« | »

AP: 36K Jobs Lost Means Net Jobs Gain

Some amazingly contorted analysis, even by the standards of the Associated Press:

Unemployment rate unchanged as 36K jobs lost

By Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer

March 5, 2010

WASHINGTON – The unemployment rate held at 9.7 percent in February as employers shed 36,000 jobs, fewer than expected. The figures suggested the job market is slowly healing but that significant hiring has yet to occur.

The Labor Department said it wouldn’t quantify how the snowstorms that hammered the East Coast last month affected job losses. Some data in the report signaled the storms didn’t reduce payrolls as much as had been feared.

Economists had estimated that the storms could inflate job losses by 100,000 or more. That would mean the economy generated a net gain in jobs last month, excluding the impact of the snow, for only the second time since the recession began in December 2007.

What on Earth?! Talk about your ‘voodoo economics.’

Since some (perpetually wrong) economists had foolishly predicted that the recent snow storms would cause more than 100,000 to be laid off, and only 36,000 were actually laid off – the Associated Press is now claiming that “the economy generated a net gain of jobs”?

That is simply crazy talk. So crazy it sounds like the logic behind the claim that Mr. Obama has created and saved millions of jobs, despite the record number of jobless people across the land.

Of course we suspected at the time that the only reason we heard these laughably dire forecasts was so that our watchdog media could later be able to claim that the layoff numbers were better than expected.

But we never imagined that the AP would go so far as to claim that net employment had actually gone up – even though the numbers say 36,000 more people were laid off.

Meanwhile, the article continues:

The department revised its estimate of job losses for January from 20,000 to 26,000.

Once again, notice how this little bit of bad news is just slipped in, as once again the number of jobless from a previous month is quietly revised upward.

Many economists predicted the snowstorms would artificially inflate job losses. The storms occurred in the week that the government surveys businesses about their payrolls. Employees who couldn’t make it to work and weren’t paid aren’t included on those payrolls

What businesses actually drop people from their payroll if they can’t make it to work because of snow?

Is this what the AP does?

The unemployment rate, which hasn’t risen since October, could be bottoming out

So which is it?

Is “the job market slowly healing”? “Generating a net gain in jobs”? Or “bottoming out”?

The AP is covering all bases. In any case, you can be sure it’s all good news.

But, of course, not so good that we don’t need more billions of dollars in new stimulus spending.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, March 5th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “AP: 36K Jobs Lost Means Net Jobs Gain”

  1. U NO HOO says:

    Are Bunning’s Bureaucrats included in the 9.7%?

  2. proreason says:

    Obamy should declare that Global Warming will cost the country 100,000,000 jobs in March.

    What a hero he will be.

  3. Right of the People says:

    It must be the “new” math, you know; 1 apple + 1 orange = 6 bananas.

  4. White_Polluter says:

    1 apple + 1 orange = 6 bananas? I think you mean:

    1 apple + 1 orange = 4 rutabegas created by Obama and 7 pimentoes lost by republicans.

  5. Liberals Demise says:

    “It’s a great day! We only lost 36,000 jobs” as stated by the ‘Short White Duke’ Hairy Read.

  6. Petronius says:

    Seen in the proper light, this is actually bad news from Nerobama’s perspective.

    We need always to keep in mind that Nerobama is not your orthodox, run-of-the-mill Liberal president. America is now blessed with a president who is a political nihilist, who wants to bring down the economic system and the social order.

    Another 36,000 lost jobs is chump change to this Alinsky true-believer, this community organizer. Another 36,000 jobs means the rate of economic destruction is actually decelerating.

    And that has to be a major disappointment to him.

    He will never achieve revolutionary change with 10 percent unemployment. He will never destroy the economy at this rate of job losses.

    Why do you think he has ignored the unemployment issue for 14 months?

    For the nihilist the issue is never the issue.

    The stimulus packages were never about creating or saving jobs. The stimuli were about siphoning government funds into leftist organizations, groups, and causes. The stimuli were about channeling resources into his power base.

    Hence also his single-minded, unrelenting emphasis on breaking the world’s finest medical industry.

    Yes, wreck the medical system. That’s 17 percent of the economy in one whack. Wreck Medicare. Pulverize senior citizens into bits of pasty white pulp, those useless old-weepies, those rednecks and tea baggers, with their billed caps and turkey necks, very vacant in the eye, can’t quite believe it when they see the queers kissing in public and the hippies urinating on each other. Yes, who needs them? Send them all to the Soylent waste disposal plant for processing . . . that’s real change you can believe in.

    You gotta understand the man’s priorities.

  7. U NO HOO says:



    Has population and work force numbers.

  8. AcornsRNuts says:

    Every time I see these unemployment statistics I have to laugh. It is the humorless laughter of a man telling a good joke while awaiting execution, but it amazes me how we bicker over these clearly useless statistics. Consider this. IF we have a percentage of unemployed then we must have a number of total jobs. Who determines that? How can you when lack of expansion of a business contantly reduces that number and it is impossible to tell how many jobs could have been created by those businesses? ALso consider that these statistics never take into account those who flat out never had a job and don’t want one. IF you take the percentage of people who could work and take out the number who don’t, ignoring the reasons why, the resulting figure is probably more like 30 percent. I can’t back it up, but my number is no less realistic than these figures we get every news cycle.

    • proreason says:

      You have to understand the purpose of unemployment statistics.

      The purpose is to prove what a wonderful job the government is doing.

      Forturnately for the statists, as you point out, there are so many little levers and statistical factors to pull.

      – unemployment too high this month? adjust for “seasons”
      – too many jobs lost? decrease the jobs “basis”
      – trend in the wrong direction? adjust the prior period

      I’ve said for a long time that real unemployment is probably about 22%…..but like you say, if you include people who prefer to live off our taxes, you could be correct that the real number id closer to 30%.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »