AP Pair's Employment Report Howler: 'More than half a million people found work in January'
Someone needs to tell the Associated Press's Jeannine Aversa and Christopher Rugaber that just because the number of unemployed people declines, it doesn't mean that they "found work."
That must be what the pair believes. Their error-riddled and suspect supposition-driven Friday afternoon report, whose title predictably focused on the unemployment-rate drop while ignoring the pathetic increase in seasonally adjusted jobs, actually made that claim (bolds and numbered tags are mine):
Unemployment falls to 9 percent, lowest since 2009
The unemployment rate is suddenly sinking at the fastest pace in a half-century, falling to 9 percent from 9.8 percent in just two months [1] - the most encouraging sign for the job market since the recession ended.
More than half a million people found work in January. [2] A government survey found weak hiring by big companies. But more people appear to be working for themselves or finding jobs at small businesses. [3]
... The Labor Department survey of company payrolls showed a net gain of 36,000 jobs in January. That's scarcely one-fourth the number needed to keep pace with population growth.
... the payroll survey (the source for the jobs number -- Ed.), about 140,000 businesses and government agencies send forms to the Labor Department showing how many people are on the payroll and how many hours they worked. The payroll survey can be slower than the household survey (the source for the reported unemployment rate -- Ed.) to recognize startup companies. [3]
... The government also said fewer jobs were created last year than first thought - a net 909,000, down from an estimated 1.1 million. [3]
Specific comments:
- [1] -- The "sinking at the fastest pace in half-century" claim should have been framed as "the fastest two-month decline in a half-century." This phrasing was required, because in July 1983 during the Reagan presidence, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate dropped from 10.1% to 9.4%. That month remains the fastest single-month decline since 1949.
-
[2] -- Aversa's and Rugaber's "more than a half million people found work" assertion is flat-out false. You obviously won't find it in the Establishment Survey, which was the source for January's reported seasonally adjusted gain of 36,000 jobs. It's not in the seasonally adjusted Household Survey either:

While the number of unemployed decreased by 622,000, the number of jobholders only increased by 117,000. The rest (504,000) left the labor force. The only way these folks would have "found work" is if they all began to devote more time to household chores. The not seasonally adjusted figures show a steep and expected decline in the number of people working, mostly because January is the month when retailers let go of employees they hired to get through the Christmas shopping season.
- [3] -- It seems that Aversa and Rugaber are clumsily attempting to lay the groundwork for some kind of future assertion that President Obama's "Startup America" initiative is why the economy and the job market came back. In writing that "The payroll survey can be slower than the household survey to recognize startup companies," they seem oblivious to the fact that the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) already attempts to estimate business startups and terminations every month using its Birth/Death model, and that the government has been overly optimistic during the past two years in estimating job creation arising from small business startups. This is a primary reason why, as the AP pair wrote later, "fewer jobs were created last year than first thought." Per BLS, the total adjustment to prior figures spread over roughly the past two years "was 452,000 (483,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis)" -- something Aversa and Rugaber chose to underplay by solely identifying the 2010 effect.
If these guys tell you that the sun rose in the east this morning, I would suggest looking outside just to be sure.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
And somebody
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:34am.
actually pays these people...
The Mad Hatter would be right at home at the Associated Press...
Half a million jobs gained....
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:16am.
Half a million jobs gained seems to be gross exaggeration,but take a look at the employed number in the Household data chart. It went from 139 million 203 thousand in Dec to 323 thousand in January. A gain of 120 thousand people having jobs. That could mean that more people are working but but not in a "new job" which would help account for part of the unemployment rate drop. But even that change is not enough to really budge this country out of this economic doldrum we are in. Government can't directly create jobs in the long run. All it can do is not get in the way of commerce like it the Obama admin has not been doing. (reference the EPAs new milk spill regs) The Republicans must try to reverse this, but it will take time.
Hey, I know it's Sunday ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:16pm.
... but you're being too kind.
125,000 would have been an exaggeration.
"Half a million" is a flat-out falsehood.
I think the number one stat
Submitted by Hunter12 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:11am.
