The Real Employment Numbers That Never See Headlines

When the employment report is issued each month, most people and, certainly the media, are only interested in two numbers: (1) the number of jobs created or lost in that month and (2) the resulting unemployment rate.  But, those two numbers are a result of some pretty heavy-handed massaging in what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "seasonal adjustments".  Seasonal adjustments have always come under fire, especially lately, from a lot of well-respected economists, because the "adjustments" seem to be very large and, thus, questionably accurate.

Take, for example, the latest jobs report.  The headline says that 113,000 jobs were created with a resulting drop in the unemployment rate from 6.7% to 6.6%.  Now, to any logical observer, this makes perfect sense in that a falling unemployment rate must mean that some number of jobs had to have been created to lower the rate. But, if you dig deeper into the January jobs report, you would see a completely different picture when it comes to the unadjusted numbers.

According to the raw data in Table A-2, whites, which make up 79% of the workforce,  saw their unemployment rate go up in January by 9%; from 5.7% to 6.2%.  Yet, after seasonal adjustment, whites  remained the same at 5.7% as in December.  The raw data also said that blacks also saw their rate go up by 9%; from 11.6% to 12.6%.  After adjustment, their final number was 12.1%. While there is no adjustment data available for Asians, their unemployment rate went up 17% from 4.1% to 4.8%.  All three groups added together represent 96% of the workforce and all saw substantial losses in employment.  Yet, the final employment number says jobs were created and the unemployment rate fell.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't include an absolutely horrendous fact that our President wouldn't want you to know when he's out there touting the lowest unemployment rate during his presidency.  That fact is that teen unemployment among blacks now sits at 39% (raw) or 38% after adjustment.  In the city of Chicago, the President's hometown, black male teens are at a unbelievable 92% unemployment rate.  Maybe that's why gang membership has risen 40% since Obama became President. 


References:

Has The Fed Been Fooled By Phony Jobs Numbers?: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-24/has-the-fed-been-fooled-by-phony-jobs-numbers-.html

Table A: January Employment Situation Report: Seasonally Adjusted Results:  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Table A-2: January Employment Situation Report: Raw And Seasonally Adjusted Numbers by Race, Age, and Sex: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

New Urban League study finds 92 percent of African American male teens are unemployed: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/24486694/new-study-finds-92-percent-of-african-american-male-teens-are-unemployed

FBI: Gang Membership Up 40% Since 2009: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/confirmed-gang-membership-up-40-under-obama-violent-attacks-on-whites-up-18/

The January Jobs Report: Shooting Holes In December's Baby Boomer Excuse For A Shrinking Workforce

Last month, when the workforce declined by 347,000 in the December Jobs Report and, as a result, the unemployment rate fell dramatically by three-tenths of a percent, a number of liberals blamed the decline in workers on the retirement of baby boomers.  I countered that with a blog entry titled: "The Big Lie: Workforce Contractions Are Due To Baby Boomer Retirements".

Well, this month, in the January Jobs Report, the workforce grew by 523,000 from 154.937 million  to 155.460 million workers.  Strangely, we haven't heard one peep out of all those idiots that had used the "baby boom retirement" excuse for a shrinking workforce in December. 

Reference:

January Jobs Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

USA Today: Tom Mullaney: Jobs report highlights the aging of Baby Boomers: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/12/labor-force-participation/4413811/

The Big Lie: Workforce Contraction Are Due To Baby Boomer Retirements: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-big-lie-workforce-contractions-are.html

Electric Cars On The Road: Another Delusional Goal From Obama.

Back in 2010, another election year, Obama set a goal of one million electric cars on the road by 2015.  Certainly, this was an attempt to energize and garner votes from his "green" base of voters. Now, with only 11 months to go on that "by" 2015 goal, one might ask how things are going with the President's target.

Well, according to the facts collected by Wikipedia, there are only 380,000 electric cars operating in the whole world.  Only 170,000 in the U.S.  That's an average of 42,500 cars sold per year in this country.  At this rate, we won't exactly  have a million electric cars on U.S. highways by 2015.  In fact, it will take another 17+ years to meet this ridiculous goal.  Back in 2011, Obama's Department of Energy knew that there was no way the goal would be met.  Yet, they still reported this:

"Although the goal is ambitious, key steps already taken and further steps proposed indicate the goal is achievable. Indeed, leading vehicle manufacturers already have plans for cumulative U.S. production capacity of more than 1.2 million electric vehicles by 2015, according to public announcements and news reports."

This is the same Department that dumped billions into start up green energy companies that would ultimately fail.

The fact is that there just aren't enough wealthy, planet-green-hatted-people in the U.S. who are stupid enough to buy these expensive and range-limited vehicles.  Once again, we have another false and purely politically-motivated goal coming from this President; and, a lying government agency that attempts to support it.

