AP: Economists, Analysts, and Experts Are 'Baffled,' 'Confounded' By Job Market That Is 'Defying History'
If we are believe two late Friday afternoon dispatches from the Associated Press following the government's awful Employment Situation report earlier in the day, you would think that even a cadre of cops with the talent of Sherlock Holmes couldn't solve the mystery of the underperforming job market.
Economics Writers Christopher Rugaber and Paul Wiseman went with themes of "baffled economists" and "defying history," respectively.
First, here are a few paragraphs from Rugaber's risible report (bolds are mine):
Weak hiring casts doubts on strength of rebound
Hiring slowed to a near-standstill last month, raising doubts that the economy will rebound in the second half of the year.
The report baffled economists who had predicted much stronger job creation. And it escalated a debate in Washington over how to spur hiring and energize the economy while also cutting federal spending.
... For President Barack Obama, the sputtering job market represents a threat 16 months before his re-election bid.
Two years after the recession officially ended, companies are adding fewer workers despite record cash stockpiles and healthy profit margins.
A result is that more people are giving up looking for work.
Rugaber's headline presupposes the existence of a "rebound." That's highly debatable. Pending revisions which seem likely to push the number even further downward, the fact is that employment has risen 524,000 seasonally adjusted jobs since the recession ended 24 months ago, an average of 22,000 per month. Over 90% of those jobs (479,000, again seasonally adjusted) have been added at temporary help services. The comparable actual figures (i.e., not seasonally adjusted) are 637,000 and 491,000. As I've been saying for 18 months, since the AP's Jeannine Aversa cited the "Economy's Fall --and Rebound" as the number one business story of the year for 2009(!): "Rebound? What Rebound?."
Rugaber's fourth excerpted paragraph continues the establishment press's beyond-annoying habit of tying anything and everything to President Barack Obama's prospects for reelection, in this case mostly breezing right past the frightening human cost of the economy which has developed on his watch. But of course, Rugaber never cites any Obama administration policies which might be causing the current economic malaise.
The AP reporter's final two excerpted paragraphs represent a not-subtle attempt to blame the problem on meanie employers who won't hire people. Chris, they would do so if they thought they could do it profitably. Why don't you work on figuring out why they won't?
The rest of Rugaber's report cites several other excuses: the weak housing market (why is it weak, Chris?), rising energy prices (again, why is that occurring?), and how employers have suddenly become more "nimble" at determining exactly when they need more help (was logistics software just been invented sometime in the past month?) -- anything to avoid looking at administration policy for the root causes.
Paul Wiseman's whines are little better, but at least give him credit for looking at the human side. On the other hand, Wiseman, like Rugaber, looked over the scene of all the job killing and tagged computer software as an accomplice (bolds are mine):
Flat jobs data signal weakest recovery in decades
The job market is defying history.
A dismal June employment report shows that employers are adding nowhere near as many jobs as they normally do this long after a recession has ended.
... The excruciatingly slow growth is confounding economists, spooking consumers and dismaying job seekers. Friday's report forced analysts to re-examine their assumption that the economy would strengthen in the second half of 2011.
... the June numbers were even worse than May's, even though gasoline prices are falling and factories revving up again.
Among the frustrated is Cris Cohen, who was laid off in April from a job as a contractor for Cisco Systems in Raleigh, N.C. He's been searching for work since then, futilely combing job listings, reaching out to friends and setting up a website with a resume and a blog.
"In the past when I've left jobs or been laid off, I've just contacted connections I have had, and that's led to opportunities," says Cohen, who has a wife and a 9-year-old son. "Now it's just seems much more dry.... There's just always that anxious feeling, that nausea."
One problem is that after slashing jobs during the Great Recession, employers are still reluctant to replace them. They've learned to squeeze more work and revenue out of reduced staffs.
Other factors are restraining hiring, too. More sophisticated software lets managers scrutinize changes in their businesses minute-by-minute. They can postpone hiring until they're certain they need more workers.
Over at Heritage (HT to commenter dscott), Mike Gonzalez cites five legitimate reasons why hiring is lagging, all of which tie directly to Obama administration policies:
Stimulus package—The nearly $1 trillion boondoggle failed to stimulate, as we all now know, but made government grow beyond its means. ... The government stimulus bill did not create jobs; instead it filled job creators with fears of future tax hikes or more borrowing, and thus future artificially high interest rates.
Obamacare—It took the Administration and the Democratic-held Congress a year and half to ram this piece of legislation down the throat of the American people, time that could have been spent fixing the employment picture. Worse yet, Obamacare imposes vast and expansive new regulations and made labor costs uncertain. ...
Frank-Dodd Financial Bill—The heavy-handed Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill not only placed needless burdens on small as well as large financial institutions, but has deterred investment by imposing ill-defined restrictions on those who want to invest in the economy. And it did so without addressing the real causes of the financial crisis.
