<p>[FOXNews.com</a> - The ‘Recession’ Is a Media Myth - Opinion](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343671,00.html]FOXNews.com”>2024 Election Results, Latest News & Updates | Fox News Elections Center)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
If a Democrat says it, it must be true…</p>
<p>Instead of the 50,000 jobs lost that CNN reported yesterday for last quarter, it now looks like an 8000 job gain based on the ADP report released this morning.</p>
<p>If Fox says it, it must be true. </p>
<p>Check mediamatters.com for all the things Fox tells people that ‘must be true’…with the tiny proviso that they are wrong.</p>
<p>Well, Bandit - you’re right. We didn’t lose 50,000 jobs last month. We lost 80,000 jobs:
[Employment</a> Situation Summary](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm]Employment”>Employment Situation Summary - 2023 M13 Results)</p>
<p>See? No recession here! Why, Barrons knows of a guy in Fargo who got a job flipping burgers just last week. And he’s gonna be up to 39 hours a week any month now. It’s all the fault of that darn “liberal media” failing to tell us the “fair and balanced” news that only the propaganda division of the Republican Party - oops, I mean, Fox News - brings us.</p>
<p>Well, you guys have been proclaiming recession for the last 7 years–now maybe you get to be right–after the economy gained 10,000,000 jobs from 2002-2007.</p>
<p>Well, at least the Dems can save money on their commercials - they can recycle their “worst economy since Herbert Hoover” ads which were quite comical in that they were used during an economic expansion and completely overlooked the Carter economy.</p>
<p>Barrons - I’m serious with this question - do you figure out the way to cherry pick statistics to paint a false picture yourself or are you fed this stuff from some blog or Fox News or somewhere? Seriously, where do you get these “statistics?”</p>
<p>Let’s take “the economy gained 10,000,000 jobs from 2002-2007” point by point:</p>
<ol>
<li>2002 was, of course, the nadir of the last bad recession, so your starting point is the bottom of a bad economic period (which you guys blamed on 9/11 or Clinton, depending on what point you were trying to make.)</li>
<li> The U.S. population grew by 16 million people since 2002, which means, assuming you’re right about the 10,000,000 jobs (I didn’t check*** Did now: see update, below) that since typically about 63% of the population is employed, our current job situation is actually slightly worse than it was in 2002 - which was a recession, meaning - well, duh, guys - we’re in a recession.</li>
</ol>
<p>So tell all, Barrons - where did you get the 2002-2007 factoid?</p>
<p>FF - I love how when bad economic times occur during a Republican Administration, you guys can’t point fingers fast enough at every point of the compass that doesn’t include the White House, but you’re going to blame the “stagflation” of the late 1970’s on a President who had little control over the events which caused those economic woes (Remember OPEC?)</p>
<p>The difference I see here is that GWBush promised that his tax cuts were a panacea which was going to solve all of our economic problems, lead to increased wealth for all, reduce the national debt, etc. etc. etc. And yet here we are, eight years later, trillions deeper in debt, with an economy which is no better than it was at the worst point in his Administration.</p>
<p>***According to this website, while employment peaked at about 10,000,000 jobs above 2002, we’re currently down to about 8,000,000 more jobs, which means that a significantly smaller share of the population of the country has a job now than during the recession of 2002. [United</a> States Unemployment data](<a href=“Diamond 4Cs Data - Cushion Cut & Oval Cut Diamonds”>Diamond 4Cs Data - Cushion Cut & Oval Cut Diamonds)</p>
<p>We’re in a recession. However, I don’t actually believe it’s Bush’s fault (although his administration has been atrocious). The rapid rise in food prices cannot be mitigated by the government, not when food demand is skyrocketing around the world for biofuels and developing countries increase demand. Fuel prices? Same deal, as production levels decrease and global reserves decrease, there’s nothing else to do but go up.</p>
<p>The only thing the government has done to get us into this mess is holding inflation rates far too low for far too long (Hello, Greenspan), and spending lavishly, both of them contributing to inflation. Regardless, there’s many problems in the economy that I could go on and on about but won’t because I’m at work. Maybe later. But to blame the government with little backing evidence is typical short-sightedness and ignorance. Don’t make this a political thing, Dems and Repubs can’t save this economy right now, only Bernanke can and he’s doing a fantastic job.</p>
