Author's Note: This is a post I was working on in April of 2013 when Robert Rees was still at the helm of Cities 92.9. For reasons that escape me right now, this post didn't make it onto the pages of facepalming. A lot has changed at Cities since that time, except of course for the bucket loads of stupidity that stream from their call letters on a daily basis. So sit back, and enjoy this look back at an earlier Cities 92.9 master of stupidity:
Robert Rees has a problem with facts and data.
 |
| Robert Rees |
During Thursday's segment of The Morning Rush with Robert Rees on Cities 92.9, Robert expressed shock and dismay that anyone would point a finger of blame at anyone but Barack Obama for the unemployment numbers of the last 4 years. He claimed he had spoken with people during the 2012 presidential campaign who blamed George Bush for those numbers, and he just couldn't understand how anyone could reach that conclusion. Lucky for Robert, I happen to know why some people have reached that conclusion, and I'm happy to share that bit of information with him. But, before doing that, I need to address a comment that Robert made during the segment:
ROBERT REES: George Bush averaged 4.5% unemployment during his term.Uh, wrong.
The average unemployment rate was higher than 4.5% in all eight years of George W Bush's presidency. Anybody that understands averages - which usually means fourth graders on up - will tell you that the average of a set of numbers will never be lower than the smallest number used to calculate that average.
Of course, accurate information begins with accurate resources, and since Robert has a pretty shaky track record in that department, it shouldn't surprise anyone when his numbers clash with reality. For those of us who live in the reality based community, there are reliable resources available for just about anything, and for labor statistics, oddly enough, we turn to places like the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
What follows is a chart showing the average unemployment rate for every month of the Bush presidency, courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
The graph doesn't show yearly averages, or a cumulative average for the entire eight years, but those aren't hard to figure out, hell, any fourth grader could do it. I went ahead and calculated those averages myself, and assuming I can calculate averages as well as a fourth grader, I came up with the following yearly averages, and yes, I rounded up and down where appropriate:
2001 - 4.7%
2002 - 5.8%
2003 - 6.0%
2004 - 5.5%
2005 - 5.1%
2006 - 4.6%
2007 - 4.6%
2008 - 6.3%
Since the range consists of 4.6% on the low end, and 6.3% on the high end, the average must fall somewhere in between, which rules out Robert's 4.5%. To check my accuracy, you can calculate the overall average yourself. I concluded that the overall unemployment average for the Bush presidency comes out to be approximately 5.3%, which is almost a full percentage point above the 4.5% number that Robert pulled from his nether regions.
Robert then asked the following question:
ROBERT REES: How can they blame Bush for 8 + percentage of unemployment during Obama's four years?How can they indeed.
Well, let's take a closer look at the numbers. Prior to 2008, the highest monthly unemployment average during the Bush years occurred in June of 2003. During that month, unemployment averaged 6.3%, which, along with a few other months that year with numbers hovering around 6%, contributed to making 2003 the second worst year for Bush in terms of unemployment numbers. But again, that was prior to 2008. Answering Robert's question requires looking at the worst year for unemployment numbers during the Bush years. The worst year for Bush in terms of unemployment numbers was 2008, which not only served as the last year of Bush's presidency, but set the bar for the beginning of the Obama presidency.
Let's look again at the Bush unemployment numbers, but this time using a graph courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
If you look at the right side of the graph, you'll see that unemployment began to rise in early 2007, and continued unabated throughout the entire year of 2008. By December of 2008 - a month prior to Obama being sworn in as the next president - unemployment exceeded 7%, and was still rising. In fact, it was in December of 2008 that the Bush administration acknowledged for the first time that we were in a recession, but this concession only came after months of denial, and after the release of a government report that December showing the biggest month of job losses in 34 years.
Let's now take a look at the unemployment numbers for the Obama presidency, courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Notice that at the very moment that Barack Obama was being sworn in for his first term, which occurred on January 20th of 2009, the unemployment rate had already breached 8%, and was still climbing. A huge contrast to the stable economy, and the 4.2% unemployment that ushered in the beginning of the Bush years.
Now look again - courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics - at a graphical representation of the Obama unemployment numbers:
Notice the sharp increase in unemployment numbers at the very beginning of the Obama presidency - a continuation of the increase from the Bush years - that peaks in October of 2009 at 10%, and has declined ever since. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Obama presidency registers a larger unemployment average than the Bush years. But is it fair to compare the average unemployment under Bush - who was handed a stable economy at 4.2% unemployment - with the average unemployment under Obama - who was handed an economy in free fall at over 8% unemployment?
Conservative commentators - like Robert Rees - would have us believe that Obama is to blame for the high unemployment numbers that have plagued his presidency, but to do that, Rober has to rely on his audience being completely ignorant of the fact that the Obama presidency inherited an economy in sharp decline.
ROBERT REES: Where do they get their information from?That's easy Robert, they get their information from reality, which is not where you get your information from, obviously.
No comments:
Post a Comment