EconomyUSA: UPDATE Unemployment: NYT more optimistic about interpretation of new data
Update to yesterday's post with my editorializing on the marginal rise in job increases USA, based on WaPo materials (Mar4,2k11) and the new labor statistics.
Today, I turn to an article in New York Times also published yesterday (Mar4,2k11); please note that when you click up NYT you must log in, or register for the first time. They'll want a username and password. As it turns out. the two articles are journaletically competitive, and as I read them offer evidence of the different slant of the two writers, their desk editors and headline writers. I note for philosophic readers who may wish to over-read "slants," that one can't thus say the two different editorial slants reveal a different set of religious presuppositions as such. Rather, in these cases the journaletic results reveal a more optimistic interpretation of Unemployment and New Jobs data (NYT) in comparison to what seems to me to be a more neutral and fact-based approach to the same data by WaPo. In any case, some realities about the statistics themselves must be mentioned.
First, in my news-surfing today, I was struck by how the NYT headlined "Private Jobs" in its coverage by reporter Catherine Rampel's article "Big Jump in Private Jobs Bolsters Recovery Hopes." That is an important fact upon which the headliner focuses -- the USA Labor Department's statistics just released is about "private jobs" (not private only, becawz the aggregating itself reveals the social/societal dimension of American employment; but nevertheless "private" in the sense that the jobs aggregated and surveyed in the present statistics are jobs created in the free-enterprise system, govt regulation and all, that typifies the American economy). These jobs which have "jumped" in numbers are not "public jobs" (this term too is a misnomer, since what we are talking about in the opposed category are jobs created by govt -- which are being questioned in many states right now as the expenses of the state in regard to "public jobs" are at taxpayers expense, and are a significant factor in unbalancing the American economy. I do appreciate how the Rampel article is headlined by an important recognition of what kind of jobs are aggregated in the Labour Department's report. I also think that these jobs can be further designated as non-farm private jobs; farm jobs are a separate category in the system and the Labor Department's reporting usually (and I hope to blog on them later). All that said, I want to focus further on the term "jump" -- looking at the statisical facts does not lead me to take confidence in the conceptual construal of some great change. Yes, one can justly talk about a marginal change that is a jump of some sort (a small jump?), but only relative to the downward spiral of USA employment since the 2k08 Meltdown, an unemployment spiral downward, and drastic increase of joblessness. Relative to that, we can talk about a meek jump perhaps. But that terminology is misleading on a number of counts. Also marshalled to fortify the Labor Department's underthread to its report is the item that cites the severe snow storms in January, a rhetorical slite of hand, it seems to me, that conflates temporary work stoppage that does not erase a laid-off person's job-position (and wasn't long enuff in duration, also, to qualify snow-stopped workers from collecting benefits from the govt for those days missed).
Also, to continue with the rhetorical motif, one notices that snow was on the mind of someone composing the Lab Dept's text, or the reporter's, or both. The snowball argument -- “Economic recoveries can be like a snowball rolling down a hill, in that it takes time to get some momentum,” said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics. “People hesitate until they feel that the recovery’s durable enough, and then they have a tendency to jump in. Maybe we’re finally getting to that jumping-in moment.” -- seems overrawt to me. The truth in it is the verb phrase "can be" but, on the other hand, economic recoveries can also be not like a snowball rolling down hill, but instead can be much like a cross-country skier trying to climb a mountain, a painfully slow recovery at best.
We see here the level of unjustified hope, wishful thinking that characterizes NYT's approach to the interpretation of the LabDept's stats. Taking cue from the LabDept's rhetoric, the journo expands the snow job by citing an expert using a metaphor about what coud be, hopefully, wishfully.
Third, there are indeed blockages to a continued longterm upward climb, let alone leapfrogging statistics and optimism about the strategies of employers regarding the pace of new job creation. NYT's unwarranted optimism becomes rather clear at this point in its argument with all its rhetorical posing.
Threats to a more robust recovery remain, of course, including a surge in energy and food prices, with the possibility of disruptions in oil production in the Middle East continuing to weigh on the financial markets. State and local governments are also shedding jobs, which depressed the total for February, as they grapple with budget woes. ¶ But for now, the improvement is notable. ...The surge in prices covers far more more than fuel (principally oil and related commodities regarding which both price-at-the-pumps and investment speculation are ramapant) and food, as the Consumer Price Index points out (Feb17,2k11 LabDept report for January2k11). The rising-price threat has momentum, prices are rising almost across the board, not just food and fuel.
