The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Public Policy
Print Email
Text Size

The Public Policy

Mud Pies From the Labor Department

Nice work if you can fudge it, as cynically as possible.

The funny thing about the Labor Department’s monthly unemployment report is that the number-crunching bureaucrats act like they’re delivering high carat diamonds when the real worth of what they’re reporting is closer to the value of a mud pie.

First, a college graduate with a degree in biomedical engineering who gets a $90,000 job in his field is counted exactly the same in the government’s unemployment report as a biomedical engineering graduate who can’t find a job and is working weekends as a bus boy at Applebee’s.

Or as the PBS Newshour succinctly stated it, “If you only worked one hour in the past week, you’re counted as officially employed.”

Given the large number of part-timers who are currently looking for full time work and unable to find a job, that flaw alone by the Labor Department of putting part-timers in the “employed” column makes their monthly unemployment statistic meaningless.

An estimated 50 percent of young college graduates are currently either jobless or significantly underemployed in positions that don’t utilize their skills and education.

Second, if a guy loses his $150,000 job and he and his previously stay-at-home wife each get part-time jobs paying $25,000, the Labor Department counts that as job growth, two jobs rather than one, a clear indication that job creation is expanding.

If they can’t make ends meet, there’s even more job growth if their kid gets a Saturday job drying cars at the local car wash.

If another kid in the family ends up selling apples on the street corner, that’s a 400% jump in the number of jobs in the economy the way the Labor Department figures it, even though everyone in the family is financially worse off.  

Third, if everyone in the aforementioned family throws in the towel, quits working, quits looking for work, and just goes on the dole, then no one is counted as unemployed by the Labor Department. Both the jobless household and the initially lost $150,000 job simply vanish from the government’s calculations and there’s nothing in the headlines to indicate that the economy is failing to provide employment for that family.

The share of adults in the labor force, the participation rate, is now at a 30-year low. If the participation rate today was the same as just four years ago, the unemployment rate would currently be 11 percent.

And the dropping out continues, with today’s unemployed workers still more likely to quit looking than find a job.

The front page story from Labor’s Department is that the nation’s jobless rate had suddenly dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent in September, the lowest level since January 2009, an official jobless falling below 8.0 percent for the first time since President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Below the headlines, there are these two sentences in the Labor Department’s latest unemployment report: “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers, rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work.”

That’s a 600,000 jump in “involuntary part-time workers” in September and not one of these people is included in 7.8 percent unemployment number.

In order to produce a more accurate picture of how many jobs the economy has to generate in order to get to full employment, how hard would it be for the staffers in the Labor Department to proportionately include these involuntary part-timers in the jobless number? How hard is it to combine a work shortage of 20 hours per week each for two people and get 40 hours?

With obvious and easy to fix flaws in the Labor Department’s methodology, why even pretend to accuracy with a decimal point — 7.8 percent instead of 7.7 or 7.9?  

Bottom line? “The number of unemployed persons in September was 12.1 million,” reported the Labor Department. Again, skip the decimal point. The number was 23 million if the involuntary part-timers and the unemployed who’ve given up looking for work are included, and that’s not counting the millions who dropped to lower paying jobs, or the growing number of involuntary househusbands, or any of those who are behind bars or otherwise institutionalized in colleges, universities, trade schools or mental facilities because of the lousy job market.

About the Author

Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (11) |

Appleby| 10.18.12 @ 7:17AM

My youngest sister (whose hatred for Romney is based solely on the fact that he is rich) has been holding down a temp job and working in a seasonal high-end craft market where she crafts and sells jewelry. She also has the good fortune to have two sons who are employed in sound industries (one is an exterminator and one has a job so complicated I have no idea what he does) who are keeping her from losing her house. She is counted as two jobs. Except she lost her temp job because the permanent employee returned from leave, and the season is about to end at the market. But she'll count as employed until after the election. She plans to vote for Obama simply because she hates Romney for being rich.

Alan| 10.18.12 @ 7:50AM

What your sister has is an envy problem, the kind of people the marxists depends on for life support.

TLP| 10.18.12 @ 3:07PM

Your Sister sounds like a Dumb B*tch.

Appleby| 10.18.12 @ 4:53PM

No, just a brat.

BShep| 10.18.12 @ 3:26PM

According to Google, Obama’s net worth ranges from $6 million (Forbes) to $11.6 million (various sites). Not bad for a community organizer and communication director.

Romney gave all of the money he inherited from his dad to charity.

They are both rich. Only Romney actually earned his.

Dai Alanye | 10.18.12 @ 11:45AM

I'd like to hear an announcement from either Romney or Ryan that they intend to reform the "jobs number" so that it reflects reality. It would do no harm to their prospects to come out for what amounts to honesty in government reporting.

While they're at it they might consider reforming the inflation index to take into consideration prices for all goods. At present it is artificially low by a considerable amount. And then there is growth in the money supply, something that should have us all investing in wheelbarrows so as to be able to carry sufficient cash when buying groceries. Thank you, Mr B S Bernanke.

JD| 10.18.12 @ 12:15PM

If they reformed it while in office, it would show an unemployment spike on their watch. Democrats have no integrity and would certainly misconstrue that in the 2016 election.

Mike G| 10.18.12 @ 3:37PM

Mr. Reiland, how dare you! To suggest that any our government entities has ever done anything that could be considered illogical is the height of treason.

Vance P. Frickey| 10.18.12 @ 6:00PM

And Bill Clinton, dishing red meat to the party faithful with Bruce Springsteen in Ohio, has the nerve to say that the GOP was panicking over the "drop" in unemployment to 7.8 - from where it was for most of the Bush administration, an average of five percent. But cynicism and lies are Bill Clinton's meat and drink - this is the man who, faced with a slam-dunk case against himself for perjury, asked with a perfectly straight face "What does "is" mean? What is "is"?"

The Democrats have canonized Bill Clinton for perfectly good reasons - he IS the Patron Saint of the "Party of 'So What?'" Bill Clinton made it respectable to lie, then lie about lying, then accuse one's opponents of the very lies you're telling. He is the Hegel of Bald-Faced Lying.

Vance P. Frickey| 10.18.12 @ 6:11PM

If a Republican were the incumbent right now, Bill Moyers would be abusing PBS viewers' ears with his Texas twang, inveighing about the Labor Department's cynical games with unemployment statistics and risking a cerebral aneurysm over how these numbers have been massaged to the point they cease to have meaning any longer.

But we've learned something else, too - Bill Moyers' rage, seemingly provoked by the sufferings of the victims of White House incompetence and indifference, is nowhere to be found on PBS when the incompetence and indifference are deliberate policy of a Democratic administration anxious to dress up its failures as successes. Righteous Texas rage is mute against Chicago puppy-humping.

Bob K| 10.19.12 @ 1:19AM

Is Moyers still on PBS?

Talk about lifetime government jobs! No unemployment problems for him! No wonder Romney wants to cut it's funding!

And it is long overtime for "A Prairie Home Companion" to be cancelled and it's unctuous host, Garrison Keillor, put in the unemployment line along with all of the "above average" people who are there now.

More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland

More Articles From The Public Policy

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/18/mud-pies-from-the-labor-depart

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT