Unemployment Rate Drops To 9.7 Percent. What’s The Catch?
New unemployment data released today shows that jobless rates in America have fallen “unexpectedly” to 9.7 percent. This new number has surprised economists all across the country. However, the fact that economists are surprised is not surprising because they are never not surprised. Are these guys ever right?
The real question is, “can we really trust these unemployment numbers?”. Well, think about it, can you really trust anything that comes from the Obama administration. The answer is a resounding NO. Everything that comes out of their mouth is a lie. Evidence of this is found by two facts. The first is that there were 20,000 more jobs lost than there where gained jobs in January, yet the unemployment rate dropped. Now, how does the jobless rate drop when jobs are lost? Also, while “better than expected” unemployment numbers where released, the number of total job losses during the recession was revised from 7.2 million to 8.4 million since December of 2007. Ooops! Now, I’m no math whiz, but I am pretty sure that the difference between 7.2 million and 8.4 million is 1.2 million. Unemployment rates drop, yet the number of lost jobs is increased by 1.2 million… hmm…sure sounds fishy. How do you accidentally not account for 1.2 million jobs. The answer is simple. It wasn’t an accident. It was a lie to make Obama look better when he’s giving speeches praising himself and his administration for pulling “the economy back from the brink.” We also have to consider that those individuals who are no longer on unemployment are not counted in the unemployment numbers. So, while it appears that the unemployment rate is dropping, in all actuality it is just those people whose unemployment benefits have expired coming off the books. Thus, the unemployment number is actually much larger than reported, and in all likelihood is actually rising, not dropping.
Regardless of what the truth is about the unemployment numbers, you can be sure that Obama will use this new number to over inflate the effectiveness of his stimulus package and fill his speeches with more radical lies such as this:
Do not confuse numerical with proportional increases. Suppose that over twelve months, the number of unemployed (as defined) rose by a constant 50,000 job losses per month. In Month Two, the proportion registers as 50,000 : 100,000 = 50%; but by Month Twelve, the proportion becomes 50,000 : 600,000 = 8.3% (1/12th). Over (say) three years, thirty-six months, the Unemployment Rate will drop to 50,000 / (36 x 50,000) = 50,000 : 1,800,000 = 2.8%.
Over this three years, monthly job losses/unemployment thus continue at a constant level of 50,000 per month. But politicians exploiting public innumeracy can say in truth that the Unemployment RATE has fallen by two-thirds, from 8.3% in Year One to 2.8% as Year Four begins. After five years, sixty months, Depression-level unemployment will have reached three million jobless (3,000,000), but the monthly rate-of-increase will have declined to a statistical 1.6% (2.0% per annum).
Think of it this way: When everybody is unemployed, the Unemployment RATE will become zero. At that point, our Commissar in Chief will be partnering with Kim Jong-il.
The 9.7% number is a “seasonally adjusted” number. The unadjusted number for December was 9.7% (as compared to the seasonally adjusted number reported as 10%) and the unadjusted number (what one might be tempted to call “actual” if not for other games being played with the definition such as no longer counting unemployed people as part of the workforce once they have been unemployed for a certain period of time) for January is 10.6%. The adjustment is an attempt to reflect what the annual average unemployment would be, based on the current month’s number, if employment changes would follow their typical seasonal pattern, which is low in January, rising through July, then generally falling with a slight bump up in the early fall. I happen to think in these extraordinary times it makes little sense to look at seasonally adjusted numbers because the economy is not acting “normal” right now, but that is what everyone looks at. The better test will be when February numbers come in. Do they reflect a sharp increase or are they flat or down? If the latter, then the picture is not good.