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased
0.4 percent in January on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 1.6 percent before seasonal adjustment. Increases in indexes for energy commodities and for food accounted for over two thirds of the all items increase. The indexes for gasoline and fuel oil both increased in January [and into Februaryand March with a vengence -- EconoMix], continuing their recent strong upward trend. The index for food at home posted its largest increase in over two years with all six major grocery store food group indexes rising. The index for all items less food and energy also rose in January. The indexes for apparel, shelter, airline fares, and recreation all posted increases. In contrast, the indexes for new vehicles and for used cars and trucks declined in January. Over the last 12 months, the food index has risen 1.8 percent [notwith yet counting Feb and Mar -- EM] the food-at-home index [indexfor food you buy and eat at home, but not at restaurants or fastfoodoutlets] up 2.1 percent; both 12-month changes are the highest since2009. The energy index has increased 7.3 percent overm the last 12months [not yet counting Feb and Mar - EM], with the gasoline indexup 13.4 percent. The index for all items less food and energy has
risen 1.0 percent [not yet counting Feb and Mar -- EM].
Thus, prices have increased for food, energy apparel shelter, airline fares, and recreaction. This is no threat alone, this is the trajectory of a trend that is a fact-based actuality across America. We shoudn't hide from the truthfulness of what these stats indicate and what Americans are experiencing whenever they go to the grocery store or the pump.
Seasonally adjusted changes from preceding month
Un-
adjusted
12-mos.
July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. ended
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 Jan.
2011
All items.................. .3 .2 .2 .2 .1 .4 .4 1.6
Food...................... .0 .1 .3 .1 .2 .1 .5 1.8
Food at home............. .0 .0 .4 .1 .2 .2 .7 2.1
Food away from home (1).. .0 .3 .3 .1 .1 .1 .2 1.5
Energy.................... 3.3 1.6 1.1 2.5 .1 4.0 2.1 7.3
Energy commodities....... 5.6 2.6 2.2 4.4 .7 6.4 4.0 13.4
Gasoline (all types).... 6.2 2.9 2.2 4.5 .7 6.7 3.5 13.4
Fuel oil (1)............ -1.6 .9 .8 4.7 4.2 4.9 6.8 17.3
Energy services.......... .5 .4 -.4 .0 -.8 .6 -.6 -.7
Electricity............. .4 .1 -.1 .2 .6 .3 -.5 1.2
Utility (piped) gas
service.............. .8 1.4 -1.4 -.6 -5.3 1.7 -1.2 -6.4
All items less food and
energy................. .1 .1 .0 .0 .1 .1 .2 1.0
Commodities less food and
energy commodities.... .1 .1 -.2 -.2 .0 -.1 .2 -.2
New vehicles............ .1 .2 .1 -.1 -.2 -.1 -.1 .1
Used cars and trucks.... .5 .9 -.4 -.6 .1 -.1 -.3 2.4
Apparel................. .1 .0 -.5 -.2 .1 .1 1.0 .0
Medical care commodities
(1).................. -.2 .2 .3 .1 .2 .1 .5 2.7
Services less energy
services.............. .1 .0 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 1.4
Shelter................. .1 .0 .0 .1 .1 .1 .1 .6
Transportation services .0 .0 .3 .3 .4 .2 .6 3.4
Medical care services... .0 .2 .7 .2 .2 .3 -.1 3.0
1 Not seasonally adjusted.
The past, present, and future consequences of this trend hits small businesses first and results in lay-offs
of workers in restaurants, corner stores, and myriads of other kinds businesses where the owners (who
often also are workers) must purchase on daily or other short-term basis and cannot buy in sufficient bulkto keep supplies coming in with which to supply customers and clients.
The rising costs of healthcare under the Obamacare regime also affect small businesses and individuals (under the Individual Mandate) with the result of layoffs of workers, closure of businesses, and bankrupticies.
Taxes and failure of various levels of govt to make spending cuts also results in layoff of workers, closure of businesses, and bankruptcies when considered from the standpoint more or less jobs for workers an woudbe workers.
This blog entry is still in development. Time for bed. -- EconomMix
-- more to come, EconoMix
Big Jump in Private Jobs
Bolsters Recovery Hopes
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: March 4, 2011
Multimedia
The New York Times
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
1 comment:
Even though year 2011 seems to be improving the economic situation, the growing concern about unemployment still looms at large.
Post a Comment