Democrats are skewing federal jobless figures (my letter to the editor - vanity)

March 14, 2004 | Peach

[Peach]

Despite the Democrat’s mantra that the economy is in trouble and that over 2.3 million jobs have disappeared, the truth is considerably different.

There are two primary measures of unemployment. The Department of Labor conducts a monthly Household Survey, which has always generated the official unemployment rate used by the government. This official survey shows 2.4 million jobs have been added to the work force between November ’02 and February ‘04. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducts its payroll survey by phoning businesses. It is unprecedented to use the BLS unemployment statistics when discussing America’s unemployment rate and yet this is where the Democrats are getting their 2.3 million lost jobs figure.

For example, had the unofficial BLS survey been used in the mid-90’s, we would have had a 12.8% unemployment rate using the same methodology. Instead, in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.6%, the exact same rate as we have today.

The government began collecting unemployment data in 1939. Since that time, there has never been positive job growth two years after a recession ended. Never.

Other economic indicators are just as good:

-- The number of working Americans, 138.5 million, is a level never previously attained in our history.

-- The percentage of families living in poverty today averages 9.4%, a decrease of approximately 1.1% from the 90’s.

-- Home ownership is currently 68.6% which is an increase of 1.1% from the 90’s.

-- A manufacturing survey released in February showed US factories boomed at their highest level in 17 years. The Institute for Supply Management reported more and more factories were reporting hiring although it has not yet shown up in government employment statistics. Manufacturing makes up nearly one-fifth of the US economy.

-- The combined net worth of all US households is $44.4 trillion, the highest ever achieved.

-- Consumer prices (inflation) increased just 1.9% last year.

-- The stock market has advanced 45% in the last 12 months.

--The gross domestic product, the total goods and service produced in the US, increased in the 3rd quarter last year at an annual rate of 8.2% after inflation and 4.1% in the 4th quarter. Growth in the 90’s averaged a little better than 3% annually.

-- The wealthiest five percent of our population pays more than half the taxes, while people at the bottom half pay just 4% of all taxes in the country. Economists credit the recovering economy to the Bush tax cuts as opposed to what an increased regressive taxation on the nation’s wealthiest would have had on the economy.

-- The average wage of American workers is currently $15.40 vs. $11.80 during the 90’s.

Despite 9/11 and the over $500 billion it took out of our economy, it appears the economy is booming.

I will leave it to the reader to speculate why the media seems driven to repeat unchallenged the Democrat’s unemployment numbers and constant derision of the US economy.

[KevinDavis]

My wife will be let go of her job for 14 years. She works in the grocery store. What happend was competition, the big stores is wiping out the small stores. Is it Bush's fault no. It is called captialism. She will find a new job... She is not going to sit around and bitch an moan about how bad it is.

[OldFriend]

Good luck to your wife. Perhaps one of those big stores will find a place for your wife, I truly hope so!

[KevinDavis]

Thank.. I think you know the point I was making and that is sometimes bad stuff happens. IMHO, the days of working at a same company forever is gone.

[OldFriend]

The economy was sinking as early as the late summer of 1999. It is getting better and there are many jobs available. Not always in the same industry or business as previously but none the less, the measure of a man or woman is how they adapt to the changing world.

Very difficult, and takes a lot of courage, but there is no alternative.

Again, good luck to your wife.

[rebel_yell2]

It is unprecedented to use the BLS unemployment statistics when discussing America’s unemployment rate and yet this is where the Democrats are getting their 2.3 million lost jobs figure."

Let me start by saying I applaud your intent, and I agree that we need to trumpet the household survey numbers more loudly. However, your statement (quoted above) is simply incorrect. You confuse the "unemployment rate" and the "jobs number." You are correct that the unemployment rate is based upon the household survey, but the Democrats are correct that the jobs number traditionally is based upon the establishment survey, which shows the 2.3 million loss figure.

If I remember correctly, the establishment survey is a much larger survey than the household survey with a correspondingly much smaller statistical margin of error. The problem is that the establishment survey misses newly created establishments and misses self-employed persons. Most of the time, the two surveys point to the same trends, but, following recessions, if I remember correctly, the household survey leads the establishment survey in picking up job growth. In any matter, my best guess ( and Greenspan's) is that the establishment survey is going to show large job increases during the remaining eight surveys that will be released before the election.

Also, I loved John Fund's observation that the current unemployment rate of 5.6% is lower than the average unemployment rate during Clinton's tenure. In economics, we used to teach that the "natural" unemployment rate was 6%, but that has been proven wrong by the experience during the 1990s. For anyone to claim that we have a "jobs" problem when unemployment is below 6% is, to any rational economist, mind-boggling!

