AP's 'Workers Giving Up' Claim Goes from 'Perhaps' to 'Fact'

Photo of Tom Blumer.

.... and in 24 Hours, with No Credible Support

In a report from the presidential campaign trail in Wyoming early Saturday morning, Sara Kugler of the Associated Press picked up on an economic meme created out of whole cloth by one of her colleagues, and treated it as an undisputed fact -- all in the name of creating support for campaign rhetoric coming from one of the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates.

The meme got its start on Friday morning shortly after Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly Employment Situation Report, when AP's Jeannine Aversa offered up the following (bold is mine):

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.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

NewsBusters's Noel Sheppard specifically pounced on that nonsense within an hour after Aversa's claim, as did yours truly a short time later at at NewsBusters and at BizzyBlog. My post also noted that the number of unemployed has dropped significantly -- by 195,000 during February, and 284,000 in the past two months -- changes that Aversa totally ignored.

Here's how Kugler wove the false "discouraged worker" meme into three of the final five paragraphs of her report, and expanded on it (bold is mine):

(Hillary Clinton) told audiences in both states on Friday that the Labor Department's report on Friday showing a loss of 63,000 jobs nationwide in February is an alarming sign of economic troubles.

"The economic policies of the Bush administration are failures. People are out of work, and the work they have doesn't pay what it used to pay," Clinton said in Hattiesburg, Miss.

The Labor Department's report also indicated that the nation's unemployment rate fell to 4.8 percent as hundreds of thousands of people gave up looking for jobs. The jobless rate was 4.9 percent in January.

Kugler thus transformed something that Aversa said might "perhaps" be happening into an established fact. Nice.

As Sheppard and I both noted on Friday, there is no credible evidence that "hundreds of thousands of people gave up looking for jobs" in February. The only point anyone can come in trying to defend that line of argument is to note that the number of adults not working went up a seasonally adjusted 644,000 (the not seasonally adjusted raw increase was 518,000).

That's a weak argument. The fact is, despite Aversa's near-assurance that Kugler converted into an assumption, we don't know why February's number went up as much as it did. There are plenty of other reasons, besides "giving up," why folks might leave the workforce.

One reason might very well be increased retirements. The AP writers overlooked the fact that early members of the Baby Boom that began on January 1, 1946 are turning 62 this year, and are thus eligible for early-retirement benefits in Social Security's Old Age program. Many early Boomers may actually be retiring a bit sooner than 62 because they can afford to wait a few months for Social Security to kick in. Another factor might be voluntary and involuntary departures from existing jobs after a pre-Christmas ramp-up in the retail and shipping sectors; most retailers' year-ends take place on or around January 31. It could also be that more young people are choosing to stay in school and are delaying their entry into the workforce.

None of the very real possibilities just mentioned has a darn thing to do with "giving up."

Aversa's argument, as both Sheppard and yours truly pointed out, runs smack into the contradictory reality that the number of discouraged workers -- those who have "given up," if you will -- hasn't changed much. In fact February 2008's discouraged-worker estimate of 396,000 was 15% lower than January's 467,000, and was not much higher than February 2007's 375,000.

But it would appear that the AP and its reporters aren't about to let the truth get in the way of a good, yet made-up, story -- especially if it enhances Democratic candidates' opportunities to demagogue the economy.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—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.

Credible Support?

Support??? We don't need no stinking support!

I left the workforce 2 years

I left the workforce 2 years ago to go to school full-time. I didn't "give up" anything. I expect to be fully employed as soon as I am done with school.

»→ I'm giving up working

This Obama guy is starting to look pretty good.  He promises I can retire and if I can get by on less than $50k I won't have to pay taxes.

I guess it's only the New American Way to go on the dole and make the rest of America support you.

What company is it that makes the printing presses for the mint.  I want to invest my whole nestegg into that company.  They're going to need to retool.  There aren't enough base points left to print it through the Fed.

♣ a seal

AP pattern of advocacy

Tom,
Nice deconstruction and analysis of the AP reporting and highlighting of the facts and truth of this Labor Dept. document, and the twisting that has taken place courtesy of the AP quasi-monopoly news feeds to thousands of local news outlets. Note the participation also of AP reporter Tim Paradis, usually published on the Business page, in the (obviously) concerted "spin" someone decided to put on this data.

