Us Media Lies On Jobs

[Craig Read]

Jobs jobs jobs.

'Jobless recovery' says the Media. Hooey. Over 2 million jobs have been created in the past 2 years. But in their rush to aid the Dumbocruds the US media will keep telling you that jobs are a disaster. Oh really ? Let's look at the facts.

1. The Media is using the out of date and irrelevant Payroll surveys of jobs - which does not capture new, growing or very small firms which create jobs.

Household surveys show that 2.4 million jobs have been created in 2 years, the Payroll surveys shows a flat or slightly declining market.

Not counting, small, new or single proprietorship creationism is folly.

2. The reality: Employment rates are HIGHER than ever, and the unemployment rate which i feel is a very bad indicator [subject to gov't manipulation] is lower than in the past 20 years.

-current 5.7 percent unemployment rate

-1970s average was 6.4 percent,

-1980s average was 7.3 percent

-1990s average was 5.8 percent.

But the Clinton loving media will just ignore the 2 million jobs created.

Hillary for 2008 !! and a return to the good old days of bad foreign policy and economic bubbles !!!

[Michael Hardner]

The Media is using the out of date and irrelevant Payroll surveys of jobs

Which ones ? And which ones are you using ?

You should back up your posts.

[SirRiff]

craig lets not get hysterical about this.

if there is this giant conspiracy by the "Media" which i guess you mean to be all non conservative TV, newspaper, and radio across america, why wouldnt bush use his massive power as president to go onto a national conservative media outlet and do the math as you propse.

this would give everyone these magical numbers that you, as a mathamathical wizard, have caluculated.

so basically, to accept your point, the president would have to be incapable of public the very same simple numbers that you yourself have produced.

i find that hard to believe.

after all, he certainly had enough of a platform to give WMDs as a reason for war. so it seems the premise needed to support your assertion is unlikely and unreasonable. the repubs DO in fact have the power to say whatever they want, and there is no media wall. informational perceptions are different then information accessability.

[righturnonred]

why wouldnt bush use his massive power as president to go onto a national conservative media outlet and do the math as you propse.

That's a legitimate question i suppose, but the election is still 10 months away and you have not even seen the beginning yet. The President will not let his economic record be trampled by the individual leftist ideoluges in the media. (there is no liberial conspiracy). Wait and see.

Craig's numbers for the Household Survey are more or less correct. I come out with roughly 2.1 million jobs created during the same period. Regardless of minor differences in arithmatic, the statistics produced from the Household Survey (Current Population Survey) offer a far more accurate representation of employment and job creation than the Establishment Survey (Payroll or Current Employment Statistics Survey).

Here's why:

The numerous conceptual and methodological differences between the household and establishment surveys result in important distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys.  Among these are:

--The household survey includes agricultural workers, the self-employed,unpaid family workers, and private household workers among the employed.  These groups are excluded from the establishment survey.

--The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed. The establishment survey does not.

--The household survey is limited to  workers 16 years of age and older. The establishment survey is not limited by age.

--The  household survey has no duplication of individuals, because individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one job  and thus

appearing on more than one payroll would be counted separately for each appearance.

-Bureau of Labor Statistics-

Furthermore...

Nonsampling errors can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample, inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information on a timely basis, mistakes

made by respondents, and errors made in the collection or processing of the data.

For example, in the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months are based on substantially incomplete returns; for this reason, these estimates are labeled preliminary in the tables.  It is only after two successive revisions to a monthly estimate, when nearly all sample reports have been received, that the estimate is considered final.

Another major source of nonsampling error in the establishment survey is the inability to capture, on a timely basis, employment generated by new firms.

-Bureau of Labor Statistics-

While you're never likely to see Bush sit down with Tony Snow to "do the math", I'm pretty sure I've heard the President in the past, quoting the accurate numbers.

Besides, when was the last time you saw anyone on the Dem side sit down and do the math to support their use of convienent labor statistics for politcal purposes.

