Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Digging Deeper Into President Obama's Manufacturing Jobs Claim

During his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama said ..
After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three.
The 500,000 number sounds impressive!  Is it true? Fortunately, the government keeps good records for all this data, so I checked.

The following chart shows the number of those employed in manufacturing (MANEMP) from January, 2008 until today. The minimum over the last three years happened in January, 2010 when the manufacturing workforce fell to 11,460 thousands, or 11.46 million.  The peak manufacturing workforce in the last three years happened in July, 2012 at 11,957 thousands, or 11.957 million jobs.  The difference between the peak and the trough is 497 thousand manufacturing jobs, which is certainly close enough to the claimed 500,000 for government work. However, the current tally through January, 2013 falls slightly to 450,000.


Because I know what the definition of "is" is and I'm semi-fluent in how politicians sometimes manipulate statistical data, my spidey senses were all a tingle from the "over the past three" years statement.  President Obama has been in office longer than three years, right?  How many manufacturing jobs have we created since he took office?  Here's the same chart as before, but now let's measure from February, 2009, when he was first inaugurated as President, until today.  By picking slightly different data points, we've now LOST 436,000 manufacturing jobs.  That's only a difference of 933,000 manufacturing jobs--nearly a million jobs difference--between the President's best-case numbers and the President's term in office.

Yes, I'm quite aware that President Obama was standing way too close when the big chunks struck the proverbial fan after the subprime mortgage bubble collapsed.  I'm also aware that we've bailed out banks, purchased one of the world's largest auto makers (General Motors), spent $878 BILLION on a Stimulus program, spent $3 BILLION on the "Clash for Clunkers" auto rebate that also benefited foreign auto manufacturers, had interest rates near 0% for years, and the Federal Reserve purchased over $1 TRILLION in U.S. debt.  Excuse me for saying, but I would have expected a much bigger jump in manufacturing employment given that amount of rocket fuel.

Yes, it's good that we increased the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States.  But let's compare the ratio of all manufacturing jobs (MANEMP) to the number of all those on non-farm payroll (PAYEMS).  This ration was about 0.1 back in January, 2008 meaning hat about 1 in 10 jobs was in manufacturing.  After the global financial crisis, this number dropped to about 1 in 11.2 jobs and has remained fairly flat over the President's time in office.

How can we be adding jobs but be losing manufacturing jobs as a percentage of the workforce?  Fortunately, total non-farm payroll (PAYEMS) has been slowly clawing its way back after the global financial meltdown. So, despite more manufacturing jobs, their percentage of the total workforce remains roughly the same (and even falling slightly the last few months).

That's the "good" news.  What's the bad news?  The percentage of people participating in the civilian workforce (EMRATIO) remains fairly stagnant and near a 30-year low.  Yes, even after all that rocket fuel.


Likewise, the average duration of unemployment (UEMPMEAN) is at a 30-year high, well above previous levels.  This may be due, in part, to Congress extending federal unemployment benefits to 99 weeks.


In summary, yes, it's good that we have employment growth in the manufacturing sector.  However, that growth is not as robust as the President's claim might lead people to believe.  We still have a long way to go toward a healthy economy, despite the massive infusion of cash, stimulus, and aid into the system.  We've also been in a 30-year trajectory (MANEMP) of lower and lower manufacturing employment, especially after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  There are many driving forces, including globalization (cost differences, tax policy, new competitors) and improved manufacturing technology (robotics) that lead to improved productivity.


Saturday, February 27, 2010

What Does the Obama Job Chart Really Mean?


An old joke says that there are three kind of lies.

  1. Lies

  2. Damn lies

  3. Statistics
To that list, I would add data visualizations, especially when seemingly misused to purposely misinform the electorate.

By now, you've likely seen the chart, courtesy of Barak Obama's Organizing for America (OFA), showing the miraculous reduction in job losses after President Obama took office and the Congress passed the $787 billion Stimulus plan.


This visually-striking graphic is such fantastic news that Organizing for American even made a video highlighting the chart.




Something about this jobs chart bothers me. As of February, 2010, unemployment is still stubbornly high. So, how can it be that the Obama Administration seemingly eliminated unemployment? From the chart, it seems that the President halted and reversed unemployment to roughly the same level as December, 2007. I showed this chart to a number of engineering and accounting friends--people accustomed to working with charts and graphs--and they came to similar conclusions based solely on the chart. However, it is not true.

