AP Highlights Fewer Jobs, Ignores Steep Drop in Unemployed

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

Here's is the core information the Associated Press's Jeannine Aversa had to work with today in the Employment Situation Report released by the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

EMPSITkeyData0208

The "Dec.-Feb. change" column was added by me, but is easily calculated from the data in the BLS report. What Aversa did with this info, and my comments, are after the jump. (see also Noel Sheppard's post here)

Here's how her report began (scare words in bold; the headline is also from AP):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Employers Slash Jobs by Most in 5 Years

Employers slashed jobs by 63,000 in February, the most in five years, the starkest sign yet the country is heading dangerously toward recession or is in one already.

The Labor Department's report, released Friday, also showed that the nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.8 percent as hundreds of thousands of people — perhaps discouraged by their prospects — left the civilian labor force. The jobless rate was 4.9 percent in January.

Job losses were widespread, with hefty cuts coming from construction, manufacturing, retailing, financial services and a variety of professional and business services. Those losses swamped gains elsewhere including education and health care, leisure and hospitality, and the government.

The latest snapshot of the nation's employment climate underscored the heavy toll of the housing and credit crises on companies, jobseekers and the overall economy.

Here are just a few quick hits on what Aversa missed, or distorted:

  • First, how does she know that "employer slashes" and "cuts," as opposed to retirements, voluntary departures, and other forms of attrition, are the sole cause of the job losses? Answer: She doesn't, but the imagery of employers doing violence to workers, a staple of AP reporting in this area, is apparently irresistible.
  • Aversa's minimization of the unemployment rate drop by attributing it to people leaving the workforce only works if you look at January. But, as seen in the core info above, the number of adults not in the labor force has gone up very little (+146,000).
  • Her "perhaps discouraged workers" theory is an easy one to puncture. In fact, it's debunked in the text of the BLS report, which says that "Among the marginally attached, there were 396,000 discouraged workers in February, about the same as a year earlier." I looked it up — February 2007’s discouraged worker count was 375,000. (Update: NB's Noel Sheppard also noted that January 2008's "discouraged worker" number was a lot higher [467,000] than February's.)
  • She totally ignored the fact that the number of unemployed (i.e., the people we should be concerned about) dropped by almost 200,000 in February, and is now 284,000 (3.6%) lower than it was in December. That doesn't exactly square with an economy Aversa says is "heading dangerously toward recession or is in one already."

Here's the real homework assignment someone in the business press should be exploring: How did the total adult population drop from December (233.16 million, the sum of "Civilian labor force" and "Not in labor force") to February (232.81 million)? Where did these people go? Did a lot of them perhaps cross a certain national border to the south, in part because of laws passed in Oklahoma and Arizona?

Other perspectives on today's Employment Situation Report are at this BizzyBlog.com post.

 

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There's the....

....64 thousand dollar question. What has caused this unreported,  mass-exodus?

It's easy to paint a "sky is falling" picture when you ignore, skew or downright falsify the very data that proves otherwise.

This comes as no surprise however - consider the source.

The Global Warming COLD WINTER!

Many construction jobs lost due to the FRIGID, SNOWY winter that was of course caused by Global Warming!

Sure, why look at such a

Sure, why look at such a complicated thing as credit crunch when we can pretend it is has something to do with the weather?

Bankruptcies, insider

Bankruptcies, insider trading, start-up company failures, accounting fraud, etc. all expanded and exploded (al a Enron, the Dot Com boom and bust, etc.)  in the period from 1993 through 2000 (i.e. the Clinton years), yet we never heard about this stuff in the MSM...

...as I said in the other thread, it's not negligence, it's fraud.

you don't know what you're talking about

you can't attribute economic success/failure to a president. economic policy rarely comes from a 4 or 8 years of decision making. so you can't blame the '93-'00 on clinton, though i don't know what you want to blame on him, the economy was strong. just like you can't blame this latest downturn on bush, that's not how the economy works.

watching msm, cnn, fox, fox business, etc for business/economic news was your first mistake...

side note: enron is clinton's fault? wait, was he the president who knew ken lay personally and had a nickname for him?