It seems to me that this consistent "liberal", almost pseudo-news output, from the Associated Press is ripe for another full scholarly study of bias and intent, by the Media Research Center.

BTW (changing the subject) why can't we see the full Barrett Report?

People come and go so quickly

I'll keep my eyes out for Paradis's byline. And of course, unless he's moved on, there's old standby Martin Crutsinger.

I absolutely agree wiley.

I absolutely agree wiley. Almost all papers in every market should just call themselfs the AP press. Here in Cincinnati our paper is 3/4 AP bylines. Why even have a seperate paper? Just add a metro section and the local sports to the USA Today. Presto, local paper. No wonder they can't sell newspapers.

If Hillary was Pres.

If Hillary was President, she'd be braggin about 4.8%

The Bad news is that some people watching MSM will get the News, and believe it.....We'd have to set a NEW LOW for un-employment before it would be reported correctly...or the MSM would OMIT it from the News.

»→ Jay Tee

If Hillary was President, 7.2% unemployment would indicate a booming economy.

♣ a seal

And now for some more

And now for some more analysis from unpaid independent posters digging up the facts where paid propagandists refused to do so.  Take a look at the Census Bureau report on the population.  Table 7. Look at the age brackets of 65 to 74, we see 18,917,000 people (2006 column) who were eligible to retire over a ten year period or 1,891,700.  Now look at the next bracket of 60 to 64, we see 13,362,000 over a 5 year period who will be eligible to retire starting last year. That's 2,672,400 a year.  You think 800,000 more people per year eligible to retire might cause the "Not in the Workforce" Number to drop by 644k?????  Duh!!!!!  And the fact that unemployment went down, not up, means illegals got pushed out of those jobs.  So we have two big stories totally and ignorantly missed by the MSM, the illegals leaving and the Seniors retiring in droves.

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

Sorry to rain on the parade

Don't get me wrong, I believe in media bias as much as anyone here, but the truth of the matter is there is no evidence that retirement plays a role. In fact, if you look at table A-6 of the report, you'll notice that the number of jobs for workers aged 55 and up increased from January to February by 209,000. The major decrease was in those aged 16-24 (college and post college) and aged 45-54. I don't think the baby boom had anything to do with the loss of jobs.

I think it's more likely that either (i) young people are giving up or losing jobs to older people or (ii) college kids are leaving their jobs for some reason. It's possible that this is because it's an election year and kids are leaving starbucks to work for Obama. Just as plausible (and based on the same amount of information) as the AP assertion.

Thanks

For the reference to the table.

It looks like the +209 is about double the 99,000 average of the previous 11 months.

What's clear is that basing a conclusion as AP did on the seasonally adjusted changes is shaky. The seas-adj numbers have 1.4 million more people working. I will be paying more attention to the non-seas-adj "raw" numbers in the future as well.

Nice report link, however,

Nice report link, however, the 55 and over figure is deceptive in that the age distribution of each age year is not the same.  There are not the same number of people turning 65 as there are turning 55, that is a false assumption.  If you look at the demographics from my link you will see the tidal wave of eligible retirees are ramping up.  I will point out again, the number of people who turned 65 in 2007 is the beginning of the tidal wave at 800,000 more a year than previously, that number then ramps up again by another 1,000,000 eligible retires in 2012. 

This is precisely why George W Bush sounded the alarm bells years ago but the Dems were too arrogant and self centered to acknowledge the facts.  In 2017, there will be no more Social Security surplus thus requiring severe cuts in social programs or major tax hikes, by 2042 the system goes bankrupt.  Why? Because the politicians embezzled our retirement funds to pay for social programs instead of investing the surplus as any responsible pension fund would do.  This is exactly why the Dems are frantic to raise taxes, they know the end is coming but W is too stubborn to go along with their scheming.  Can you imagine the gall of these Democrats?  First they embezzle our pension funds on vote buying schemes and then they have the effrontery to blame seniors for retiring and demand a. people retire later, b. jack up the income threshhold on those who will decreasingly get benefits, c. insist on having illegals get credit in order to collect benefits, d. increase the taxes to make up for the money they embezzled just to keep the schemes going.

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