I think the number one stat to look at in all this remains: NO INCUMBENT HAS EVER BEEN RE-ELECTED WITH AN UNEMPOLYMENT NUMBER ABOVE 8%. The lamestream is doing what they can to get this perception down, but the problem they face is that irregardless of how they fudge the numbers in the press, the person without a job is going to know they are still without a job and four years of policies that have done nothing to get them that job will be looked at as enough time to have effected a change.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Liberal journalists do not
Submitted by Edhenry on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:18am.
Liberal journalists do not have the education or experience to understand economics, which excludes them from recognizing the destructive forces of Keynes/big government/unions/stimulus/heathcare
which is why they are such useful stooges for liberal politicians
Start Up America
Submitted by forest on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:32am.
My wife works with people who are planning small business start-ups. About 5-10 times per week, someone drops their plans to start a business when they find out they will lose their unemployment benefits once they make the first "positive step" in establishing their business. Some of them get in a big panic because they had already established LLCs and registered busness names prior to learning their extended unemployment cash woud get cut off.
I wonder if they will get counted as "start-ups" by the State since they did register a name before quitting due to the government disincentive of unemployment benefits?
I feel sorry for your
Submitted by dmntd1 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:34pm.
I feel sorry for your wife.
I started my business 5 years ago without the benefit of a counselor. Now that I'm attempting to expand into a different field within my specialty, I've been talking to one of them. We're easily sidetracked, because many of his cautionary tales have been encountered by me already. Basically, I'm a realist. Once he explained all of the paperwork that was needed for a loan (I started out while working elsewhere, and only quit my full time job when this one was able to support me...) and then explained that much of that is designed to ensure the borrower is fully aware of all of the minutiae involved.
Poor guy basically stated that much of his time is wasted by people not fully aware of the crazy details that fall into running a business.... from the government required paperwork (unemployment, disability, tax, etc) to the insurance coverages required (more unemployment, more disability, liability, property, vehicle) to the regulatory (licenses, certifications) and that's all before you get to do the work..... Once he informs them of all of these details, they realize it's an awful lot of work to run your own business.... and your bottom line "profit" seems disgustingly tiny.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
The adjustment decreased the
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:33pm.
This is from the BLS but an article written in Sweetness and Light covers it better than I could ever hope to do. Basically the base number changed and yes this was fully disclosed by everyone except the media.
Tom. This sure would have been the perfect script ..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:55pm.
Tom. This sure would have been the perfect script for a segment on Howie Kurtz's "Reliable Sources."
Of course, that ain't going to happen.
Great exposure here.
Now, how about a comparison to how the MSM covered employment growth during the Reagn and Bush years? Oops - would ya look at what you've gone and did.
(;~> gary
Cute
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:30pm.
Thanks. At this rate, 11 million people will "find a job" by Nov. 2012, and Obama's a lock for reelection (cough, cough).
Liberals math is off
Submitted by texriot on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:34pm.
Many libs are math illiterate. Anthony Weiner 150 pair of shoes. My bet is these two journalist believe 36,000 is half a mill. Their math skills match their reasoning skills.
2 Bubble Dwellers
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:12pm.
These 2 Bubble Dwellers have ass-u-me(d) that since the figures are 504,000 less then they must have found employment. Some call it spin. I call it uneducated distortion.
To some isolated media these
Submitted by TerryWest on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:37pm.
To some isolated media these out right lies and spinning tales re the econemy and jobs report might be of some comfort but to the millions of American's living and watching the reality first hand they are nothing more then insult to injury.I did some real basic math
Submitted by Skragnon on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:51pm.
I did some real basic math (see below for spreadsheet) using the data provided.
The overall number of workers dropped 185,000. However the overall labor force shrank 504,000. Meaning that 319,000 people left the labor force completely.
I found it interesting that the rate of increase of those not in the labor force, matches the rate of decrease of the amount of unemployed.
Looks to me like some intelluctual curiosity would have revealed what happened to the job numbers. If this was a true reduction in the unemployment numbers, the % change of people not in the labor force would have remained relatively constant, or moved in to the negative numbers.
December January Change
% unemployed 9.4% 9.0% -0.4%
% not in labor 55.4% 55.8% 0.4%*edited due to spreadsheet not importing well*