How "they" are going to spin the employment numbers, and ammo to fight back

[jpljr77]

As MarketWatch's lead economic commentator said today, the jobs report from the Labor Department (BLS) was "unambiguously good."

Not only was there decent topline jobs growth (+227,000), numbers from the previous two months were adjusted upward significantly (+61,000 in total). We now have three straight months of jobs growth that looks like this: +223,000, +284,000, and +227,000. Nice trend, huh?

And of course, these are all private sector jobs, since governments are still cutting (-6,000 in February).

But what about that Gallup Poll release yesterday that showed the unemployment rate at 9.1%? You know, the one everyone on the Right jumped on. How is it that the Gallup number (9.1%) is so different from the Labor number (8.3%)?

First, the official headline unemployment rate from the gov't is seasonally adjusted (to compensate for periods of abnormally high temporary hiring, like around the holidays and tax season). Gallup's numbers are not seasonally adjusted. So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Fear not, BLS reports a non-seasonally adjusted headline unemployment rate (they report A LOT of different numbers). In February, that rate was 8.7%. So now we're down to an apples-to-apples comparison of 9.1% vs. 8.7%...which is still quite a gap.

Interestingly, Gallup uses the same methodology as BLS. Gallup interviewed households to arrive at their unemployment rate, same as BLS. But the sample sizes are different. Gallup interviewed about 27,000 households where the gov't interviewed 60,000. Also, BLS conducts an establishment survey of some 141,000 employers to add to its numbers.

Some might say that the government's numbers are skewed because of the labor pool participation rate. When people are unemployed for too long, or give up their job search, they are not counted in the 8.3% rate. This is true. But it's also true of the Gallup numbers. BLS noted that the labor participation rate went up in February (which is probably why the unemployment did not drop). And besides, BLS publishes numbers that include the "marginally attached" and even those working part time against their wishes.

This is the U-6 measure, which includes EVERYONE, and that economists often call the "real" unemployment rate. That seasonally adjusted rate was 14.9% in February, the lowest rate since January 2009. That's right, the "real" unemployment rate in February was the lowest since Obama took office.

Any way you look at it (through sane eyes), the February report was "unambiguously good."

[surfdog]

1. How "they" are going to spin it ?

By "they" do you mean the many haters who post here on the DU ?

You don't have to go far to find people shitting on the positive job numbers every month

[tridim]

2. They'll do what they always do. Lie.

Instead of saying there has been "job growth", they'll just say there has been "no job growth", and faux newz viewers will believe every word. It's dirt simple.

Faux viewers also believe Obama has raised taxes.

[Johonny]

3. heck of a job Republican governors

that was last months message. They'll probably give Romney a reach around for scaring Dems into helping the economy.

[all american girl]

4. Oooooo, I know, I know, I know.....

"If I was president, the numbers would be higher." Aren't they so clever. I think they are going to have to get Luzt to work some word magic. They haven't been very good as of yet.

[lacrew]

5. Too many nuances and adjustments in all these definitions

I think the statistic which is easiest to interpret, and it most indicative of how many people are working, is the Labor Force Participation rate.

Simple, it is the percentage of 16-64 year olds, who are working (non military):

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

You can interpret however you want. I see a 0.2% increase, good news...indicative of an additional 50,000 people working, compared to January. That's good news. Better than the static 8.3% UE rate. But looking back further, well, we haven't gotten very far in digging out of this recession.

The OP stated it as well - U6 is the best since Jan 2009...which was a time the economy was in recession.

I really think the administration is going to have to do better than 'no worse than inauguration day'. There was an expectation of improvement.

Where do we go from here? I think the Gallup numbers and BLS numbers will tighten up in March...statistically, they have to, since the methodologies are so similar. These means UE will probably creep up by a tenth of a percentage point, or two.

Election-wise, this leaves 7 months for meaningful drop in UE...below inauguration day (which was 7.8%). I think a goal would be to have it at least as low as election day...and Oct 2008 numbers available to the electorate at that time were 6.5%. That would be a quarter percentage point per month.

No spinning - the man was elected to fix the economy, and the most recognizable measurement of the economy is the UE rate. If its substantially higher than it was on the day he was elected, don't kid yourself. His only hope of re-election (and one I see here often) is the complete lack of like-ability of any GOP candidates.