I thought the answer was most assuredly a 'yes', but looks like I was wrong. I gathered this data from news articles (mainly CNN/Money online), so I cannot guarantee any sort of accuracy, but for that matter, the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Deparment of Labor look no more accurate - i.e. none of them jive with what the articles are written. So, who knows?
But, here are my numbers (some of which are stolen from another blog - sorry to the unfortunate blogger whose address I forget!):
MONTH INITIAL REVISED DIFFERENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
July, '04 32,000 n/a yet n/a yet
June, '04 112,000 78,000 -34,000
May, '04 248,000 235,000 -13,000
April, '04 288,000 346,000 +48,000
March, '04 308,000 337,000 +29,000
February, '04 21,000 83,000 +62,000
January, '04 112,000 97,000 -15,000
December, '03 16,000 1,000 -15,000
November, '03 57,000 43,000 -14,000
October, '03 126,000 100,000 -26,000
The negative numbers are revisions downward - bad for Bush - the positive numbers are revisions upward - good for Bush. All in all, it looks like the numbers are fairly unpredictable. So, Bush gets off on this one, but it doesn't excuse him from totally misrepresenting the job situation any chance he gets by grossly distorting the data contained in the report - like using the Household Survey results whenever they suit his purpose better. Sucka.
No comments:
Post a Comment