Chris Matthews' producer: Fuck those who don't have jobs!

[rsa]

Re: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4362251/

There are so many things to pit, that I rarely can motivate myself to do it myself. (After all, someone else will do it sooner or later.)

But for some reason, this insignificant little opinion piece pissed me off. This little piss-ant is talking about manufacturing job loss in Wisconsin and concludes with this:

Poor Wisconsin. The cheeseheads must be getting an inferiority complex. Couldn’t someone in the media make them feel better by guessing in the opposite direction and reporting their job loss at, say, 50,000 in the past three years?

This after writing…

The numbers are so all over the place that it’s like trying to wrestle a final vote count from the 2000 presidential race in Florida.

These are the numbers he quotes that are “all over the place”:

84,000 - since Bush became president
80,000 - ditto
90,000 - since 1999
75,000 - since 2000
70,000 - last three years
84,000 - since 2001
85,000 - last four years

Then the Washington Post and Newsweek quote figures of around 100,000.

75,000 - John Kerry; post Bush
85,000 - AP report; since November 2000
74,000 - AP report; last three years

Other than the WP and Newsweek being a bit high, are these figures really “all over the place”?

“Poor Wisconsin” – Let them eat cheese!!!

Then he’s on to Ohio manufacturing job losses.

167,000 - Columbus Dispatch
153,000 - John Kerry
250,000 - some random PolSci professor

Is it just me, or is this just really shitty? If this guy cares what the numbers are, perhaps he could try to get the exact number himself rather than try to trivialize very real job losses. Does some guy become employed when some slightly lower job loss figure is reported?

unemployed and pissed

[MsRobyn]

In the poor guy’s defense, the reason he couldn’t get an exact figure is because one doesn’t exist. Unemployment numbers fluctuate from week to week and vary depending on what definition is used. For example, if we take a broad view of things and assign the definition that the unemployment numbers mean “anyone who does not have a job”, that number is going to be high. If we tighten up the definition and say that unemployment means “people who do not have a job and who want a job”, the number gets a bit smaller, as it removes people who might not want a job, like stay-at-home parents. If we tighten it up further and say it means “people who do not have a job, who want a job, and who are actively seeking employment”, the number gets smaller still, as it removes people who went back to school, people who started their own businesses, and people who just quit looking for whatever reason.

Time matters as well. Some seasons are better for employment than others. In the spring, for example, construction workers are in higher demand as the weather warms up. So people who were unemployed over the winter might find jobs on construction sites, reducing the unemployment rate. Conversely, the unemployment rate would go up in the fall and winter, as the weather turns cold.

The point is this. Numbers can be found to match any slant. A politician looking to blame the current administration for job losses would use a higher figure than one who is trying to show an economic recovery. Matthews was making a point. You might disagree with that point, but there it is.

Whew!

Robin, who had to endure two weeks of this crap in Poli Sci.

[Sofa_King]

MsRobyn, I think the most important point is that after, what, six months in my state, the unemployed stop being tracked and fall off of the unemployment statistics. The current statistics do not indicate that those people are now finding work, unless it is at the expense of those who can now be tracked. I suspect that there are a lot more people out of work nationwide than the statistics indicate.

[Cheesesteak]

[Lousy Seinfeld Impression]
What is it with these unemployment reports? 80,000… 90,000… 75,000… Does Wisconsin even have that many people? And who counts this stuff, the employment fairy? Who are these people???
[/LSI]
[Lousy Andy Rooney Impression]
Have you been reading the unemployment reports lately? It’s ridiculous, everybody has a different number for the same thing. [shuffles papers] My age addled brain is easily confused by this, let me just complain about it a bit…
[/LARI]

[Philster]

If you’re unemployed and 175,000 jobs were created last year in manufacturing, or in your field and in your state, you’d feel worse than you do right now.

[mhendo]

@MsRobyn

The point is this. Numbers can be found to match any slant. A politician looking to blame the current administration for job losses would use a higher figure than one who is trying to show an economic recovery. Matthews was making a point. You might disagree with that point, but there it is.

Yeah, while i don’t really have a great deal of time for Matthews, his point in this editorial was less about the unemployed, and more about the rather slipshod use of statistics by the media. When a media outlet makes an assertion about levels of job losses, it really should include a word or two on where the figures come from. That way, people can compare the figures they get from different sources to determine whether any discrepancies are the result of different methodology, different criteria, or just plain politics.

At a federal level, the Bureau of Labor Statistics offers the following definition of “unemployed”:

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

That BLS page also discusses other figures, such as how they determine the number of people who are no longer in the labor force.

The BLS, however, also uses what it calls “Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization,” which takes into account some of the things that MsRobyn was talking about, such as: “discouraged workers” (i.e., people who have given up looking and are no longer considered part of the work force); “part time for economic reasons” (i.e., people who want full-time work but can only get part time or casual work); other “marginally attached” workers. The official unemployment rate on that table is found in Row U-3, and it’s quite different from the figures when those other criteria are taken into account.

Of course, incumbent governments and their supporters never speak of the “Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization,” as this might give people some clue as to the real economic conditions in the country. This, of course, is not confined to any one party. The method of counting unemployment benefits both Democrats and Republicans when they are in power, by keeping official unemployment rates relatively low, and hiding problems such as discouragement and chronic underemployment.

Of course, what Matthews conveniently ignored in his self-important ranting was that most of the figures were reasonably close to one another, and that most were also fairly close to the figures given by Wisconsin’s own Department of Workforce Development. It can hardly be denied that Wisconsin has suffered terribly from manufacturing job losses, but Matthews didn’t seem real concerned about that.

[rsa]

@mhendo

Of course, what Matthews conveniently ignored in his self-important ranting was that most of the figures were reasonably close to one another, and that most were also fairly close to the figures given by Wisconsin’s own Department of Workforce Development. It can hardly be denied that Wisconsin has suffered terribly from manufacturing job losses, but Matthews didn’t seem real concerned about that.

This was essentially my point. Perhaps I was overly critical last night, but the article just came across to me as a bit snarky and trying to obfuscate unemployment problems with relatively small differences in unemployment numbers.

BTW, the author of the article is not Matthews, but rather his producer Howard Mortman.