On Friday, Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the nation's unemployment rate rose to a seasonally adjusted 9.7% in August, and that the economy lost another 216,000 seasonally adjusted jobs.
In various ways, the press tried to put a happy face on the news and otherwise tried to minimize its impact. It also continued, as it has for years, to ignore what really happened on the ground (i.e., the not seasonally adjusted numbers) during the month; in August, a look at that info punctures any illusion that the employment situation is improving. It also ignored prior-month downward revisions to both June and July totaling 49,000 seasonally adjusted jobs.
Here are the first four paragraphs of the Friday report by Christopher S. Rugaber at the Associated Press:
In Rugaber's defense, if his "not all bad" reference red-boxed by me is to the economy as a whole, he's correct.
Two paragraphs later in his report, he writes that "many analysts say the economy should grow by a healthy 3 to 4 percent in the third quarter, pulling the United States out of the longest recession since World War II." That would indeed be welcome news after four dreadful quarters brought on by what I have been referring to since July of last year as the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, which has turned during the past four quarters into the POR Recession (radio talker Mark Levin would prefer to use the term "repression") As Normal People Define It. In addition to a person Rugaber cited, I found some corroboration for the contention that growth will resume at this link at the Philadelphia branch of the Federal Reserve, where in mid-August "professional forecasters" predicted third-quarter annualized growth of 2.4%.
But if Rugaber or anyone else thinks that the employment situation is "not all bad," they are sadly mistaken. That's because, despite the lower seasonally adjusted job-loss number, what actually happened on the ground in August (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) went the wrong way for the 22nd consecutive month, and to an increasing degree:
After narrowing the year-over-year decay to 42,000 in July, August 2009's on the ground number was worse by 131,000. Also, August's report revised July's figure downward by 110,000 jobs; what had appeared last month to be the first year-over-year improvement vaporized. The last time there was a year-over-year improvement in the not seasonally adjusted jobs added/lost figure was October 2007. Meanwhile, at the New York Times, Peter S. Goodman and Jack Healy were rewriting history, trying to convince readers that the expected recovery will be jobless, as it was during the last downturn:
Many experts envision a jobless recovery, in which the economy grows but job losses persist. That would reprise the end of the last recession in 2001, when payrolls continued to decline for nearly two years afterward.
Sorry, Peter and Jack, payrolls did not "continue to decline" during the entire period in question.
As seen above, there was a net decline in seasonally adjusted jobs from December 2001, the first month after the recession as the National Bureau of Economic Research defined it ended, until August 2003, 21 months later. But five of those months showed gains, October and November 2002 showed consecutive gains (it's pretty hard to claim something "continued" if it had a break of two full months), and the final four of the 21 months had a net loss of only 25,000 jobs. During every month of the past year (September 2008 - August 2009), including the past two months which we are now being told is part of a recovery, that many seasonally adjusted jobs have been lost every 3-4 days.
After the 21-month period Goodman and Healy cited, the Bush tax cut-driven economy added jobs for 46 consecutive months, the longest job-adding winning streak since the Reagan tax cut-driven economy added jobs for 82 consecutive months (September 1983 to June 1990).
If Goodman and Healy are going to persist in call that 2001-2003 time period a "jobless recovery," I would hope that they call one where jobs are consistently lost in monthly six-figure amounts a "job-loss recovery." But I don't expect it.
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
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
But it was horrible when
September 7, 2009 - 00:04 ET by kgBut it was horrible when Bush hit 4.9%.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
truly it was horrible, back then...
September 7, 2009 - 02:32 ET by OldJoewhen the employment figures would be 200 or 300k in POSITIVE territory... and that was month after month... but I'm "so" glad to hear things are going so well!!!
Here's how WAPO put it in
September 7, 2009 - 07:52 ET by ThisnThatHere's how WAPO put it in January 2009:
President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data. Here's what they discovered [emphasis mine]:
What did WAPO leave out? 9/11 terrorist attacks of course, and the country's shutdown as a result. But WAPO did make one huge mistake with this comment: Changes to Medicare were also elusive for the administration. When Bush entered the White House, the program faced a long-term funding deficit. It still does, and its cost is expected to balloon in the years ahead. And what, pray tell, is Obama pointing to when he touts his public option???? ---> MEDICARE, of course. I wonder if WAPO wants to retract their statement by now?
