Tag Archives: jeannine aversa

Within 3 Days, AP’s Reported Unemployment Estimates Significantly Worsen

In separate reports for the Associated Press during the past week, Christopher Rugaber and Jeannine Aversa, economics writers for the wire service, each dealt with estimates for next year's average unemployment rate. They came back with significantly different predictions for 2011 without recognizing how widely those estimates varied. On Tuesday , Rugaber dealt with the Federal Reserve's latest economic growth projections, in the process telling readers that the Fed expects that the unemployment rate “will be 8.9 percent to 9.1 percent in 2011.” On Friday , Aversa looked at three alternative proposals for handling next year's federal income tax rates, which will increase substantially for everyone unless Congress acts. The projected unemployment rates for next year under the three proposals are all either 9.9% or 10.0%. So the Fed thinks that unemployment will come down next year, while Aversa's consulted experts think it will go up slightly regardless of what Congress does or doesn't do about taxes. The one-point difference between the two sets of estimates represents about 1.5 million workers . That's not a small number. Did things suddenly get worse while the turkeys were cooking on Thursday? read more

Here is the original post:
Within 3 Days, AP’s Reported Unemployment Estimates Significantly Worsen

Within 3 Days of Each Other, AP’s Reported Unemployment Estimates Significantly Differ–for the Worse

In separate reports for the Associated Press during the past week, Christopher Rugaber and Jeannine Aversa, economics writers for the wire service, each dealt with estimates for next year's average unemployment rate. They came back with significantly different estimates for 2011 without recognizing how widely their reported estimates vary. On Tuesday , Rugaber dealt with the Federal Reserve's latest economic growth projections, in the process telling readers that the Fed expects that the unemployment rate “will be 8.9 percent to 9.1 percent in 2011.” On Friday , Aversa looked at three alternative proposals for handling next year's federal income tax rates, which will increase substantially for everyone unless Congress acts. The projected unemployment rates for next year under the three proposals are all either 9.9% or 10.0%. So the Fed thinks that unemployment will come down next year, while Aversa's consulted experts think it will go up slightly regardless of what Congress does or doesn't do about taxes. The one-point difference between the two sets of estimates represents about 1.5 million workers . That's not a small number. Did things suddenly get worse while the turkeys were cooking on Thursday? read more

See the original post:
Within 3 Days of Each Other, AP’s Reported Unemployment Estimates Significantly Differ–for the Worse

Asterisk Alert: AP Story on Jobless Claims Doesn’t Note Labor Dept. Report Missing Data of Nine States

What if reporters hunting and pecking for happy economic news are playing up incomplete government reports? Take this AP story by Jeannine Aversa on hopes rising over jobless claims: The number of people signing up for unemployment benefits dropped to the lowest level in two months, an encouraging sign that companies aren’t resorting to deeper layoffs even as the economy has lost momentum. The Labor Department reported Thursday that new claims for unemployment aid plunged last week by a seasonally adjusted 27,000 to 451,000. Economists had predicted a much smaller decline of just 2,000. But wait, we have an asterisk alert: did the Labor Department really get data from all 50 states? Bloomberg News explained, ahem, that nine states did not report actual numbers: For the latest reporting week, nine states didn’t file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the federal holiday earlier this week, a Labor Department official told reporters. As a result, California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven, the official said. There’s nothing wrong with reporting the Labor Department estimates — but every story ought to include the missing-states paragraph in their stories, and reporters ought to restrain their “hopes rise” talk considering the incompleteness of the reporting. This Aversa story (or at least this version) doesn’t have that information. If this was a GOP Labor Department, isn’t it possible reporters would be more skeptical that the government estimates might have some administration spin in them?

Read more:
Asterisk Alert: AP Story on Jobless Claims Doesn’t Note Labor Dept. Report Missing Data of Nine States

