General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnemployment falls to 8.1 percent; jobs up 96K; 368K drop out of market
This is the Washington Times headline. (America's most doctrinaire conservative daily newspaper)
I offer this to demonstrate how hard it is to convey in a headline the reality of what was an unambiguously poor jobs report.
To most eyes the headline reads: "Unemployment Falls &*^@# Jobs Up (*()^@#()%^^$*"
Bad economically, but probably not so bad politically.
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I offer this to demonstrate how hard it is to convey in a headline the reality of what was actually a very bad jobs report. "
...it wasn't a "very bad jobs report." It was below expectations, but "very bad" is spin. The fact is people are dropping out of the labor force all the time, but that is separate from the jobs created.
Here's a detailed analysis:
Government reports 96,000 new jobs for August. Official jobless rate at 8.1%. U6 at 14.7%
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/07/1128574/-Government-reports-96-000-new-jobs-for-August-Official-jobless-rate-at-8-1-U6-at-14-7
It was a very bad report because it is well below the replacement rate and includes downward revisions of the last two reports. It isn't just a snapshot in time, the report in its entirety confirms that things are slowing in a continual way and that 2012 is a much weaker year than 2011.
It does not please me to say so, but I don't see it as optional. I am not spinning number toward a desired result, and am describing the thing as it is.
If this were a good jobs report I would say so, as I did in July.
If this was 100K without downward revisions I would say it was weak.
But if it is the "very" you're hunf up on I will change it to something more neutral.