Also missing is the definition of key data. Perhaps the key data should have counted things like jobs saved, or medicare solvency, or anything that Obama is now using as key data?
___________________________________
"Tax the rich" is a basically unstable way of governing - The NYT
I'll see your pee up my back...
September 7, 2009 - 00:24 ET by cest moi...and raise you one chill wind.
Goodman and Healy
September 7, 2009 - 00:28 ET by delmarI think earned graduate degrees from the Pete Stark School of Business. That is, Pete Stark SOB.
Really pathetic attempt at
September 7, 2009 - 00:46 ET by CooltomReally pathetic attempt at spinning the stats to make the lower job loss number a positive. Anyone with a smidgeon of economic knowledge would deduce that the job losses are lower because employers have pretty much run out of people to lay off and still remain viable -- and the unemployment rate went up because the unemployed are not finding new jobs and staying on the rolls longer.
There isn't going to be an economic recovery any time soon
September 7, 2009 - 01:39 ET by R D HelmPerhaps never:
http://www.telegraph...
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
Great facts, Tom, thanks
September 7, 2009 - 06:23 ET by TheHistorianI thought the analysis which the Heritage did was a good one. They indicated that the problem is not just job LOSSES (which are really smaller than you show), but that the work force is growning and job CREATION is zero. So much for the "new economy" which we are being told about. And so much for the stimulus (now 8 months old) bringing us jobs as promised by the Obama Administration.
We are now at the end of the third quarter, with a no growth quarter. What makes them think the fourth quarter will grow by 3-4% suddenly? Christmas? According to the article, job losses are somewhat leveling off, but job creation is still dropping.
http://www.heritage....
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel
Tom, you're not using the
September 7, 2009 - 06:25 ET by motherbeltTom, you're not using the "liberal logic" lobe of your brain.
They "expected" the unemployment rate to be higher, therefore, this is a "cut" in the rate. You know, like they do for spending increases in the budget!
As for Bush's "jobless recovery" and continued decline in jobs, that's their story and they're stickin' to it! Don't you DARE point out inconvenient facts, such as it isn't true!
Remember when it turned out
September 7, 2009 - 06:33 ET by gopsteveRemember when it turned out that Bush "lied" and the media went wild pointing out how there were no WMD?
Now, only talk radio and blogs point out Obama's "lie" about the unemploymeny rate supposedly not going over 8%.
Where are the msm?
Come to think of it, where are the Republicans?
Quick follow up...The GOP
September 7, 2009 - 06:37 ET by gopsteveQuick follow up...The GOP is letting, to use the Dem's words, a "good crisis go to waste."
Why is it up to we citizens (blogs, town haller, Tea bag protesters, radio hosts, etc) to make the case alone?
I know the adage about how when your opponent is impldong, get out of their way, but geesh, our spineless reps need to start coming up with some alternatives...
History repeats
September 7, 2009 - 07:30 ET by jon_torlinHistory does seem to be repeating itself with Depression era events occurring, but I think to call them mistakes would be quite incorrect. As Rush pointed out accurately, this is a deliberate movement on the part of the Soetoro administration to destroy this country, especially with the extra printing of money.
It kinda reminds me of that movie "Mars Attacks" where one of the scenes more than halfway through the movie, the Martians are killing people left and right and they are playing a recording that say "we come in peace! we come in peace!" as this is happening.
That's how I see the administration doing things, lying to the people outright and expecting them to believe them while doing the exact opposite with little or no opposition.
-Jon
Unemployment at !5%
September 7, 2009 - 07:30 ET by Nortoadding in the "people no longer looking for work" category. So, who is lying now.
It's true, mostly
September 7, 2009 - 07:40 ET by jon_torlinIt's true that some people are no longer looking for work, I know some friends who have all but given up after weeks and weeks of searching. In Texas, the unemployment rate is not as high as other states, but it still is climbing. One friend who was working at Dell got laid off (worked in software development) at the beginning of the year and has been looking around, still hasn't been able to get a job for his skill set but is still looking.
He told me a few weeks ago that he's going to stop for the time being, so at least he's not giving up completely, and he's taken on a part time job working at a restaurant. He's not proud, but he's doing something. But sad to say, there are people who have given up, and in some cases, completely.
