42 States Lost Jobs --- Well Duh!?
WASHINGTON - Forty-two states lost jobs last month, up from 29 in July, with the biggest net payroll cuts coming in Texas, Michigan, Georgia and Ohio.
The Labor Department also reported Friday that 27 states saw their unemployment rates increase in August, and 14 states and Washington D.C., reported unemployment rates of 10 percent or above...
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer
I'm sorry but I find it very hard to believe that in 8 states, not one person lost their job; not one? Oh sure I understand the 'net loss' calculation; but did this headline really have to be said in this way, really?
Maybe I don't understand the way Washington does it counting but I'm pretty darn sure each and every state in our nation has lost at least one job for decades.
I think maybe the Associated Press by showing these words in this manner, in their headline, "42 STATES LOST JOBS LAST MONTH" is probably making some of their Republican friends pretty darn happy and may have been done to do just that.
Somebody with the know how needs to travel back in time and see first of all, during Bill Clinton's last term, just how many States DID NOT lose jobs over the same amount of time as being talked about here. Was that ever put in writing by AP? Then that same somebody needs to look at the years 2007 or 2008 and find out how many States LOST JOBS (I don't care if it's just one) in the same amount of time.
It's only logical that States LOSE JOBS every month, even in a good economy. To use these sort of headlines can mean AP had only one goal in mind -- scare the American people into believing the recession/depression is still here and they should continue to stop spending money.
Be Scared, Be Very Scared!
I think I get your point. You know I think that they have one person who decides the tricky headline for each article. ha
You bring to the fore more important issues of course. What the hell does 'unemployment' mean, what does 'job losses' actually mean, what the hell is a 'downturn'?
These are all just catch phrases that are meaningless.
There is this broad on the nbc business channel who I really would like to hit over the head with a baseball bat. She is so goddamn smug. Every answer has some inside connotation and the fact is, she is an idiot.
These ten million homeless from loss of their homes, the ten million jobless with pennies from unemployment insurance, these tens of millions now without health insurance....
These are desperate times indeed.
September 20, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the Great Depression, unemployment topped out around 25%, but they counted everyone over 16 that didn't have a full-time job.
Now U-3 unemployment, the one always reported, is "only" 9.7%, but counts far fewer people. BLS' U-6 is 16.8%, and includes "Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons." But even U-6 drops "discouraged workers," that have run through their benefits but still don't have jobs.
Shadowstats' "SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated "discouraged workers" defined away during the Clinton Administration added to the existing BLS estimates of level U-6 unemployment." and is around 21%.
September 20, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey - if you understand the "net jobs" concept like you claim, then you would never have written this post.
This headline is one of the most neutral, apolitical pieces, yet you can always find a way to bitch and moan about it. (I seem to recall you also didn't like how they reported Obama's recent approval ratings).
Most readers understand what the headline means. They also understand that if a particular state had 5 people lose their job but 100 people get new jobs, that would be good news. The opposite is bad news. In a good economy, states DON'T lose jobs every month when you look at it on a net basis. Looking at it any other way doesn't make sense.
I am very scared how you turn headlines like this into your own private conspiracy theory. With 10% unemployment, the recession is still here. Lots of people are unemployed and can't help but spend less money.
September 20, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"They also understand that if a particular state had 5 people lose their job but 100 people get new jobs, that would be good news."
Only if the new jobs are roughly equivalent to the old jobs. If 5 factory workers get laid off and 100 part-time fast food workers get hired, I wouldn't call that good news.
September 20, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true. And if they could measure that statistic and report it that would be great.
But I think that is besides the point here. Coonsey thinks it's some conspiracy theory to scare the public into believing the recession is still here.
September 20, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was replying to your point. UE stats are easy to misinterpret. If you lose your job and you or your spouse start waiting tables for a small fraction of the income, that's supposedly a wash.
September 20, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a wash, but that's a separate point from Coonsey's point that this is a conspiracy theory to make people believe we're still in a recession. Unless we have additional information, we need to assume that all of those jobs are of equal "value". Plus right now we're talking about a net loss of jobs, which is the situation we're in right now. In a net loss situation, I'd rather have some job than have no job.
September 20, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I was replying to your point, and it would be stupid to assume that all jobs are of equal value.
September 20, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - it would be stupid but unfortunately we don't have any of that incremental data for the recent job numbers that Coonsey is posting. But like I said, your point is probably more appropriate when we actually starting gaining jobs again and we need to see how much "better" or "worse" that job is than the one the person had before. In a recession, for all the people that have lost jobs and are unemployed, I'm sure they'd love a job right now even if they would take a paycut from their old job. (I should know because that's what happened to me. Got laid off in mid-'08 and took a job this year that's half the pay but I'm happy to be working).
Just because we have imperfect information, I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you saying that we shouldn't be depressed about those job losses because all those unemployed people don't want to be working right now? Is your point that the economy is in worse shape than what the unemployment figures show because people like me who got new jobs are making less money than before? Are you agreeing with Coonsey that the data is just a conspiracy to make us more worried about the economy than we should be? Or are you just saying that we can't voice an opinion because the data is hard to interpret?
I agree with you that the data isn't perfect. I agree with you that all jobs aren't creeated equally. But what's your conclusion other than to say that we need to be careful what assumptions we make?
September 20, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey, I don't get your post, sorry. If you want to know the net employment picture, you need to look at non-farm payroll stats. Like so:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/09/nfp_sep_09.png
I.e. net employment is still sky-diving, which is normal since it doesn't turn around until well into a recovery. I'm frankly surprised ONLY 42 states lost jobs...
I'm no fan of the AP, but you're wrong here.
September 20, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you - I thought I was losing my mind when I read this.
September 20, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClassBill -- if you can't stand the way I write my opinions - why bother reading them and especially respond to any of them?
Could it be that i hit a nerve? A bit of truth on how the media reports so called facts?
I suppose it's ok if the media reports bad news about Obama; but when they do the same against a republican --- they are being bias (just the liberal press telling lies again).
September 21, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've just never seen someone ignore net numbers and somehow think that the media is in a conspiracy effort to make us think the economy is in the tank. Why don't you ask somebody who's currently not working if they think the economy is still in a recession?
September 21, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might suggest some of you read the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg. He points out how the liberal media switches gears when reporting news on a Democrat or Republican admin. Such as the words POVERTY and HOMELESS pops up when talking about a Republican admins. With Republicans the word ABORTION or GUNS or FREEDOM pops up in news stories.
September 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet even Bernard Goldberg knows the importance of net changes in jobs. Do you think he believes the media is trying to scare us into believing we're in a recession?
Why don't you go down to the unemployment center tomorrow and tell all the people who are out of work that it's all just a media hoax!!
September 21, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink