Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

May 26, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Anti-religious Bias in the Media
  • Same-sex Marriage
  • 2012 Presidential Race
Home » Blogs » Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Ashley Judd to NBC: Republicans Are 'Really Dumb,' Obama Has 'Flowered'
  • Bozell Column: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
  • CBS: 'Troubling Signs' For Obama, Like Bush in '92, But President 'Cannot Control' Economy
  • On and On It Goes: Networks Cover 'Predator Priests' As They Stay Silent on Catholic Liberty Lawsuits
  • NBC's Williams Touts L.A. Banning Plastic Bags As Effort to Keep Them 'Out of the Natural World'
  • Bozell, Carlson Note Media's Silence on Obama Supporter's Bribe to Hush Rev. Wright
  • Very Annoyed Matthews Rips ‘Horse’s Ass Right-Wingers’ Who Cite ‘Thrill Up My Leg,’ Calls C-SPAN Host a ‘Jackass’
  • CNN Asks Tony Perkins 'Why Do Homosexuals Bother You So Much?'

TIME: Rising Unemployment Rate Is Good News

By Noel Sheppard | September 04, 2010 | 11:37

Change font size:  A |  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

The following headline appeared at Time.com shortly after the release of Friday's jobs report:

What's Good About Rising Unemployment

What should jump out at the eagle-eyed reader is that headline didn't end with a question mark.

Time senior writer Stephen Gandel was actually making the case that the rising unemployment rate was good news.

Watch just how far a liberal media member is willing to go today to make economic data look favorable for the Party currently in power, and imagine the unlikelihood of such a thing happening if a Republican was in the White House (h/t Rusty Weiss):

The unemployment rate, probably the most famous of economic gauges, may actually be a very bad indicator of how healthy the economy is. [...]

The unemployment rate peaked in late 2009 at just above 10% and has been mostly falling ever since. But the hiring numbers, or less firing numbers, have only been improving recently. So what was going on? The unemployment rate tracks not just how many people have jobs, but how many people are looking for jobs. And, up until August, the number of people looking for jobs was dropping rapidly.

Really? And just how did Gandel reach that conclusion?

Here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics' table of folks 16 and over currently out of the labor force but wanting a job now:

As is plainly visible, the number of folks out of the labor force but wanting work has been fluctuating between 5.61 million and 6.31 million since last August. It did experience a large drop in May, but has pretty much been rising since and is now basically where it was in April and January.

As such, claiming that "up until August, the number of people looking for jobs was dropping rapidly" is utter nonsense not supported by the data. In fact, this number is basically right back to where it was last September.

With that in mind, let's continue:

When people give up looking for work, essentially giving up on the economy, that indicates a really bad drop in confidence, something a recovery feeds on. So the reason the unemployment rate was rising has less to do with more people getting jobs, and more to do with fewer people looking.

Is this really a senior writer? 

Let's walk through that last sentence again: "So the reason the unemployment rate was rising has less to do with more people getting jobs..."

Huh? The unemployment rate is a simple arithmetic equation whereby the number of people unemployed is divided by the number of people considered part of the labor force. 

Using data just released Friday, there are currently 14.86 million people considered unemployed. The labor force is 154.11 million. This produces an unemployment rate of 9.64 percent.

Now, when people get jobs, the number considered unemployed declines reducing the numerator and therefore decreasing the unemployment rate.

As such, to claim rising unemployment has less to do with more people getting jobs makes absolutely no sense.

On the other hand, the final part of that sentence "and more to do with fewer people looking" needs to be addressed.

"Discouraged workers" - those out of the labor force but wanting a job - can have a huge impact on the unemployment rate.

The way these numbers are calculated, you are only considered unemployed and part of the labor force if you're actively looking for work. As such, when folks give up their search, it reduces the number of unemployed and the labor force by an equal amount.

Once again going back to simple arithmetic, a decrease in the numerator and denominator by an equal amount results in a lower ratio.

2 divided by 3 equals .67; 1 divided by 2 equals .5.

With this in mind, the unemployment rate can decline simply by discouraged job seekers ending their search. This has happened a number of times in the past few years.

Conversely, discouraged workers re-entering the labor force can cause the unemployment rate to rise. An increase in the numerator and denominator by equal amounts produces a higher result.

Gandel claimed this is what happened last month:

According to today's report, 550,000 people entered the workforce in August. That's a huge jump of new people looking for work, either because they haven't worked before or because they decided that this was the month to get back off the couch and start looking. With that many people entering the workforce, the fact that the unemployment number only rose 0.1% is quite a good thing. In fact, more than half of those people who began looking for work in August, or 290,000, landed a job in August. 

I agree that this this could be good news, but not necessarily for the same reason.

To make the case that the big jump in the labor force in August was even partially due to discouraged workers starting to look for work again goes against the data as the number of people out of the labor force and wanting work now increased by 86,000.

It goes without saying that if this huge increase in the labor force was caused by discouraged workers re-entering it, the number of discouraged workers wanting work should have declined.

But that's not what happened.

Instead, it appears the August data might have been confounded by seasonalities and the associated adjustments.

As employment watchers are painfully aware, there are seasonal changes in the jobs market that make for wild shifts in the numbers depending on the month.

The summer is a particularly volatile period with teachers out of work, students taking part-time jobs, and graduates getting full-time positions.

To smooth out the data, the Labor Department makes adjustments to the raw figures each month; the headline numbers are always "seasonally adjusted."

However, these manipulations at times present a peculiar picture of the labor market. As Gandel correctly pointed out:

It is possible that coming at the end of the summer an uptick in people looking for work is not as positive as it appears. This is the time of year, after two hot months, when recent graduates start to actually think about their future and send out resumes. And you can image many other out of work people deciding to take off looking for a job in the summer. In August, with the summer ending, some of those people started looking again in earnest.

Exactly. As such, the uptick in the labor force might have had little to do with discouraged workers beginning a new search as he suggested earlier. 

In fact, the unadjusted data actually showed a 600,000 decline in the labor force as well as an almost 400,000 decrease in the number of people unemployed.

This means the August data could easily be confounded by seasonalities and their related adjustments thereby offering a fuzzy picture about what any of this means going forward.

This is not to say Friday's report wasn't better than expected.

Over the past couple of weeks, signs had been pointing to a much worse economic conditions leading analysts to ratchet down their estimates for these numbers. As a result, what the BLS released Friday was certainly better than the gloomiest predictions out there.

But, calling this clearly mixed bag "good news" should be left to the administration and the Party currently controlling Congress and not so depicted by a so-called journalist.  

This seems especially true given that these exact same numbers would certainly not have been reported with such optimism when George W. Bush was in the White House.

Or have you forgotten the media's favorite economic term during his presidency "jobless recovery?"

Share this

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
  • Economy
  • Unemployment
  • Stephen Gandel
  • Time
  • Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

  • Is liberalism dead? (Roger L. Simon)
  • The media's next move on same-sex marriage (Get Religion)
  • Senate Dems pay women staffers less than male staffers (Washington Free Beacon)
  • Left targeting Chief Justice Roberts in attempt to save ObamaCare (IBD)
  • Walker's chance of defeating Wisc. recall looking great (Ace of Spades)
  • Ex-prez Bill Clinton poses for pic with porn stars (Fox Nation)
  • Protests against conservative group ALEC draw pitiful numbers (YouTube)

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB
Scott Rasmussen
Rasmussen Column: 'Austerity' Talk Is Just Political Cover for More Government Spending
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter Williams Column: Should Black People Tolerate This?
Cal Thomas's picture
Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas Column: The Media's Religion Deficit
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: IRS Gives Billions in Tax Refunds to Illegals
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin Column: How the Gay-Marriage Mafia Slimed Manny Pacquiao
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • Catholics/Christians/Others must stick together.
    5 min 16 sec ago
  • Do we know?
    6 min 20 sec ago
  • the thing libs love about collective responsibility
    8 min 13 sec ago
  • Was
    8 min 33 sec ago
  • Excuses, excuses, excuses
    10 min 11 sec ago
More >

More Like Farcebook
more cartoons
  • Howard Stern Hasn't Been 'King of Prime Time'
  • All Purpose Weekend Open Thread
  • NPR Celebrates Transgender Olympics Hopeful as Hammer-Throwing 'Jackie Robinson'
  • Bashir to Facebook Co-Founder: Go 'Play with the Traffic'
  • Piers Morgan Whacks 'Little Wretch' Who Says He Taught Phone-Hacking
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.