Companies throughout the US have increased capital expenditures and begun hiring workers in preparation for the economic upturn and you're telling me there's been no job growth on the books?

I find that hard to believe.

And the real data would seem to support my suspicions

[Craig Read]

RTR - i agree - of course jobs are being created the unemployment rate is falling and is at its lowest level in years. 9 million US worknig age people are out of work - out of a total working population of about 200 million. This is not too bad - the natural unempl. rate is usually around 4 % - full employment is difficult to achieve for reasons of economic cycles, regional disparities and capital flows.

The media does Bush no favor by not quoting the real numbers.

[Michael Hardner]

Again... where are these numbers from ?

[maplesyrup]

Hi Greg the moderator.....

Are you asking Craig to play by the rules, or what, eh?

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

[righturnonred]

For Christ sake give it a rest, will ya?

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources

Indeed, for you liberals are always so diligent about sighting sources and providing evidence for outragous accusations.

The figures are from the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, why don't take yourself down to their website and have a look around.

Dept of Labor-BOLS

You think you can figure that out, or do we need to tie your shoe laces for you as well?

[Morgan]

maplesyrup and Hardner,

Pardon me for butting in and I don't want to tread on Craig's posting toes -he has his own url support, no doubt...BUT here's what I've read that outlines why the "lost jobs" rhetoric is a desperate canard by the Democrats to malign Bush. It has to do with what measure you use for estimating employment. Basically, you cab use employer surveys or household surveys. The problem with using employer surveys is that you're only picking up on a certain size of company and you don't get to count those people who have home based businesses, or who have been hired as consultants and do not appear as employees[ manysoftware engineers went the consultant route after the dot.com bust and actually are very happy with this consultant designation because they earn much bigger bucks this way and have more flexiblity in their personal lives[read: 2 career families wanting to raise their own children]. And a big problem is of course the obvious, when you start comparing apples and organges to each other and not recognizing that an economy is not a static construct. The nature of jobs change in response to other societal variables. More home based small businesses will flourish in a certain age segment who are raising families for example. And initially after an economic bust[dot.com], initially cautious employers will hire more consultants than employees to avoid getting stuck with layoffs and termination packages as a precaution.

Here are some url's that expand on what I've said:

a) Here's a new report from a Joint[non-partisan]Economic Senate Committee. It's a 2 page pdf. file that also addresses the discrepancy between the 2 measures of employment, along with a chart.

Joint Economic Senate Committee Report

2. Here's another url to help de-mystify the mystery. It's actually more user friendly than the pdf. but makes the same point.Econopundit Jan.19/04 Non Hyperventalare post

The government's household survey of employment showed a record 136.2 million non-agricultural workers in December, up over 1.5 million in 2003. Unemployment claims fell to a 347,500 four-week average through January 10, a level consistent with fast job growth. This is the same picture shown by the rapid decline in the unemployment rate to 5.7% and the strength in the ISM employment indicators. We think there are several explanations for the current weakness in the establishment survey of employment, the basis for the claim of a "jobless recovery". Employment in this survey fell 74,000 in 2003 at a time of notable strength in almost all other indicators including the 1.5 million increase in the household survey:The establishment survey is routinely revised upward at turning points in the economy. Employment in establishments rose to a very high level in the late 1990s, in part at the expense of self-employment. At its peak in June 2000, establishments were employing 63.3% of the total working-age population. That was way above any previous experience, reflecting Y2K investment, the booms in Nasdaq and IPOs, and likely some measurement error. In December 1999, household employment, typically 6% above establishment employment, was only 0.6% higher, highlighting the unique 1990s shift toward employment at establishments. By comparison, we now have fewer establishment jobs, but more jobs according to household data. We think employment in the establishment survey will grow strongly in 2004 as inventories are rebuilt, risk-aversion at big companies finally abates, and the bulge in establishment jobs versus household jobs finishes reverting to normal.

Hope this helps and does not add more confusion.

[Michael Hardner]

Indeed, for you liberals are always so diligent about sighting sources and providing evidence for outragous accusations.

