Media Employment Report Cover-up: 150,000 New Jobs Added August

newsmax ^ | Sept. 6, 2003 | Staff

[Maria S]

The press has been saturated since Friday morning with misleading reports claiming that the number of jobs held by Americans declined by nearly 100,000 in August. However, the actual jobs statistic used by the Labor Department to measure the unemployment rate showed just the opposite - with the economy adding almost 150,000 new jobs.

The journalistic sleight of hand fueled headlines like "93,000 Get the Ax" in Saturday's New York Daily News, "Job Losses Mount for a 22nd Month" on the New York Times front page and Newsday's front page blast, "Goodbye Jobs."

While most press accounts eventually got around to noting that the actual unemployment rate fell from 6.2 percent to 6.1 percent, the information was often buried deep into the reports. The Daily News, for instance, didn't mention the improving statistic until seven paragraphs into its coverage.

Most press accounts disingenuously chalked up the discrepancy between their claims that the economy lost jobs and the declining unemployment rate to "workers who were so discouraged at the bleak job prospects that they stopped looking."

Some went even further. Citing unnamed "economists," the New York Times claimed bizarrely that the divergent statistics were due to "a surge in the number of people who, having lost their jobs, listed themselves as self employed rather than unemployed."

However, nine paragraphs into its own coverage of yesterday's unemployment report, the Washington Post admitted that claims of job losses were based on a separate survey of business payrolls, which is normally not part of the Labor Department's monthly unemployment report:

"The unemployment rate can decline as the number of payroll jobs drops because, in part, the figures come from different surveys," the Post explained. "The unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households, which found that total employment rose by 147,000 workers in August as the number of unemployed people fell by 157,000, to 8.9 million.

"The [declining] number of payroll jobs comes from the department's monthly survey of about 400,000 businesses," the Post said.

Another detail excluded from most coverage of Friday's jobs report: Blacks and Hispanics showed the most gains. While the unemployment rate for whites fell by just one percent, it declined for blacks by twice that amount, from 11.1 to 10.9 percent.

The rate unemployment rate for Hispanics fell even further, from 8.2 percent to 7.8 percent.

[raybbr]

REAL WAGES
1947-2001

Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 consant dollars)
For production or nonsupervisory workers on
private nonfarm payrolls
Year
Real weekly wages
% Change from previous year
1947
$196.47
--
1948
196.00
-0.24%

1949
202.58
3.36

1950
212.52
4.91

1951
215.09
1.21

1952
219.75
2.17

1953
229.35
4.37

1954
231.25
0.83

1955
243.6
5.34

1956
250.85
2.98

1957
251.13
0.11

1958
250.27
-0.34

1959
260.86
4.23

1960
261.92
0.41

1961
265.59
1.40

1962
273.6
3.02

1963
278.18
1.67

1964
283.63
1.96

1965
291.9
2.92

1966
294.11
0.76

1967
293.49
-0.21

1968
298.42
1.68

1969
300.81
0.80

1970
298.08
-0.91

1971
303.12
1.69

1972
315.44
4.06

1973
315.38
-0.02

1974
302.27
-4.16

1975
293.06
-3.05

1976
297.37
1.47

1977
300.96
1.21

1978
300.89
-0.02

1979
291.66
-3.07

1980
274.65
-5.83

1981
270.63
-1.46

1982
267.26
-1.25

1983
272.52
1.97

1984
274.73
0.81

1985
271.16
-1.30

1986
271.94
0.29

1987
269.16
-1.02

1988
266.79
-0.88

1989
264.22
-0.96

1990
259.47
-1.80

1991
255.40
-1.57

1992
254.99
-0.16

1993
254.87
-0.05

1994
256.73
0.73

1995
255.07
-0.65

1996
255.73
0.26

1997
261.31
2.18

1998
268.32
2.68

1999
271.25
1.09

2000
272.36
0.41
2001
273.26
0.47

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Sorry for the odd format. I copied it out of a chart.

[Biblebelter]

It seems to me that the deficits that are being run by the Feds and state governments are due in some part to a fairly high level of unemployment. If people do not have incomes, government revenues dramatically decline and states are starting to feel that because they have become very dependent on income taxes in the last two decades. Ironically, it is government who may be feeling the pinch of unemployment as much as anyone. While businesses have become more productive by cutting the workforce and shipping jobs overseas, government always seems to find ways to create more jobs. The feds have an advantage of a printing press when it needs money, the states do not. But what the hey, it can all be attributed to the continual growing pains of the social welfare state.