Environmental Protection Agency regulation—Unable to get Congress to pass Cap and Trade, with its skyrocketing electric rates, the Obama EPA is skinning the cat another way—mandating costly regulation. ...
Regulatory Assault on Employers—The Administration’s enforcement agencies view employers as lawbreakers who need to be brought in line. ... Obama’s message to employers has been clear: “We suspect you are breaking the law and we will get you.” Small wonder they are not hiring.
Read the whole thing.
I'd add energy policy as a sixth direct and indirect administration-driven cause on top of the five Gonzalez. On the direct side, ask unemployed oil industry workers in the Gulf and elsewhere. On the indirect side, look at what has happened to retail traffic since the gas price spike in the spring.
Getting back to AP: The causes of the current situation are not baffling at all. Its reporters' failure to even get into the neighborhood of citing the obvious demonstrates that they're deliberately botching their investigations.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Why is this a mystery?
Submitted by merly1 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:28am.
We have the trifecta of economic stagnation: high energy costs( and no end in sight), uncertain healthcosts for business (and no end in sight), unrelenting civil court tort concerns for any business (and no end in sight).
I turned down several business opportunities in recent years, and the reasons are not rocket science.
Indeed, the tort pressures are likely now the worst of the three and the top reason companies may bail here.
Stagflation: The Sequel, tt's the job market's fault, LOL!!!
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:33am.
No wait, The One told us it's the debt ceiling politics causing the latest round of abysmal hiring numbers.
Nothing, of course, is ever Obama's fault or the logical consequences of his policies.
At what point, precisely, are the "experts" unexpectedly surprised enough to conclude that these Ivy League Keynesian dogmatists don't know what they're talking about?
I am just surprised they
Submitted by tcm14 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:19pm.
I am just surprised they didn't find a way to blame Bush. That must have been frustrating for them. Still, their bafflement is comical. "Bad economic policies? WHAT bad economic policies?"
It's not my fault...
Submitted by Rackie on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:32pm.
"Another fine mess you've gotten us into."
but he did
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:40pm.
just the other day he did it again with the 'years of debt piling up' speech.
“We agree that after a decade of racking up deficits and debt, we finally need to get our fiscal house in order.”
Obama knows full well how to improve the job market
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:25pm.
...which is exactly why he isn't going to do it.
Creating conditions for the expansion of private sector employment isn't part of his plan.
Too bad the so-called "experts" have yet to figure that out, as they, like the majority of the stoopid zombie sheeple, still erroneously assume that Obama is actually trying to improve our economy.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Well, Dave, they DID say that
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:25pm.
Well, Dave, they DID say that they were 'baffled' and 'confounded'................so you can't site them for being dishonest!!!
lagging jobs -- thinking back to the Bush era recovery
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:38pm.
Comment here is only about the media - context is a similiar period of time, some 2 1/2 years into President Bush's 1st term.
We all know that in the wake of the dot.com bubble crash in March of 2000 and the resultant recession which was immediately followed by 9/11, that the Bush administration was having significant difficulty in landing a real solid economic recovery that was producing jobs. Tom, not interesting in comparing numbers - not the point; however, without looking back, I clearly remember the stark differences in how the MSM discussed the economy then, and how they treated the Bush administration at the time.
Often, we hear the MSM and their Democratic allies skewer the R's as openly wishing for a bad economy up and until the 2012 election cycle. Back in 2003, it was the MSM and the D's, in concert, skewering the Bush administration on the economy and jobs.
(;~/ gary
absolutely pathetic (AP) strikes again...
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:38pm.
Is there no one in the newsroom that has EVER read American history? You don't even have to be an economist to understand that Keynesian interferrence in the economy never turns out good. Or that FDR II is going just about as well as FDR I did.
Insanity, def.: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome each time.
This proves that liberalism is a mental disease. QED.
fearing armageddon
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:51pm.
I would suspect that businesses are waiting to see if obama will be reelected and just like us conservatives they are fearful that a politically unburdened President obama will unleash his version of a government shock and awe onto the economy bringing about the transformation he desires.
These businesses ever heard of PR campaigns?
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:01pm.
I often wonder why, for example, oil companies don't engage in massive ad campaigns to educate the public about how vital oil production and processing is to our economy and modern society in general. It seems as if at some point these people would wake up and realize that the old go-along to get-along crony capitalism tactic isn't going to work on a bunch of radicals who really do want to see them run out of business.
Excellent point - I recall
Submitted by ClassicFilm on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:15pm.
Excellent point - I recall some many years back that there were indeed public relation ad campaigns on TV like you've suggested. Very likely the growing enviro movement shuttered them down, or some head honchos concluded there was no need to keep educating the public on the value of fuel/oil. Time to resurrect the education process, if only to offset liberal propaganda.