Would you rather we accept outrageous accusations outright ?

The figures are from the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, why don't take yourself down to their website and have a look around.

Dept of Labor-BOLS

Don't think he got them from there, as the numbers don't seem to match.

Are you licensed to speak for him as well as provided sources ?

You think you can figure that out, or do we need to tie your shoe laces for you as well?

If you agree to accept any figure I throw at you without challenge then we can work it out that way.

Do you think it's fair to have us provide evidence and you not ?

[Michael Hardner]

BTW.

I don't think I'm asking too much to have Craig back up his posts, given that he plagiarized an article on this very forum.

I'm sorry, but he has proven himself to be untrustworthy and immoral.

[righturnonred]

Are you licensed to speak for him as well as provided sources ?

I speak for myself. I thought it was clearly implied both Craig and I had obtained our figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics since it is that organization that conducts the Household and Employer surveys, of which this topic of discussion was originally based upon.

Don't think he got them from there, as the numbers don't seem to match.

It's all quite complicated. I not surprised in the least that you referenced the wrong figures. Look again, the numbers are correct.

Do you think it's fair to have us provide evidence and you not ?

Of course not. As I said before, you knew where the numbers came from, you could have checked it.

I don't think I'm asking too much to have Craig back up his posts, given that he plagiarized an article on this very forum.  I'm sorry, but he has proven himself to be untrustworthy and immoral.

So that's it. Everytime you can't win on the issues, you're going to throw that in his face?

Hardner, both you and I know you made that determination about Craig far before the incident with the WSJ editorial. You're using it as an excuse now to discredit him. It's flimsy and It won't work.

Just because the man failed to credit the author on a post doesn't mean the he can be deemed untrustworthy and immoral from this day forward. Like a child, you're attempting to rub his nose in this because your arguments are miserably weak, so instead of trying to fight fire with fire, you're fighting fire with dog sh*t. Real classy. This must be an example of that famed liberal compassion we all hear about but never see.

I guess Clark's qualified to be President soley because he's a general. I guess Newt Gingrich is a complete untrustworthy moral degenerate because he committed adultry.

[SirRiff]

i am still trying to figure out exactly what you guys are claiming...

that 2million NET jobs have been created?

that there hasnt been a 2 million job loss

that 2 million gross jobs have been created in one area and 4 million lost in another...

every single time i have heard job stats quoted on any news program for the last 2 years, it has been something of the order of "2 million jobs lost" (it may it "3" sometimes). never in all my news junky days have i EVER heard ANYBODY mention 2 million job creation. never.

so instead of claiming that one goverment method is far superior then another, what exactly is being claimed?

i cant accept by any rational means that 2 million net jobs have been created in a US recession. doesnt float.

anyways, even i dont blame bushs stupidy for job loss. most of it was inevitable and no president actually controls the reality of national economics.

[Michael Hardner]

So that's it. Everytime you can't win on the issues, you're going to throw that in his face?

Actually, he should take it upon himself to leave.

Hardner, both you and I know you made that determination about Craig far before the incident with the WSJ editorial. You're using it as an excuse now to discredit him. It's flimsy and It won't work.

I don't post on here enough to form a relationship with any posters. I don't have any personal grudge against anybody. He plagiarized the work so his word here should be worthless.

What happened to 'morals' etc. ? I see many posters posting on this here, and there's even a thread on another forum about it.

I think that people who care about morals should say something about this.

I never defended Bill Clinton for sexually harassing his intern and lying about it. I condemned him. He deserved impeachment.

But maybe you park your principles at the door for your friends or your political team-mates.

If that's your way, so be it.

Just because the man failed to credit the author on a post doesn't mean the he can be deemed untrustworthy and immoral from this day forward. Like a child, you're attempting to rub his nose in this because your arguments are miserably weak, so instead of trying to fight fire with fire, you're fighting fire with dog sh*t. Real classy. This must be an example of that famed liberal compassion we all hear about but never see.

It's not about about liberal compassion, Christian compassion or anything like that.

