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.

[Willie Green]

"The unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households, which found that total employment rose...
"The [declining] number of payroll jobs comes from the department's monthly survey of about 400,000 businesses...

Hmmmmmm.....

60K households vs. 400K businesses

The business survey should be considered statisticly more accurate due to the larger sample size.

[rwfromkansas]

Hmmm. I might have to run with this in the newsbriefs section of my college newspaper. Interesting stuff, though I don't trust Newsmax...

[rwfromkansas]

Interesting.

Thanks for the report on how the other other media outlets reported things.

[rwfromkansas]

Interesting.

Thanks for the report on how the other other media outlets reported things.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

What schmooze. How many of those jobs pay a liveable wage? Next to none, just like under the Clinton Administration. They created 228,000 jobs of which a mere 11,528 paid above minimum wage. So we loose liveable wage jobs and get this crap as a subsitute. Great.

[1rudeboy]

Your comment flies in the face of real wage figures. In order for your comment to be true, you would have to show a statistically-significant decline in real earnings over the past 10+ years.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thanks for bringing the real world into the discussion. Giving opinions on macro economics can be fun but you are talking about where trends and numbers count. That should indeed be a strong signal to the rest of us.

But some, like Harry Truman, go through life looking for a one-armed economist. Harry was frustrated hearing, "On the other hand. . . ." :)

[1rudeboy]

Average hourly earnings in private, nonagricultural business increased in real terms by about 16 percent during the past 40 years [until 2000], but professionals did better: physicians, for example, enjoyed an increase in real earnings of 33 percent in the same period. [] The top 5 percent of families had an increase in income of 129 percent in real terms from 1960 to 1998, while the middle fifth had an increase of 54 percent and the bottom fifth only 38 percent. Family income went up not only because productivity was greater for other reasons, such as the increasing number of wives taking jobs outside the home. The average real income of working Americans, as the chart shows, increased beginning in 1995--undoubtedly made possible by the spurt in productivity over the same period.

Source: Scientific American

[FreeReign]

They created 228,000 jobs of which a mere 11,528 paid above minimum wage.

Source?

[FreeReign]

While Newsmax trashes the media for using "unnamed" economists, you will notice that Newsmax itself quotes not a single economist in its own story.

Not-a-single-economist is better then an unnamed-economist and IMO more probably accurate.

[Consort]

Looking for Doom and Gloom in the Doom and Gloom?

[drjimmy]

Not-a-single-economist is better then an unnamed-economist and IMO more probably accurate.
What you have to understand is that Newsmax simply lies. Here are all the economists named in the NY Times article:
Mark M. Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com
Joel L. Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors
James W. Paulsen, chief investment strategist for Wells Capital Management
Albert M. Wojnilower, an economic consultant and Wall Street forecaster
Jared Bernstein, a senior labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute

Usually Newsmax does a better job of putting a veneer of truth to their spin, but this article has a larger number than usual of claims that are demonstrably false.

[Dave S]

We always have a jump in unemployment figures this time of year when college students quit their summer jobs and go back to the classroom. Media is ignoring this element of the story

The data are adjusted for such seasonal factors. Our government maybe stupid but they are not that stupid.

[Dave S]

Precisely, and that's why I'm not losing sleep over "those who have given up looking for work". And I don't think that anyone else should either

And exactly why is that? You dont think that these people need income? You cant conceive of a household needing more income than you the breadwinner can provide? Most households need two incomes these days to get ahead what with taxes the way they are.

Besides to be counted as discouraged they didnt look for work that week. its not like theyve given up for good. They are still looking. They may be living off their savings because theyve applied everywhere in their area for the type of job they are looking for.

[Dave S]

I'm in NY, and the news papers wanted ads are full of job openings.

And how many of those ads are for real jobs and not for headhunters searching for more people to place. You do realize that many, if not most, ads that dont identify the employer are for headhunters or employment surveys and not for real jobs?

