Radio Appearance Alert: WBT in Charlotte, 4PM
I got a call yesterday from talk radio station WBT, 1110 AM and 98.3 FM, in Charlotte, NC.
Tara Servatius, who is subbing in the 3-6 PM slot for Jeff Katz, will have me on shortly after 4 PM to discuss last week’s jobs report, my various posts relating to it, and likely other econ-, biz-, and media-related topics.
Relevant links are:
- Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Situation Report for March, released this past Friday morning.
- My immediate coverage of that report.
- “Old Media’s Seasonally Ignorant Employment Reporting” (at BizzyBlog; at NewsBusters) — a Friday post that criticized Old Media, particularly Jeannine Aversa of the Associated Press, for abusing seasonally adjusted data to act as if tens of thousands of people were let go from their jobs, when in reality 574,000 jobs were added in March and 529,000 were added in February (both figures are subject to revision in future months).
- “AP: Is It ‘Recession No Longer a Question’ or ‘Widening Agreement’?” (at BizzyBlog; at NewsBusters) — a Saturday post that ripped Ms. Aversa for repeating her mistake with seasonally adjusted data in a later report , and for contradicting herself within the first five paragraphs about whether we are definitely in a recession or not.
I appreciate the invitation, and hope readers in Greater Charlotte can tune in. Those not in the area can listen live online by going to this page at WBT’s site and clicking on the “Click here to Listen!” link at the top of the page’s content.
Curious on a couple of things:
I’ve never seen the media — “new” or “old” — report the jobs numbers on a “Not Seasonally Adjusted” basis, so I’m curious why you would think it’s “abuse” to report them as “Seasonally Adjusted,” which is the way they’ve always been reported.
The BLS itself references -80,000 in the opening graf of its release.
If you’re going to tout the +574k and +529k for March and February, why not be fair and mention that January saw the largest decline EVER, -3,022k (that’s 3 million). Fair is fair, no? Or does that not fit the narrative?
Comment by Invictus — April 9, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
#1, the point isn’t necessarily to change WHAT is being reported but to, first, clearly identify what is being reported (seasonally adjusted data) and, second, not assume and report as if seasonally adjusted data ties in to actual job “cuts” and “slashes,” etc. — because it doesn’t.
The BLS assumes that the readers knows the data is seasonally adjusted unless it says otherwise. Before everyone and his brother could look at the report instantly (and when supposedly smart journalists like Aversa’s predecessors actually understood the data), that was fine. They probably need to be clearer, because the average person probably does think that seasonally adjusted number reflects real, raw-data job pickups and losses.
Aversa could easily have gotten to the negative numbers she wanted in each industry by saying, for example, that seasonally adjusted employment in construction dropped 51,000. That’s fine. It’s NOT fine to say, as she said, that “construction companies cut 51,000 jobs,” because they didn’t.
I did mention the existence of big drops from Dec. to Jan. in general during the mini-interview. I also mentioned at least twice that Feb. 2008’s March 2008’s pickups were a lot less than than the two previous years, and that the labor market is not in good shape. Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008 drop is, proportionally, not as big and the Feb-Mar. differences in gains (D07-J08 was -3.022 mil; D06-J07 was -2.795 mil; D05-J06 was -2.653), so I don’t see your point, and don’t get the “not fitting the narrative” rap.
If you’re saying that AP reporters like Aversa could validly have said that employers slashed jobs in Jan. when that report came out, that’s true. But she would then have had to explain how it compared to previous years, and that Dec-Jan dropoffs have typically been very big for many years. Doing that would be fine, and in fact is a big improvement over focusing on one seasonally adjusted number as if it’s the be-all, end-all. I’ve done that myself in the past, and assumed that the reader understands the seasonality stuff. I’m convinced now that they don’t, and that it needs to be made clear each and every time.
Comment by TBlumer — April 9, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
I think it’s pretty much accepted that when the jobs report comes out, the number is understood to be provided on a seasonally adjusted basis — which is why media reports on the jobs number don’t go out of their way to say so. It’s simply accepted. To provide an analogy: When I hear the weatherman tell me that it’s 60 degrees outside, I know without having to be told that the temperature (here in the States at least) is provided in Fahrenheit and not Celsius. No reason for him to tell me what I already know. Just as Fahrenheit is our “default” temperature, “seasonally adjusted” is our default jobs number.