This chart seems designed to purposely deceive. How? The chart shows the monthly change in unemployment, not total unemployment. Of course, the original chart does not indicate this, but I've been able to reproduce the chart using source data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



How is this deceptive? Allow me to illustrate with an example. A man goes out on the town with his girlfriend to celebrate her birthday with dinner and a movie. Over the evening, he makes a number of purchases as shown in the table.

Graphically, the evening's spending per transaction looks like the following chart. At first glance, it appears that this lucky man had a great night on the town with his favorite girl and even turned a small profit. From the chart, one might assume that the man spent some money but then started making money after dinner and ended the evening with more money in his wallet than when he started!

How is this possible? It's not. It's a bit of graphical and presentation trickery. The chart shows the change in the data, not the present state.

The previous table and chart shows the amount of spending per transaction. However, the real effect on the man's wallet is the cumulative spending, as illustrated in the following table and chart.


While the spending per transaction, or the change in spending, is dramatic during the middle of the evening, it tapers off at the end. In fact, because the man found a $5 bill, the evening apparently ends on a high note! However, the cumulative, out-of-pocket expenses for the evening totals nearly $300. In one presentation of the data, the man apparently ends the evening with $5 in his wallet when in reality, he is down $300.

How does apply to Organizing for America's jobs chart?

The original chart shows the number of jobs gained or lost per month, or the monthly change in the jobs number. However, if the unemployment rate remains unchanged at 5%, 50%, or even 100%, the monthly change in unemployment is zero. Actual unemployment is not zero, just the monthly change in unemployment. See the difference? The following chart presents the cumulative job loss over the same time period, using the same data, and more clearly shows that unemployment increased over time and has not returned to December 2007 levels. While it is good news that monthly job losses have slowed (what the Organizing for America chart actually shows), the unemployment situation has not miraculously disappeared (what the Organizing for American chart seems to imply).


There are many ways to distort the visual presentation to reflect a particular political view. For example, here is the same data presented in yet a different manner. In this example, the chart compares cumulative unemployment during the final year of President George W. Bush's presidency and the first year of President Barak Obama's presidency. While the original graph seems to indicate that unemployment improved after President Obama took office, in reality the job market continued hemorrhaging!

Here is a chart of the showing the total number of officially unemployed based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The number is even greater than the cumulative chart before as there were over 7.5 million unemployed when the crisis deepened.



To put this into historical perspective, how does the current unemployment trough compare to those from prior recessions, measured in months from the beginning of the recession? The current trough is deeper and it appears will last longer than prior recessions.

The original Organizing for America chart appears to be purposely deceptive. It falsely appears to indicate that the Obama Administration has completely reversed unemployment when clearly, this is not the case. With the nation already split on so many issues, the electorate needs to operate from a truthful set of data without willful distortions. Sure, there can be multiple interpretations of the same data, but those interpretations should clearly indicate what data is presented.

See also ...

Provides previous examples how Organizing for America attempted to distort open and honest debate

Sources:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Spreadsheets and Chart Data

  • All spreadsheets and charts used in this blog posting
    http://www.editgrid.com/user/soquel_by_the_creek/Obama_Admin_Job_Chart
  • BLS 1-month unemployment data
    1-Month Net Change
    Series Id: CES0000000001

    Seasonally Adjusted
    Super Sector: Total nonfarm
    Industry: Total nonfarm
    NAICS Code: -
    Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS


    Year,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec,Annual,
    2000,249,121,472,286,225,-46,163,3,122,-11,231,138,
    2001,-16,61,-30,-281,-44,-128,-125,-160,-244,-325,-292,-178,
    2002,-132,-147,-24,-85,-7,45,-97,-16,-55,126,8,-156,
    2003,83,-158,-212,-49,-6,-2,25,-42,103,203,18,124,
    2004,150,43,338,250,310,81,47,121,160,351,64,132,
    2005,136,240,142,360,169,246,369,195,63,84,334,158,
    2006,262,326,304,174,31,69,232,141,100,43,201,177,
    2007,194,104,239,92,149,55,-20,-71,52,86,128,70,
    2008,-10,-50,-33,-149,-231,-193,-210,-334,-458,-554,-728,-673,
    2009,-779,-726,-753,-582,-347,-504,-344,-211,-225,-224,64,-150(P),
    2010,-20(P), , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • BLS Unemployment Data
    Series Id: LNS13000000

