About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Memo to right-wing blogs: Snow storms can distort job numbers

March 02, 2010 8:59 am ET — 13 Comments

Right-wing blogs have attacked White House economic adviser Larry Summers' statement that heavy snowfall in February may distort the unemployment data for the month. In fact, economists reportedly say that snow can cause a temporary decline in employment and distort job statistics.

Right wing blogs hit Summers for blaming low February job numbers on blizzards

Hot Air: "[I]t sounds so laughably lame." On HotAir.com, blogger Allahpundit wrote: "A hypothetical for you. Assume that Summers sincerely believes this. Is this nonetheless a case where it'd be smarter politically not to mention it? Remember, their credibility among the public on the stimulus is utterly shot. The only reason this clip is getting play tonight on blogs, in fact, is because it sounds so laughably lame. All that being true, what does he gain by tossing it out there? Better to take your lumps on Friday if the numbers are low, vow that the new jobs bill will help, and cut your losses."

The Drudge Report: "Obama Adviser: Winter to 'distort' unemployment figures." The Drudge Report linked to a Reuters article about Summers' comments under the headline, "Obama Adviser: Winter to 'distort' unemployment figures." From the Drudge Report:

drudge screenshot

Jim Hoft: "White House Official Blames Snowmageddon For Already Miserable Unemployment Rate." On his blog Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft quoted Summers under the headline, "White House Official Blames Snowmageddon For Already Miserable Unemployment Rate." He then wrote, "Well, you know what they say... 'You can't control nature,'" before embedding a video of President Obama discussing the earthquake devastation in Chile. Hoft continued: "Summers says that if the jobs report for February is awful to just ignore it."

Ace of Spades: "Chain of Fools: Larry Summers Preemptively Blames This Week's Regularly-Scheduled 'Unexpected' Bad Jobs Report on Winter Snow." Blogger Ace noted Summers' comments on the right-wing blog Ace of Spades, under the headline: "Chain of Fools: Larry Summers Preemptively Blames This Week's Regularly-Scheduled 'Unexpected' Bad Jobs Report on Winter Snow."

But economists reportedly say that snow storms can affect employment

Summers: February blizzards "are likely to distort the [jobless] statistics." During a March 1 CNBC interview, Summers addressed the employment "statistics," and said, according to CNBC's transcript: "Who knows what the next number is going to be.  The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics.  And in past blizzards, those statistics have been distorted by 100 to 200,000 jobs.  So it's going to be very important to know, very important to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends.  I think those underlying trends are going to show job growth soon.  I think that, in large part, because of what is coming onstream.  Several thousand new projects are coming onstream:  building roads, repairing bridges and the like across the country."

WSJ: Snow "could make a mess of the February employment report." A February 10 post on the Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics Blog noted that "[t]he snowstorm that's keeping people from Washington D.C. to Gary, Ind. hemmed in at home could make a mess of the February employment report," and that "[t]he storm has hit during the week that the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics takes its monthly snapshot of employment among households and employers nationwide. Since the storm has kept a large number of people from work, it could push up the unemployment rate, and lower the count of how many people are working." It also cited a Deutsche Bank economist noting the discrepancy:

Looking at what large snowstorms in 1994, 1996 and 2007 did to the jobs count, Deutsche Bank economist Joe Lavorgna reckons that the payroll count could fall by 90,000 workers. As a result, he estimates that there will be 35,000 jobs added in February, rather than the 125,000 he had penciled in. If the underlying trend isn't as positive as Mr. Lavorgna thinks, that could make potential gains into another month of declines.

MarketWatch: Storms will have a "big impact" on job numbers. A February 11 MarketWatch article quoted Wells Fargo Securities economist Mark Vitner as saying, "The February numbers are going to be a mess," because of the snow storms. The article also quoted Harm Bandholz, an economist for UniCredit Bank saying the storms "will perceptibly weigh on major economic data releases for the month of February." From the article:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The massive snow storms that blasted the East Coast this week could reverberate in the economic data for a couple of months, clouding any assessment of the health of the economy.

 [...]

 Although the snow storms won't have a major impact on the economy, they will have a big impact on the way the economy is reported.

"The February numbers are going to be a mess," Vitner said. "It's a downer, but how much of a downer, we don't know."

Employment, hours worked, wages and retail sales could decline sharply in February, only to rebound in March, if history is any guide. That movement will mostly reflect the timing of the snapshots of economic activity, and not a fundamental shift in the economy's direction.

"The two blizzards that struck the East Coast this week will perceptibly weigh on major economic data releases for the month of February," wrote Harm Bandholz, an economist for UniCredit Bank. Barring more storms next month, those economic indicators should show a big rebound in March.

The biggest impact should be on employment. The storms struck during the survey week for the establishment survey and the household survey. Each month, the government asks businesses and individuals about employment, hours worked and weekly pay for the week that contains the 10th of the month.

In the past, major storms that have hit during the survey week have had a major impact on employment, only to see a reversal the next month. Economist Joe LaVorgna of Deutsche Bank figures a snow storm in the survey week lowers payrolls by an average of 90,000 compared with the trend line.

MSN: "Economists estimate that between 90,000 and 150,000 jobs could be lost this month as a result of the storm." According to a February 12 article on MSN, "Economists estimate that between 90,000 and 150,000 jobs could be lost this month as a result of the storm." It quoted Stéfane Marion, National Bank Financial's chief economist as saying, "The storms will have a tangible impact on the hiring process, which is impeded when people can't get out and businesses are closed."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by ScienceBuff (March 02, 2010 9:23 am ET)
      5  
      An example of the right disregarding reality for the sole purpose of scoring political points.

