Despite being born and raised in the South and despite being named to play "Uncle Remus" in an elementary play due to my strong southern accent, I have never considered myself to be a "southern boy" or "good ole boy" of any type. But, it troubles me that employment data from the South is less clear than employment data from the rest of the country.
Generally speaking, the rate of unemployment has been dropping all across the country since 2009. But, in the last six months or so, it has risen in three southern states, i.e., Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana. The predictable political response from the three Republican governors was that the Democratic administration was "fudging the numbers" for political purposes. Of course, that not only assumes set-for-life-bureaucrats will choose to become criminals but also begs the question of why fudge the numbers for those three states and not other states with Republican governors, such as Texas.
Digging deeper, the other employment indicators, such as new unemployment filings, home purchases corporate hiring, etc., don't support the higher unemployment rates in those three states. The economy in each of those three states is definitely growing. The most common belief is that the labor force participation rate is increasing. In other words, people in those three states are now more optimistic about getting a job and returning to the labor force but at a faster rate than they are being hired or absorbed into the labor force.
Digging still deeper, the unemployment rate is a blend of two survey techniques, i.e., the payroll survey and the household survey. Now, the payroll survey is based on payroll taxes paid, supplemented by phone calls. That survey shows continued job growth and falling unemployment in those three states. On the other hand, the household survey is conducted by calling random phone numbers and asking how many people in that household are looking for work or have jobs. It is the household survey that is driving up the unemployment rate in those three states.
Does that mean the phone canvassers have called disreputable random numbers for six straight months? That is a remote mathematical possibility -- very remote. Or, does it mean that random households in those three states hate the government so much that they lie as a matter o f principle? But, why only those three states? I don't know . . .
Generally speaking, the rate of unemployment has been dropping all across the country since 2009. But, in the last six months or so, it has risen in three southern states, i.e., Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana. The predictable political response from the three Republican governors was that the Democratic administration was "fudging the numbers" for political purposes. Of course, that not only assumes set-for-life-bureaucrats will choose to become criminals but also begs the question of why fudge the numbers for those three states and not other states with Republican governors, such as Texas.
Digging deeper, the other employment indicators, such as new unemployment filings, home purchases corporate hiring, etc., don't support the higher unemployment rates in those three states. The economy in each of those three states is definitely growing. The most common belief is that the labor force participation rate is increasing. In other words, people in those three states are now more optimistic about getting a job and returning to the labor force but at a faster rate than they are being hired or absorbed into the labor force.
Digging still deeper, the unemployment rate is a blend of two survey techniques, i.e., the payroll survey and the household survey. Now, the payroll survey is based on payroll taxes paid, supplemented by phone calls. That survey shows continued job growth and falling unemployment in those three states. On the other hand, the household survey is conducted by calling random phone numbers and asking how many people in that household are looking for work or have jobs. It is the household survey that is driving up the unemployment rate in those three states.
Does that mean the phone canvassers have called disreputable random numbers for six straight months? That is a remote mathematical possibility -- very remote. Or, does it mean that random households in those three states hate the government so much that they lie as a matter o f principle? But, why only those three states? I don't know . . .
