Saturday, September 8, 2012

Brother, Can You Spare A Job?

As expected, the August jobs and employment numbers are in, and they're not good. As with every month since the beginning of the Obama administration, the official unemployment rate is over 8%. In fact, that persistent number could work against the Republicans if it isn't explained carefully and succinctly. People can become desensitized to a number that refuses to change much. So what do the numbers really mean?

To start with, they mean that in July, there were 155,013,000 workers in the civilian work force. In August, that number dropped to 154,645,000. Simple math tells you that 368,000 people gave up looking for a job, and dropped out of the labor pool. The US Department of Labor reported that former and potential workers “not in the civilian labor force” hit a record high of 88,921,000. When workers have dropped out of the labor pool entirely, for whatever reasons, they are no longer counted as “unemployed.” Since that number of dropouts increased by 368,000 in August, the official unemployment rate dropped from July's 8.3% to August's 8.1%.

The chronically unemployed or unemployable become non-persons for purposes of calculating the unemployment rate. In other words, unemployment is far, far worse than the 8.1% figure. A more realistic figure is 23,000,000 Americans unemployed, underemployed, or unemployed but still looking for work. Technical percentages be damned, that's a whole lot of Americans. Mitt Romney has described that number as a national tragedy.

The Obama administration constantly trumpets that it has created [fill in the number] million jobs. That's a plain and simple lie. But even if their highest number of jobs created were true, it still falls far behind the number that needs to be created just to stay even. The Labor Department counts workers as “in the civilian work force” if they are at least sixteen years of age, not in the military or an institution (prisons, nursing homes, mental hospitals), and either have a job or have actively looked for one in the last four weeks.

In reality, most of the still-counted unemployed have been actively looking for work for eighteen to twenty-four months. So let's look at the “labor pool” of people actually working (the Labor Participation Index). It's another disaster. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there were 142,220,000 Americans working in July. But in August that number slipped to 142,101,000 working, a net loss of 119,000. Still, after removing the dropouts from the hard numbers, that keeps the phony unemployment rate at 8.1%.

No matter how the administration tries to convince the voters that things are looking up, there is simply nothing of any significance to indicate that. A big uptick in the Dow-Jones or the NASDAQ is wonderful, but unless it translates into jobs, and soon, it only has significance for investors. The jobless remain jobless, and the numbers simply aren't getting any better by any measure. Economists' definitions of a recession mean nothing to people struggling to make ends meet and to find employment to replace their lost jobs.

The total number of jobs which the Obama administration claims is indeed up from the nadir year of 2009. But that's not an “increase” in jobs in any meaningful way. Many of the jobs are much lower-paying than the ones lost, many are part-time or at least less than full-time, and the number added since 2009 doesn't even come close to matching population increases or the number of young people ready to enter the labor pool. The number of jobs increased by 96,000 during the July-August period, but that is nothing short of pathetic. It needs to be three to five times that many just to get back to pre-2008 levels. Worst of all, despite Obama's promises, jobs in the manufacturing sector actually dropped in August.

So to repeat my original point, the Republicans must continue to hammer at the official unemployment rate, but also make those figures “real” to the voters. 23,000,000 unemployed is a number people understand. 8%+ official unemployment has been around so long that it has ceased to have much impact on voter thinking. Voters don't look at statistics and percentages, they look at their unemployed friends, family and neighbors, and often, themselves. Obama has done nothing to fix that. Mitt Romney must make it clear that he and Paul Ryan will move those numbers in the right direction. Not percentages, but real, live, breathing human beings, at work, earning a decent living.

25 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

your point is a great one, Hawk. As an example, the AP story today is reasonably accurate in describing how dismal the job report was. However, the headline in the Knoxville paper screams 96,000 new jobs added. I suppose the hope is a typical reader won't bother to go further and think Obama is turning it around.

Patriot said...

LawHawk.....this the problem with this statistic. No one can explain it clearly, people disagree on exactly what it tells us and it is easily manipulated by politicians.

Romney needs to just state the simple truth...."There are more people unemployed now than when Obama started his term, with even more people eager for work than ever before."

Forget the frikkin stats.......humanize the number so Joe Sixpack gets it.

Unfortunately, I have no confidence that these repubs get this simple idea. "Let's show them how smart and wonkish we are with labor policy by explaining these stats to you idiots."

(palm to forehead shaking head despondently)

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Twenty-three million. Isn't that the number Clint used?

T-Rav said...

