There is happy-talk and then there is delusion. The Associated Press has just approached the delusional stage with its recent assessment of what the unemployment numbers mean. Absurdly, the AP seems to imagine that the continued job losses under Obama means that job hunters are experiencing "raising hopes"! It's like sitting on the Titanic pleased that taking on water raises hopes that a nice, relaxing bath is will soon be at hand.
The first paragraph of the story claims that since last month saw a few less layoffs, why, that is saying that what we have here is "the brightest hope yet that an economic recovery" will take hold later this year. What does the AP offer as proof? Not a whole lot, sadly. In fact, the very next paragraph sort of torpedoes the first. After this "brightest hope" business, the AP gives us this:
But with companies still reluctant to hire, the nation's jobless rate rose to a quarter-century high of 9.4 percent, and it likely will keep rising into 2010, possibly within striking distance of its post-World War II peak of 10.8 percent.
How we can have a "brightest hope yet" for recovery yet still see unemployment continue to rise is anyone's guess, but in the AP's infinite wisdom there you have it.
Over and over this report goes from one paragraph saying that the jobs outlook is dismal and new hires will not see an uptick to the next saying that there is a "light at the end of the tunnel."
Then we get this sort of nonsensical claim:
Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps feeling more confident about their job prospects, streamed back into the labor force last month looking for work. That was a factor in the jobless rate's rise, economists said.
"Perhaps feeling more confident"? Based on what? Job loss continues, unemployment is still on the rise, and "experts" were quoted as saying the economy will remain soft on into 2011. So, what is this "confidence" and "hope" all based on? Unfortunately, it's mere happy talk and not any real stats.
Now, don't get me wrong, I really am hoping that a recovery is near. In fact, looking over American history, it is likely that one is near, though how near no one knows. But it will come, certainly. Naturally, I am no more hoping for a lack of a recovery than anyone else.
But, this AP report is paper thin and filled with nonsense. All the hard facts in the story point to the fact that no recovery is near, but it is all offset with mere happy talk based on nothing. This piece is a real whipsaw from dismal stats to "brightest hope" from one paragraph to the next. It really is one amazing piece.
Finally, I'd like to highlight one last paragraph.
Solis and some economists credited the stimulus with helping to reduce layoffs in May. But other analysts said the benefits of the stimulus wouldn't really kick in until later this year or more likely next year.
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis is dissembling to say the least. The "stimulus" has not really gotten to the economy at all as of yet. Most of the funds won't reach the states until 2010. As the Tax Policy Center said at the end of April:
A new Government Accountability Office study says it will take time for stimulus funds to reach states and local governments. Less than 20 percent of the $270 billion intended to prop up state spending will go out this fiscal year and more than 40 percent won’t arrive until after fiscal 2010.
And for the stimulus money that has been distributed to the states, much of it is still in state capitols awaiting state politicians to decide what to do with it all. At the same time, some haven't even gotten theirs yet due to political wrangling.
So, for the administration to say that government stimulus money has helped anything, well that is little but baseless posturing. But it fits this AP report pretty well because this economics piece emulates that baseless posturing quite well, actually. What ever the AP was trying to do, it doesn’t seem like “news” was the goal.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Bush's fault
June 7, 2009 - 08:02 ET by ThisnThatObama will never get the blame for this economy, no matter what happens. He will continue to claim that he "inherited" a dire situation; that his attempts to socialize America are noble; that there's only one solution -- massive spending; and that more massive spending is on the way (i.e., healthcare). And the MSM will protect him in every way possible. The MSM will not link this spending to anything bad -- inflation, drop in the dollar, the choking off of private capital, and huge tax increases. It's all Bush's fault, and will be forever.
___________________________________
Liberals constantly demand that we accept a glaring falsehood as truth; Obama's elimination of the word "terror" will make terrorist acts less terrifying
The new up is down
June 7, 2009 - 08:06 ET by sevenPoor is the new rich
welfare rocks and attempts to reingineer societ don't last very long.
