Jobs Data: Estimates, Rather Than Concrete Numbers

Have you ever doubted this blog, when the articles told you that these weekly and monthly numbers are NOT like a leftist counting on his fingers and towes (or on an I-phones)? After revision after revisioin, and after this blog being proven ocrrect time and time again, you should have no illusions about these numbers. They aer subjective ESTIMATES--even POLLS, n the case of the household survey which ressults in the "unemployoment rate'--rather than a matter of counting. Yes, this actually means that the White House is right when it says one month's numbers don't mean that much. Problem: That is NOT what the White House says when the numbers look better. This blog, however, is consistent either way.


Look at today's job numbers. First, we have ZERO job growth (plus or minus about 100,000). Yet, the unemployment RATE was supposedly unchanged at 9.1%. Is that consistent? Not in this universe. One of those things, if not both of those things, has to be WRONG. You cannot reconci.e those numbers. Why not? It is generally accepted, because it is true, that yuo have to have a 125,0000 INCREASE in jobs to STAY EVEN (keep unemployment the same). Say that number is a little exaggerated. Still, ZERO job growth is NOT sufficient to keep the unemployment rate the same. It should cause the unemployment rate to RISE.


Let us look at this another way. The unemployment rate went "down" (supposedly) to 8.8% at the beginning of the year. It then went UP to 9.2%, over several months, no matter whether the jobs "created" were very few, or 100,000 or more. Then the unemployment rate STUCK at about that same 9.1% (no matter what fluctuatoons there have been in the "jobs created". This is NOT consistent. It should MATTER whether 0 jobs are created, or 150,000 jobs are created. It should make a difference int he unemployment rate, unless you understand that all of thsese numbers are SOFT numbers. They are estimates. This goes beyond the obvious fat that there are many known oversights in the numbers (such as "discouraged workers") At bet, the numbers have a huge margin of error. That is how Gallup, on occasion, can find an unemployment rate of 10%, wile lthe government is reporting 9.1%. This is a POLL.


Thus, the White House is right that one month is not a conclusive picture of where we are. At the same time, the White House is WRONG when it says that pirivate employment has gone "up" for 18 consecutive months. Not ture, if you consider the huge margin of error. There are several months during that time period, incuding this month, where private employment has STAYED THE SAME (within the margin of error--well within it). Some months, inccluding this one, the number of private jobs "created" may have actually gone DOWN (were all factors correctly considered, and had there been no error). This means that NEXT MONTH, if the numbers supposedly improve, maybe they are not really improving. Of course, you will not hear the White House say THAT, nor will you see the dishoneest incompetents of the mainstream media remember what the White House said this month.


What matters with these numbers is how they appear OVER TIME, and whether they are consistent with one another. Thus, you have an unemployment RATE that went DOWN to 9.4% in about July of 2009 (before the Obama "stimulus" could even have had any real effect), and has NOT IMPROVED for more than two years. You have a monthly "job creation" averaging less than 100,000, and that is NOT ENOUGH to lower the unemplooyment rate . Further, you have the weekly new unemployment claims, whcih have NOT IMPROVED since the end of last year: stuck at above 400,000, which is not good enough to either create slubstantial jobs or bring down the unemployment rate.


Thus, these numbers may not be totally consistent with one another, as this month's UNCHANGED unemployment rate is inconsistent with ZERO job growth. However, the overall picture is clear. Our employment situation is NOT IMPROVING. You can also add the GDP numbers, which show less than 1% growth for the first half of this year. They HYPOCRITES of CNN, and the ret of the mainstream media, say that this is not "technically" a recession--even though 80% of the public think we are in one--because there have not been two consecutive quarters of economic contractions. Problem for these DISHONEST HYPOCRITES; The first half of 2008 ws the SAME. The media proclaimed than, as did Democrats, that the "technical' defintion of a recession did not matter when all indications were that we were in a recession. The GDP GREW in the first half of 2008. Yet, it was eventally agreed that we were in a recession beginning at the end of December of 2007. The dishonest hypocrites of the mainsteam media just conveniently forget that embarrssing prof of their dishonest hypocrisy. This blog? I told you in 2008, and I am telling you now: It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether you call what we are in a period of "no grwoth", or a priod of recession. The REALITY is the same. These are ESTIMATE.S An estimated growth rate of less than 1% is no different from an estimated CONTRACTION rate of less than 1%. The economic, statistical reality is approximately the same. Further, it does not matter whether you say we ever left the previous recession,, or are falling back toward another recession. Again, the REALITY is the SAME. Labels cannot slubstitute for the real. We are in a period of NO GROWHT, whether you call it a recession or not And we have not been able to RECOVER from the previous recession the same way we have recovered from every other recessin since World War II--whether you say we are in a "double dip" recession or not.


