We added 12,000 new jobs. (All other numbers are spincompetence.)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I am contributing the word "spincompetence" to the language to refer to when the news spins facts out of incompetence without any particular agenda.

Is the media trying to talk up the conomy in saying 71K jobs were creted when the real number is 12K?

No... they're just confused about how to count or not count census jobs.

Census 2010 hiring decreased 143,000 in July. Non-farm payroll employment increased 12,000 in July ex-Census. Also June was revised down sharply to 267,000 221,000 jobs lost (revised from 125,000 jobs lost).

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/08/july-employment-report-12k-jobs-ex.html

Employment Report: Why the different payroll numbers?
by CalculatedRisk on 8/06/2010 12:00:00 PM
Once again there is some confusion about which payroll number to report.

Basically the media is confusing people. I explained this last month: Employment Report: Which payroll number to use?

The headline payroll number for July was minus 131,000.

The number of temporary decennial Census jobs lost was 143,000.

To be consistent with previous employment reports (and remove the decennial Census), the headline number should be reported as 12,000 ex-Census. That is consistent with non-Census reports.

Instead most media reports have been using the private hiring number of 71,000 apparently because of the complicated math (subtracting -143,000 from -131,000). Private hiring is important too, but leaves out changes in government payroll and is not consistent.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/08/employment-report-why-different-payroll.html

[Greyhound]

1. Which still ignores the inconvenient yet stubbornly persistent fact that the first 150,000 - 200,000

jobs not created every month that need to be in order to stay at zero.

Just another part of the "pissing down my leg" theory of spincompetence.