PDA

View Full Version : Economy Lost 2.84 Million Jobs in Jan?



red states rule
02-04-2013, 03:09 AM
This Obama "recovery" is really starting to take shape. Using the government's own numbers it appears the Obama economy lost 2.84 million jobs - yet the liberal media reports the Obama economy added 157,000




By not using the term "seasonally adjusted" anywhere in their reports, these establishment press outlets have led readers to believe that their wonderfully positive number represent what actually happened. They don't. Thus, as a public service, yours truly will present the real numbers beside several of those reported at the aforementioned outlets, with a bit of analysis as to whether trends in those sectors appear to be favorable (SA means "seasonally adjusted; NSA means "before seasonal adjustment, i.e., the actuals):


Overall: 157K SA, -2.84 million NSA; January's actual job loss was worse than the 2.635 million seen in January 2012 which generated a 311K seasonally adjusted result. This looks like deterioration to me, not improvement. It also appears, looking at the three preceding years, that January's 157K SA figure could easily and justifiably been as low as 100K.


Private sector: +166K SA, -2.345 million NSA; again much worse than the -2.155 million seen in January 2012, and again with the seasonally adjusted number arguably overstated by 50K or more.


Health care: +23K SA, -57K NSA; the actual decline in January 2012 was far less (-36K), perhaps indicating that health care employment averaged over 12 months might be close to hitting a plateau.


Retail: +33K SA, -592K NSA; in this 2013's actual decline is worse than each of the past three years by 19K-32K. If retail stops adding people over time, look out below.


Construction: +28K SA, -272K NSA; this one's a real head-scratcher as to why we should be impressed. Contstruction employment is just over 100,000 greater than it was a year ago, and (seasonally adjusted) is still over (23 percent) below its January 2008 value of peak of 7.476 million. At that rate, it will take about 15 years for construction employment to get back to where it was.


Manufacturing: +4K SA, -90K NSA; the NSA number is worse than both 2012 (-65K) and 2011 (-80K). In the past 12 months, seasonally adjusted manufacturing employment is up by 109K, or just under 1 percent.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/NSAandSAjobChangesToJan2013.png

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/02/economy-lost-284-million-jobs-jan-yet-press-pretends-seasonally-adjusted#ixzz2JyVGwsvQ

fj1200
02-04-2013, 08:07 AM
Damn that Obama for creating the use of 'seasonally adjusted'... :mad:

oh wait, no he didn't.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
02-04-2013, 09:53 AM
Damn that obama and the MSM for their lying election propaganda..
Built the gullible fools and moron dem base's hopes for a miracle recovery only to have it shattered it when reality came to bite their dumbasses.
The lies and resulting misery means nothing , the point was to get the lying destroyer a second term.. --Tyr

Marcus Aurelius
02-04-2013, 09:56 AM
didn't the UE rate tick up .1?

How is that possible in either case... 157,000 plus jobs or 2.84 million minus jobs?

fj1200
02-04-2013, 09:58 AM
^We need to create X amount of jobs just to remain steady. Not sure what that figure is but 200k seems close.

Never mind, I was incorrect:

In an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/economy/job-growth-falters-badly-clouding-hope-for-recovery.html?_r=1&ref=business) on the June employment report the NYT told readers that the economy needs 150,000 jobs per month to keep pace with the growth in the population. Actually, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the underlying rate of labor force growth is now just 0.7 percent annually. This comes to roughly 1,050,000 a year or just under 90,000 a month.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/we-need-90000-jobs-per-month-to-keep-pace-with-the-growth-of-the-population

I'm guessing people started looking for jobs, that would cause the rate to tick up.

Marcus Aurelius
02-04-2013, 10:07 AM
^We need to create X amount of jobs just to remain steady. Not sure what that figure is but 200k seems close.

So, if we 'created' 157,000 we did not remain even, and the rate should go up, right? Still seems like for that tiny increase in jobs the rate really would not have changed by even .1. Also, if we really lost 2.84 million, I'd have expected a larger increase... maybe .2 or .3.

fj1200
02-04-2013, 10:19 AM
So, if we 'created' 157,000 we did not remain even, and the rate should go up, right? Still seems like for that tiny increase in jobs the rate really would not have changed by even .1. Also, if we really lost 2.84 million, I'd have expected a larger increase... maybe .2 or .3.

Well, my guess was wrong (check my edit) but the two are not directly correlated. The non-seasonally adjusted number is really an illusion IMO, BO doesn't get credit when the NSA number rises just as he shouldn't be blamed when we lose NSA jobs. Nevertheless, the UE rate is just a ratio between those looking for jobs and those who aren't. If you get discouraged and stop looking you're no longer unemployed just as if you start looking for a job you are now unemployed even if you had the same no job as before.

fj1200
02-04-2013, 10:21 AM
Damn that obama and the MSM for their lying election propaganda..
Built the gullible fools and moron dem base's hopes for a miracle recovery only to have it shattered it when reality came to bite their dumbasses.
The lies and resulting misery means nothing , the point was to get the lying destroyer a second term.. --Tyr

He, and they, suck. But this is just a made up story from a blogger who thinks he's clever.

red states rule
02-05-2013, 03:48 AM
Over 8 million jobs have vanished since Obama took office and more will be lost as his Obamacare rules and taxes kick in. The debt will soon hit $17 trillion and gas prices are back on the rise

So get use to these new norms in the Obama economy - we have 4 more years of this thanks to the takes and under informed voters

fj1200
02-05-2013, 06:30 AM
^Not what this thread was about though.