[Peach]

I understand what you are saying, and the Democrats are not lying. But they are confusing apples and oranges.

When discussing unemployment in this country, we have always relied on the official unemployment survey - the Household Survey.

Greenspan himself thinks the BLS survey is the more accurate gauge of unemployment. And that's fine. But then we would have to go back and correct the official unemployment rate of 5.6% in 1996, for example, and tell people that the new way of collecting unemployment shows that a 12.8% unemployment rate.

Greenspan and others feel there is something amiss in the BLS survey numbers. They understand it lags in collection of true numbers and that is presumably one of the reasons we have not changed our methodology for reporting unemployment.

I may be missing what you have stated, and I don't take your comments with ill intent, but I don't think I tried to imply that Democrats are outright lying. They are merely doing what you generally do - change the benchmarks!

[Molly Pitcher]

Wonderful!! Printing it out for use/talking points during campaign, okay??:-))

[Peach]

Of course:-) That's why it's there - to use against the leftists.

[MoodyBlu]

Excellent, excellent letter! I have the desire, not the ability, to put into words what you did.

would like to see Freepers who are concerned about immigration, legitimate concerns surely, write letters to both the administration and to their newspapers. So far this immigration plan of the president's is merely a plan - it's not set in stone YET. Facts and numbers can change minds, even at the highest level of our government.

Exactly. Every proposal is the initial marker. I am amazed how people get all bent out of shape with just a proposal. This immigration thing will have to be worked through Congress and if any legislation makes it to the signature stage, I feel it will be in the best interst of the country (an act of faith on my part considering some of the legislation we have seen the past 2 years).

MoodyBlu

[DollyCali]

Wonderful Peach.. and thanks for permission to use it as ammo...

[sultan88]

Thanks for your letter. Have just forwarded it to a number of friends.

[rodguy911]

Great Letter--keep up the good work.

[Old Professer]

Did you provide a list of sources for your letter?

[Peach]

Letters to the editor do not require sources, although when the newspaper called me I told him what my sources were, unasked BTW.

Below are some sources of information, although only a few:

Factories operate at 17 year high: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20040301/bs_nm/economy_manufacturing_dc

Unemployment in 1996: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087145/posts

Measuring Unemployment (note the third paragraph which references what I have heard on CNBC but wanted to see in print - that the official unemployment statistics come from the Household Survey): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052328/posts

Freeper stats with links in Post #2 which include the US Census, Dept of Labor, etc.: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092602/posts

Richmond Times, Page 2, business section; starts out as a joke and jab at Democrats but includes good numbers:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031774134551&path=!business!columnists&s=1045855934868

Gov. web site posted by freeper:ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news

Larry Kudlow article. I have a few more but not links, just hard copy articles. http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092038/posts

Investor's Business Daily also provided a wealth of data and I have a few hard copy articles they wrote regarding this matter. I got them off the internet from the IBD web site but it's difficult to navigate and I'm not going back there to collect them to link right now. However, you could go there and sign up (for free) and look at their archived articles regarding jobs, unemployment, and the economy in general.

[Peach]

Very good points in your post, fellow freeper.

Good luck to you both, although it sounds like you are both fine!

[Eva]

I was talking to a loan officer at our bank about the incongruity of the supposed unemployment statistics with the apparent booming economy as evidenced by housing starts and busy malls. Washington State is supposed to have the second highest unemployment rate in the country and Whatcom County is supposed to have been hit extra hard with the closing by environmentalists of the Georgia Pacific mill and the Intalco Aluminium smelter (still operating at 1/3 capacity), as well as shutting down both the fishing and the logging industries. She said that the
unemployment figures from the state are always skewed because of the high percentage of planned unemployment, fishers, loggers, farmers and even students who work only a portion of every year. Washington state is excused from federal limits.

[Peach]

Interesting points that are not taken into account all to often when the Rats complain about the so-called jobless recovery.

[Irish Eyes]

Peach....This is one great letter, thanks for posting it, try to get it out as much as possible more people need to see this letter.

[baseballmom]

Great letter, Peach. You have bulletted the points very well - easy for recall. Thanks so much. I have bookmarked it for easy reference

[Doe Eyes]

I'm confused. The U.S. Department of Labor uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers on its own website. The Department of Labor is headed by Secretary of Labor, Elaine L. Chao, who reports to and was appointed by the President.