Kim Priestap noticed some good news about the economy and the deficit, and she could be forgiven if it did not include more good news, because it was buried. But Russell Roberts in Cafe Hayek noticed:
At the very end of the article, in the very last paragraph, in the very last sentence, comes the truly newsworthy part of the article. Here's the last paragraph:
The good news was that job gains for both July and August turned out to bigger than previously estimated, taking some of the bite out of September's figures. The report also showed that job growth during the 12 months ending in March may have been 45 percent higher than previously reported. The Labor Department said payrolls for the 12 months that ended in March 2006 will be revised upwards by a whopping 810,000 jobs, the biggest revision since 1991.
I like that word "whopping." The Post reporter, Daniela Deane, realizes that an average monthly error over 12 months of 67,000 jobs is an incredible error.These revisions are because the Bureau of Labor Statistics establishment survey is a sample of existing businesses that has trouble capturing some sources of new job growth--small businesses and the self-employed. The BLS household survey which used to move roughly in parallel as a measure of job creation has been diverging wildly from the establishment survey. The pessimists quotes the establishment survey. The optimists quote the household survey. Revisions of this size suggest the optimists had a point.
Update
So all those articles in the newspaper over the past 12 months, about "disappointing" job growth being less than predicted, were wrong. Every time they said that job growth was "only" 128,000 per month, were wrong by an average of 67,000 jobs a month. Good news, buried.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Economics
Comments (8)
Blogs are great for the mos... (Below threshold)1. Posted by John Mc | October 7, 2006 9:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Blogs are great for the most part, but the one analysis that I have not seen is comparing economic news as reported during the Clinton terms vs how the MSM reports the same if not better news during the Bush era.
Now that's something I'd like to see side by side...
1. Posted by John Mc | October 7, 2006 9:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2006 09:49
2. Posted by Baggi | October 7, 2006 10:26 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Did they change the article? It doesn't say what you say it says. At least not that I can find.
2. Posted by Baggi | October 7, 2006 10:26 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2006 10:26
3. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | October 7, 2006 10:49 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
They indeed have changed to article since yesterday with Cafe Hayek read it. The whole focus of the coverage has changed to relatively positive. The end is much more balanced, and the word "Whopping" is gone. Wierd.
3. Posted by Charlie Quidnunc | October 7, 2006 10:49 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2006 10:49
4. Posted by MikeSC | October 7, 2006 11:00 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Blogs are great for the most part, but the one analysis that I have not seen is comparing economic news as reported during the Clinton terms vs how the MSM reports the same if not better news during the Bush era.
I know Instapundit did a study of poll results involving people's perception of the economy. It showed, literally, a 180 degree change in the year 2001 that has never once reversed itself.
-=Mike
4. Posted by MikeSC | October 7, 2006 11:00 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2006 11:00
5. Posted by steve sturm | October 7, 2006 5:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
John: ask and you shall receive. Here's a post I put up last year (and which the good Professor was kind enough to link to) which showed consistent underestimating of GDP during Bush's time in office... and how Gore was the beneficiary of some over-estimating of GDP.
5. Posted by steve sturm | October 7, 2006 5:34 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2006 17:34
6. Posted by nogo postal | October 7, 2006 6:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
cause I don't know..can anyone give a link that details jobs created paying under $10 an hour and those paying more? I am a skeptic...if the majority of jobs are $10 an hour or less than that is a factor....of course what should be discussed are COA raises...people who post here...what have been your raises in the job you have worked in...
I can tell you in Denver CO Teachers have been given 4.5% in the past 5 years...has the cost of say housing or say gas gone up by more than 4.5%? I am not sure..but I kinda know...
6. Posted by nogo postal | October 7, 2006 6:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2006 18:09
7. Posted by Xennady | October 7, 2006 6:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Between 40 and 50 percent in the last five years.
7. Posted by Xennady | October 7, 2006 6:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 7, 2006 18:57
8. Posted by Lorie Byrd | October 8, 2006 1:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Great post, Charlie.
It's funny how stories like this get buried.
As for how much the jobs pay, I remember a lot of talk during the Clinton years about all the low paying jobs included in Clinton's job numbers.
The difference in the payroll and household numbers has always driven me crazy because so few people understand what they mean. Pelosi spent months talking about all the lost jobs under Bush early in his administration citing the payroll figures, when the household numbers which she chose to ignore told a much different story. When the payroll figures started showing job gains she just stopped mentioning either one.
8. Posted by Lorie Byrd | October 8, 2006 1:48 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 8, 2006 01:48