Because the Fed is smart enough to use Tylenol instead.
Incredibly ignorant
May 2, 2008 - 11:24 ET by sarcasmoAnd history challenged, as we're already seeing. The bad part, for America, is that this kind of "logic" is "winning" the election debate in the Republican Party, which shall soon reap what it's now sowing. Then, as with NB after 2006, various people here will come unhinged following a sadly deserved election loss. But it's fun to see such intellectual depth on the part of my opponents.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
History Challenged?
May 2, 2008 - 18:25 ET by TinianI remember both oil shortages.
I remember the wheat shortage.
I remember the sugar shortage.
I remember the beef shortage.
I remember the S&L bailout that was supposed to bankrupt America.
I remember the "giant, sucking sound" that was supposed to bankrupt America.
And none of these Chicken Little stories sent us back to 1929.
I swear -- you Paulians are a sick crowd who will never be happy untill America suffers another Great Depression.
Why do you think
May 2, 2008 - 18:46 ET by sarcasmoWhat's going on somehow makes me happy?? Are you that clueless???
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Mr. Obvious Says...
May 2, 2008 - 19:11 ET by TinianWhat's going on somehow makes me happy?? Are you that clueless???
I'm totally clued in. A possible economic rebound will in no way will make you happy.
Noel: I do not agree
May 2, 2008 - 10:50 ET by stratmanNoel:
I do not agree Jeannine did a proper job of reporting economic data. While reporting actual numbers, she inserted her biased opinion, some which are ridiculous in nature.
How does one spin 5% unemployment as "weak"?
How does one spin near 30 year record low job losses as "strained", especially when unemployment is so low?
This was advocacy/opinionated reporting that tries to twist the reader's thoughts from fact to the writer's bias.
Jeannine is either a real "Debbie Downer" or she just can't fully embrace facts about the economy (during this administration?) and feels compelled to "inform" us of what's happening in her universe.
RRAM Tough!
Strat
May 2, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Noel SheppardStrat,
This was still a loss in payrolls, and the previous months' numbers were revised down as well. So, despite being better than expected, it's still a report that shows strain in the labor markets.
That said, I see your point. She still added some negativity, but I'm not sure it was inappropriate. Furthermore, compared to her economic reports the past couple of months, this one was downright glowing, dontcha think? ns
Yes, it was better than her
May 2, 2008 - 11:37 ET by stratmanYes, it was better than her past posts with less rhetoric.
I am happy that her current report was more fact than fiction.
At the risk of being a Debbie Downer, it is sad when we pay homage to a reporter for relaying facts.
Someone give Jeannine a cookie and some warm milk.
OK. To be serious, Noel, I agree that we should compliment and foster more accurate reporting as Jeannine's article.
Flies/Sugar/Vinegar/Catch
RRAM Tough!
Noel, Noel, Noel....
May 2, 2008 - 22:04 ET by Tom BlumerAversa does not deserve anything even resembling a pass.
There was NOT a "loss in payrolls." 703,000 jobs were added (not seasonally adjusted) -- less than in previous years, but 703,000 nonetheless.
There WAS a decline in seasonally adjusted total employment of 20,000. That doesn't change the fact that 703,000 more people were working in April than in March.
Aversa's litany of "pink slips" and "slashes" is pure fiction. Again, most sectors had declines in seasonally adjusted total employment, but they did NOT fire tens of thousands of people.
If you read her stuff from later in the day, it gets worse.
Tom
May 3, 2008 - 10:10 ET by Noel SheppardTom,
C'mon, that's a strawman argument. We use seasonally adjusted numbers. Period. I realize it seems silly, but that's what we do in order to smooth out the known seasonal elements in the labor markets. ns
The Economy will recover
May 2, 2008 - 10:58 ET by mattmThe Economy will recover when the media decide, then and only then.
I cannot give credit to the
May 2, 2008 - 11:10 ET by SmartypantsI cannot give credit to the media in general for its reporting of economic activity. We have been told for the better part of Bush's entire presidency that the economy is lousy, or disaster is right around the corner. Given that recessions do happen, they will be right eventually. Even if Bush is out of office when the "official" recession occurs, rest assured they will still find a way of blaming it on the Republican president. If a Democrat wins in November, they'll blame it on Bush. If McCain wins, they'll blame it on Bush and McCain.
Nothing to see here! Move along!
May 3, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Free StinkerNothing to see here! Move along! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. ;-)
LOL! Wait until people start spending those "rebate" checks . . .
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!