JohnG: Careful where you

JohnG:

Careful where you tread concerning the Clinton Machine and Enron:

http://www.american-...

 

RRAM Tough! 

hahaha that's hilarious

first i was talking about president clinton, not the "clinton machine." and that website is about democratic connection to enron, i never commented on that. of course they were donating money...TO EVERYONE, they were crooks!

that website is comical. i love the point 42% of donations, so i'm guessing roughly 58% went to republicans...but the democrats are the bad guys!!!!

enron wasn't anyone's fault but ken lay, jeff skilling and the other officers of the company. trying to assign blame to a political party here is stupid.

I agree with you to an

I agree with you to an extent on how much impact (ie blame or praise) a President can have on the economy while they are still in office. 

1)  "side note: enron is clinton's fault? wait, was he the president who knew ken lay personally and had a nickname for him?"

You pointed a slur back at Bush.  I don't see that as following the spirit or the letter of your statement of how Presidents are not responsible or "trying to assign blame to a political party here is stupid."  If one thing makes someone look "stupid" it is duplicity such as yours in this matter.

2)  "first i was talking about president clinton, not the "clinton machine.""

Fair enough.  My point is that either Clinton, separately or combined, do not operate in a vacuum,  The Clintons have operatives that work in their favor, whether political employees or volunteers, Hollywoodites, George Soros and his ilk,  or the MSM itself, and this aggregate of separate units are part of the functional whole in what is referred to as the "Clinton Machine".  Of course this includes either or both Clinton.

So, when you talk of either Clinton, there is automatically a cadre of supporters ready and willing to bolster and protect them.

3)  "that website is comical. i love the point 42% of donations, so i'm guessing roughly 58% went to republicans...but the democrats are the bad guys!!!! "

True, the website is not the be all, end all.  But it does present information which you haven't refuted so your argument is specious in this area.  I did not originally state the Dems were the bad guys, only that you were metaphorically throwing stones while you yourself live in a glass house.  Dems/Clintons were also involved in Enron madness, though to a different and sometimes lesser degree.  This was the point of my initial posting, to which you  smugly and ignorantly dismissed. 

You either will not or can not read the points in the link I offered.  Bill and Hillary were directly involved, and, many of their hires were intimately involved with the criminals of Enron.  Both Dems and Repubs were complicit in assisting these criminals.  Lay, Skilling, et al could not have become what they were nor done what they did without the assistance of politicians.

RRAM Tough! 

What's the point?

The whole point to the article JohnG is that the MSM projects any inkling of bad or derogatory news of any kind on President Bush whether he's supposedly responsible or not. That wasn't the case when Bubba Bill was President. That is the point mattm was making - the MSM has an agenda. You're digging for stuff that isn't there.

the points i was making is

the points i was making is that trying attribute blame or credit(do you give credit to bush's tax cuts as for the reason of prosperity post dotcom bust?) is pointless. mattm tried to tie the fallout of 2001 to clinton, which is just as wrong as any bias you see in MSM. my whole point it you can't blame a president for the economy because there are too many factors. it's wrong for an NBers to do it and its wrong for a news reporter to do it.

another side note is that watching cnn, fox, msm, etc for business new is part of the problem. if you want real business/economic news you wouldn't be watching those media outlets.

the blame of the dotcom bust or whatever else mattm was talking about is digging for things that aren't there either.

I am a discouraged worker,

I am a discouraged worker, but the key is I am working.  Perhaps we need to call these yahoos discouraged bums.  I wonder how many are chronically unemployed or maybe retired.  In three years I intend to become chronically unemployed.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I have a hard time

I have a hard time believing any numbers that concern unemployment. Where I live in western NC it seems as if every business large and small, fight for new hires. While running some errands yesterday I noticed "Help Wanted" or "Hiring Now" signs almost everywhere. Yet we seem to have an abundance of homeless in our area. 

