AP Article Lies! 92,000 New Jobs *SUCKS*

I am absolutely appalled at the Associated Press' blatant spinning over today's new jobs number.  

Unemployment rate falls, payrolls grow

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The unemployment rate dropped to a five-year low of 4.4 percent in October as employers added 92,000 new jobs -- flashing a picture of a strong labor market as the midterm elections draw near

A strong labor market?  What are you smoking Ms. Aversa?  
This number came in over 30,000 lower than the meagre 125,000 that economists expected.  Also buried in the BLS report is that we lost 39,000 manufacturing jobs. So, why all the glee at the AP?  Don't you know we need about 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth and new job seekers.  

More below the fold:

92,000 new jobs is about half the monthly average job creation over the past 10 years.  The St. Louis Fed gives us historical data on the size of the labor force (roughly, employed people plus unemployed people looking for work).  On September 1, 2006, there were 151,799,000 people in the labor force.  Ten years ago on September 1, 1996, there were 134,515,000.  Over that the past 10 years, the average monthly change in the labor force is roughly 172,840..

More spinning from the AP:

 Nonetheless, job gains in both August and September turned out to be much stronger than previously estimated -- and that took a lot of the sting out of October's less-than-expected payroll performance.

Let's be specific, Ms. Aversa.  The numbers of new job creation were 230,000 in August (a healthy number), 148,000 in September (below average and barely keeping up with population growth), and now a pathetic 92,000.  Don't you see a trend there? How in frigging hell is that flashing a picture of a strong labor market?

Disgusting.  Thoroughly disgusting.

•  Tips to reduce my blood pressure.

  I'm still fuming over this.

  Please support Barack Obama.

  by DaveV on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:52:48 AM PDT

•  Hi!

  Welcome to Wal-Mart!

  by The Raven on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:55:47 AM PDT

•  well

  Payrolls didn`t fall, funny the right wingers say ap
  is a left wing propaganda machine and so don`t we.I agree they did sort of make it look better than it is.By the way how does unemployment drop when there  is no job growth.
  I guess lots of crappy jobs out there!

  by JOEL1954 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:58:27 AM PDT

  •  The unemployment numbers...

    Only represent people who are actually looking for work, not the amount of people who are actually 'not employeed'.  If you give up on looking for a job, then you are no longer counted in the numbers.

    And I agree with the diarist - this is incredible spin by the AP.  96k is like 3 times LESS what Clinton averaged over his entire presidency.  Also, as the diarist points out, we need to add between 130k and 150k jobs per month, just to keep up with the population change.  In the last three months, we have been seeing a steady decline in the amount of hiring.  This is not 'great' employment news.

    by RichM on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:03:10 AM PDT

  •  Unemployment and Payroll are from different

    surveys.  The unemployment numbers come from a household survey and the payroll numbers (the 92,000 new jobs) come from a survey of business establishments.  

    The unemployment number can go down when new payroll numbers are low if the number of "marginally attached" workers (not seeking work over the past 4 weeks) goes up. But that doesn't seem to have been the case this month.  I do recall that new jobless claims were up 18,000 in the most recently released report.  

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:04:09 AM PDT

•  This is exactly the kind of whitewashing...

  ...that leads Republican politicians and pundits to scratch their heads and mutter, "How come people are so pessimistic about the economy?  Look at the unemployment rate!  Look at how we added 92,000 jobs last month!  Why are Americans so ignorant of all the economic joy that's right in front of their faces?  We don't get it!"

  The answer, of course, is that the numbers being spouted as fantastic are, in reality, crap.  If you factor in the number of people who have simply given up looking for work (which the government no longer factors in), the unemployment rate would probably be double.

  Be sure to listen carefully whenever the White House talks about jobs.  They'll always cite the "3.2 million jobs created since August of 2003."  Because, of course, if they were to cite their performance on jobs since the start of Bush's "presidency," his record would be pitiful.

  -

  by Bill in Portland Maine on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:22:29 AM PDT

  •  It's so easy to spin economics

    because so few people (economists included) understand the numbers.  But I can't believe that an AP economics writer wouldn't know better.  I also can't believe she doesn't know the importance of spouting this kind of crap the friday before an election.  It makes me want to yell "Shenanigans!"  But mostly, it just makes me want to yell...

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:29:18 AM PDT

•  So the truth...

  Well we lost 39,000 decent paying manufacturing jobs.

  But hey, retailers are starting to gear up for Christmas!  Woot.

  Anyone wanna speculate on the the January numbers when the retailer cut all those holiday part-timers?

  by ilex on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:23:21 AM PDT

•  A Closer Look at the Numbers

  shows that a big chunk of those service jobs created in the October surveys were local governement education (30K), health care (27.6K) and leisure & hospitality (25.4K ). By any realistic measure, the overall economy is moving very slowly or is stagnant. It would be interesting to know how many of those food service jobs pay over $10 per hour.

  Vote like your future depends on it!

  by tmmike on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:51:56 AM PDT

•  Notice who the photo spotlights

  McJobs at McDonalds.

  by epcraig on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:23:46 AM PDT

  •  Hilarious... and sad both at the same time.

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:09:09 AM PDT

•  All service sector, none to create things.

  God help us if there's a war and we can't get stuff from China, because we no longer have the infrastructure and trained workforce to build it here.

  Once someone's unemployment insurance has ended, they are no longer "unemployed" according to these stats.

  Oddly, though, I immediately discounted these numbers because I'm so used to any government agency being used for partisan gain now. We may need to create a 4th branch of government to house the statistical and audit functions just to get decent data.

  by dallasdave on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:36:02 AM PDT