Also, let's not forget that during the Bush administration, after months in which 300,000+ jobs were being created, then-Senator Obama attacked that number as inadequate job growth and insisted it was time for a change. Couldn't have said it better myself, Barry.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I probably should have added "media bias" to the links. That 96,000 "jobs added" figure is totally misleading. And even standing by itself, without the loss of those who have given up, the figure would be pathetic.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: You're absolutely right. KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is the order of the day. I wasn't suggesting that the Romney ads or soundbites should contain the statistics contained in the article. Humanization and simplicity are the keys to getting the message across. Real people are really hurting.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Eastwood did use the number. It has to be repeated, over and over, to get the message across.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Obama also pointed out that many of the jobs created were "low-paying and part-time." His own words should be used against him.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, given the number of golf outings he takes, I would say that he's modeled his own job on the created ones. But in light of the First Family's many shopping trips, it wouldn't meet the "low-paying" qualification.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I guess you'd have to call that "play for pay."

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

I think that the unemployment numbers are easily man ipulated and not very indicative of what is going on.

I think a better number would be Total Earnings. This number should be broken down further into Private Sector and Public Sector.

I am sure the economists can come up with a fancier sounding term and may already have but simply this is the total earnings of workers in dollars adjusted for inflation when compared to previous years.

If we used that statistic there is no way the Obamacultists could argue away the results or explain away with clever math. This is because IP am quite sure that the total am ount earned by employees in 2008 and 2009 is greater than it is now because of the lower wage jobs.

What would even be more telling is the percentage ration of Privatec Sector vs Public Sector earnings and the change over Obama's term. It would illustrate that the country produces less.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: If he can find a good, short, and clear way of stating that, it would be a big plus. Stating that average family income has decreased by +/- $3,000 is one way of stating that. But however it's done, it must be done.

LawHawkRFD said...

One other simple mathematical way of countering Obama's lie about creating 4.5 million new jobs during his administration: The private sector, non-farm payroll figure is currently 111.3 million. When Obama took office, that number was 111 million. The 4.5 million new jobs figure is really only 300,000 new jobs during Obama's entire tenure in office.

Patriot said...

LawHawk........Romney and his myrmidons need to also use the median household earnings stat you referenced. Went from $54 to $50k during his term.

"Middle class Americans are making less under this President and his policies than in any time in the last 50 years" Let the dims explain that away!

This why sound bites are so effective.....bumper sticker mentality.......if your idea can be understood in as few words as possible, you won. That's why the Marxists (Dems) are so good at this and the stoopid party (Reps) are forced to respond trying to explain the issue in factual, geekish prose.

Patriot said...

P.S.......I'm sure the "fact checkers" in the media would give all the above "4 Pinnochios"

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: Romney and Ryan also need to clear up the fog that Obama has created when talking about the "middle class." The Democrat idea of what comprises the middle class is quite different from that of the Republicans.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: I'm sure you're right.

AndrewPrice said...

Yep, the jobs numbers are horrible and they aren't going to turn around in the next two months.

Joel Farnham said...

Yep, the new number is being touted that unemployment is down, and the recovery is going as planned. In other words, deeper sh#t, different day, enjoy the crap sandwich.

Also, I saw on Drudge that Obama is now 4% ahead of Romney. Problem is another came out same day that says, Obama behind 3%.

One is registered voters and the other is likely.

Gallup --> Registered voters. Obama ahead 4%

American Research Group --> Likely Voters. Romney ahead 3%

Who to believe?

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: If I have it right, there are two more reports before the election, and one either on election day or the day after. None of that helps Obama.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Gallup always leans Democratic, and uses likely voters only toward the end of the election cycle, and then only if necessary. Obama and Holder still don't think Gallup kisses enough Democratic butt, so the DOJ has sued Gallup.

I tend to look at only two polls: RealClearPolitics average, and Rasmussen. Rasmussen is usually deadly-accurate on election day, and prior to the election, just lays out the cards regardless of who is ahead.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Pretty exciting, huh? We can do the math, even if they can't. I'm used to Gallup oversampling Democrats by about 6%, but 8% doesn't surprise me

Individualist said...

I have always found in the Presidential election polls that whatever number the NEws Radio station decides to announce the day before the election the GOP condidate always ends up 4 points better in the election results than the poll announced. Even if he loses he does 4 points better than projected.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: That's interesting. I wonder if it will happen this time again.

LawHawkRFD said...

Another statistic that has real meaning if stated simply is that this is the lowest number of Americans employed since 1981.

Post a Comment