"Abstain from McCain"

meaningless post...

you honestly think that the observations of one person in one state in one part of that state give an accurate view of aggregate labor? come on, just because you see "help wanted" does nothing to discredit the national unemployment numbers.

JohnG...  I sold my

JohnG... 

I sold my company a few years ago. We manufactured, packaged, and distributed Medical Devices, and employed close to 200 people, so I know about aggregate labor.

Because of my contacts, I have come to realize that the very same situation that I commented on happens all over the country. Sure there are a few places hurting, but when you have 95% of our labor force employed on the national level, my little personal observations seem more the norm than the opposite.

It would be interesting for other NB participants to include short stories of their own and see how this dreadful labor market really stacks up.

"Abstain from McCain"

you owned company...so

where is your phd in economics from? just because you once employed 200 people doesn't prove you know about aggregate labor. it means you owned a company and employed people.

how can you say that you're the norm? and even if every NBer had a story on here about seeing a help wanted sign it wouldn't prove anything. you're making inferences about the entire country based on personal observations, so its pointless...

johnG... Ok, let's try it

johnG...

Ok, let's try it your way. What's so bad about 95% of our labor force being employed?

And what is it exactly that bugs you about areas in the country that needs workers?

Did Bill Gates have a PHD in economics? 

"Abstain from McCain"

my way...

you're right 95% isn't bad to someone who knows nothing about the economy, but the reason this being portrayed negatively is due to the surrounding circumstances: ISM production down, severe tightening of credit, stalling real income, downturn in consumer confidence, high volatility in the equity markets, high yield to corporate bond spreads(flight to gov't bonds). that's why ANY negative employment data is going to set off a firestorm of news reports.

so in a macroeconomics sense(long-term AD, long-term AS) does this unemployment number mean much, no. but in terms of today, short to medium term, it has consquences. employment is a key factor in determining a recession and lost jobs are lost jobs here. that's why a small change in unemployment(though still close to 95%) means something.

nothing bugs me about people needing employees, what i disputed was you disregarding the unemployment data because of something YOU(one person) oberserved. that's all, you shouldn't make statements like you have a hard time believing the numbers because you saw this or that.

and when did bill gates come into this?

JohnG sayes, "you're right

JohnG sayes, "you're right 95% isn't bad to someone who knows nothing about the economy"

And just when was the last time any country had 100% employment? If you are ever at a 100% employment, your economy is in dire trouble. At that point, you are in a - growth factor. And that is not a good thing.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

»→ 100% Employment

Can it not be said we are already there?  What percentage of American jobs are done by non American labor?

And, yes, we have problems

♣ a seal

johnG... "...you

johnG...

"...you shouldn't make statements like you have a hard time believing the numbers because you saw this or that."

You shouldn't tell people what they should write in this forum. 

I don't know how old you are, so what I'm about to say may or may not shock you. All this negative crap no longer scares me. And no, not because I made my money and have moved on. It's because my children and grandchildren have never known tough times. We as a nation have raised almost 2 generations of spoiled brats. So I'm actually looking forward to some hard times in this country. It would destroy liberalism for at least 20 years. 

"Abstain from McCain"

you can write anything you want

you can write anything you want, but if i disagree with your statement im going to dispute it.

you're wishing harm upon this country? ouch, that's mightly unpatriotic. why? just to teach those young whipper snappers a lesson? oh come on, you sound like a grumpy old man.

johnG... You sound like

johnG...

You sound like one of those spoiled brats I was talking about. 

"Abstain from McCain"

CT, that is exactly what he

CT, that is exactly what he is. An economic neophyte here at NBs.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass... Everytime

bass...

Everytime somebody mentions a story on News Busters we get these teeth thrashing loons telling us we're doomed!

It does get tedious.  

"Abstain from McCain"

»→ Clear

I just don't know what I'd do if someone threatened to dispute me.

But I'd be real scared, cuz them disputers can get downright bellicose, if not verbose.