The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. economy shed 80,000 jobs in March per the prelimary read, and 232,000 over the past three months. There’s just no sugar-coating it. It is what it is, and falling back on a metric that no one uses (the not seasonally adjusted number) is, IMO, a very questionable tactic.
Comment by Invictus — April 10, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. economy shed 80,000 jobs in March per the prelimary read, and 232,000 over the past three months.
No it didn’t. 574,000 more people were working in March than in February. That’s not “sugar-coating,” because the 574K is a lot less than the additions in each of the previous 2 years.
The simple fact of the matter is, “the U.S. economy shed 80,000 jobs in March on a seasonally adjusted basis.” Bodies were, net, not thrown onto the streets by the tens of thousands.
The degrees F and C analogy is weak. It’s more like the weatherman teling you the temp is 60 right now, even though the thermometer reads 50, because 60 is the average of the past 24 hours.
Comment by TBlumer — April 10, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
The simple fact that the BLS, in the very first graf — first line, actually — of its release, wrote that “…nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend down (-80,000)…” tells us all we need to know, and EXACTLY what the BLS wants us to know. You can spin it any way you’d like, it doesn’t change the crux of what the BLS is telling us. You want to talk Celsius while everyone else is talking Fahrenheit, that’s your business. I’ll stick with the information that BLS puts in the VERY FIRST LINE of their release. Please re-read their first paragraph — it’s fairly self-explanatory.
Comment by Invictus — April 11, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
#5, I can read. The BLS graf makes perfect sense to someone who understands seasonal adjustments. It makes no sense to someone who doesn’t.
The AP reporter in question and others who wrote similar headlines and stories either don’t understand it, or decided to lie and pretend that there were real job cuts affecting real people, when there demonstrably were not. Take your pick.
Comment by TBlumer — April 11, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
From what I can tell, seasonality has really only become a talking point for you (as relates to nonfarm payrolls) since the jobs numbers started their downward trend. Why no mention of December’s not seasonally adjusted -216,000? Let me guess: Because the seasonally adjusted number played better that month. You’re playing the same game that Larry Kudlow’s played for years between the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey — touting whichever one printed better while simultaneously downplaying whichever one printed worse. No difference. Disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. The natural course of the business cylce plus George Bush’s economic policies and Alan Greenspan’s easy money and failure to regulate or oversee the banking system are now all now coming together. Spinning, massaging or otherwise distorting the facts changes nothing. GE’s earnings report today provides yet another piece of damning evidence. The writing’s on the wall, has been for a while. You’re just going to have to spin harder.
Comment by Invictus — April 11, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
#7, when I learn about the relative importance of something I didn’t realize was as important previously (I didn’t realize monthly ups and downs were as great as they are), I incorporate that learning into what I present from that point on.
I was originally thinking I was going to criticize Aversa for exaggerating a bit and using typical violent words to describe job cuts. Instead I found jobs going up by hundreds of thousands — pretty hard to ignore. It was Aversa’s reporting that led me to this — maybe I should send her a thank-you note. :–>
So when I learn something new and/or significant, I adapt to it. Seems pretty defensible to me. You can read into it what you want. I could care less. If you reviewed this blog, you would know that I’m not in the sugar-coating business, and bleep you for claiming that I am:
- HERE (I called the report you’re accusing me of “spinning” as follows: “basically a bad report from top to bottom.” As I said, bleep you.)
- HERE
- HERE
Comment by TBlumer — April 12, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Whatever, man. F-me. Okay. Keep deluding yourself and your readers. Are you still denying a housing bubble, or have you finally acknowledged what the rest of the world saw coming three years ago?
Comment by Invictus — April 12, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
#9, you make uninformed charges, I push back. You don’t like it? Don’t make uninformed charges.
I’ll answer your question about the housing bubble when you acknowledge that I’m not in it to spin it.
Comment by TBlumer — April 12, 2008 @ 6:42 pm