COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

...So the US economy adds 157,000 jobs in December and 2.2 million jobs for 2004, turning in the best showing since the height of Irrational Exuberance.

And how do the numbskulls at the New York Times cover it?

...But it was not quite enough, at least until further revisions are available, to make up for all the jobs lost earlier in President Bush's first term in office.

They can't just tell a f*cking story, can they? They've got to dig at the Bush Administration any chance they get.

The increase in jobs, slightly lower than most economists had predicted, was roughly in line with the increase in the working-age population and left the unemployment rate unchanged at 5.4 percent.

Oh, I get it. Economists can't make accurate predictions, so let's make the Bush Administration look bad.

And the point that the increase was in line with the increase in the working-age population is questionable, at best. After all, a simple increase in population does not necessarily result in an increase in jobs. There's no reason the economy must provide jobs for every new worker entering the labor force. But if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Democrat were in office, do you think the Times would note that the increase in the number of jobs was roughly in line with an increase in the work force? Not hardly.

The bottom line is that the increase in jobs cannot be explained simply by the increase in the number of workers in the labor force. After all, the number of workers increased between 2000 and 2003.

I think this reporter needs to brush up on the difference between correlation and causality.

Manufacturing companies, which shed more than two million jobs from 2000 to the end of 2003, added back only 96,000 jobs in 2004 - the weakest rebound in factory employment of any economic recovery on record in the United States.

I wonder if the New York Times might ever point out that the downturn in the manufacturing sector and the transportation sector actually started in 1999?

The stock market fell slightly Friday, barely reacting to the jobs report.

Apparently the stock market did a better job predicting the numbers than the economists upon which you rely.

But if the stock market is relevant, and the President's job record over the past several years is relevant, then wouldn't it also be relevant to point out that that US stocks and bonds alike have had two straight years of powerful bull markets, and stocks have returned nearly 40% over the last two years, forecasting further strength to come, at least for the next 6 to 9 months?

Well, of course it's relevant. But that's just not the sort of context that passes muster at the New York Times, which apparently feels that a minor one day tick in equity markets provides more context than two consecutive years of earnings growth.

This is what the New York Times calls "perspective."

The nation added almost no manufacturing jobs for the third consecutive month, and the trend was down: the Labor Department noted that almost all of last year's added jobs came at the start of the year.

Over all, the economy added 2.2 million jobs for 2004, according to the report, the best figure since 1999, when economic growth produced more than 3 million added jobs.

Ok, what do you want to bet that the same pack of jackals lamenting the lack of growth in the manufacturing sector is the same band of roving hyenas simultaneously moaning and crying about the weak dollar?

Look...cheap dollars are a boon to the manufacturing sector. The weak dollar is a gold-plated gift to blue collar workers. You cannot complain about lackluster growth in the manufacturing sector and simultaneously complain about a weakening dollar.

The bottom half of the article is actually much better than the top half. But the first three paragraphs of the news article receive by far the most editorial attention. It wouldn't surprise me if this article was recast at some point by an editor to put the angle most damning to the Bush Administration in the opening grafs.

These guys are soooo predictable.
Splash, out

Jason