I'd be careful.

♣ a seal

Cool... He showed me,

Cool...

He showed me, didn't he? 

"Abstain from McCain"

»→ Yup, Clear

Hang down yer head Tom Dooley.

Total whuppin'.

♣ a seal

hahahaha

you guys are hilarious...

regards,

spoiled brat(according to grumpy old man)

Later jG

Don't let the door . . . oops, too late.

♣ a seal

See ya, young un'. For

See ya, young un'.

For the record...  The numbers do NOT add up to what I see in my area. And, because of the contacts I have around the country, I hear the same thing that I mentioned.

You wouldn't be one of those bright young know-it-alls that bought into a huge ARM for your mortgage, would you? 

"Abstain from McCain"

you like making assumptions

you're observations don't mean anything about the aggregate labor for the ENTIRE country. that's all i was saying, you and your contacts might be growth areas(congrats), but the net for the country isn't doing as well as your regions.

no i rent. nice try.

if we're making assumptions...

don't you have get going to the blue plate special and sneak in a nap before o'reilly comes on?

If you had a PHD in

If you had a PHD in economics you wouldn't be renting. 

"Abstain from McCain"

ever think i'm playing the

ever think i'm playing the real estate market...

its been fun debating you over economics, but im late meeting warren buffet and bill gates for drinks.

see ya...

i never said we're doomed,

i never said we're doomed, i just didn't think your logic of one person observing help wanted signs was a good way to disregard BLS data.

johnny... Were you around

johnny...

Were you around when getting a mortgage at 16% was considered a good deal? 

"Abstain from McCain"

short-term vs long-term

i don't think anyone on wall st or anywhere thinks that in 5-10 years we'll get out of this somehow, i mean this the united states our economy will eventually be fine. but for short term with the circumstances increased unemployment is negative.

JohnG, That dosent answer

JohnG, That dosent answer my question. It dodges it, and not very well at all. Being as you understand economics so well, or at least, that is the impression your trying to convey. 95% is consindered very good on an employment percentage. During the Clinton years, say June of 96, employment was 94.4%, and things were great! CNN and CBS and NBC put a positive spin on a .1% increase in unemployment by refering to the stock market bubble in the tech sector. In 1998, U.S. companies cut 677,795 jobs in all, which far surpasses the previous decade-high of 615,186 in 1993. And now your whining and saying we know nothing of economics?  At 95% employment? The Clinton years were never this good!

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

one number, two different time periods.

its all relative. there wasn't a credit crunch, govt bonds weren't being run up, housing was quite a bit stronger, so those two numbers in different circumstances are interpeted very different ways.

i never stated i wanted 100%employment or that is the goal, just that in the current economic environment negative job data is not a signal of a strong economy.

Housing wasent that good

Housing wasent that good back then. I dont know where you were, but intrest rates on a home were 6 to 8 percent. The economy was running on false data in a stock bubble in tech and energy and internet stocks. When it burst, we were just lucky to have a man in the white house that knew to cut the taxes, because alot of folks lost alot in they retirement accounts. And that was dem management. In all honesty,  there is very little a president can do to help the economy. Lower taxes drive investment, and new business, higher taxes stifle real growth, and favors only a few.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass... There are two

bass...

There are two things a president can do for a more positive economy.

1. Push for tax cuts.

2. Talk up the economy instead of predicting doom and gloom.

The media and the Dems have the doom and gloom market sewed up tight. 

"Abstain from McCain"

Missing the point

jG - the point is - would this same exact employment information be reported by the AP in the same manner if a liberal Democrat was president? Let's have an honest answer now jG... Just because the AP or some other "unbiased" MSM agency says it's so, doesn't make it so, no matter what the breathless MSM firestorm might be. As you said - "It Doesn't Prove Anything". You're making inferences about the entire country based on some dim-whitted AP reporter's non-personal observations, so it is pointless.

