The Jobs Numbers
Back on the 10th, Jack Welch (21 year CEO of GE) was suspicious about the recent jump in good jobs numbers and
I posted about it here.
On the 11th, there was some more information and
I speculated a little bit:
Fine tuning the jobs numbers
The administration released the new unemployment numbers and they were down significantly.
The other economic indicators did not reflect this down-tick so people are asking why.
Ex-GE CEO Jack Welsh wrote about this yesterday.
Now, from CNBC we see a possible explanation:
And a bit more from that post:
More information at the site � wonder which state it is? CA? IL?
Turns out it's CA -- from Matt Vespa
writing at Hot Air:
About That Jobs Report�Updated: Jobless claims dropped because BLS omitted California
Last Thursday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released another report detailing that jobless claims have dropped to a four year low. According to The Associated Press, �the Labor Department said weekly applications fell by 30,000 to the lowest level since February 2008. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, dropped by 11,500 to 364,000, a six-month low.Applications are a proxy for layoffs. When they consistently drop below 375,000, it suggests that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate. A Labor Department spokesman cautioned that the weekly applications can be volatile, particularly at the start of a quarter. And the spokesman said one large state accounted for much of the decline. The spokesman did not name the state.�
Besides the fact that most of the net new jobs created last month were part-time jobs, which isn�t a realistic gauge in measuring our recovery, the reason for the massive drop in jobless claims is because the BLS forgot to include California in their report. Henry Blodget at Business Insider reported that he �spoke to an analyst at the Labor Department. According to this analyst, here�s what happened: ALL STATES WERE INCLUDED in this week�s jobless claims. Assertions that �a large state� was excluded from the report are patently false.�
Go to
Matt's post - there are a lot more links and details.
A very simple fact -- if this was G.W. or G.H.W. Bush, the media would be having a field day.
This is coming from a media-friendly source so it is treated with kid gloves if mentioned at all. After all, it advances the narrative and that is what progressives are all about. Ideas that are so good, they must be mandatory.
Posted by DaveH at October 15, 2012 9:19 PM