Bush's Last Month Sees Unemployment Hit 22%, According to Wingnuttia's Math

Per the discussion of the right-wing's new efforts to slander Franklin Roosevelt, note that though the Bureau of Labor Statistics today reports that the unemployment rate in President Bush's last month is 7.2 percent, if you use the same kind of absurd math conservatives use to berate the New Deal, then the unemployment today is actually around 22 percent.

As University of California historian Eric Rauchway has noted, Wingnuttia's leading FDR slanderers like Amity Shlaes and Thomas Sowell base their claims that unemployment during the New Deal didn't go below 20 percent by counting government workers as unemployed. And those claims are being echoed by right-wing rags like the National Review and fringe think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. I want to repeat that: conservatives base their claims that unemployment didn't drop below 20 percent during the pre-WWII New Deal not on the official government data showing otherwise, but by counting government workers in programs like the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps as unemployed.

So, in the interest of comparing apples to apples, it's important to remember that using the same ridiculous method of counting, the unemployment rate today is 22 percent. Officially, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the total workforce is 155.4 million workers, and says 11.1 million workers in that workforce are unemployed - a 7.2 percent unemployment rate. But when you add the 22.5 million workers who BLS says work for the government to the 11.1 million officially unemployed workers, that unemployment rate is roughly 22 percent. Because, ya know, conservatives insist with a straight face that people who work for the government - people who build bridges, roads, airports, etc. - are actually welfare cases who shouldn't be counted as employed.

So, just to sum up, based on conservatives' arguments, unemployment rates right now are in the neighborhood of unemployment levels not seen since the height of the Great Depression.

Now, I certainly believe unemployment today is way too high. I agree with those experts who say that the official unemployment rate undercounts the number of people actually unemployed (it does this by not counting people who have given up looking for work - ie. the long-term unemployed - as unemployed) - and I also believe that if we don't pass at least a New Deal-sized economic rescue package, we could see unemployment levels sharply increase from their already high levels today.

But clearly, the unemployment rate today is not at the same levels it was during the height of the Great Depression - and clearly, conservatives aren't willing to apply the same methods of counting jobs during the Great Depression today - because doing that would show how fast and loose they are with the facts.

That conservative Wingnuttia continues to employ the fuzziest of fuzzy math - and in the process, insult government workers - shows that their zeal to slander FDR and try to stop a new New Deal knows absolutely no bounds. I'm not surprised by that, of course - but it's important that we throw their math right back at them so that everyone can see how dishonest the right really is.

TAKE ACTION: Use the Campaign for America's online tool to tell your member of Congress to support the boldest possible economic recovery package.

Comments

[mjc]

Just a note to let you all know that this crap about the New Deal and unemployment has reached the common man. My brother who is a conservative Republican and recently retired county supervisor sent me an email about one of Krugman's op eds which stated that FDR prolonged the Depression and it only ended when we went to war. Agree WWII had a lot to do with it but not the former argument; however, he firmly believes Shales and Sowell.

[PennP]

There is a huge difference between "government workers" and people employed in government make-work programs like WPA and CCC. The latter were essentially temps, IMO. Not counting them at all is wrong, but counting them in with career workers performing vital service is also misleading, IMO.

Shlaes's contention that it was WWII, not the New Deal, that actually ended the Depression deserves some examination, especially in light of the current economic situation, and the insistence that Obama model his proposed programs on FDR's. We cannot afford more mistakes.

[GuyRC]

Well, I'm confused now. If war ended the depression why didn't the Iraq war end our problems? Could it be that it wasn't WWII but the massive government deficit expenditure to pay for WWII materials and infrastructure that ended the Depression?

[DuganS1]

WW2 didn't end the Depression. It only inflated GDP because of war production and reduce unemployment temporarily because every male working age was drafted into the military, which is counted as being employed. Far less money was spent on the war in Iraq as a percentage of GDP than WW2.

[DuganS1]

They weren't "essentially" temps. They were temps. You could only work a maximum of 30 hours a week and for a maximum of one year for the WPA. Workers were also paid very low wages (today would be equivalent of minimum wage or less) because the people were supposed to be looking for real jobs while working on WPA projects. It was an emergency relief program; they weren't real permanent jobs. You're absolutely right that the author of the article above fails to understand the distinction between the two.

