Friday's unemployment report was met with loud cheers and smiles when payroll employment was up by more than 150,000. Although the unemployment rate stayed the same, this was viewed as a clear sign that things were moving in the right direction. Once I heard all of that, I was anxious to see the real data (I stopped listening to all of the pre-release discussions by the usual talking heads on the three cable business channels long ago. After all, if the data are about to be released in 30 minutes, why not wait for the real thing?)

I was quite amazed at the stark difference between the headlines and the actual data, and I didn't have to dig very deep to see it. The household survey, on which the unemployment rate calculation is based, stayed at 9.6%. The survey showed that the number of employed persons dropped by -330,000, and the number of people in the workforce dropped by -254,000. If those workers had not left the workforce, the unemployment rate would have been 9.8%! In the same report, the labor participation rate dropped to 64.5%; at the end of the 1990s it was nearly 68%. This was the worst level of labor participation in about 25 years.

Why the difference in reporting? It could be that reporters are just getting tired of the sideways nature of the economy and have become bored. I have long felt that there is a distinct bias on the part of journalists that the payroll survey data is better than the household survey which includes freelance and self-employed workers. If it's not a payroll job, it seems, it's not a real job. I guess the last 23 years of independent work I have been blessed with for the welfare of the family hasn't been a real job. Oh, well. We know where the statistics are, and I guess they don't.