    Seasonally Adjusted
    Series title: (Seas)
    Unemployment Level
    Labor force status: Unemployed
    Type of data: Number
    in thousands
    Age: 16 years and over


    Year,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec,Annual,
    2000,5708,5858,5733,5481,5758,5651,5747,5853,5625,5534,5639,5634,
    2001,6023,6089,6141,6271,6226,6484,6583,7042,7142,7694,8003,8258,
    2002,8182,8215,8304,8599,8399,8393,8390,8304,8251,8307,8520,8640,
    2003,8520,8618,8588,8842,8957,9266,9011,8896,8921,8732,8576,8317,
    2004,8370,8167,8491,8170,8212,8286,8136,7990,7927,8061,7932,7934,
    2005,7784,7980,7737,7672,7651,7524,7406,7345,7553,7453,7566,7279,
    2006,7059,7185,7075,7122,6977,6998,7154,7097,6853,6728,6883,6784,
    2007,7085,6898,6725,6845,6765,6966,7113,7096,7200,7273,7284,7696,
    2008,7628,7435,7793,7631,8397,8560,8895,9509,9569,10172,10617,11400,
    2009,11919,12714,13310,13816,14518,14721,14534,14993,15159,15612,15340,15267,
    2010,14837, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Cash for Clunkers in the Rear View Mirror

Now that "Cash for Clunkers" is thankfully in our rear-view mirror, perhaps it's time to evaluate the economic and historical impact of the program.

Let's see, auto analysts at Edmunds calculate that the government needlessly stimulated car sales that would have happened anyway. Estimated cost? About $24,000 (of borrowed money) per car.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm

Car sales figures show that yes, the Cash for Clunkers program TEMPORARILY stimulated the auto market, which then promptly fell back to previous sales levels once the the government "stimulus" ended.

So why was the government so eager to continue this bad economic policy, even printing more money to continue the program? Did they really believe it to be an effective stimulus measure? Was it because we, the Collective, now own General Motors (GM) and they expected to sell more GM cars? GM came in second overall behind Toyota. Japanese and Korean manufacturers benefited most.
http://verifiable.com/charts/3828
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NHTSA%20Administration/Press%20Releases/Documents/CARS_stats_DOT13309.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Autos/idUSTRE57P5C220090826

Or, was it to pump the durable goods financial statistics so that the government can claim that the recession is over?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/10/29/2009-10-29T133252Z_01_N29237920_RTRIDST_0_USA-ECONOMY-GDP-SNAP-ANALYSIS.html

Sunday, August 2, 2009

All Clunkers Are Not Created Equally

Apparently unlike most Americans, I am usually uncomfortable taking supposedly "free money" from the government. However, as the owner of an eleven-year old minivan and a fourteen-year old four-door sedan, I put aside my prohibitions in favor of the "free" $4,500. After all, I and my children will be paying for it anyway via taxes plus interest on all that debt.

But image my surprise that my "clunkers" are not gas-guzzly enough to qualify (wow, Congress actually put a limitation on a government give-away program?). Unfortunately for me, I stupidly made prudent, common-sense choices in automobiles and was concerned about good gas mileage even back at $1.40 a gallon. Back then, I had the money to purchase something much grander but stupidly chose not to and instead save the money. Many of my smarter friends had it right, though. They purchased massive, luxurious, heavy, gas-guzzling SUV land-yachts and took full advantage of the IRS tax incentives encouraging larger vehicles. They’re written off many thousands of dollars since then and will now likely receive another $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car courtesy of the federal government. Huh? Congress first incentivizes bad behavior and then later rewards such behavior. And people wonder why I worry when Congress attempts to influence markets.

Fortunately, a few brave souls in Congress attempted to close the ridiculous SUV tax loophole with HR 5579 back in 2006, which died in committee of course. Good luck now that the government owns G.M. SUVs are a highly-profitable segment of the market and the auto union, owners of many in Congress, is a major shareholder.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E09JN6-0040:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5579

United Auto Workers (UAW)#16 on the All-Time Top Political Donors to Congress
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000070

Top Recipients of UAW Donations
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000070
(Image that! The top recipient also helped the UAW negotiate a better position ahead of other creditors during the government purchase of G.M.)

Friday, July 31, 2009

Celebrate America!

After the non-stop deluge of the Congressional waterboarding of America (TARP, stimulus, cap-and-trade, health care, and a few trillion dollars later), it's time to sit back and enjoy a few weeks of long-needed rest. Let's hope that Congress takes a long, long vacation.