[DuganS1]

David Sirota also makes a bizarre calculation of counting current government workers as unemployed but counting regular government workers during the Great Depression as employed. He must have overlooked that regular govt workers were always counted as employed in the 1930s but that it was the emergency part time temporary government relief workers that were not. The theory was that those workers would work no more than 30 hours a week at a very low emergency wage until they could find full employment elsewhere, and if they could not find a real job within 12 months they were let go.

[DuganS1]

What is said in the article above is false. The WPA workers were temporary part time emergency government workers, and workers who often did no real work. It would be similar now days to give everyone on unemployment a shovel and calling them employed. Second, the idea that unemployment is at 22% by any measure is false. The unemployment measure called U-6, which counts discourage workers and workers working part time who want to work full time, shows an unemployment rate of 13.5%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

U-5 would be the best comparison to the Great Depression era and shows an unemployment rate of 8.3%. This measure counts "total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

The U-5 unemployment rate is now actually lower than it was in January and February of 1994 when it was 8.5% and 8.8% respectively.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsln/lnu03327708

[DanBest]

Beware of someone like Dugan who writes much but says little. You seem to have purposely ingored what Sirota said to make a point that is pointless. WPA workers were employed. They worked and they were paid for the work by the government. Are you going to deny those two facts? I'm not here to argue with you about the definition of "work", since that seems to be what your hanging your argument on.

You state the actuial unemployment rate is 13.5. What Sirota is saying is that if you used the same calculation that the right is using in reference to the depression you could add in all government workers and that would get you to 22 percent. He doesn't claim that that is real. Yet you argue from that position.

Start making sense, Dugan. Is it U-5 or U-6?

[DuganS1]

The WPA put the unemployed to work part-time and temporarily until they could find a real job. The govt wanted to have the unemployed do something above just receiving govt relief checks. You can't compare those type of workers with full time permanent workers. What do you mean the "actual unemployment rate is 13.5%?" As I posted above, U-3 is 7.2%, U-5 is 8.3%, and U-6 is 13.5%. Each measurement is what is it. I don't what you consider the "real" unemployment rate.

[Openeyes]

Since it is obvious Republicans and conservatives will do anything to derail the Obama Presidency, why all the calls for bipartisanship? What is so magic about a bipartisan solution to anything? Move forward with our agenda, don't dilute it with theirs. They've spent decades trying to undo the New Deal only to see it might now be repeated (because of Herbert Hoover Bush). Press on. They had their chance and we'll be years recovering from it.

[GuyRC]

I agree. The argument that the country is center-right ,and we will lose the next election if we don't do what the right wants, is empty threat.

[paulfree17]

I just want to take issue with a statement you made. You say "that people who work for the government - people who build bridges, roads, airports, etc. - are actually welfare cases who shouldn't be counted as employed".

While there are millions who do work for the government and get a paycheck from the government, the vast majority of people who work on public works projects are not government employees. They are employed by contractors who get government contracts but they are very definitely private sector employees.

I do not know if your estimate of 22 Million government workers includes those who are working on government contracts. Obviously if you include people who work for companies that do most of their contract work for the government then that would greatly impact that number.

I still understand the point you are making as it relates to unemployment numbers but to say that jobs created as a result of government spending on infrastructure are government jobs is misleading.

[antworks]

This is an accurate assessment of what conservatives are trying to do to confuse Americans that are not well informed about the true facts. Your quote at the end of this article says it best, "it's important that we throw their math right back at them so that everyone can see how dishonest the right really is."
I can see two succinct points that speak to the central theme of our nation's present economic - political woes. First, this nation needs liberals and conservatives to work together to pull us out of this mess and get people working, again. But, the conservative right seems to be only interested in interjecting confusion and scare tactics into the debate about how to get the country's economy moving again. Their approach seems to be saying implicitly, "We don't give a darn what happens to this country. Our economic health be damned!" The second theme I see is this. It is the liberal's responsibility (therefore the Democrats, i.e.) to tell the country the truth! Certainly we've seen that the Republicans don't want to. No matter how discouraging the economic news is, Democrats must tell America the truth. And, writers such as you have to continue to point out the garbage the conservatives are voicing. Otherwise, this country will really be in trouble.

[Zen0469]

Good point David. If realistic comparisons are to be made across time then the basis for the comparisons must be the same.

