Liars Figure

Caution: this post may be a bit wonky for some, but the truth sometimes needs a wonky defense.

Mark Twain is credited with saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” It is generally a simple matter to find a statistic that will support one’s cause. Able statisticians can manufacture stats that appear to favor a preferred position. Politicians are notorious for making the numbers bolster their policies. One statistic that has been bandied about during recent years is that of unemployment. Naturally the administration in power wants it to appear that their policies are putting people to work, so lowering the unemployment percentage is a major goal.

The following excerpt from the web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) explains the weakness of using unemployment figures to determine actual unemployment:

“While the UI [unemployment insurance] claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

“In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

o   Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.

o   Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).

o   Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.

o   Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

“Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.” [Italics mine]

The last sentence of the excerpt says it all: in the past decade there have been approximately three times as many unemployed people as the UI figures report. Given the inaccuracies built into the BLS report on unemployment, one must pay careful attention to the kinds of factors mentioned in the excerpt above to properly compare figures from year to year. It can be seen that Barak Obama inherited a 5% unemployment rate in 2008. During his first term, the rate rose to nearly 10%, then began to fall back gradually. By the end of Obama’s second term, the rate had returned to about 5%. (Figures provided by Politifact.)

The Obama administration wanted everyone to think that by 2016 their policies had brought the economy back to the more prosperous state it was in when they took over in 2008. However, if the mitigating factors mentioned by the BLS are considered, far more truly unemployed will be found to have fallen through the cracks in 2016 than in 2008. It is difficult to determine the exact number, but some experts estimate real unemployment is between 15 and 20%.

There is another way to measure the health of the American workforce: it is called the Labor Force Participation Rate. According to the BLS, “The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed.” This number still has some of the inequities built into the BLS system, but it is worth noting that it held nearly steady during the Bush years despite a mini recession caused by the bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting bank failures (something Bush inherited from Clinton) and the attacks of 9/11/2001 followed by another recession in 2008. In 2009 when Obama took over, the rate fell precipitously. It will be interesting to watch what happens to this number during the Trump administration.

There are other trends that can be used to determine the overall health of the economy. During Obama’s tenure personal bankruptcies increased; the number of people in poverty increased; the number of people on food stamps increased dramatically. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of the country’s overall wealth, did rise under Obama, but the rate of increase was the slowest in recent memory.

Perhaps the most troubling economic factor that might be used to evaluate Obama’s legacy is the national debt. There are different ways to measure this; again, statistics can be manipulated to tell almost any story. The simplest measure is to note the $10.6 trillion debt when Obama took over, and the $19.7 trillion debt he leaves. That looks like over $9 trillion in increased debt. Some argue that only the budget deficits year by year should be considered, making Obama’s budget deficit total $6.6 trillion. (Figures from The Balance) By any measure, the national debt increased. This is important because it means the government is spending more than it collects in tax revenue. Even a child can see that this condition cannot be sustained for long. Sooner or later, the system will collapse.

Since this is supposed to be a blog for Christian thinkers, one might wonder why this arcane patter matters. Just this: we live in a country with a participatory type government. Our new President says he wants to return power to the people by reducing government intrusion into private lives. If we are to evaluate this or any administration of government wisely, we need to know how. Statistics are one way to measure success. The goal of a Christian should be to have sufficient wisdom to judge whether a purveyor of statistics is being truthful or not.

Jesus chided his disciples at one point saying, “the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.” Another time when He was sending the disciples into the world, Jesus counselled them to be, “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” As believers we cannot cloister ourselves in holy huddles and watch our economy collapse due to self-destructive policies. We need to make wise choices in the voting booth and then hold our elected officials responsible for their actions in office. This is not our primary responsibility as believers; that would be bringing glory to God. But then maybe using our God-given freedom to wisely choose our leaders would do just that.