[concerned about politics]

But what the hey, it can all be attributed to the continual growing pains of the social welfare state.

Good point. Didn't one of the democrats say we need to bring back welfare because of unemployment??

[concerned about politics]

BTW, if liberals are sreaming about unemployment, why do they still advocate illegal immigration? There's lots of jobs out there. Send the illegals home, and everyone can work.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Most press accounts disingenuously chalked up the discrepancy between their claims that the economy lost jobs and the declining unemployment rate to "workers who were so discouraged at the bleak job prospects that they stopped looking."

Some went even further. Citing unnamed "economists," the New York Times claimed bizarrely that the divergent statistics were due to "a surge in the number of people who, having lost their jobs, listed themselves as self employed rather than unemployed."

I was actually one of both of these last month.

I did finally become so discouraged at trying to find a job that I stopped looking for one. However, I didn't really stop looking for a job for the sake of stopping looking for a job; I decided to create my own damn job.

It was through some help I got here via FR that I was able to leave discouragement behind and think, "I believe I might just be able to succeed at this, this time."

[kimmie7]

bump for future reading

[montag813]

As a futures trader I have to say that this post is idiotic. The 93,000 drop was real (we expected a 12,000 rise), and it is TRUE that the rate went down because fewer people are looking for work. We didn't bid up bonds by the highest daily level in 2 months because of "media bias". 10-year rates dropped nearly 1/4 of a point because of this stunning figure.

NewsMax should stay out of the business of business.

[drjimmy]

A major point of The Times series was that the level of job loss had remained higher than in past economic recoveries.
Don't tell this to Newsmax. Their heads will explode trying to explain how the NY Times was right then but wrong now. On second thought...

[Pharmboy]

As it gets worse for the democrapliberalcommienazisocialistliars their fabrications will only become more egregious. They are running scared. They are such losers.

[arete]

NewsMax should stay out of the business of business.

They do. This wasn't anything but political spin to take the edge off for the faithful. Too many supporter jumping ship.

Richard W.

[Lady In Blue]

Thank you so much for this thread! All day yesterday,somewhere in the back of my mind, I kept wondering how 93,000 jobs could be lost and yet at the same time the rate went down from 6.2 to 6.1! The press is despicable!

[Lady In Blue]

Those were my exact thoughts too!

[concerned about politics]

They do. This wasn't anything but political spin to take the edge off for the faithful. Too many supporter jumping ship.

Nah. Bush has enough support to win the next election. That's all that counts.
He's gaining the educated African American as well as Hispanics attention, too. People are waking up.
The left wing just makes a lot of noise, but the only ones listening to their insane blather are themselves. LOL.
Even their polls "elect themselves."
People aren't that stupid to follow the kooks in charge of the Democrats today. After 9/11, why elect another Clintonite? They might just as well shoot themselves now and end their pain!

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thanks for trying to bring some sense to the thread.

Despite what some on the thread say about the "lazy dolts" many who are currently not looking for replacement career jobs are likely living on savings, assets sales such as their homes, and/or they may be "marginally attached" workers as defined at www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm.

As things get better they (the "lazy dolts") will come back into the job market. I believe that may actually drive up the unemployment rate as more career jobs are created and the "lazy dolts" start looking for career jobs again and quit their marginal employment.

Similar for two-income households. The unemployed spouse may start looking as things get better -- unless they learned that given taxes the net increase to household income may not be worth it.

As far as the mainstream press is concerned we know that they are 90 percent Democrat hacks posing as "journalists" but millions of Americans have had their lives wrecked by IMO a sea change due to globalization. It's going to take a long time to adjust IMO. The unemployed are not people trying to make President Bush look bad.

[Lady In Blue]

".......... Too many supporter jumping ship."

That's news to me! There are freepers who never supported GWB and I don't expect them to support him in 2004. They'll probable support that old workhorse-Buchanan or Dean! Shame on them!

[NormsRevenge]

The liebral media uses "fuzzy" math.

[rdb3]

This wasn't anything but political spin to take the edge off for the faithful. Too many supporter jumping ship.

With you and your type here at FR leading the way!

[concerned about politics]

That's news to me! There are freepers who never supported GWB and I don't expect them to support him in 2004. They'll probable support that old workhorse-Buchanan or Dean! Shame on them!

They pop in once in a while to bash Bush and aid Dean. Like THAT'S gonna help their guy ever get elected - NOT!
It turns Republicans off to libertarianism. Before FR, I didn't even know what one was.
It's hard to tell the difference between them and DU disrupters. They sound the same. It's as if they want democrats to win.