The numbers--employment and GDP--are all consistent within margins of error) over this entire year, and really since the aborted "recovery" of 2009 (when there was actually fairly strong GDP "growth" in the second half of that year, before ltlhe excessive government intervention stalled it). The "recovery" has STALLED. WE are seeing NO IMPROVEMENT in the econom, or in the job market. Nope. We are NOT "going in the right direction". We are not going in any direction at all. We are STALLED--stalled in a bad place.


The only question is where we will go from here. Will we keep on with the same FAILED policies that have prevented any recovery, or will we change course back toward the free market economy that made this country great? For that matter, is it too late to prevent real pain? In other words, are we doomed to another SEVERE dip in the economy? That is still uncertain. What is certain is that the "Magic Wand Theory of Government"--whether applied by Bernanke or Obama--has FAILED. YKet, all Obama knows is to double down on the idea that the GOVERNMENT can "solve" our "jobs" problem by a "jobs program" (stimulus-yet anothr one--which would be about the 9th). The answer here is the Ronald Reagan answe: to be working for a stable, long-term free market economy where government does not ruin things with excessive interference and taxe (not even consistent tax rates, but constant gimmicks to fit a wealth redistribution agenda).


It may actually be that we cannot avoid a further downturn in the economy at this point. It is like turning around the Titanic, as you are headed for the iceberg. But we do have a choice. We can DESTROY the country with "magic wand" "politics as usual", with the usual political payoffs and bribes (as prodiuced ObamaCarre), or we can choose to aim at rfestoring the country to the kind of country it once ws. That means avoiding the government domination of the economy--an economy of MEN rather than sound econommic principles--that represents our resent aproach. Deficts have to come down, even if it HURTS. We have to STOP thinking we can rely on an ever decreasig numbaer of people to pay for the entire government. No one shold pay mor than a certain amount of his or her income in income taxes. We should STOP picking "winnners and losers", where the government chooses how to help and who not to help. Se should STOP claSs warfare. yep. I think AnY general tax increase is a mistake. But if there WERE a tax increase, it should be ACROSS THE BOARD. I can't tell you how harmful it is to have the idea that the "rich" need to pay for everything. If you think that idea realy makes sense, then you really should read Ayn Rand (tough reading though that can be).


What we have is consistent data showing consistent FAILURE of central palnning. Yes, President Obama is the worst President of my lifetime (despite stiff competition from Carter, Johnson, Nixon, and even George W. Bush). I further stand behind my statment that Ben Bernanke is The Worst Faiure in the Hisotry of World Finance. Whey do we want to keep on going down this same road? I hoope we don't, but I know that Obama, establishment Republicans, the econmic fascists on Wall Street, and our hoeless mainstream media all DO want to continue to trave down this same path. That is why I often despair. Their seems to be no limit to the RELISIOUS FAITH in the "Magic Wand Theory of Government": All government has to do is wave the right magic wnd and "save" us. Forget that this means that we are relying on a government of MEN and not laws or system--the very ooopiste of our founding philosophy. Too many people want to be "saved". This may give you a hint as to why I consider myself as consistent, even though conservative agnostics are not that common (especially those who believe that ant-Christian BIGOTRY is a major problem in this country). The idea of being "saved" has never appealed to me. As I have previously said, I have never been able to envison a Heaven in which I want to actually live--alghough I admit that may be a failure of imagination n my part.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).