Bill Gates came into this when you burped out the red herring "where's your phd" argument

the original issue wasn't about bias...

i never said msm was unbiased. i wouldn't really know because i don't watch that channel for anything, let alone for business. i dont make decisions on economy based on anyone's information but my own(i work in finance, i track the economy for living). you're missing my original point that one individual's observation doesn't mean anything. that's what i originally replied to clear thinker. where did i state that msm is unbiased?

yeah bill gates is rich and didn't finish college, but doens't mean he knows anything about aggregate labor supply/demand. by your logic warren buffet must be a economic genius, right?

jG Genius

Well, in your mind you seem to think that you're heads and shoulders above Gates or Buffet. You work in finance, track the economy for a living. Big deal. So do hundreds of the thousands of people in front of their computer in their basements in their pajamas. Your one indiviual observation doesn't mean anything either. If you want to argue economics, this isn't the place. It's about bias in the media.

i have many leather bound books...

i don't think im head and shoulders above anyone, i just don't think owning or running a business makes you an expert on labor. that was my point.

hahaha, im not in pajamas or in my basement, but however you want to picture people who work in finance is up to you.

the reason this whole debate started was because i was questioning the method of drawing conclusions about media bias. i disputed a statement and all this back and forth ensued. listen, there is bias out there but if someone uses poor logical or reasoning to make conclusions i'm going to state what i think.

Check Ms. Aversa's economic view over a 3 year period.

No problem. As far as I can tell, many economy "experts" are kind of like real bad weather forecasters - either chicken-little, sky-is-falling types or infomercial, but-wait-there's-more types. Not implying anything about yourself there, so don't get your hackles up. I think that one of the main points of this story is an on-going pattern of slanting things by Ms. Aversa of the AP. Just do a search of "Aversa" on how she has reported ANY economic news over the past 3 years or so to see what I mean.

I think you have half a

I think you have half a point there.  The other half is what qualifications (skill set, work history and work ethic) are required to fill that job, the help wanted sign is advertising.  Just because there are a hundred unemployed carpenters doesn't mean there are 50 dish washer positions that can be filled.  Every area is going to have some kind of mismatch between the jobs available and the qualification set of the unemployed.  You can jam a round peg in a square hole if the diameter is same as the width, but you can't jam square peg in a round hole if the diameter is same as the width. Sometimes the real solution is to move to another area and find the right job, if an illegal can travel a 1000 miles, surely a citizen can travel the same distance.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

dscott... "Sometimes the

dscott...

"Sometimes the real solution is to move to another area and find the right job, if an illegal can travel a 1000 miles, surely a citizen can travel the same distance."

Amen!

I must admit, we had to hire square peg people and train them to be round peg people or we would have had problems hiring anyone.

 

 

"Abstain from McCain"

Well Tom, I'm sticking with

Well Tom, I'm sticking with my storyline on this one, the reason the unemployment number dropped is because the illegals are going home!  If there is to be a "Recession" at worst or economic slow down as currently seen in the GDP #s, it will be the first one where unemployment rate does not drop.  An illegal can not or at least should not legally be able to collect unemployment benefits, therefore when they loose their job they go unreported. 

I know you rely on the household employment survey, but what's to say that any household with illegals are going to answer such questions truthfully?

The silverlining in this cloud is, the slowing economy will encourage the illegals to self deport.  Once the economy picks up, unemployment rates should really take a nose dive because of the increased scrutiny of employers checking on SS#s and fine avoidance.  Remember, employers have been sued for firing illegals as the sole reason, they can't be sued for cost cutting.

Who benefits?  There are 7,381,000 unemployed citizens in this country, they get first crack at any job they are qualified to work! The good news is 195,000 of them got jobs last month.  And when you look at the stats of who is getting those jobs: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm  employment for Blacks - January - 16,090,000 versus February at 16,169,000 tells us that 79,000 more got jobs. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Great find

..... on the Afr-Am jobs increase.

That's some kind of affirmative-action result: +69K for Afr-Ams means it was -132K for everyone else.

