THE NEWS MEDIA WON'T PROVIDE THE FACTS ABOUT EMPLOYMENT
Employment has increased by 2.0 million workers during the Bush administration (Jan 2001 - Sep 2004). John Kerry's claim of What's going on? Why does the Bureau of Labor Statistics data show an employment increase of 2.0 million workers during the Bush Administration while John Kerry and the news media claim The Bureau of Labor Statistics does two surveys each month. One survey is a random sample of 60,000 households in which each member of the household is sorted into one of three categories: employed, not employed but looking for work (unemployed), or not employed and not looking for work. This is called "household data." The other survey is a sample of businesses to determine how many employees they have. This is called "establishment data." The "household data" and the "establishment data" for the start of the Bush administration and for the most recent month are summarized in the table below. Neither set of data includes farm jobs nor those in military service. |
|
Jan 2001 |
Sep 2004 |
Change |
Employment from the "household data" |
135,407,000 |
137,411,000 |
+2,004,000 |
"Jobs" from the "establishment data" |
132,388,000 |
131,567,000 |
-821,000 |
Kerry and the news media exclude 5.8 million workers The table above shows that in Sep 2004 there were 5.8 million more people employed than there were jobs. That is because the "jobs" data used by John Kerry and the news media does not include the self-employed, nor new business start-ups, nor growth in very small businesses. According to the "jobs" data used by John Kerry and the news media many barbers, accountants, hair dressers, lawyers, massage therapists, doctors, dentists, consultants of all types, retailers and tradesmen with their own small shops, etc., don't have "jobs." They go to work every day, and they earn their income, but, according to John Kerry and the news media, they don't have "jobs." Kerry and the news media ingnore discrepancies in the data The table above shows that the household employment data and the establishment jobs data have a very different result over the time period shown. Employment is up by 2.0 million, but "jobs" are down by 821,000. That discrepancy was studied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics who provide the data. Their studies failed to fully explain the cause of the difference. (Source) With no explanation for the discrepancy, the question is, Which data is the best indicator of employment? The Bureau of Labor Statistics answers that question in their monthly publication Employment and Earnings. The first page of each issue includes a subtitle, "Total employment and the labor force." The employment figure they show is from the household data, not from the establishment data used by John Kerry and the news media. Unemployment rates are calculated from the household data, not the establishment data. The question of which is the best indicator is also answered in the monthly publication Economic Indicators, prepared for the Congressional Joint Economic Committee by the Council of Economic Advisors. For their "employment" data, they use the household data, not the establishment data used by John Kerry and the news media.
|
Commentary and Opinion John Kerry made "jobs lost" the centerpiece of his campaign on domestic issues. He couldn't use the unemployment rate, because unemployment is about the same as it was when Clinton was running for his second term. (Why did Kerry call it prosperty when we had 5.4% unemployment under Clinton, and compare the same unemployment rate to a depression under Bush?). Kerry couldn't use employment, because employment is up by 2.0 million. Instead, Kerry found a number, "jobs," that suited his purposes. We expect that of a politician running for office. But we expect the news media to provide facts, not simply parrot the campaign blather of their favored party or candidate. Time and again the news media has repeated John Kerry's campaign claim of lost jobs. They have repeated it in the form of their choice of press service articles to print, their choice of columnists to print, and their choice of letters to the editor to print. Repeating the same thing over and over tends to create the illusion of fact in the mind of the reader. The news media has not printed the facts presented here. The news media has not pointed out the discrepancy, nor even questioned it. We can only guess at the reason for the news media's failure to inform us, but the reason is not important. What is important is to know that we cannot rely on the news media to provide facts. |
Further detailed data and commentary Comparing data from the month that President Bush took office to the data for the most recent month is a political game. It ignores the fact that the federal fiscal year runs from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the following year. So although President Bush took office in January of 2001, the federal budget until September 30, 2001, was the budget signed by President Clinton before President Bush was elected. That means that until October 1, 2001, the government budget and the government programs, by law, continued the path set by President Clinton in the year 2000. This provides another way to look at the jobs and employment data. The data below does not include farm jobs nor those in military service. |
Jan 2001 |
Sep 2001 |
Sep 2004 |
Change Sep 2001 | |
| Employment from the "household data" |
135,407,000 |
134,565,000 |
137,411,000 |
+2,846,000 |
| Jobs from the "establishment data" |
132,388,000 |
131,564,000 |
131,567,000 |
+3,000 |
|
This shows another set of data that can be legitimately claimed to be the employment and jobs record of the Bush administration. It presents a very different picture than the "jobs lost" claims by Kerry and the news media. The point is that one can pick through data and find something and justify almost anything as long as there isn't someone to keep things honest. The news media is part of the problem, not the solution. |