EDITOR, The Tribune.
NOVEMBER’S unemployment statistics are out and they seem, once again, to have disappointed many in the media, who had hoped for a nice negative story to top off the year.
The folk at The Nassau Guardian were so relishing the idea of last month’s report showing an increase to 16 per cent or more that they let that figure slip in at least two of their editorials.
Now, instead of standing contrite and corrected in their utter misreading of the Bahamian economy, whole segments of the media are now busy putting a determined spin on the figures.
We are told (laughably) by both journalists and the people at the Department of Statistics (who are paid to report statistics, NOT to understand them) that last May’s reduction was down to the government’s silly carnival antics and that November’s were down to Hurricane Matthew.
For the record, there are well-understood structural reasons why unemployment levels are lower in April than in October.
These relate to the school calendar and to vestigial seasonality in the hotel industry. In its more lucid moments (or when it suits a particular narrative) the local media even admit this.
Because of these factors, any sensible analysis of unemployment trends must be based on a comparison of May to May and November to November. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of comparing temperatures every year in June against those in December and concluding that the earth has been cooling since time immemorial.
Yet, incredibly, that is exactly what our local media (and a large local ‘illiterati’ that permits itself to be uncritically informed by the former) have been doing, year after year.
The headline news that unemployment is down “1.1%” is therefore misleading. In reality, it is down 3.2 per cent, from the most relevant comparison, which was 14.8% in November, 2015.
For any November to offset the structural employment boost of the previous May (albeit mildly) is evidence not of mild, but rather of strong employment growth across the economy.
So for reasons that have little to do with domestic politics (and even less to do with Carnivals or hurricanes), unemployment is trending downward quite strongly.
Anyone who knows what to look for would not have been surprised at all by this week’s figures, any more than we will be surprised when (quite predictably, when you consider Baha Mar and accelerated developments in Bimini and Exuma) it is around 7 or 8 per cent next May.
Then (depending on who won the intervening election) the media will either find itself in congratulatory mode, or else be looking around for explanations for the “false” statistics.
ANDREW ALLEN
Nassau,
December 22, 2016.
Comments
ThisIsOurs 7 years, 9 months ago
"Because of these factors, any sensible analysis of unemployment trends must be based on a comparison of May to May and November to November. "
To the contrary, "any sensible analysis must be" completed with greater frequency to eliminate ALL of the biases that you list. Taking a survey in May at a time when people are temporarily employed does no good for anyone. If the trumped up numbers give the impression that all is well, where is the impetus to do anything different? Please remember that a temporary job for a one day parade or maintenance work for hurricane damage ends relatively quickly and you're left with people who can't eat.
The US takes a monthly survey and reports the following categories: U1: the percentage of labor force unemployed for 15 weeks or longer. U2: the percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work. U3: the official unemployment rate that occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks. U4: the individuals described in U3 plus "discouraged workers," those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them think that no work is available for them. U5: the individuals described in U4 plus other "marginally attached workers," "loosely attached workers," or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently. U6: the individuals described in U5 plus part-time workers who want to work full-time, but cannot due to economic reasons, primarily underemployment.
Source: Boundless. “Measuring the Unemployment Rate.” Boundless Economics Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 26 Dec. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/economics/tex…
birdiestrachan 7 years, 9 months ago
It would be good if the news media would endeavor to educate the public, instead of just spin. Thank you Mr: Allen for helping me to understand. In the words of Donald Trump"dishonest media" They can not be trusted. :
banker 7 years, 9 months ago
What Mr. Allen fails to understand, is taking the department of statistics at face value results in some catastrophic reasoning. The baseline numbers are incorrect. Mr. Allen quite rightly says that they cannot understand or interpret the statistics. The bigger problem, is that they cannot assemble them for an accurate baseline. The reported numbers are hugely and willfully inaccurate done purposefully to paint a rosier picture. Even PLP crony and apologist James Smith allows that structural and endemic unemployment is over 20% . When factored with the under-employed, the real unemployment numbers are close to 30%. They do not include those who have stopped looking for work or a segment of the population who fly under the radar because of socio-economic marginalisation and/or hidden economy participants.
I am constantly amazed at how armchair quarterbacks have a myopia that makes them say stupid things like Mr. Allen has said. Every economic indicator shows the Bahamian economy is in a freefall. The junk status is a warning shot over the bow and a bellwether. The view in this article is naive, ill-reasoned and not factual. I would be willing to bet my entire net worth that unemployment will not reach 7 or 8 percent within the next decade unless the monolithic economy is revamped.
Sign in to comment
OpenID