<p>Well, according to my website we gained about 10,000,000 through 11/07. Since then we have lost maybe 80,000–hardly the 2,000,000 you claim. </p>
<p>Of couse I started where Bush essentially started–he’s the one getting the blame here.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn200712.pdf[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn200712.pdf</a></p>
<p>“FF - I love how when bad economic times occur during a Republican Administration, you guys can’t point fingers fast enough at every point of the compass that doesn’t include the White House,”</p>
<p>I love how you can gloss over the hyperbolic and dishonest charges of the Dems and somehow find a way to pin it on the Republicans. Why not just admit that the Dems were making fools of themselves with their claims of “worst economy since Hoover”?</p>
<p>Maybe many of that 16 million new population are kids–you think??</p>
<p>Actually, Barrons, according to the Census Bureau: <a href=“http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2006-sa.html[/url]”>http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2006-sa.html</a> there has been virtually no change in the number of Americans under 18 since 2002.
How can that be? Think, Barrons, think… You can figure this one out.</p>
<p>Virtually unchanged at 1.7 million more Hmmmmmmm</p>
<p>But I was still more on track than you. Many of the rest (About 5 million) are in the are in the over 60 group.</p>
<p>At least I was thinking–you just assumed 16 million=16 million needing jobs.</p>
<p>I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers from, Barrons. The charts only go through July 2006 and show a total growth from 72.9 million to 73.7 million in the under 18 group - that’s 800,000 - out of 300 million total population. The 18-65 group, on the other hand, has been growing by about 2.3 million workers per year. And no, you weren’t on the right track, and no, I wasn’t assuming that. What I was pointing out is that the growth in jobs since 2002 has exactly paralleled the growth in population. To denote significant job growth under those circumstances you would have to have had a significant change in the demographic balance of the population - such as having all 16 million extra citizens be under 18 - which isn’t what happened. The population grew in all age groups. In terms of number of employed people of job-holding age, we’re right at (slightly below, actually) where we were in 2002, during the last recession. That’s what the numbers show.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, I don’t think that the economy, overall, is the fault of the president. The deficit and growth in the national debt, however, is. Bush’s magic tax cuts were supposed to cure everything that was wrong with the economy. They didn’t. The economy has proceeded pretty much like it always does anyway. But the debt has grown. And the increasing stratification of wealth in the country - which has meant that there has been no actual increase in inflation-adjusted income for most of the nation while a small portion of the population has seen dramatic increases, is a result of Republican driven policies and laws as well. Americans work hard, and are creative. We build up the economy every day. A bad president can’t stop that, a good one won’t help it much, either. But bad economic policies will put our nation in debt (to the point where it will harm the economy while also harming our children and grandchildren) and will continue to increase the trend of the rich getting richer while everyone else stagnates or gets poorer. And Bush has definitely done his part to push that process along.</p>
<p>I used the tables with the five year intervals so it went to 19. Given that many kids up to 19 are not in the fulltime workforce or in college I think that’s a good interval for kids.</p>
<p>So jobs have tracked population growth–proving ??? I guess it beats the alternative. How many in the 19-65 group are stay at home moms or other non-working folks like all our Microsoft early retirees?</p>
<p>I think this thread deserves a recap.</p>
<p>We started off on Tuesday with Bandit_TX posting a link to a Fox News piece which, dripping with contempt and disdain, accused the “liberal media” and Democratic politicians of misrepresenting the economy to the public, and announced that “the ‘recession’ is a media myth.” Bandit followed up the next day with a report predicting that instead of jobs declining by 50,000 as had been reported in the “liberal media”, the upcoming Labor Dept. report would show job gains of 8,000. When the report came out Friday showing 80,000 jobs lost in March, 232,000 for Q1 2008, and 1.1 million for the past 12 months, Barrons piped up, touting the factoid that there had been a gain of 10 million jobs 2002-2007 and so there! I noted that that job growth merely paralleled population growth, and also started at the depth of the last recession, which meant that - we were in a recession again.</p>