This is a forum for adults who want to discuss issues.

If my arguments are weak then go after them. At least I'm not copying other peoples' work and posting it as my own.

He CHANGED the article slightly and you can see this if you compare the two posts. This wasn't an error.

I guess Clark's qualified to be President soley because he's a general. I guess Newt Gingrich is a complete untrustworthy moral degenerate because he committed adultry.

See my comments on Clinton above. I don't know enough about Clark to comment.

...

I don't shed my principles for politics. Politicians have to grit their teeth and bury their principles sometimes because that's their job - to be loyal to their party etc. We don't have to do it here. We're individuals. We should only be bound by our own ethics.

I'm sorry to be so piqued about this, but I left another forum with Craig Read types because I thought this was a better place. This really ticks me off.

I've already learned a lot since I came here, because it's a cut above the other forums. I'd like to continue.

[maplesyrup]

Quite frankly I am disappointed with our moderator for not having stepped in here, maybe he is on holiday or something.

Any posts I have read written by Michael, although I don't necessarily agree with his point of view, have always been totally appropriate.

Mapleleafweb would suffer quite a bit if he decides he has to leave.

I think other people should keep their nose out of things that are not their business, and not only that, they are trying to distort what is going on.

Once again, would the moderator please intervene here.

[righturnonred]

Alright Hardner, I don't what this turned into a prolonged pissing contest so lets just put an end to it here. You're entitled to you're opinions, Craig's not going anywhere though what he did was a lapse of judgement, but now we've both said our peice and I don't think there is anything else to be gained.

Anyway, this thread was a about jobs was it?

never in all my news junky days have i EVER heard ANYBODY mention 2 million job creation. never

well, you're not listening hard enough. They're out there, somewhere.

Basically, you have a choice between two alternatives as a gauge of employment and job growth: the Household Survey or the Employer Suvery, both of which are conducted by the Dept of Labor.

As I've indicated for several reasons in a previous post, I beileve that the Household servey is a more comprehensive and accurate representation of employment and job growth.

Just because you don't hear it in the leftist media dosen't necessarily mean it's untrue. Omission is the single most devious, and prevalent form of media bias.

As I understand it, either measure is considered "legitimate" so it's basically your call to decided which method you think presents a more accurate picture of employment.

[Craig Read]

Look it, you can believe out of date suveys or the real world. The Unempl. rate is falling - hello - this means jobs are being created on the order of about 100.000+ on average per month. This will accelerate in 2004 to 150.000 on average per month. Since 2001 2 million net jobs have been created. Household surveys by the Bureau of Labor confirm the numbers. These are not payroll surveys which miss new company and self employed job creations.

you can reference www.bls.gov/newsreleases/pdf

or http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm363.cfm

From Brian S. Wesbury, the #1 ranked U.S. economic forecaster in 2001 (Wall Street Journal).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics will not admit it, but there is something terribly wrong with the non-farm payroll statistics and the Establishment Survey that produces them. We find it very hard to believe that the December increase of just 1,000 jobs was anywhere near accurate. Every other major economic statistic paints a picture of rapid economic expansion. Initial claims have fallen rapidly, ISM employment indices have soared and Monster.com is advertising on TV again.

Moreover, the Household Survey paints a wildly different picture of employment. During the 12 months ending in December 2003, the household survey (which does a better job of capturing small firm hiring) shows more than 2 million new jobs were created, while the unemployment rate fell to 5.7%. During the same time period, the Establishment Survey shows that non-farm payrolls fell by 74,000. This discrepancy is the widest on record.

Exactly. If the media would clue in that new job creationism and single person firms should be counted, then the economy is doing quite well. Most job losses are in gov't; manufacturing and transport. Job gains are in services and yes technology contrary to media obsession about IT job outsourcing [less than 1 % of US IT jobs are outsourced].

But i don't suppose reality will intrude on the liberals rush to judgement.

Better to raise taxes, and have centralised health care to stimulate job creation.