-Jon
The Job Loss is Less,
September 7, 2009 - 07:33 ET by Nortobecause there are less people left in the job pool to be looking for work!!!!! It's about the numbers, ......!
Real unemployment is 16.8%
September 7, 2009 - 07:40 ET by 10ksnookerhttp://www.bls.gov/n...
TAble A-12 -- Line item U6.
The 9.7% number was the fiddle factored fake numebr that Clinton came up with to make things look better and Bush continud it, because it made things look better.
Sports hack and part time
September 7, 2009 - 08:19 ET by nicksmith112Sports hack and part time political writer Mike Lupica gets front page placement on the Daily News website. Lefty Lupica's article today
http://www.nydailyne...
"Loons should shut up and listen: Obama not out to brainwash schoolkids"
I'll bet he thinks Van Jones is a cool dude.
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
Mike Lupica's opinion on
September 7, 2009 - 08:38 ET by motherbeltMike Lupica's opinion on this isn't worth a single penny more than mine.
I read the article. This
September 7, 2009 - 08:45 ET by ThisnThatI read the article. This quote says it all: Minn Gov. Pawlenty has thrown in with all those who have decided they have to hate this President on everything, already making his election seem like some kind of accident. Isn't that exactly the left's position on Bush? What did he do, lift a quote from 2000?
And then he goes on, and on, and on about how Obama is, well, just normal. And only the the crazy right would ever think he's trying to brainwash our children, right? But then, right next to this reporter's rants, is another article: President Obama's magic touch boosts Martha's Vineyard. With overbearing, slobbering quotes such as these:
But no, there's no brainwashing involved here, none at all -- your children are safe. LOL -- you can't make this stuff up.
___________________________________
"Tax the rich" is a basically unstable way of governing - The NYT
Loony Lupica does politics
September 7, 2009 - 09:03 ET by nicksmith112Loony Lupica does politics a couple of times a month. He always gets front page at the Daily News website.
check out this a few weeks ago.
http://www.nydailyne...
The most violent opposition isn't directed at his ideas about health
care reform. It is directed at him. It is about him. They couldn't make
enough of a majority to beat the Harvard-educated black guy out of the
White House, so they will beat him on an issue where they see him as
being most vulnerable...."
I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.
September 7, 2009 - 08:57 ET by jessieHThe statistics have been doctored. The rate is much, much higher than their numbers reveal.
I guess it is now customary
September 7, 2009 - 10:19 ET by RR GOPI guess it is now customary to under-report lost jobs by 50,000 or so, let it get buried under the Hope And Change Medicine Show Extravaganza and then let the number creep back in a month later.
In the meantime, that's still tens of thousands who have lost their jobs. Starting to wonder if these people really exist.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Liberal Bias
September 7, 2009 - 12:19 ET by slickwillie2001The difference in how economic and job news is being covered in the Bamster-era vs President George W. Bush is appalling, but this is what the liberal media does. They do this with any issue, but with economic news is is easier for us to compare the coverage side-by-side because the story is so similar. In a good month when during the Bush administration many thousands of jobs were created, the liberals would sniff -"yes, but they are not quality jobs." When did you last hear that term 'quality job'?
Re numbers, yes they are higher than published because folks drop off the rolls. The way that the unemployed are counted comes from state unemployment registration. When unemployment insurance runs out, that person is no longer in contact with the office, so if they get a job, or stay unemployed, the state doesn't know. This was the case in any administration, and no President wants to change it.
One of the big polling companies could try to find out the real rate of unemployment through polling. Those companies however range from leaning liberal (Rasmussen) to far-left moonbat (Pew) so they don't want to do that. Some data is best left uncollected.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!
September 7, 2009 - 11:55 ET by flyingmonkeyChristopher S. Rugaber reminds me of the man who fell from the roof of a tall building and declared half-way down, "So far, so good!"
Half full vs half empty...
September 8, 2009 - 07:57 ET by kengieWhen the evil villain cuts the rope, the free falling elevator descends until the emergency brakes are employed. One feels the sliding descent decline, but none the less, it still declines until the full effect of the brakes takes hold.
Folks...our country is saved. God Bless America, God Bless our President!
But the brakes dont hold as
September 8, 2009 - 15:04 ET by Dan The Man 2But the brakes dont hold as the government promised. The brakes have serious flaws in them. Like the levees around NO, the problems exceed the capabilities of teh levees.