<p>Barrons suggested that the increase in population since 2002 was mostly due to “kids.” I responded that there was virtually no change in the under 18 population segment since 2002 (actual change - 800,000, or +1%.) Barrons responded with “1.7 million more Hmmmmmm” Later, Barrons explained that by “under 18” he meant “under 20.” (The 1.7 million figure is also wrong, even including the older group. I still don’t know where that number came from.) </p>
<p>So, what does this mean? Why the recap? Well, I see this as an example of a significant truth. The right wing mantra of a biased “liberal media” is a crock. What they deride as the “liberal media” is simply people fairly and accurately reporting the truth. What they fraudulently claim to be “fair and balanced” reporting is actually blatant propaganda - outright falsehoods, half-truths, cherry-picked and misleading statistics. Maybe the reason that the majority of people in the mainstream media are Democrats is because they’re simply more willing to tell the truth, regardless of which way it cuts.</p>
<p>John Lott, the author of the Fox News piece, is notorious for, among other things, fabricating data and when challenged about it claiming that his computer ate all the evidence. He is also fond of accusing anyone who disagrees with him of “liberal bias.” No respectable media outlet would hire him - and not because he isn’t a “liberal”.</p>
<p>You also ignored the growing size of the retired population. If you take one of the excel tables you linked you will find my numbers just fine. And you gross number of over 1,000,000 jobs lost is just WRONG according to the BLS and not some rummy outfit in Indiana. LOOK at my link again.
If that were really the case SOMEBODY would have pointed that out with the new data. Sheesh. Check your facts please.</p>
<p>Barrons, this is from the official BLS report issued Friday, March 4, 2008: [Employment</a> Situation Summary](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm]Employment”>Employment Situation Summary - 2023 M13 Results)
</p>
<p>And I am still unable to find an increase of 1.7 million people in either under 18 or under 20 in the tables. Under 18 increased by about 800,000, as I said. Adding the 18 and 19 year olds only increases the gain to about 1M. Still only about 1% growth, in contrast to the 5% increase in 18-65, from 2002 to 2006, so in fact the recent demographic shift is, if anything, towards a higher percentage of working age citizens. When the baby boomers retire that will change, of course, but we’re not there yet. </p>
<p>I’m not meaning to bust your chops here, Barrons, but you’re the one making claims about how swell everything really is, but the nasty “liberal media” is misrepresenting everything. In fact, things look a lot like they did during the last recession, except the nation is deeper in debt. The mainstream media (other than Fox) seems to have done a respectable job of reporting the economic facts accurately. In fact, they underestimated the recent job losses.</p>
<p>More importantly–did you find your 1 million lost jobs yet? That was a much more important figure. The unemployment number is a different number than the total jobs number, you know. You said we lost 1,000,000 jobs–WRONG. More people came into the workforce for a variety of resaons. That does not equal a loss of jobs.</p>
<p>Barrons, the employment figures are constantly being revised. (Most recent revision is here: [Revisions</a> to over-the-month employment changes, seasonally adjusted, 1979-present](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/web/cesnaicsrev.htm]Revisions”>http://www.bls.gov/web/cesnaicsrev.htm)) Your numbers are from November. According to the 4/4/08 BLS report, 4th Q 2007 employment was not 10M over 2002. Employment figures are seasonally adjusted as well, so raw numbers can change without the adjusted figure moving, and vice versa. See here for the current revision: <a href=“http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpspopsm.pdf[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpspopsm.pdf</a> October 2002 to October 2007 shows less than 8.5M in job growth; November 2002 to November 2007 figures yield 9.5M job growth - but we didn’t add a million jobs between October and November. And we never actually did hit the 10M mark. As to where the jobs were lost? Again from the 4/4 BLS report:
Where have job gains been seen? Health care and food services. Want some fries with that?</p>