      If the storms do hold down February numbers, we should see a very nice bounce in March well into positive job gain territory. Barring, of course, very bad March weather.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 02, 2010 10:07 am ET)
          8
        I would think the lack of seasonal storms in other parts of the country would offset storms in the northeast... Funny the rocky mountain states wold call the "storms" a light snowfall....

        and I wonder exactly who cleaned up the snow "storm" mess ghosts? more workers is more likely....

        excuses, excuses and more excuses... But I agree we can see what March brings, guaranteed more excuses...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (March 02, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
          2  
          Or, much more likely, the job gains will continue the upward trend of the past year well into positive job growth.
          [http://cnewmark.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834fd816853ef01287771ff58970c-500wi]
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (March 02, 2010 9:40 am ET)
      3  
      Now, come on ... We all know that what the WSJ in your sample above meant to say was that snow can negatively effect jobs numbers only for a REPUBLICAN administration!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 02, 2010 10:09 am ET)
          7
        Really exactly WHEN has weather impacted JOBS in a republican admin?? that's right, only in your imagination...

        Show me ONE other time snow "storms" have been used as an excuse... you can't...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (March 02, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
          4  
          So the WSJ was making "excuses" for the Obama admin?? ROFL!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (March 02, 2010 8:37 pm ET)
          2  
          You are right. Weather or no weather, Republicans end up with less jobs.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dhalgren (March 02, 2010 10:42 am ET)
      4  
      You would think that right-wingers would know this because some of their ilk (the smarter ones, anyway) invented the weather futures market (Enron had a famous commercial in 1999 about 'the weather' and how to bet on it). Now they deny the weather affects the economy. Time to eat more cheetos!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jose2 (March 02, 2010 11:08 am ET)
        11
      Bad weather can make the unemployment numbers look better than they are.

      When someone is laid off and there is a blizzard outside, they will usually wait for the weather to clear before reporting to the unemployment office.

      Also bad weather creates jobs like pushing snow, salting roads, restoring power, fixing broken pipes, etc.



      Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (March 02, 2010 11:21 am ET)
        5  
        Those things can happen, but they are dwarfed by the negative influences. As indicated in the article, the net effect on employment of snowstorms is historically negative. These are simple facts, not partisan spin.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jose2 (March 02, 2010 12:47 pm ET)
            7
          I don't think we disagreed here. I am saying unemployment in our current situation is worse than reported because people don't make it into the unemployment office.

          And then while I was at it I pointed out some positive effects of bad weather.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ConstanceRifleII (March 03, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
               
            Okay, what? You said:
            I don't think we disagreed here.

            That's the opposite of what you did there. You disagreed. What the hell is your problem? Do you even know what you are writing when you write it? I mean, even for a glibertarian, this level of illiteracy and insanity is dumb-founding. Do you need me to break it down for you?

            You wrote:
            Bad weather can make the unemployment numbers look better than they are.

            When someone is laid off and there is a blizzard outside, they will usually wait for the weather to clear before reporting to the unemployment office.

            Also bad weather creates jobs like pushing snow, salting roads, restoring power, fixing broken pipes, etc.


            And that was fine. It's contrarian spin, and you are arguing against the Wall Street Journal of all things (those dirty hippies), but it's still an okay comment, albeit misguided and wrong in the face of the facts.

            Then ScienceBuff says:
            Those things can happen, but they are dwarfed by the negative influences. As indicated in the article, the net effect on employment of snowstorms is historically negative. These are simple facts, not partisan spin.


            Nothing wrong with that. He responded to your point clearly and intelligently, citing the article itself and making a counterpoint to your argument.

            And then you replied. And your reply has got to be one of the single dumbest things ever published on the internet. It may even be dumber than Gerard Vanderleun's infamous "I am aware of all internet traditions" nonsense. (Seriously, go read that comment thread. I really want you to understand exactly how much dumb you have put into the intertubes.)
            I don't think we disagreed here.

            You thought when you wrote that? I didn't notice.

            Really, to make this that much clearer for you, I need you to realize that you talked up the positive aspects of the severe weather in the Northeast by citing a drop in bad employment numbers as evidence that the numbers are BETTER THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE. Better. Not worse, which is what ScienceBuff was arguing. Better. Better, better, better.

            And then, after ScienceBuff's response, you replied? Why? Why did you reply? Really, I await your answer, because to reply to what ScienceBuff said with the level of moronic dumb that you dropped here requires an answer.

            Were your hands working independently of your brain? Are you just being contrarian for contrarianism's sake, without regard to what you are saying or how you present yourself? Are you seven?

            Those are the only possibilities that I can even comprehend as plausible. Otherwise, you have just confused the s--t out of me and now I'm going to spend the next hour wondering just how much of an idiot you have to be to even begin to think that you and ScienceBuff were anywhere near the realm of agreeable opinion.

            Actually, and since I've tangled with you before and know how utterly incompetent you really are, I think it may just be that. Incompetence. That, or sheer, unabated and incomprehensible lunacy.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by OTP (March 03, 2010 9:50 pm ET)
         
      And just tell me when ANY other administration has blamed the weather.. First it's Bush, now the weather... come on get a grip...
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.