Unfortunately, the inhabitants of Wingnuttia are much less interested in prediction accuracy and sound inference from data and more interested in quick summary sound bites and the acceptance of ANY methodology that promotes right-wing propaganda.

Let's rid ourselves of the anti-science crowd by challenging every instance of political fiction with fact.

[lesterbud]

I do have a question for the experts out there.

Given that 7.2% of us are unemployed - who is "us"?

Is that 7.2% of adults in the US? 7.2% of the maximum number of people that have worked at any one time? 7.2% of those that desire to work?

Now, what has happened to those folks that have maxed out their jobless benefits, gone off the roles but still desire to work? There have to be a few million of them around. How are they accounted for? If I lost a $150K/yr job and have taken a $50K/yr job, am I underemployed? How does that figure in? Do two underemployed workers equal one unemployed worker?

[DuganS1]

You are considered unemployed when you are available to work and currently seeking work, but not currently working. Receiving unemployment insurance or not isn't factored into that definition.

[Overtone]

A Human Investment Tax Credit (HITC) program was designed to generate 3 to 6 million new jobs and encourage between 1 to 4 million men and women to become self-employed. Curing unemployment without creating inflationary pressures is clearly feasible if we view the economy from new perspectives and adopt appropriate tools and policies. A few decades ago a program of employment tax credits was suggested in a pair of reports prepared for the Commerce Department. A new analysis enlarges on but in no way contradicts the earlier studies. Overfull rather than merely full employment may prove possible. Overfull employment, defined as 2% unemployment, was achieved during World War II. The 1977 job tax credit program, which adopted a few of the recommended incentives, generated almost a million private-sector jobs; twenty percent of all new jobs created that year. It resulted in more jobs in less time than any prior legislation.

The 2009 Report is available free at: aesopinstitute.org

[AverageJen]

I may not agree counting the government employees in this tally. However I do think people should realize that it IS worse than 7.5%. The government only counts those receiving unemployment benefits, as though those are the only ones unemployed. Most of those that do find jobs before their unemployment runs out are being under-employed meaning part time, or a big cut in pay, and most without benefits.

Bottom line is if you HAVE a job and you make what you should be making with benefits, these days you should consider yourself blessed!!

[Grunty1]

It is much worse than the official Bushland figure. It always is, regardless of which figure you are talking about.

But these nut jobs are trying to DEFEND Bush's rotten record by distorting FDRs.

[mountainweb]

And under obama the unemployment rate will raise even higher. You need to stop trying to blame any president for this. Much deeper problem, caused by the stupidity of loaning money to people who could not repay the loans. Fuzzy math will not solve this....

[DuPageDem]

You mean the fuzzy math the Bushies use to come up with that 7.2%? Of course it will "rise" under Obama -- assuming his people won't wear blindfolds while counting, or take off their shoes and socks while adding.

[charleydan]

Nuttier math. Well, got news for you were not half way there yet. So double your figures anyway you want to calculate it. Or cut house prices in half of what they are now. double unemployment.

To boot this economy will suck for a long time in the future, because most Americans do not know what is going on an Politicians are leaking it out slowly.

All of it cause by the Federal Reserve.

Google Federal Reserve Chairman's remarks:

Volcker: The federal reserve is a government concern. It allows government to take from the citizens and pay for programs. This is a moral issue. Of which I am part.

Bernanke: the federal reserve allows government to pay for programs by robbing the citizens of which only one in a million know.

[MsLiz]

Early this morning, I scanned over to Fox News. They were talking about the 92% employment rate! That sounds so much better! LOL

[SwampeastMike]

The nuttier math is yours.

The permanent bureaucracy was not considered unemployed during the depression era.

The unemployed occupied by government "keep busy" programs were not considered truly employed.

The official unemployment estimate may not be the most accurate, but you cannot simply add all federal employees to the number for comparison to the depression era.

Should the official estimate go above 20%, state and national parks may again be filled with thousands of mainly young people constructing walls, fences, paths, etc. with basic tools using principally locally collected materials and a community living environment. Again, an argument could be made that such people were not truly employed for comparison sake.

[TimmySlagle]

"walls, fences, paths, etc"

Don't forget the Cement Dinosaurs:

"The five sculptures were a Depression-era WPA project supported by the city of Rapid City"

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/10514