Good job news?Published Jan 22, 2013 at 12:01 am (Updated Jan 18, 2013 at 10:05 am)
The publishing of job data as presented by the media is a constant irritation to me and I believe many readers trying to confirm whether the data as good or bad news.
There is no doubt that the role, if not the sole reason for the creation of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is to define the current and future trends of our nation’s economic health.
This being so, the results from the labor of thousands of federal employees is an embarrassment, if not a waste of federal funds.
The drastic opposing convictions by our major political parties of what the job data portends, confirms the uselessness of this data that must distress those who work for our Bureau of Labor, since the results can be beneficial, if properly assembled and presented.
Unfortunately, the media prefers to present the data as given by the bureau as employment and unemployment, combining all jobs under the two main divisions with a fallback defense that they do not make the news. This, all very true if we are to assume the title predicting that all to follow is good news was also created by the bureau.
I contend that there can be agreements among those with opposing views, that there are jobs that consume and jobs that add to our economic health, including jobs that are controversial.
This brings to mind the once popular song “accentuate the positive; eliminate the negative and don’t mess with mister in between.”
As for example, farm and manufacturing jobs add wealth, while federal and state jobs, including our congress, is a consumer of wealth. There are many jobs in between that can be separated or ignored as those involved in health and other top priority services.
Contrary to what the liberal media believes, the additional jobs in construction to right the wrong created by Superstorm Sandy require federal funding not readily available with a need to borrow. This is definitely not a creator of wealth. In this instant, money for this disaster should be found, even if taken from welfare.
Yes, just publishing the positive is lacking in professionalism and would eliminate the need of some federal employees, but a monthly report would define the trend of our fiscal health that cannot be determined under the present system.
Then again, if the media insists on publishing all the confusing job data submitted by our Bureau of Labor, I suggest assigning this task to a reporter with sense of humor that could reveal the bureau’s lack of creative thinking or their intent to deceive.
Edward F. Brown