Since November we have been given encouraging news regarding the unemployment rate. First we learned from the Labor Department that unemployment had dropped below 9%. Then we learned that it dropped to 8.5% in December which was good news indeed especially for President Obama and his re-election chances in 2012. The major newspapers and television stations eagerly reported and then repeated these numbers. Liberal media cheerleading notwithstanding, the bad news is that the numbers are bogus.
The first thing one should notice is that the term "seasonally adjusted" was not used in the reports.
Ordinarily this might not be a problem but in the lead up to the Christmas shopping season large numbers of temporary employees are hired which has only a temporary impact on unemployment. Once the post-holiday returns are made, most of these temporary hires are also "returned" to the ranks of the unemployed. The government and media always adjust their statistics. However, they never give these revisions the same level of coverage. While the good news is reported on page one, "above the fold" of the Washington Post and New York Times, the revised numbers end up weeks later on page A23 beside the story about the dog that swallowed a plastic spoon. Coincidence? I can't say for sure but I believe liberal strategist and commentator Bob Beckel made a very revealing admission on the Sean Hannity Show. According to Beckel, the inflated numbers don't matter. The news has been splashed all over the TV and newspapers and that will be all that Americans will remember come November. I guess the truth isn't all that important as long as what is reported helps President Obama get re-elected.
The other big lie associated with the lower unemployment numbers that were reported is how the numbers were determined. In order to make the numbers look more encouraging, the reports were based on the U-6 instead of the U-3 statistics. The difference is that, unlike the U-3 statistics which are usually reported, the U-6 numbers were reported which includes part-time workers who are underemployed and doesn't count those who need employment but are no longer actively looking for jobs because they have given up in despair. Additionally, on Friday we learned that for the first time, those accepting positions as unpaid interns were no longer counted as unemployed. In the interest of full disclosure, I learned about the unpaid interns on Fox News (gasp from liberal readers!) Did it get reported anywhere else?
Liberals will retort that the economy is recovering. They will admit that it is a slow recovery but it is a recovery which given the mess left by Bush, that is understandable. The problem with this is that it is also not correct. Typically, the deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery is both in terms of growth and employment. But this "recovery" remains anemic with only about 1.5% growth instead of the 5-plus percent one would expect following such a significant downturn. When considering the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work, unemployment has been estimated to be as high as 17%. Given the Obama Administration's anti-business rhetoric, unwillingness to adopt policies that help promote certainty to reassure employers (think temporary tax incentives, threats of tax hikes and no federal budget in nearly 1000 days), and its insistence on restrictive regulations and government interference that kill job creation (remember the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline and Boeing opening a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina?) should anyone put much credence in the employment figures? Or could it be that the economy is improving despite President Obama's policies? I'll leave it up to you to decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment