Anybody remember this from the 2008 campaign?
The New York Times, last month:
The American economy shed 345,000 jobs in May, and the unemployment rate spiked to 9.4 percent, but the losses were far smaller than anticipated, amplifying hopes of recovery.
.... The Obama administration pointed to the slowdown in job losses as proof that its $787 million package of spending measures was stimulating the economy.
“Today is a sign that we are making progress,” said Christina Romer, a White House economic adviser.
The American economy lost 467,000 more jobs in June, and the unemployment rate edged up to 9.5 percent....
The losses for June lifted net jobs shed since the beginning of the recession to 6.5 million — equal to the net job gain over the previous nine years.
“This is the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all jobs growth from the previous business cycle,” Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington, said in a research note. She called this fact “a devastating benchmark for the workers of this country and a testament to both the enormity of the current crisis and to the extreme weakness of jobs growth from 2000 to 2007.”
[Funny, I didn't see it that way right off the bat. So let me get this straight, losing 6.5 million jobs is a "testament" to the "extreme weakness" of having gained 6.5 million jobs. Okey donkey, she's the expert.]
The June figures did show continued slowing in the pace of job losses. From November to March — after the collapse of some prominent financial institutions — the labor market lost an average of 670,000 jobs each month. From April to June, the decline slowed to 436,000 a month.
The Obama administration seized on those numbers to argue that its stimulus spending plan was gradually working.
“We’re seeing a kind of leveling off here,” said Ms. Solis, the labor secretary.
The Times leaves us to figure some things out for ourselves, but it's not all that hard: We lost 122,000 more jobs in June than we did in May. That's a 35-36 percent increase in the number of jobs lost. That means last month was even worse, substantially worse, than the month before.
And that means that when they say the June figures show "continued slowing in the pace of job losses," they are at best, obfuscating the truth -- and at worst, they're outright lying to their readers. (I sure am glad I'm not one of them!)
Now it's interesting to note that at about this time last year, the Times was beside itself. They reported in early June 2008 that the unemployment rate had "surged" to 5.5 percent (from 5 percent the month before) as the Labor Department reported 49,000 jobs lost.
Economists construed the weak monthly jobs report as an indication of the pain assailing tens of millions of Americans amid an economic downturn that most experts assume is a recession.
The labor market is continuing to deteriorate, eroding the size of paychecks, just as gasoline and food prices surge, and as the declining value of real estate erodes the wealth and credit of many households.
“It’s unambiguously ugly,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at the research and trading firm ITG.
So let me get this straight.
- Last year we were losing jobs in the double-digit-thousands per month, but this year we're losing almost ten times as many jobs every month.
- Last year, the unemployment rate "surged" from 5.0 to 5.5 percent, but this year it only "edged up" to 9.5 percent.
- Last year the economy was "unambiguously ugly" when we lost 49,000 jobs, but this year it's "an unambiguous sign of improvement" that we lost 467,000 jobs.
- Last year at this time, the economy had no 'stimulus.' This year, we have "proof" that $ 787 million in federal spending is "stimulating the economy."
Uh-huh.
I guess the good news is that, with Obama in office, at least we have no pain assailing us. Must be all those amplified hopes.
Me, I miss the Bush years, which are rapidly becoming the Good Ol' Days. Who woulda ever thunk it?
Comments