Dem
47
GOP
53
The unqualified, incapable, bigoted troll that Donald Trump has chosen to be the next leader of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not on the job yet, pending Senate approval. And so, we can be reasonably confident that the latest jobs numbers are legit. And, as many readers will have seen, the numbers are not good.
There are three pieces of bad news that stand out. First, the number of jobs added to the U.S. economy in August was 22,000; that is short of expectations, and is well short of the roughly 100,000 new jobs needed to keep up with population growth. Second, the final jobs numbers for June are in; the initial (poor) figure of 14,000 jobs added has been revised downward to 13,000 jobs lost. That is the first negative number since late 2020. Third, unemployment is now up to 4.3%, the highest figure since mid-2021. Obviously, those previous (very poor) jobs lost/unemployment figures are both from the pandemic. Back then, it was pandemic first, economic downturn second. Now, with the tariffs and the "work" of RFK Jr., the administration appears to be shooting for economic downturn first, pandemic second. You can't say Trump doesn't try to mix things up.
As readers might imagine, the propaganda operation kicked into full gear as soon as the jobs figures were out. Fox "reported" that the data was unreliable, and that things are actually much better than they seem. In fact, we understand that this is their coverage of the story:
Quite a few MAGA Congress members, who take their goose stepping marching orders from Fox, echoed this point.
Others took the tack that the numbers might be disappointing right now, but just you wait for a year, once the
immigration enforcement and the tariffs and the visa fees and all the other administration initiatives have time to bear
fruit. Then the economy will really be humming, apparently. For example, here's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: "You
look at the unemployment rate numbers today—wait until a year from today. Wow. It will be amazing numbers."
We do not presume to have a handle on the precise relationship between the economy and voting patterns, and we aren't sure anyone really does. But we do have a few things that our guts tell us. The first thing we think is that while the politicians and the pundits and the market analysts care about things like the jobs report, average folks do not. Average folks care about results, and neither the announced figures (good or bad), nor all the propagandizing in the world can do much to change that.
The second thing we think is that unemployment levels don't affect voting patterns all that much, at least not directly. People largely care about what's happening at their own kitchen table, and not the kitchen table of the Millers and the Johnsons, down the block. Undoubtedly, if someone is actually out of work, then that could affect their vote. But the number of people who are out of work, and who vote based on that fact, is probably not enough to swing most elections.
The third thing we think is that poor jobs numbers are often the opening act to a recession. And recessions affect pretty much everyone, and can influence a very large number of votes. So, if the jobs numbers are actually bad, and are going to be bad for the foreseeable future, the administration will eventually pay a price, because of the broader economic impact. And no amount of claiming "fake news," or even having the goateed incel try to cook the books, can prevent it. (Z)