Fact Check: Details of Bureau of Labor Statistics Own Data Contradicts Unemployment Numbers Released on Heels of Obama Debate Failure

 

(A note to the reader: if the tables in this article are too difficult to review, you can access the tables directly from the original source by clicking on the respecitve tables written in green.)

The old adage that numbers don’t lie definitely applies to the latest statistics released a day after President Obama miserably failed to detail successes in his administration over the past four years in his first Presidential debate with Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, Mark Twain's famous claim that, "There are only three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics," also applies. The labor statistics released claim that, while there was a net decrease in jobs available (by 30,000) from the previous month, August, the unemployment situation improved by .3%.  Strange math; but it is consistent with the month just preceeding it.  From July to August, the number of jobs created plummeted 40,000 (Table 1, line 2012). Yet, again, the unemployment statistic was said to have improved by .1% irrespective of the drop in jobs.  It is difficult to reconcile the percentage in decline of unemployment given the close relationship between the two conditions. 

I was curious what the pattern for the two conditions is for all the previous months. Perhaps this seemingly undo relationship is validated by a pattern previous to those. A careful study of the data is compelling. Indeed it is blaringly not the case that the just released data is coherent at all when studying the previous pattern. Take a look at all—any—other year or combination of months and the story becomes a conundrum.  The statistics make it both quite clear how the two work consistently and in direct harmony with each other while causing a clashing contradiction as to how the labor department has come up with their decrease in unemployment when the jobs are not there to support it.

For instance, if we look at 2011 in Table 1, we see that for the months of January through April there was a substantial number of jobs created, though from month to month a steady increase  in jobs slows considerably; 100,000 from January to February; 26,000 more from February to March; and, a fourth of that again from March to April.  Accordingly, Table 2 shows us the logical correlation of unemployment going down as the jobs went up.

Table 2

National Unemployment Rates, 2008 - 2012

	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	April	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.1	7.8
2011	9.0	8.9	8.8	9.0	9.1	9.2	9.1	9.1	9.1	9.0	8.6	8.5
2010	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.9	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.8	9.4
2009	7.6	8.1	8.5	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.8	10.2	10.0	10.0
2008	4.9	4.8	5.1	5.0	5.5	5.6	5.8	6.2	6.2	6.6	6.8	7.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Again, looking at the reverse situation, from April, 2011 Jobs produced plummets by 200,000! From  April 2011 through to September the numbers are low and are indicative of corresponding increase in unemployment for that same period as shown on Table 2. This pattern is consistent for all previous years and is especially poignant for years 2008 through 2010 where numbers of jobs created were drastically in the negative. A situation that does not precede this one until going as far back as 2003. And those dismal numbers pale in comparison to the number of 2008-2010.  While the economy was shriveling, the unemployment rate for those same years, month to month show a direct and expected increase in the unemployment rate.

There are two significant facts that need mentioning. Note that with the exception of two random months, in all months previous to Mr. Obama taking office, jobs were created, either modestly or substantially, (since 2003).  It is not until after Mr. Obama takes office that the economy—as shown in both numbers of jobs created and the unemployment rate—tanks, and in a devastating way.  Additionally, the amount of consecutive years of, not just declining job growth, but actual job loss is significant. Not even in years 2002 and 2003 do was see such devastation.  What is the point? Mr. Obama did not inherit an economic mess.

The next significant fact comes from the last two months of jobs created. Both July and August numbers are preliminary, meaning they are not necessarily the factual numbers. (Don’t ask why July’s numbers are preliminary in September.)

This leads us back to last week’s jobs and unemployment numbers following on the heels of a miserable defense of his presidency in the first Presidential debate.  Now, take a look at Table 3, below.  Notice the job numbers for September 2012. (Don’t ask how they are able to chart October, November and December yet.)

The cliff is astounding. Telling as to the facts of the unemployment situation, the graph does indeed show explicitly that what was released to the public a day after the debate was, in fact, inconsistent with the data.

By now, it should be clear what these tables mean. Tables, by the way that are public: They are the government’s own data. 

One: The information as announced by the Federal Government a few days ago is not consistent with its own data.

Two: Given the data’s overwhelming pattern that says when jobs fall, unemployment rises, and when jobs increase unemployment declines, the current correlations as released a few days ago are not accurate.

Three: Table 3 (the graph below) shows clearly the data released on unemployment is not consistent with this chart showing a devistating economic downturn in September.

Four: Mr. Obama did not inherit a depression upon taking office. Indeed, he did not inherit anything of the sort. He created it. And, yes, in terms of building something, he did it all on his own.

End of debate. 

         Table 3

 

 

.