Can NPR’s ‘The Indicator’ Staff Pass a Test on Jobs?

To: Cardiff Garcia – Co-host: The Indicator, Planet Money - NPR Stacey Vanek Smith – Co-Host: The Indicator, Planet Money – NPR

In your Dec. 6th and Oct. 24th podcasts, you talked about the US’s Jobs status as being the best it has been in 50 years. You also mentioned in Oct. cast that the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) determined that their assessments had been to high by 500,000 jobs in last two years. This is a small difference, approx. 0.3%. but doesn’t that affect your assessment? So, while it doesn’t change things a lot, it does pose an interesting opportunity. On Dec. 6th you mentioned that the 266K jobs added was above expectations, but didn’t it include the autoworkers that re-entered the workforce? As commenters, assessors and explainers of things ‘economic’ could you pass a test on one of the subjects that you are interested in; particularly every first Friday of the month when the latest Jobs Report is issued by BLS? It’s a simple test and it’s not something that you pass or fail so much as you decide if there’s an aspect of how you view information that requires more critical thinking.

There are only 5 questions in this test. It’s not that there aren’t more questions that would be of interest; rather it’s just a starting point. It’s an opportunity to see if there’s a lot more depth worthy of being explored with the public then is typically reflected in discussions of the monthly BLS numbers.

Question 1: Is the BLS Jobs Report number normalized against any other data/factor that would provide a different basis for comparing against the historic reports data?

Question 2: What role does US population information play in understanding a Jobs Report?

Question 3: How would an increase of 4% in number of people seeking jobs impact the assessment of the current unemployment rate and why would this be relevant?

Question 4: Is there any basis for changing your assessment of the US’s Jobs number being at a 50-year high?

Question 5: If you categorize the jobs as being best in 50 years and it was at a relative low point 10 years before, which of the following had a causal effect that changed job creation during that period?

A. Deepwater Horizon sinks – 2010

B. Mid-term elections – 2010

C. Osama bin Laden killed – 2011

D. Presidential election – 2012

E. Hurricane Sandy – 2012

F. Edward Snowden leaks documents – 2013

G. Affordable Care Act goes into effect - 2014

H. Midterm elections – 2014

I. Donald Trump entered Republican primaries - 2015

J. Presidential election – 2016

K. US withdraws from Paris Climate Agreement - 2017

L. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria – 2017

M. Trump tax-cuts pass - 2017

N. Mid-term elections - 2018

That’s the test. Only five questions and not even difficult ones. There are plenty of other questions that would be useful in assessing how the nation’s Jobs numbers are used and abused but this isn’t a test of everything. It’s a test of some very basic things that ought to be appreciated when assessments of the factors used to judge our economy are being made.

I would be interested in hearing not only what you think of the test, but more importantly what your answers are.

As a starter the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 are:

1. No

2. It has a relationship to the worker population but isn’t used in a salient manner.

3. It alters the math, increasing the unemployment rate. Note: The ‘meaningful’ part of the answer should be obvious.

Question 4’s answer should be derived from having thought about the first 3 questions.

Question 5’s answer only requires a logical connection between the data and why it’s the data.

It might even warrant another five questions for you and your listeners.

Regards,