The Fed’s Beige Book: AP Needs a Geography Lesson

For the record, here are the first and fourth sentences from the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book released earlier this afternoon: Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggested continued growth in national economic activity during the reporting period of mid-July through the end of August, but with widespread signs of a deceleration compared with preceding periods. … However, the remaining Districts of New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, and Chicago all highlighted mixed conditions or deceleration in overall economic activity. It may be fair to describe the detail in Atlanta’s section of the report as “mixed” (it’s a borderline call; the opening paragraph from that District’s report will appear later). But Richmond’s section is clearly one of deceleration, which brings us to today’s clearly needed geography lesson for Jeannine Aversa and/or a headline writer at the Associated Press. What follows is a graphic containing the headline at Aversa’s 2:45 p.m. story (since updated here ), and her first few paragraphs: That’s clever. By isolating slower growth to the “East” and “Midwest” (really “decelerating,” a somewhat stronger term that implies a trend of ever-slower growth instead of a onetime event), the AP’s headline writer would appear to be attempting to limit the full brunt of the Beige Book’s relatively bad news. The fact is that the declining Richmond District includes Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia, many of whose non-DC Beltway residents would be surprised to learn are considered “East” by the AP’s headline writer. The opening paragraph about Atlanta is mixed, but contrary to the AP’s communicated geography, some of the bad news is neither in the “East” nor the “East Coast,” no matter how far you try to stretch the definition (bold is mine): Sixth District business contacts indicated that the pace of economic activity continued to slow in July and August. Retailers reported a decrease in traffic and sales, and their outlook was less positive than in previous months. Reports from the District’s tourism sector were mixed as contacts outside of the oil-spill affected Gulf coast experienced positive growth , but areas from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle saw significant declines in visitors. Residential real estate contacts noted that the pace of new and existing home sales slowed, and their outlook remained pessimistic. Nonresidential real estate activity remained weak. Manufacturers reported that the pace of new orders growth slowed. Banking credit conditions remained constrained and loan demand was reportedly weak. Labor markets improved modestly, but most businesses maintained a strong preference for increasing the hours worked of existing staff and expanding their use of temporary hires rather than for hiring permanent employees. Transportation and material prices rose slightly, but most firms expressed limited ability to pass increases through to consumers.  The bolded item would seem to indicate that contacts actually in the Gulf didn’t see growth in the tourism sector. That would include Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, none of which have recently been known to be located in “the East” or “East Coast.” Additionally, the two tidbits that follow in Atlanta’s section of the report allude to other forms of deceleration occurring in those decidedly non-“Eastern” states: “areas from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle saw significant declines in visitors.” “Most District merchants reported that traffic and sales decreased in July and August.” Jeannine Aversa would have been better off simply publishing the first four sentences of the Beige Book and going home. A public attempting to stay informed would have been better off with a headline reading “Fed releases Beige Book, identifying regional economic trends.” Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original:
The Fed’s Beige Book: AP Needs a Geography Lesson

AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

Those looking for evidence that there a move afoot in the establishment press to lower the bar for whatever economic accomplishments might be accomplished during the Obama administration will be interested in how the Associated Press’s report on the government’s June jobs report defined “normal” unemployment. Perhaps it’s valid for reporters Jeannine Aversa and Christopher Rugaber to refer to 6% unemployment as “normal,” if by that they mean “typical non-recessionary” or “long-term average” unemployment. But I couldn’t help but remember that during the Bush 43 and Reagan years, unemployment rates just above and occasionally even below that level were described by wire service reporters and other journalists as “persistent unemployment” — i.e., decidedly not “normal.” I quickly found several AP and other reports from those eras that confirmed my recall of what is now a demonstrated double standard. Here is the opening sentence from the AP report , followed by the term-redefining paragraph: A second straight month of lackluster hiring by American businesses is sapping strength from the economic rebound. … Unemployment is expected to stay above 9 percent through the midterm elections in November. And the Fed predicts joblessness could still be as high as 7.5 percent two years from now. Normal is considered closer to 6 percent , and economists say it will probably take until the middle of this decade to achieve that. “Closer to 6%” seems to imply that “normal” is really “slightly above” that level.  It’s legitimate to question whether there has really been an economic rebound when people who are looking for work aren’t finding it and so many others have abandoned their quest. The truth is that the number of people reported as working according to the Establishment Survey in yesterday’s Employment Situation Report is lower than it was a year ago , when the recession as normal people define it ended. It’s also worth remembering, assisted by an updated version of the indispensable chart from Innocents Bystanders , that the administration predicted that its stimulus plan would return the economy to the AP’s new “normal” by the first quarter of 2012, three years earlier than “the middle of this decade”: Oops. Here are some previous examples of situations described by the establishment press as “persistent unemployment”: October 7, 2003 — Both an AP story and an item at USA Today on California’s recall election told readers that “Californians face an $8 billion state budget deficit, persistent unemployment and struggling schools.” The Golden State’s unemployment rate in September 2003 was 6.4% . June 13, 2003 — A Reuters report on consumer sentiment relayed that “Consumer sentiment deteriorated sharply in early June, suggesting persistent unemployment is taking its toll on Americans’ expectations for the economy’s future.” The national unemployment rate in May 2003 was 6.1% . April 4, 2004 — A Fox News item to which AP contributed claimed that “there is evidence that persistent unemployment, despite other signs of a recovering economy, is taking its toll on the president’s popularity.” On April 2, the government reported a national unemployment rate of 5.7% . Going back further, in a March 29, 1987 book review at the New York Times (“No Time for Radicals”), Michael Janeway wrote this of author Robert Lekachman: “Under Ronald Reagan, the author writes, no god but that of the marketplace is worshiped, yielding ‘privatization, militarization, persistent unemployment, de-unionization, middle-class shrinkage, and the triumph of plutocracy.’ Mr. Lekachman’s cases in point, when backed by fact and figure, make for an intelligently passionate brief against the Reagan Administration.” Janeway didn’t dispute the factual accuracy of Lekachman’s claim about “persistent unemployment, which at the time was 6.5% . Gosh, who knew that “normal” was only a half-point or less below that of “a mean society”? But what was once “persistent unemployment” is now “normal.” No double standard there (/sarcasm). Oh, wait a minute. Maybe the AP pair is subtly informing us that as long as the Obama administration is in power and Democrats control Congress, “persistent unemployment” will be “normal.” If so, guys, thanks for letting us know. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Read the rest here:
AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

