tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063597976770988633.post4619601819665916172..comments2023-07-23T02:27:47.896-06:00Comments on TRUMP COUNTRY - 1: Landside for Newt Gingrich in South CarolinaRon Russellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11220328678840317631noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7063597976770988633.post-22921926989721635082012-02-04T09:47:14.569-06:002012-02-04T09:47:14.569-06:00The January unemployment numbers were GOOD? The be...The January unemployment numbers were GOOD? The best jobs report we have had in three years?<br />January Unemployment Rate Falls to 8.3 Percent as 243,000 Jobs Are Added? Yeah, that really sounds like a good report, but it ain't so!.<br />Well here's an explanation that maybe even most brain-dead Obama worshipers can understand, ( I said maybe)!<br />OK, here we go..<br />by John Crudele. New York Post,<br />Everyone, of course, would be thrilled if 243,000 jobs were actually created in the month of January. Hallelujah!<br /><br />Remember, we are talking about the month when companies go into hibernation because of bad weather and temporary Christmas jobs end. Jobs aren’t created in January. They are lost.<br />Yet there it is in the Labor Department release yesterday — total non-farm payrolls rose by 243,000 in January and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent.<br />A lie? Political manipulation? Or maybe it’s just that most people don’t understand what they’re looking at. The answer is the latter.<br />Those 243,000 jobs are the total after seasonal adjustments.<br />The question you should be asking is, what’s the un-tampered-with number before the adjustment?<br />Glad you asked. The Labor Department reported a loss of 2,689,000 jobs in January.<br />Seasonal adjustments are intended to smooth out holiday bumps like that. But because of the depth and unusual nature of the nation’s Great Recession, those seasonal adjustments are being skewed.<br />Here’s how it works: In January 2010, as I said, there was an actual, unadjusted job loss of 2,858,000 jobs.<br />To make it simple, the government computers were expecting a bigger unadjusted loss than the 2,689,000 jobs because last January’s decline was 2,858,000.<br />Why weren’t there as many job losses this January? Very likely because the weather throughout the country is a lot milder this year than during the past two January's.<br />A loss of jobs that isn’t as bad as expected turns into a job gain. Does that mean there really are 243,000 new jobs out there? Absolutely not.<br />Let’s say there are rumors in your company that 300 people are going to be laid off. Instead, management decides to fire just 200.<br />Two hundred people, of course, have lost their jobs. But, adjusting it for expectations, 100 people didn’t get fired. Using this analogy, the government would say that, on an expectation-adjusted basis, 100 jobs were created.<br />That’s sort of what happened in the January employment report because of seasonal adjustment.<br />The numbers themselves shouldn’t be changed because continuity from year to year is important for comparisons. But people should be alerted when seasonal adjustments are screwing with the numbers.<br />Someday maybe the Obama administration will tell the truth! Yeah, someday, maybe even in our lifetime. But I doubt it.. Or when hell freezes over. Opinionated Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16578622207325153654noreply@blogger.com