 |
|
Add to My Group
|
March 8, 2008 at 07:42:25
Job Loss for February Much Higher than 63,000 by Christopher Wright Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
This one particularly got my ire: Front Page: 25,000 jobs expected to be created in February Back section: 63,000 jobs lost in February. 63,000 jobs lost brought the Dow Jones down to the 11,800 level. What would it have been had they seen the real numbers. As bad as this is, and it is what is reported throughout the media, it is not the 'real' number. 
I worked for a State government for a while as a researcher/planner. One of my areas was in workforce retention so I spent a good deal of time watching the income and outgo of employees in various categories.
Now, my math is pretty good, though admittedly simple. That is to say that I squeezed somehow through statistics in my undergraduate degree and was thrilled that it wasn't necessary for my Masters. I can count without using my fingers and toes but don't really understand high-level statistical schmoozing and machinations.
So, when I would see that 60% of a certain position tended, year after year, to leave their employment after less than 6 months, I would write a report to the powers that be. In my simplistic mind, patterns are patterns and percentages are percentages. By the time the reports were 'fine-tuned' by the powers that be, all problems disappeared and life was good. I expect it wasn't so good for those folks who left a decent paying State job for unknown reasons and I still can't believe it was good for the various departments who depended on those workers.
Like I said, I'm educated but basically simple. If we really didn't need those employees, why continue hiring them and losing them year after year? If we really did need that job class, why didn't we find out why they left and try to change things? I left there eventually – it wasn't worth the cognitive dissonance.
Now I am far removed from that environment but occasionally some numbers come across my computer search that just don't make sense and I foolishly look further into them. Such it was on Friday, March 7th with the federal Jobs Report that tanked the Dow Jones: 63,000 jobs lost in the Economy! Dow heads down into the 11,000's!
What kind of jobs were lost, I wondered? As the initial report was on the internet, I decided to take a gander at it. Big Mistake! Déjà vu – I was mentally back in my old, discarded job.
Here are the numbers that they report. You can go there yourself and check it out at page 2 & 3 of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Jobs Lost, February 2008Manufacturing -52,000
Construction -39,000
Retail Trade -34,000
Wholesale Trade -9,000
Temp Empl Svcs -28,000
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
Government reports can be hard to read
Government reports can be notoriously hard to read. The report discussed categories, sub-categories, and sub-sub-categories without distinction, so it's easy to get confused. The huge loss in credit intermediation caught my eye. It seems very unlikely that such a relatively labor market could lose so many jobs in one month. Credit intermediation is a sub-category of financial services, which is itself a sub-category, I think, of professional and business services, so the credit intermediation losses are already included in the credit and business services. Also, the credit intermediation losses did not all occur in February. If you refer to the actual report, you'll find this sentence [with emphasis added], "In financial activities, credit intermediation employment continued to decline and has fallen by 116,000 since a peak in October 2006." That is, over a period of a little less than a year and a half. by Grady Cash (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:39:18 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yep
Absolutely correct, Grady and thanks. I got up at 5AM this morning with the nagging thought that I had missed something so rewrote the entire article - hopefully a little clearer and more accurate. The numbers to me are still catywampus in several ways. Some will change when the full report comes out on April 4th. The DJIA reacted to the "job loss' numbers, particularly because the job replacement categories were mostly low-level earners comparatively. There were other numbers that, on closer reading, were 2007 averages or total yearly job declines that made it more difficult to understand. I appreciate the constructive criticism. by Christopher Wright (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:05:49 AM (0+)
|
|
The phantom birth-death formula added 135,000 jobs, too
Besides the +/-30,000 gov't jobs you may have missed in the official number,the BLS added 135,000 birth-death jobs in order to arrive at this still-dismal number> http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm Notice on the link, they are removing 2007 data, so we can't compare the phantom jobs added year-over-year? Also, they used to line up the tables "stacked" so it was easy to compare. I have long called for an investigation of the BLS, and who is the Bush-operative(s) there. Notice they added 9,000 construction jobs! Bear in mind, they take a number of districts (the Fed Reserve Banks ones I think), and using new corporation filings(many are bogus "S" or tax shelters), assign the number of jobs they think are created, this magic formula added 135K jobs. by gordon nelson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ah-ha!
Now, isn't that another nice little bit of statistical fluff? As it appears they are never really revised by hard data, it becomes a group of straw people that may or may not ever exist. In fact, many could then be double counted - once in hard data from tax type records and again via the formula. Aren't they creative? My revised article still came up with 123,000 job losses but I don't know if Rob is going to exchange it any time soon. Thanks for the info. Christopher by Christopher Wright (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Elaine Chao
The primary Bush operative at the BLS is the Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (wife of Senator Mitch McConnell). If you've ever seen or heard her, you know her first priority is to cook the books as much as she can to cast the Bush economy in a favorable light. And if you think the "loyal Bushies" made a mess at the Department of Justice, imagine what they're doing at the Departments of Labor and Commerce. There's not an economic statistic coming from either one that anyone should take at face value. "Two-term mandate Bush" has now presided over two bouts of recession. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), one has to go all the way back to the Eisenhower administration to find such mismanagement of the economy. Congratulations to the moron! And congratulations to the two-time Bush voters who are even more moronic! Since 1952, Jimmy Carter has been the only Democratic president who suffered an "official" economic recession during his term in office. All the other recessions occurred during Republican rule. by victorberry (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 5:39:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: how many Bush operatives @ BLS?
Good point about Chow, but she doesn't goose the numbers. It's been reported many places that Bush installed a political operative to review all data coming out of all agencies. The employment number goes to the White House before release, but anyone who understands the corruption in CPI, PPI, GDP, would conclude there are insiders planted @ BLS. The GDP is a CRIMINAL FRAUD, because the GDP deflater, or inflation ,is understated by as much as 2-3%, if you look at the 3rd Quarter 2007 GDP report, the inflation deflater was THE LOWEST IN 43 YEARS, meaning the imput costs , oil, etc were a complete (criminal?) fraud, arriving at a grossly overestimated GDP. The (criminal?) goal is to not show negative GDP. If the PPI is running at 3%, there IS NO WAY we have a positive GDP. It's been negative , imho, for 2 quarters, at least. Also, they add in foreign manufacturing, as if it's produced by Americans, in the GDP. by gordon nelson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:28:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Gordon
GDP includes goods and services. All GOVERNMENT spending and government provided services is included in GDP. I would agree with you that we have been negative for a minimum of two quarters if the numbers were properly accounted for. Bush however, didn't make up the rules, there is a very long list of adjustments to GDP, CPI and jobless claims. For instance, the Boskin Commission under Clinton drastically changed the way CPI was reported in order to keep it artifically low. The bottom line is that the U.S. is in recession and I see no way to keep parts of our country from entering depresion status. by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM (0+)
|
|
jobless and uncounted
Every month tens of thousands of young and older men are not counted as they don't get employment benefits and are not eligible. I imagine this number has soared beyond any number seen in the uSA since the 1970s. Other Americans and I are forced to emigrate to Kuwait, Iraq, and elsewhere to find work. by ALONE (196 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 557 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 2:28:21 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