Geithner Miscasts the 1930s at the G-20 Summit; AP’s Aversa Lets Him Get Away With It

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is admonishing the leaders of other countries attending the G-20 summit in Toronto to keep spending like there’s no tomorrow, because if they spend like there’s no tomorrow, there will still be a tomorrow. But in the gospel according to Geithner, if they don’t spend like there’s no tomorrow, there really won’t be a tomorrow. With such blubbery logic, is it any wonder that America’s stature with the rest of the world is plummeting? Earlier this evening, Brent Baker at NewsBusters pointed to an ABC report warning that a second recession might be on the horizon if the G20 nations don’t follow the spend-spend-spend recommendations of the Obama administration. In his attempt to convince the rest of the world of the folly of being fiscally responsible, Geithner has invoked a supposed “lesson” from the 1930s. Back in mid-May, I happened to stumble on the fundamental untruth of his assertion, and will demonstrate it shortly. The Associated Press’s Jeannine Aversa let Geithner’s contention pass without challenge in her Saturday report on the summit. Here are the three relevant paragraphs from her report: Asked if the global economy could slip back into another “double dip” recession, Geithner said the answer to that question hinges on decisions made by world leaders. “It is within the capacity of the people who are going to be in those rooms together in the next few days to avoid that outcome,” he said. One of the mistakes made in the 1930s was that countries pulled back their recovery efforts too soon, prolonging the Great Depression, he said. Geithner said the United States doesn’t want to see that happen again. “What we want to do is continue to emphasize that we are going to avoid that mistake,” he said. “It’s only been a year since the world economy stopped collapsing … it will take some time to heal.” What follows is a chart showing U.S. spending and GDP from 1923 to 1940, with a partial list of unemployment rates from roughly the same time frame immediately to its right: Hoover began the federal spending ramp-up in 1931 and 1932, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal took spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to the 9, well over double the level of the Coolidge years. He kept it there until 1940, after which pre-war and wartime spending kicked in. Despite all of what FDR did and tried, unemployment stayed persistently and unacceptably high. The gospel according to Geithner, as well as hard-core Keynesians like Paul Krugman at the New York Times, would tell us that FDR held up his end of the bargain by keeping the spending spigots open during the eight years that ended in 1940, and that it was the Europeans pulling back who prolonged the recession (Krugman even believes that FDR didn’t spend enough). One would therefore expect that folks living in countries that didn’t hold up their end of the spend-spend-spend bargain during that decade must have endured even more hardships than U.S. citizens did. The trouble is, as I discovered quite by accident on May 13, is that this isn’t at all what happened. In a Wall Street Journal column , Daniel Henninger quoted an eminent European economist who had passed away less than two years earlier. In the process of making a point that Henninger used about the mediocre performance of Europe during the 1990s, this historian also, when seen in the context of the graphics just presented, also made a huge point about the Europe of the 1930s: Angus Maddison, the eminent European historian of world economic development who died days before Europe’s debt crisis, wrote in 2001: “The most disturbing aspect of West European performance since 1973 has been the staggering rise in unemployment. In 1994-8 the average level was nearly 11% of the labor force. This is higher than the depressed years of the 1930s.” Whoa. Maddison’s assertion leads to these key factoids and points: Europe’s unemployment during the 1930s seldom if ever topped 11%. U.S. unemployment during the 1930s was always above Europe’s level by a few points; another source I found indicates that U.S. unemployment at one point dropped to about 12% in 1937 , but the point still stands. Europe’s “failure” to spend as Geithner thinks it should have during the 1930s doesn’t seem to have hurt it nearly as much as FDR’s insistence on continued spending hurt us. If there’s a lesson here, it’s that, absent contrary evidence, Tim Geithner is wrong and the Europeans of the 1930s were right. It would also seem that Europe’s renewed intent to rein in government spending is a wiser course than the spend-spend-spend strategy of the Obama administration (how serious the European countries are about restraining spending remains to be seen; if Europe tries to solve its problem primarily with tax increases, all bets are off). Jeannine Aversa’s relay of Geithner’s more than likely false assertion about the 1930s deserved much more skepticism that it received. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

More here:
Geithner Miscasts the 1930s at the G-20 Summit; AP’s Aversa Lets Him Get Away With It