If you think all the numbers are made up and fudged then I can’t argue with that sort of, umm, logic and I’m not ping to waste my talking responding to people who cannot be reasoned with......... There are just way too many conspiracy theorists on this site. I’ve been on FR since the late 90’s and I’ve never seen it like this.
How about that spectacular "drop" in unemployment the month before the election? I'm not saying the numbers were "made up" (your term), but with almost all serious observers chiming in it was readily apparent that serious efforts were being made everywhere to dampen the sounds of incredulous throat-clearing and reflexive rolling of the eyes.
The Commerce Department (BEA) says without these one-time factors (forget about Hurricane Sandy; forget about 4-day work weeks; forget about...) it might have been a gain of 0.3%. Interesting.
All private sector wages and disbursements decreased for the period; only government and military wages increased.
Further, the BEA reports that of this $44.8 billion decrease (month over month), it attributed these "special factors" to $15.0 billion, at an annualized rate. That is their statement in the report.
(I don't bother with things like Money magazine, which does have an audience. I prefer to go straight to the source - http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm.)
I understand the impact of shifting dividends and bonuses in to the current year for tax advantages; they are not by any means uncommon occurrences. But there is a limit to who and how many people these factors impact.
From the report:
Private wage and salary disbursements decreased $44.8 billion in January, in contrast to an increase of $49.1 billion in December. The January level of private wages and salaries was reduced by $15.0 billion (at an annual rate) in January, after a boost of $30.0 billion in December, reflecting the impact of accelerated bonuses in anticipation of changes to individual income tax rates. Goods-producing industries' payrolls decreased $3.3 billion in January, in contrast to an increase of $9.8 billion in December; manufacturing payrolls decreased $3.3 billion, in contrast to an increase of $5.4 billion. Services-producing industries' payrolls decreased $41.5 billion, in contrast to an increase of $39.3 billion.
Government wage and salary disbursements increased $1.1 billion, compared with an increase of $0.8 billion. Pay raises for military personnel added $1.9 billion to government payrolls in January.
These areas bolded reflect mainly wages paid that declined; it has nothing to do with accelerated dividend payments or employer contributions, which do not factor in to the calculation of either personal income or DPI.
Let's assume here, for the sake of argument, that the Commerce Department's claim of a rise of 0.3% is what should have happened.
Hiring in January increased, a paltry 157,000 (non-farm payrolls). According to the latest JOLTS report http://www.bls.gov/jlt/, job openings (again, non-farm) were listed at 3.617 million for December (last month figures are available), with a hiring rate of 3.1%.
However, turnover was reported at 3.0%, quits (yes, they even exist today!) came in at 1.6%, and layoffs/discharges were reported at 1.2%.
Again, for the sake of argument, we'll extrapolate these numbers as ballpark into January, even though factors like discharging seasonal (holiday) workers and the like should be apparent.
For the month of January, wage increases for all workers was reported at $0.04/hr. Weekly hours worked did not increase (in manufacturing, they actually fell). The change in real hourly earnings was actually $0.02.
(These are all Department of Labor Current Employment Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/ces/).
Given these numbers - depressed hiring, no increase in hours worked, continued staggering initial and continuing unemployment claims, etc., etc., I have a hard time witnessing this spinning of flax into gold.
Maybe it does work out that way (I'm still going through BEA's methodology), but given the increasing politicization of supposedly independent and trust-worthy governmental departments under the Obama regime I'm starting to wonder.
Think I'm a conspiracy nut? Why did Judd Gregg drop the Commerce Department job like a hot potato before he even started it? And then, after you've pondered that, look at my join date.
Thank you for this discussion. I've enjoyed it.
CA....
This administration has been such a pristine fountain of truth since the first inauguration. Who could ever imagine that economic numbers would be distorted for political reasons?
Check my “born on” date.