BTW - great Limbaugh quote, too.
Isu, just those kinds of ads run
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:01pm.
here in Michigan every day. On both broadcast TV and cable/satellite. Two are about the regime's idea of raising energy taxes. And two or three different ones about the jobs that energy companies create, and how they are doing what they can to keep the prices as low as possible. I can 't name the ad agencies right now, but the ads are running. Could they be more vocal about their points? Certainly.
It dates before that
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:28pm.
It dates back to 2006 when the Dems took control of the House (remember, this was a lesson to the Republicans, oh yes, lots of people suffered as a result, thanks for the lesson, ya morons!!!!) and a lot of businesses were seeing the writing on the wall early and unemployment started going up. Those businesses knew that taxes would be going up, and unemployment started going up even faster when the Dems took control over everything (again, more of the "teach the Republicans a lesson" crap) because the businesses knew that the health care crap was coming as well as more taxes and the "green" nonsense which would affect just about everyone.
So when jobs were being lost due to people either being laid off or not hired, those businesses did not want to lose money for hiring people because they knew if they hired someone, it would be as if it were punitive to give someone a job. And we heard it from the Bamster's mouth, "you can afford to pay a little more in taxes" to the small businesses, those same small businesses are going to have no choice but to shutdown.
That's the problem in a very small nutshell, the list of what makes up the problems in addition to the above is EXTREMELY large.
And in the meantime, Congress and the Senate has been complicit (at least up to 2010) in the problems of this country.
All because some voters thought they wanted to teach the Republicans a lesson. If that's not just outright abject STUPIDITY of the first order, I don't know what it is.
-Jon
I refuse to vote for Demoncrat Lite
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:39pm.
With a load of RINOs in cabal with the Dhimmiroids it's like being nibbled to death by ducks. The slow and steady rot just keeps creeping in so that 90% of the sheeple just never notice anything's wrong until... 2009!
No more McLame's. No more Snowe's. Enough already.
What do you think today's politics would be like if we hadn't had a conservative convulsion in the last election? We'd already have passed a huge rise in the debt ceiling and huge tax increase for 'promised' spending cuts (you know, the kind that never appear). Business as usual for the last 40 years. You can't change direction without changing the helmsman AND the captain.
Put another way:
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:44pm.
Would the Tea Party have come into existence if McCain won the election? Probably not.
I understand the arguments on both sides, but it's not reasonable IMO to tell people to vote for the guy who happens to have an (R) next to his name when the party puts their fundraising apparatus behind RINOs.
Believe me, this is a debate that's going to get much, much worse when Boehner caves in on the debt ceiling talks. I didn't say "if", it's WHEN. It's the nature of Republican "leadership", it has been since Reagan, and it didn't magically change because of 2010. Boehner will likely cave on not extending Bush tax cuts for the "rich", then turn around and tell the base EXACTLY the same thing Obama said in the runup to the 2010 elections, namely "You see, it's not really a tax hike, we're just letting cuts expire." If the Tea Party freshmen in the House don't revolt, you'll see the beginning of a major 3rd-party split. Then it's all over.
It's looking that way
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:17pm.
Oh I agree, and I do believe it. Given what I've seen of Boehner so far, he ain't the man he made himself out to be. If he DOESN'T cave, I'll be very surprised. I don't expect much out of him anymore, especially after that stupid golf outing. I don't care if he was being polite or a gentleman, the fact is, he was golfing with the enemy. If he had any stones like Perry did about not taking calls from that Ambassador from Mexico, things might be a little different.
However, let's say that the surprising thing does happen and Boehner doesn't cave. Will DuhOne follow through on his unconstitutional threat and claim the Constitution gives him the sole right to raise the debt limit? I can see it happening. And if he does, will there be impeachment charges? I DON'T see that happening.
So it's all on Boehner right now, and we'll have to see what happens, and maybe, just maybe, he might surprise us.
I ain't holding my breath.
-Jon
Some experts, huh! And they
Submitted by jessieH on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 5:01pm.
Some experts, huh! And they went to college. LOL
Question for Christopher Rugaber and Paul Wiseman:
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 5:13pm.
How many more times do how many more governments have to go down the socialist big government road of big spending and high debt creating high unemployment before this no longer "baffles economists"? This is not "defying history," this IS history, the history of socialist welfare states. Just look around you now at, for example, the PIIGS of Europe.
How can any economist who is surprised by this deserve to be called an economist?
more AP Anus Penetration
Submitted by russedav on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:10pm.
For AP Anus Penetration, these dimwits and their sources make the Keystone Kops look effective.
Any "economist" who is baffled....
Submitted by GregE on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:44pm.
....at anything bad happening under the policies of Karl Marx lite, should not be an economist.
Baffled economists....as in
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 9:29pm.
Baffled economists....as in Paul Krugman and his acolytes?
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James Madison