Obama pulled unemployment projections out of the air. It is worse than if he had not come to town.
Jimmy Carter left us with an
June 8, 2009 - 07:47 ET by Tom PaineJimmy Carter left us with an 18% prime rate, a 9% unemployment rate and diminished standing in the world thanks to the Iran hostage crisis. I never once heard Ronald Reagan whining and complaining that he had inherited a mess. He rolled up his sleeves and got us out of it. Barry wanted this job. If he’s not up to it he should let us know now.
Let's not forget....
June 7, 2009 - 09:08 ET by superconThe incestuous relationship between the White House and the AP. An AP reporter is the president of the White House correspondents association and is pretty chummy with TOTUS as you can see here. http://www.zimbio.co...
She is part of his team. Like Chris Matthews she feels it is her job to help Pres. Obama succeed. If that means putting out cheery feel good stories then that is what she will do.
Hey Janet Napolitano...I'm proud to be a Right-winger.
Me... not an economist, but
June 7, 2009 - 09:17 ET by BKeyserI've been hearing a lot lately about "stagflation" which I understand to mean minor upticks in the economy (driven by a rise in the stock market) with sudden valleys due to the sharp rise in oil prices. They say this is what happened under Obama I (Carter, hehe). Has anyone noticed the DOW lately? How about the price of a gallon of gas at your local Exxon?
As I mentioned in a post yesterday, there are still facets of economic freefall yet to take place. We all know the credit card companies are going to need a bailout, especially with new legislation tieing their hands. And the Commercial Construction Industry will soon run out of funding (most non-government large projects like hotels, shopping malls, office buildings, etc. are funded at least three years in advance.) That will put hundreds of thousands of union workers out of work. The auto dealers will dump another 150,000 or so into unemployment beginning this week.
I can appreciate the APoplectic writer is trying to find some source of "hope" but the facts bely any real optimism. What will they say next month when the jobless numbers for June are double those of May? And, didn't the same "experts" predict the unemployment rate would be 9.1% and it turned out to be 9.4%? And didn't Carter II (or, as I like to call him, Carter the Second) experts predict the unemployment rate would top out at 9%, if we didn't pass the stagnant package? (oops, Freudian slip there...)
I don't know, but maybe, had the spending spree by FDR during the dpression been analysed honestly rather than politically (leaving the results open to interpretation) we might have learned something from it, and not had one party desparately defending it's folly oh so many years later- dooming us to another long and painful recovery.
At the way the economy's
June 7, 2009 - 09:34 ET by wiwfAt the way the economy's tanking, we'll be knee-deep in hope real soon!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Government Spending Doesn't Improve The Economy
June 7, 2009 - 11:59 ET by Andrew_M_GarlandThere is economic analysis of the Great Depression and WWII spending that doesn't parrot the line that only the Government saved us in the past.
Government Spending Divides, Does Not Multiply
Robert J. Barro is an economics professor at Harvard. He found that spending in World War II decreased GDP by 20% (a multiplier of 0.8). Government spending actually killed GDP, even assuming that the spending itself was useful.
Andrew_M_Garland
EasyOpinions
Temp work masks unemployment numbers
June 7, 2009 - 09:35 ET by dmntd1I think this has my favorite AP headline since forever, in regards to jobs...
Seems the headline says "number of employed throws off unemployment numbers"....
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
Well, see, now that depends
June 7, 2009 - 09:41 ET by BKeyserWell, see, now that depends on what your definition of "is" is...
Liberals are economic illiterates
June 7, 2009 - 10:26 ET by R D HelmSo are Obama supporters.
They were born that way, and are incapable of changing.
Understanding even basic economics requires linear logic, something liberals and Obama supporters are decidedly lacking.
-Dave
I guess Hope is all we have
June 7, 2009 - 10:59 ET by flyingmonkeyI guess Hope is all we have while we're waiting for the ever elusive change.
