NBC’s Absurdly Rosy Jobs Reporting

Friday morning’s Today show on NBC did its best to paint the most rosy scenario possible on Obama’s latest dismal jobs report. Attempting to inoculate Obama from this economic downturn, host Matt Lauer said that analysts he had “been reading” claimed that the economy will add up to 12 million new jobs, “no matter who is president in the next four years.”

This has already been the worst economic recovery since The Great Depression, but on Friday Lauer and CNBC analyst Jim Cramer put the best face on it they could with Cramer chipping in that there is “pent-up demand” that is sure to break soon. This disastrous economic and jobs climate is “not such a bad moment,” Cramer claimed.

In fact, Lauer tried to massage the news into a “party atmosphere.”

He began his report saying, “Now to this morning’s new jobs report and how it will impact this race, this after the Dow closed at 13,292 on Thursday. That’s the highest closing mark since December of 2007.” He continued with, “Not only was the Dow up in record territory, we had the NASDAQ hitting the highest mark since 2000, the S&P 500, the highest mark since 2008. Why the party atmosphere?”

Both Lauer and Cramer went on to paint their rosy picture with Cramer even claiming that the number of jobs will be “maybe 10,000 jobs” more than what was reported.

Neither Lauer nor Cramer, however, noted that this newest report of a mere 96,000 jobs added to the economy aren’t likely to be enlarged any time soon. After all, even July’s numbers were too rosy. One of the things few reporters are telling America is that the last jobs report is being revised downward.

Millions of Americans, though, have simply given up on looking for work. James Pethokoukis pointed out that if the participation rate in the workforce had remained the same as when Obama took office, we’d be seeing an 11.2 percent unemployment rate.

Despite all these facts, Cramer said things were good. “We’re seeing much better numbers from most of the companies that we deal with, particularly companies that are based in America. It’s really positive. The earnings are good.”

Newsbusters has the full transcript of the Today show segment.

Chicago Warzone Update: Day By Day
Actress Kyra Segdwick On Hollywood's Mistake: Ignoring Midwest
  • jim_m

    It wasn’t just NBC. CBS also spun the Thursday jobs report as hugely positive. They credited the stock market uptick as solely due to this great jobs report.

    But do we really expect anything else from a media that unquestioningly accepts the administration’s claim that unemployment is the single greatest stimulus to the economy? That the stimulus worked? That having the highest poverty rate in 45 years is OK and that having the highest number of people ever on food stamps is a success?

    I don’t expect the MSM to even address this graph. Or this one

  • herddog505

    I suppose that we could look at this as people being thrilled that there’s SOME good news.

    “Yeah, you’ve been in a major car crash: two broken legs, three cracked ribs, punctured lung, and… um… well, you’ve got another eye, so it’s not like you’re blinded for life. But, HEY! We got the spurting artery tied off! Woo-hoo! PAR-TY, PAR-TY!”

  • Vagabond661

    173k New Food Stamp Recipients, 96k New Jobs but 4 times as many give up looking for work. Plus 58% of jobs created have been lower wage earner jobs. Which translates to people taking a lower paying position when laid off from work just to put food on the table.

  • GarandFan

    “Earnings” don’t mean crap, unless you hold stock in a company. Those lying SOBs present a shit sandwich and proclaim that it’s Kobe Beef.

    The “Stimulus” didn’t work. Unemployment remains above 8%. Everyone can have “pent up demands”, but if they’ve no job and no income, just how are they to satisfy their wants? Credit? From who?

    That wasn’t “reporting”, that was two of Obama’s whores trying to make him look good.

    • jim_m

      The earnings are good. But even the MSM has reported that companies are holding on to those earnings and not hiring, not expanding, not investing until they know who wins the election. Does the MSM ask the question “which Presidential candidate would get you to start hiring?” If they do they don’t tell us. One assumes that the reason they don;t tell us is that the answer is that the businesses will hire if Romney is elected and they won’t if obama is. Obviously if they wanted to hire with obama as President they would have been doing so for the last 4 years.

      • Brucehenry

        Businesses will hire when there is a demand for their goods and services that they cannot meet with their existing workforces. Giving them tax cuts will not spur hiring. They will hold on to those savings just as they are holding on to their earnings now.

        And they will try to squeeze one more nickel’s worth of productivity out of their current staff.

        Any competent business owner who is faced with a demand he can’t meet with his current workforce will hire more employees to meet that demand, regardless of who is president. And any competent business owner who can meet demand without hiring new employees will not hire, regardless of who is president, and whatever the regulatory environment.

        Demand will spur hiring, not tax cuts and not some vague notion of “creating an environment favorable to business” or “reduced uncertainty.”

        • jim_m

          The demand is already there. Why else are businesses showing growing profits? The point is that businesses would expand when they see an opportunity if they felt that it were a sound investment. They do not and they do not because obama is so stridently anti-business.

          In an environment of uncertainty businesses will delay any action until they can feel secure that the action will be worthwhile. obama has made business and entrepreneurs the enemy number one of his administration. He has heaped enormous amounts of new regulations on businesses. He has made hiring a bigger risk than not hiring. He has made stagnation of business a virtue. A business that is successful (unless it is totally politically hooked up with the dems to begin with) becomes ground zero for a partisan political attack.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, the demand that is “already there” can be met with current staffing levels. If there is additional demand, businesses will hire additional employees. If new demand doesn’t materialize, they won’t.

            If 50 employees can make 1000 washing machines in a month, max, and that is what is being sold, the washing machine company will have no more than 50 employees on staff. If there are orders for 2000 machines a month, the company will hire another 50 people — but not before.

            That is, if the company wants the business. If they don’t, Maytag or Kenmore does, so the 50 guys are gonna be hired one way or the other.

            EDIT: Businesses are showing record profits partly due to the fact that they are getting more productivity from their existing employees. When they can’t squeeze another drop of blood from those turnips, they’ll maybe consider hiring a few more.

          • jim_m

            If you have ever managed an operation there is actually a target productivity that you want to aim for. Too little and you are wasting your money with too many employees. Too much and you are paying too much overtime and you risk losing employees who feel that the job costs them too much in quality of life.

            You are just being ignorant.

            You can make more than 50 machines per month when you work the overtime. And for a limited amount of time it is worthwhile. With the increase regs and uncertainty it does not pay off to reduce the OT and improve the quality of life for employees. obama has also created an incentive to not hire and to ratchet up the workload because where else are people going to go when no one is hiring?

            The opportunity is there to create the hiring. Employers are already admitting that. They are saying that they won’t until after the election. THe obvious reason is because they hope that obama will lose and that better times will be ahead. The only reason you can’t admit this is because you are ideologically blinkered.

          • herddog505

            I agree.

            Yes, companies will push their employees to do more with less, but that only works for a little while because the employees get tired of it and either move on to other jobs (if they can) or start laying out or otherwise gumming up the works. I’ve seen this in my own career: when you run “super lean”, one man out sick for a day or two can put a real crimp in production. Further, OT costs can get to be a killer.

            At any rate, hasn’t Barry been complaining that – gosh darn it! – nasty ol’ companies aren’t hiring despite the clear, unequivocal fact that the economy is going gangbusters? Now, why would employers do that?

            Finally, if I’m not mistaken, the factory / durable goods orders numbers haven’t exactly been awe-inspiring for months and (IIRC) have even nosedived of late. Companies aren’t going to hire if they think that bad times lie ahead.

            But I guess that this is typical Barry bullsh*t: things aren’t going well, and it’s somebody else’s fault.