More seriously, if it is true that there is net out-migration or close to it, it could be that GDP growth is negative or barely positive, but per-adult GDP (more important number) is significantly positive. I don't think Old Media is smart enough to report on it, or if it will want to if that's the case.

I think the stalling of the housing industry and the possible out-migration are correlated. You have alluded to it before. Around here, lower-skilled illegals were clearly taking jobs away from tradesmen like carpenters in residential construction. Residential, as it has everywhere, has slowed down a lot. Commercial building is still going well, but owners are not going to allow illegals on their new construction jobs if they can help it.

Actually, if self

Actually, if self deportation is occuring, that means remittances will be dropping significantly.  Every dollar in remittance is a drag on the economy because it is not being recycled in the domestic economy.  This is no different than high oil prices where money is being sucked out of the economy to Mexico and Canada.  My prediction is this:  the GDP/per capita will go up while the GDP increases will be anemic for the next year as we unwind the credit & mortgage market. Once the credit issue is done, then the market will zoom with wage inflation.  Supply and Demand will force businesses to pay higher wages and they will redouble their efforts at automation.  The GDP of manufacturing will go up and the numbers of workers employed will go down in proportion to that annual productivity increase.  Sorry Ohio and Michigan, the future is not in manufacturing for you guys, time to diversify or move out.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

I hope you realize that

I hope you realize that McCain is responsible for this spike in unemployment.

By winning the delegate count early and knocking out the other candidates, he cost countless employees for those competing campaigns their jobs. Heartless.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama are doing their part to keep people employed, refusing to upset the balance to make sure those hardworking employees have jobs through the convention.

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

SOCIALISTS SLAM BUSH ON 08 ECONOMY...examine why

SECULAR
SOCIALISTS SLAM BUSH ON 2008 ECONOMY

Let’s all take a deep breath and think about why the economy has its
downs.

01. Business cycles are real (and its been good times for about 6
years)
02. Federal meddling never helps long range (like borrowing $$$ to
stimulate without cutting the budget)
03. The inability to build more oil refineries (do to liberals)
04. The inability to drill where we KNOW there is oil (do to liberals)
05. The fear of higher taxes from democrats in 2009 (smaller paychecks)
06. The mortgage crisis created by the feds (who pressured banks to
make high risk loans)
07. Fears the democrats will gum up “evil” big business in 2009
08. Fears the democrats will raise taxes “to save” SS (which they
ruined and also taxed it first under Clinton)
09. Fears the democrats will bungle both the border and the terrorist
issues in 2009
10. The liberal media is “talking down” the economy because its
election time
11. The illegals are draining the economy of hundreds of millions due
to social services and crimes (plus taking jobs)
12. Iraq is too slow in getting to the point we are not needed in great
numbers
13. The royal congress has overspent year after year (to buy votes of
course)
14. The inflation of home prices had to stop at some point
15. The inabilty of the royal congress to reform the absurd tax code
(flat or fair tax)
16. The raising of the Minimum Wage with the threat of more raising
17. The surge in local reassessments and other clever tax raises that
reduce your salary
18. Showoff buying like SUVs and plasma TVs by lower income folks who
charge everything
19. The constant fear the royal congress will stick their pencil into
the “economy stopwatch” yet again
20. The fading hope that governors will cut taxes and find creative
ways to help their state economies
21 The incessant corruption on the state and federal level that wastes
megamillions of our taxes (politics as usual)

You can probably think of a few more but this should warm the soup
for now. Its a miracle we are doing so well despite all of these!

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

cBS top of the hour radio news wonks spins it.

Sure the numbers say the unemployment rate is down BUT.

Unemployment is way up because people have gotten so frustrated that they do not file the form anymore and are droped off the "list", so blah blah unemployment is reallie up..

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!

 

So frustrated that they

So frustrated that they don't bother to file a form that provides them with financial support while they look for another job?

Yeah, OK. That makes sense, wonks: Come up with an unprovable excuse to fit your agenda.

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will