Conficence and Economic Activity
June 7, 2009 - 11:21 ET by Kingfish17Confidence, both consumer and business, has a huge effect on our economy. It's my belief that when our leaders in government announced last September that our financial system would implode unless we passed TARP, a typical recession was converted into a serious recession that could turn into a depression, and the MSM ran with the story because it helped insure a huge Dem victory.
Now, we are going to get the opposite. We will be seeing story after story of the "Obama Economic Miracle". This will result in an increase in confidence amongst the sheople. And will result in a pick up in economic activity. Longer term problems like serious inflation will not be averted. But we will see a temporary increase in economic activity.
Confidence during the 90's was enormous. The MSM did not want to bash the Clinton Admin with it's never ending stories of doom and gloom and "hamburger flipper" jobs that they expose when a Republican is President.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Economy ain't turning around any time soon
June 7, 2009 - 13:34 ET by hungarianfalconw/o indicating the industry I work in (but I do work for a very large multinational company- we do provide products that are used in a myriad of other industries so we do get a pretty comprehensive view of the economy), I can assure all of you that the US economy is not turning around any time soon. The world economy is starting to get better based on the orders we're seeing and the directions those orders are going, but the US economy is decidely weak.
The orders we're seeing, compared to a year ago, are reasonable for the rest of the world but completely in the toilet for the US. Based on where our products are relative to the end user, I'd say it's goint to be 2+ quarters (i.e. 1/1/2010) before we see any sign of improvement but interest rates may start to hinder things by then.
HF
Warner - wonder how MSM covered improving layoff pic in 2001-02?
June 7, 2009 - 13:59 ET by Gary HallWarner - wonder how MSM covered improving layoff pic in 2001-02?
For reference (I trust this is good historical data and a chart - perhaps Noel or someone can fix it up here, if not): Non-Farm Payrolls Chart and Historical Data - The job losses reached their peak in about Oct., 2001 - and then dropped, and continued to drop month after month after month. As in the present, and for the same general reasons, the unemployment rate continued to trickle up.
Just a quick peek at what I would expect was the usual excitement in the MSM as the layoffs shrunk - and the unemployment rate continued to rise, last time around: a "CNN Money" bit in Dec. 2001 -- The headline? U.S. unemployment jumps - there's not going to be much good news to be found with a Bush in the WH.
A few excerpts as it begins with:
Oh, the cuts were smaller, but that's not the message.
Goodness - a drop in the number of jobs cut is even mentioned - but nothing but bad news.
That's a nice trick - combine two months.. let's try that today.. 'the Jan-May (2009) cuts are the highest since Adam ate that apple..
It's getting better, but it's getting worst even faster... Bush is president, so...
(;~/ gary
Execellent
June 7, 2009 - 20:31 ET by Warner Todd HustonOf COURSE they beat up Bush, right!?
Good points.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
Maaaaan, it's so
June 7, 2009 - 17:07 ET by GregEMaaaaan, it's so exciting!!!! Just think!!!
- The higher the unemployment goes, the greater the recovery will appear when hiring begins.
- The higher unemployement goes, the more people willing to bend over to government-run healthcare harsh taxes on the $40K per year "rich" people.
- The higher the oil prices go, the easier it will be push the "green" agenda.
Do I think Obama wants things to get better? Yes. But do I think he wants more negativity while his poll numbers are still high? Yes. After all, the ideal situation, politically (and lets make no mistake, politics is #1 to these people), would be for poll numbers to remain high, unemployment continue up, oil continue up, all the while his poll number remain up. Then when his poll number are just about to begin a downward trend, suddenly they talk up the economy as begins to turn, job creation begins to happen, all in spite of Obama not because of, and his poll number downward trend flattens out and begins the upward tick. It's ALLLLLLL about elections, period, all about power, period, all about ramming an agenda down the throat of America and dancing on the graves of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they created to stop madness like the Obama is creating.
If you don't think this is as much in their plans as they can make it be, then I have some oceanfront property in Kansas that I need to sell you.