[EERinOK]

re: the signs.

i see them too. all over this town (okc) and the rural state

and by the looks of those that crawl out, they are working, somewhere, most the same place they were before, but generally too high and lazy to take down the old weatered sign gore signs and fix the busted window.

its funny, the only people on my block that are avowed democrats, but can't really articulate why, and are also the only regular dope smokers at their age in the neighborhood.

[MJY1288]

Dave, I have lived through several down turns in the economy and this recession has been the weakest of them. The recession in the late 70's produced an unemployment rate in the double digits, Gas lines were several hours long and you got in those lines according to the last digit of your licsense plate (odd/even). Interest rates were above 20% and inflation was around 14% and we were being told to turn down our thermostats and wear a sweater because their was no hope for a rebound.

This country was also being humiliated by Jimmy Carter's refusal to do anything about our people being held hostage in Iran for 444 days. This all happened during a time of peace and those were sad days in our history.

When you consider what this country has been through in the past few years with the 9/11 attacks, The recession that started with the collapse of NASDAC in 1999, plus the Coperate scandals that rocked Wall Street, Two major wars and a restructuring of the federal government. With all of this, It's amazing this country didn't suffer an economic collapse.

History will show that our economy was challenged and it passed the test with flying colors, and now that we are seeing the EU economy on the fall, our economy will grow much stronger.

[Jumper]

The USA was able to avoid a collaspe due to pulling her equity out of the markets! This is the first time since the Great Depression that a Nation was able to live off the fat of the land without being broken. The French, Germans, Russian and Arab allies all combined to put hugh economic pressure on the USA. The Arabs pushed oil from $18 to $32 in March 2000 (NASDAQ and Stock meltdowns). The US is solvent at $26 a barrel; Europe needs $24. However, the Arabs cut deals with the Europeans 12-months to trade in EuroDollars for petro and Saudi Arabia pulled 120B out of the US markets to prop up Chiraq and Schoeder reelection campaigns and their economies. Bush countered by letting the dollor go from $1.05 to the Euro to .83 and only now is it back to .90 to the Euro. The combined pressure of blocking US exports to Europe, fighting us at the UN Security Council, and putting military-economic pressure on Israel they had hoped for an Arab victory. Bush rose and put a halt to these investments from Europe and the billions they send Afarat (nothing to Israel from our Euro friends who all had a hand in WWII murders of Jews). The Nuclear and chemical threats with the Axis of Evil are fully in the headlines now so this too was a component of the French Connection and their diplomatic attempt to break the US. Again, the US has rose to the challenge and ensured economic decline for Europeans who oppose us.... It hurts to be an American, but our liberal friends both domestically and internationally want to wrest control of the USA and break the impass we pose with democracy and free trade at the UN - for they prefer the likes of Saddam and Europe's socialism proped up by cushy deals with dictators and rebels destroying small nations so they can secure raw materials below cost (ah, the UN and those who profit from her).

[lelio]

The whole stinking government is filled with leftists and they are skewing every report they can. How about the EPA report about air quailty after 9/11 in New York ?

Leftists in the government held back reports that air quality in lower Manhattan was terrible? I think you have that backwards.

This cuts both ways: the "rightists" in government could be making up unemployment numbers as well. Why do you think they're any more truthful that other politicians?

[lelio]

If you're going to nearly copy all of Rush's WSJ article at least give him credit, as he brought up all the same points you did. And its NASDAQ!

As for the unemployment rate being higher in the 70's, I'm inclined to think it was for a couple of reasons:
a) cheaper to live back then. A husband could be the sole wage earner for a family. If he's out of work and his wife takes a job, does only him being out of work count to UI? Perhaps, as women working might not of been factored into how unemployment was calculated.
b) people worked for larger companies and it was easier to figure out unemployment rates. Nowadays with so many independant contractors how do you measure it? Do they have to be without a gig for a month? Who knows.