Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (11062)	6/3/2005 7:14:11 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (50) \| Respond to of 35834

Hooverville PoliPundit.com The Labor Department just released its latest report on the nation’s job markets. And to put them into perspective – but in a fashion likely to cause trust-funded, bong-hitting, college-aged liberals to be perplexed and perhaps even angry – check this out: May 1997 10.3 = unemployment rate among blacks. 7.4 = unemployment among latinos. 0.25% = “discouraged workers” as a share of the total workforce. $420.56 = average weekly earnings by factory-line workers and non-managers in the services sectors. On the other hand, there’s this: May 2005 10.1 = unemployment rate among blacks. 6.0 = unemployment among latinos. 0.26% = “discouraged workers” as a share of the total workforce. $541.81 = average weekly earnings by factory-line workers and non-managers in the services sectors. The U.S. economy created 78,000 W-2 jobs in May. This year’s net W-2 job creation now amounts to 898,000 – or just under 180,000 per month. Last month’s payroll gains included new jobs in the following labor market sectors and sub-sectors: Commercial banking, securities and investments, legal services, architecture and engineering, computer systems, business management and managerial consulting, and health care services. When non-payroll jobs are added to the mix (e.g., software consultants; contract salespersons), the economy created 376,000 new jobs in May, bringing this year’s total employment gain up to 1,319,000. The nation’s unemployment rate fell to 5.1 percent in May. That’s roughly half the reported unemployment rate in France. As alluded to above, total employment increased in May. Total unemployment declined. And the labor force (those working and searching for employment) increased too. The employment-population ratio – the percentage of all Americans with jobs – now stands at 62.7. It was 63.9 in May 1997. Over the past year, average hourly and weekly earnings, for industrial-sector production workers and non-supervisors in the services sectors, have increased, respectively, by 2.6 percent. Brother, can ya’ spare a dime? Note: Additional data here. data.bls.gov -- Jayson polipundit.com

To: Sully- who wrote (11062)	6/3/2005 8:11:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

KNEE-JERK BUT TRUE? K. J. Lopez The Corner A reader, responding to a post: re: Can a headline ever report new jobs without dismissing them? answer: yes, if a Democrat is in the White House. nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (11062)	6/6/2005 7:56:14 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Ripples of economic misreporting By Alfred Tella The Washington Times Commentary American economic statistics are among the world's best, and their constant improvement is a vital aid to a better performing economy. Media reporting of economic data, however, is sometimes misleading, creating misperceptions that perversely affect people's confidence in the economy. Reporting of data can be biased by the use of overblown or alarmist language, whether to give added life to a story or attract an audience from the competition. A message can be heightened or submerged by its placement and emphasis and by its brevity or repetition. Ideological biases and opinions can creep in, or reporters may not realize how they interpret data is based on a particular and possibly controversial economic theory. Headlines may not be consistent with the reporter's text, or reporters may cross the line and become commentators. Errors of omission occur when the media fail to mention that key economic indicators, such as economic growth data and payroll jobs, are subject to short-term revision. Economic growth data for a given quarter are reported three times within three months, and payroll employment numbers for a given month are revised twice in the two months after the initial estimate. Though the final improved estimate sometimes paints a different picture from the initial estimate, the public is often not forewarned of that possibility. Reporters' knowledge of economics can be faulty. For example, employment sometimes rises sharply as unemployment also rises. This is sometimes interpreted as both good and bad news. But informed reporters would know unemployment as officially defined can only rise along with sharply rising employment when labor force participation increases. They would note the job market improvement encouraged people to enter the work force, many of whom got jobs. Unemployment actually did decline, only the decline was among the uncounted jobless outside the labor force. Reporters are not always aware of, or they choose to ignore, the sampling error in some economic data. An economic statistic can change from one period to the next, but the change may prove significant. Yet reporters and headlines sometimes announce the number went up or down, implying either good or bad news. This happens with the jobs numbers and when the unemployment rate ticks up or down, despite the official interpretation of no change. There are two national employment series drawn from difference sources, business payrolls and household surveys, which sometimes tell different stories. Because the sample size is larger for the payroll data, which makes monthly changes less "noisy," the media often go to the extreme and ignore the household employment numbers altogether. The two series have sometimes shown divergent trends, and ignoring one can cost the public potentially important information. There is also selectivity bias in the reporting of price data. The Labor Department reports two major monthly series on consumer inflation, the chained and unchained price indexes. The latter is given precedence in the department's press releases, so the media usually report only that series. However, economists know the former series is superior because it allows for short-term shifts in consumer purchases in response to changes in relative prices. The unchained index does not, and so overstates consumer inflation. Fortunately people don't rely on just the media to form their views about the condition of the economy. They look to their own experiences and what's happening around them. On the other hand, individuals have their own biases and preferences and so gravitate toward particular media that filter information in the same way they do. Philosophies and viewpoints have their place, but it helps when they don't get tangled with the facts. The media have an obligation to keep them separate in their economic reporting, to avoid spin and maintain accuracy. Misreporting economic data is not merely offensive to economists, it may affect people's behavior. What people think about the state of the economy today affects their expectations of tomorrow. If led to believe the economy is better or worse than an informed objective assessment of the data would indicate, their confidence is unduly raised or lowered. Research has established that connection. How the news media affect consumer perceptions of the economy is import enough the Federal Reserve has invested in its research. Fed economists Mark Doms and Norman Morin analyzed how the tone and volume of economic reporting affect consumer sentiment on the economy. They said, "There are periods when reporting on the economy has not been consistent with actual economic events. ... As a consequence, there are times during which consumer sentiment is driven away from what economic fundamentals would suggest." In a similar study, a team of Dutch economists analyzed the effect of newspaper spin bias in economic reporting on consumer confidence in the Netherlands. They found the perceptions of economic news created by spin, as distinct from the data themselves, had significant short-term impact on consumer confidence. Not all dimensions of economic misreporting have been studied, and some would be hard to quantify. However, it seems likely the impact on confidence would become magnified or more persistent when misreporting is blatant or systematic. Unfortunately, some media have that bent. Cumulative bias could lead to an extended disconnect between objective economic data and its portrayal with adverse consequences for consumer spending and the economy. Alfred Tella is former Georgetown University research professor of economics. washingtontimes.com