[RB]

my criticism is that the numbers become very skewed when we start counting business as a labor number.

For example a person might be moonlighting and decides to get a business number but we are already counting this person working?.

However, dependence on quarterly UI and payroll reports as a reflection of accurate labor information stats is hypocritical, because if you look at the following link below you’d understand that a whole lot of folks that are working and are not included in the stats including … agriculture

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch2.pdf

the point is, that the validity of the argument of > 2 million job creation stands if you did start considering all the people [individually] employed simply because there is sufficient discrepancies of collection of data as in this case of non-inclusive stats

[Morgan]

Good news for the Bush Admin. from the National Bureau of Economic Research's official business cycle dating committee, a non profit, non partison research organization. This announcement should lay to rest that the myth that the Bush Admin.'s fiscal mismanagement/malfeance/whatever caused America's loss of jobs and propelled the economy into a recession.

It looks like this panel of economists have revised their original dating for the start of the recession. It appears that the recession started a year BEFORE Bush took office, when Slick Willy was still at the helm. I wonder if CBC will feature this as a news item? Do you think?

Economists Say Recession Started in 2000, Washington Post, Jan.22/04

The last recession may have started in the last months of the Clinton administration rather than at the beginning of the Bush administration.

The panel of economists that serves as the official timekeeper for the nation's recessions is considering moving the starting date for the most recent economic decline back to November or December of 2000, a member of the group said today, confirming a report that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

The seven-member panel had earlier decided that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November that year. President Bush took office in January 2001.

[Bushmustgo]

If the media lied about the numbers, it was in Bush's favor!

[Rasputin]

Great post. It adds a lot of value. Thanks for the sources and arguments. Why are you allowed to post here ?

Economist Jan 17th p. 27 in its article on the US jobs situation also states that Household survey data indicates job growth. As well the same article states that the US will experience an upsurge in 2004 as job creation follows productivity.

The fact that productivity is at 9 % or so, is remarkable and the profit creation will eventually translate into jobs and investments. Jobs is a lagging not an indicating measure.

[Bushmustgo]

Craig,

You are so desperate!!!

The lies, and excuses that you and this administration have gotten so old and you expect anyone to believe you anymore?

Give me a break!

[The True Patriot]

If Bush and Ashcroft would enforce the laws of the country. This theory of out soucing is nothing more than a clear violation of Federal Labor Laws.If a Corp. trades on the New York Stock Exchange ,they are a publicly held company. Malfeasance also applies to them. They should be arrested and their assets seized,for profitting from their crimes. This one reason I say Bush and Ashcroft are guilty of Malfeasance themselves.

[righturnonred]

Unemployment Rate Falls; 112,000 New Jobs

The nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent in January to the lowest level in more than two years as companies added just 112,000 new jobs.— fewer than expected but enough to keep alive hope for a turnaround in the struggling job market.

Employers added new jobs last month at a pace not seen in three years. The last time payrolls expanded more than 112,000 was in December 2000, when companies added 124,000 positions.

Some economists think hiring really is occurring in the economy, but it is not being reflected in the Labor Department's monthly survey of business payrolls. In the separate survey of households, employment jumped by 496,000 last month.

The household survey counts self-employed workers and contract workers, which are increasing. The survey of businesses does not.

"They're not recording the outside contractors — they're not reflecting something that is tremendously fundamental now to the American corporate scene, and that's outsourcing to outside contractors," Mayland said.

The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics

acknowledged the continuing discrepancies, and said it is investigating.

The Economy IS improving despite 9/11, the war on terror, corporate scandals, the Clinton bubble, and the natural business cycle. Furthermore, employment is always a lagging indicator.

In fact, I'd say the economy is tremendously healthy considering all that's happened over the past three years.

[Bushmustgo]

You're joking right???

3 million jobs lost and you're going to give props to Bush for 100,000 jobs created?

It's like feeding a casino slot machine $1,000 dollars and it pays you back $4....are you going to go home and tell the family how lucky you are to win 4 bucks???

Get real!!!