OK, I don’t have the time to look into this, but two other conservative bloggers are asking the right questions. The unemployment rate dropped from 9.4 to 9.0 percent. The number of jobs added was about 36,000. How the heck does the math work on that one?
Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light.
We are supposed to believe that a measly increase of only 36,000 jobs made the unemployment rate go down .4%?
The number of unemployed persons decreased by 600,000 “while the labor force was unchanged”? How is that even mathematically possible? (Maybe the explanation can be found in the BLS’s accompanying announcement, below.)
It sure sounds to us like the .4% decline in unemployment is solely due to this new population estimate. But given all this bureaucratic gobbledygook we could be wildly mistaken, of course.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.
Frankly, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. If only 36,000 jobs were added and 600,000 people stopped being unemployed, then the labor force should show a significant contraction. The lower overall rate makes sense if 600,000 people left the workforce, but not if the workforce remained the same. Otherwise, we’d have to conclude that 36,000 jobs represents 0.4% of all employment in the US.