Media does 180 degrees on jobs "numbers" from yesterday ??

[kentuck]

I just heard a report on MSNBC and the reporter stated that "although the unemployment numbers were up slightly, there is hope that the job numbers are starting to turn around.." (paraphrasing) but that was the gist of her words. Isn't that somewhat different from the glowing reports from yesterday?

[LittleApple81]

1. Yeah... now, was this just a little note on the ticker that nobody

reads? That way they can cleanse themselves of responsibility for spreading yesterday's lies in 100 POINT FONT AND HAPPY SCREAMS.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

2. I wonder

[troublemaker]

3. All part-time Jobs!

check out the numbers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1337573

[Sparkly]

4. Right

So after the headlines have played out, they can revise that number downward by discounting the part-time jobs, and thus show another "big gain" next time around.

[livetohike]

5. The media should interview an "expert"

on the real job numbers. For example, the rise in the unemployment percentage is the number of persons collecting unemployment benefits. I actually heard some "expert" state that the rate went up because people are looking for jobs again after being out of the market. This is not so. The jobless number is only representative of those persons actually collecting an unemployment check. No one is counting the number of persons whose benefits have expired.

[underpants]

6. 71,000 (23%) were the grocery workers in Cali going BACK to work

"New" jobs huh?

These numbers not only don't add up but such a huge spike is outside of the realm of probability. Notice how many times you heard/will hear about the "new jobs created" but unemployment went UP .1% so there was net a loss. Also as they talk about how ~1/2 million jobs have been created in the quarter that still falls short of the 250-300K needed per month to meet W's economic report estimate of 2.6 million jobs being created this year. This is complete crap but it is being cemented as fact in the minds of many.

[kentuck]

7. ...and 90% of the others were part-time?

Now it's starting to add up.... Or does it???? You have to check everything twice when these people say something. Too bad the corporate media reports everything they are told by this Administration as "factual".

(edited for clarification)

[underpants]

8. Actually I don't think THAT adds up

The part about the 71K grocery workers new-old jobs was in the original news report yesterday. This report (above) accounts for 90% on it's own, either there are conflicting analysis (could be) or between just these two 113% of the 308,000 are accounted for. Sounds to me the had a number they CREATED that was too high so they trimmed it down....much like pricing at Walmart-they introduced things not being priced at $__.99 but parsing it down to odd figures such as $__.84 and $__.38 and so forth.

The more I am looking into this the more that seems to be the true story. They had to knock the number down to something that didn't set off red flags as being too huge but wanted it over 300K so 308 was decided on, it sells.

[kentuck]

11. It doesn't add up....

I like your Walmart analogy... Makes more sense than anything I have heard thus far..

[underpants]

12. Much like the Medicare number

Thanks I just came up with that. Amazing what coffee will do.

[kiahzero]

15. Simpler explaination: Overlapping sets

If some of the 71K grocery workers are also part time, they would be doublecounted.

To get the 308,000 number from both, assuming those are the only two sets, you would do:

300,000 + 71,000 - (Intersection of both) = 308,000

Solving for the intersection, we get that 63,000 of the 71,000 are part-time employees... this makes sense, given the type of work we're talking about.

[underpants]

18. Yes the would explain it + some people will >2 part-time jobs

The old joke during the Clinton era was:

"You Clinton has created X million new jobs"
"Yeah I know I have 3 of them"

It is probably still a bit true.

[stopbush]

13. Plus, many of the non-union scabs who took the place of those

unionized workers probably didn't qualify for unemployment benefits.

Let's see, what will happen next to allow bush to hit the trifecta on this one?

[No Mandate Here.]

20. Not to mention...

that ALL of the temp workers who replaced the grocery strikers were laid off.

[MetaTrope]

9. Hello, yesterday was Friday, welcome to the weekend news

:boring:

[susu369]

10. Bu$h* delivers magic

(with the help of Gawd who speaks to him) the economy is on the upswing.

Yeah, and I can't wait for the Easter Bunny to appear either.

/sarcasm

[Webster Green]

14. Kerry gave the chimp a little pat on the back for the new jobs....

Instead of dissecting the work of ChimpCo's spin-surgeons.

The Kerry campaign should be de-bunking this shit as soon as it is released. Maybe Nader could be his spokesman.

This administration is self-destructing. The truth is finally emerging and they are going down. Kerry needs to start throwing some blows to get these guys lined up for the knockout punch.

[ex_jew]

16. I'd be very careful about pointing out economic bad news

You have to be sure that you aren't seen as hoping for the worst. Instead, Kerry could congratulate those who found work, EVEN if it is only part-time.

[kentuck]

17. But we want the economic numbers to be true....

Don't we? And should we point out the discrepancies when we see them?

[skeptic9]

19. Here are the official seasonally-adjusted numbers,...

... from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

They tell an especially ambiguous story this month.

These numbers are spun EVERY month. Whenever the two separate sources of labor market data (household surveys and establishment data) diverge in their findings, we're completely inside a spin zone.

Notice how the household survey shows a DECLINE of 3,000 jobs from Feb to Mar! How many media spinners mentioned THAT?

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands)
......................................Feb......... Mar........... change

HOUSEHOLD DATA Labor force status
Civilian labor force...........146,471....146,650......179
Employment......................138,301.....138,298....... -3
Unemployment....................8,170.........8,352.....182

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Nonfarm employment.......... p130,240.. p130,548......p308
Average hourly earnings............p$15.52....p$15.54....p$0.02
Average weekly earnings...........p524.58....p523.70.....p -.88

p=preliminary


HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-5. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status (In thousands) Seasonally adjusted
............................................................Feb. 2004..Mar. 2004
PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME
All industries
Part time for economic reasons ........... 4,437 ..... 4,733
Slack work or business conditions ...... 2,865 ..... 3,011
Could only find part-time work ........... 1,347 ..... 1,427