Why is the drop in unemployment rate not being covered by the media?????

I'll admit I cringed a little when I heard the unemployment rate dropped to 8.2% this month
Although I am thrilled more are finding work, I knew it would be covered 24/7 for the foreseeable future. I could hear it now ......At last you non believers and BO haters, his genius policies are finally paying off!!!


But rather than being inundated by coverage that BO saved the economy, I was instead struck by the silence.....cricket cricket
It's interesting isn't it? Another month of lower unemployment, and essentially there is little fanfare associated with the good news????

My guess is somehow 2+2 does not equal 8.2% unemployment, and that it was time for my consultation with the magic 8 ball(google).

Turns out, the lack of fanfare has something to do with a little thing we call arithmetic. I guess it's harder for NBC to use white out than it is to doctor 911 recordings in order to position a story in the direction they prefer.

Below is a link to the bureau of labor and statistics report referencing the number of people employed from 1978-2011 and monthly in 2012.
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf

You'll notice the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.2%, in March. hallelujah. So why is NBC and their brethren not shouting it from the rooftops, maybe because of that pesky column 4, number of people employed.

2012: February # of people employed: 142,065,000. Unemployment rate: 8.3%
2012: March # of people employed: 142,034,000. Unemployment rate: 8.2%

Wait, what???????

That's right, 31,000 less people are employed than were employed in February.
But Stacy, how is that possible? How could the unemployment number go down if 31,000 less people have jobs?
Unfortunately it's not a typo, you see the government has a way of reporting this statistic so the masses don't freak out about the real unemployment number.
The calculation is as follows:

(#of unemployed workers/total labor force)*100


If the number of people who are classified as being 'not in the workforce' goes up, the number of the unemployed goes down whether we have fewer people with jobs or not. It's like magic!

For those with inquiring minds, the link below provides a definition of those 'no longer in the workforce'. It includes those who do not have a job, have not looked for one in the last 4 weeks, and my personal favorite, those who if offered a job Last week could not have started it. Priceless... Here's an example, I'm a stay at home mom who is actively looking for work, but who couldn't have started last week because I want to start once kids go back to school, and suddenly I'm not counted in the workforce.
Http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The category that should concern you the most is the retirees who are no longer in the workforce. As the population continues to rise that 58% of the population currently employed continues to decrease, while our responsibilities for Medicare and social security payouts increase, but I'll save that eye opener for another post.


I know studying numbers can be a bore so I will leave you with just two more:
When BO began his term in 2008, the number of people employed was 145,362,000, and the national average price of a gallon of gas $1.72.

The number of people employed March 2012: 142,034,000, the national average price of a gallon of gas $3.94
That's 3,328,000, less people with a job, and $2.22 more per gallon.

And if you think it looks bad now, wait until I summarize the tax increases coming that will affect everyone more than they know.
Are you beginning to wake up???
How's that hope and change working for you?