References:

U.S. Department of Energy: One Million Electric Vehicles By 2015: Status Report: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/1_million_electric_vehicles_rpt.pdf

Wikipedia: Electric Car Use By Country: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/1_million_electric_vehicles_rpt.pdf

Dispelling the Myth That George W. Bush Only Benefited The Rich

We've heard it all before.  According to Obama and the Democrats, the George W. Bush tax cuts only benefited  the rich.  Thus, apparently, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Bush years.

However, thanks to a post by Jim Lindgren, in a Washington Post blog, we get this very enlightening chart:

As the chart shows, of the last four out-of-office Presidents, the incomes of the lowest 20% of our population under George W. Bush increased the highest at 18.4%.  At the same time, the top 20%, saw declines of  6% in their incomes.  Under Clinton, the poor only saw income increases of 13.3%; but, the richest 1% saw their income rise by a whopping 84.1%.  Reagan was the biggest benefactor of the rich with a 90.9% increase in their incomes in his 8 years.

That, then, brings us to Obama.  Under his stewardship we have a record number of people in poverty: 46.5 million and a 49-year high; as a percent of population. Further, Obama has had to admit that, since being in office, 95% of all the income gains have gone to the top 1%.

If this was a fairy tale, and Obama had a magic mirror, his "fairest of all" question would definitely result in George W's face reflecting back at him.   


References:

Jim Lindgren:  If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/if-we-want-more-income-equality-should-we-return-to-the-economy-of-george-w-bush/

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all


Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/

Another Obama Broken Promise On Health Care Reform

We all know, now, that contrary to the President's promises, you are more apt to see higher costs than cost reductions for your health care.  Also, in direct contradiction, you are likely to lose both your insurance and your doctor.  However, another failed promise is firmly in progress and not being talked about.  That is that ObamaCare wouldn't add one dime to the deficit:

The fact is that ObamaCare is already more expensive than anticipated by merely trying to fix the failed website.  Beyond that, the Federal government is squarely on the hook for billions of dollars in unprojected expenses.  Expenses that are needed to bail out those insurers who are losing money because not enough young people are signing up, and the bailout only gets larger as more and more people who need and want insurance are forced into Obamacare.

Now, a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report states that Affordable Care Act will add another trillion dollars to our deficits by 2021; just 7 years from now.  This report also claims that 2.3 million workers will lose their jobs because of the President and Democrat's health care reform.


References:

ObamaCare's Insurance Company Bailout: http://nypost.com/2014/01/27/obamacares-insurance-company-bailout/

ObamaCare and Deficits: A Reality Check: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/28/news/economy/obamacare-deficits/

CBO: O-Care will cost 2.3M workers: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197365-cbo-o-care-slowing-growth

Obama and the Democrat's Priorities Are Out Of Step With America's

Every year, Pew Research conducts a poll to determine what America thinks the nation's priorities should be. The result of this year's poll are as follows:

At the very top, the economy, jobs, terrorism, education, and social security are what American's are most concerned about.  Yet, we have a President who seems to think he's done a good job on the economy, jobs, and terrorism; and, at the same time, completely ignores any meaningful programs to fix our broken education system.  It is interesting to see that there really hasn't been any significant drops in either the economy or jobs as priorities since the President took office in 2009.  I guess that's why, in other polls, many Americans still think we are in a recession.

But, what's more disturbing, is that many of Obama's  priorities -- global warming, infrastructure,  immigration, and income inequality (dealing with the poor) -- are either at the bottom or, in the case of income inequality, are in the bottom half of this year's list.

All too often Obama and the Democrats claim they are more in sync with what Americans need or want.  If that was really true, the Pew poll would be just the inverse of what it really is.

Why Americans Losing Insurance Won't Sign Up For ObamaCare

Back in 2010, the Obama Administration knew that 93 million Americans would lose their health insurance as a result of ObamaCare.  It was all part of the plan.  A plan that "assumed" that it would force Americans into either government-controlled Medicaid or the government-mandated health exchanges and, put America on a pathway to single-payer, socialized medicine.  But, their plan makes the false assumption that Americans, in losing their insurance, will be eager to replace it. 

The fact is that -- since the 1980's and with the rise of cheap imported goods -- Americans have found themselves losing their employer-based insurance as employers tried to stay competitive with imports by slashing their high costs of labor.  Essentially, as imports increased and people lost health coverage, the number of uninsured also increased.  You can clearly see the correlation from the following two charts.

Click on either chart to zoom

The simple fact is that when Americans lose their insurance, they aren't necessarily inclined to replace it.   Especially, if the costs are too high.  They will just try and do without and take advantage of any social safety nets that may already exist.  As a result, the implementation of ObamaCare  may just result in many more uninsured.  Remember, that by the end of December, more than 6 million lost their current coverage but only 2.2 million signed up for a replacement in the new exchanges. This is just the opposite of what ObamaCare was supposed to do.

By the way.  Often times you hear that 30 million are uninsured.  The chart (above) from the CDC, clearly shows that 43.3 million are going without insurance.  That 30 million is a stale number from the Clinton years. 

References:

CDC: National Health Statistics Report 2009: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf

Forbes: Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/