Dear John: It has become infuriatingly difficult for me (OK, maybe just me) to follow your moving-target assertions about job growth.
In a recent column, you strongly indicate that the job-growth model is misleading and towards the end of the article, you let it be known that scholars think that the number of jobs (or new businesses created) is actually shrinking — but that the scholars’ data “only go up to 2011.”
Is that all you have to make the point?
The government’s guesses at job creation — seasonally adjusted, etc. — have to be at least somewhat correct over time.
Otherwise, the whole effort is bogus and we actually have no clue about business/job creation. You never address this point (about how things should even out in the end), but choose from month to month to pooh-pooh the Department of Labor’s efforts. Very frustrating to read. N.S.
Dear N.S. Quite the contrary. I always pointed out repeatedly that the Labor Department corrects its figures twice a year — once in the fall and another time in the winter. These are called Benchmark revisions.
And you can hardly blame me for looking at month-to-month data. Wall Street lives and dies by these numbers. So I figure it’s fair game to dissect the numbers they hold so dear.
And why is this “infuriatingly difficult?” Because it is meant to be that way. Over the decades, Washington has come up with more and more ways to make all of its data impenetrable. And that’s both Democratic and Republican administrations.
My assertion is basically three-fold.
1. Each of the government agencies — and especially the Labor Department — makes assumptions that may not be legitimate at the time they are made.
2. They use seasonal adjustments that may have been made inaccurate by the unusual nature of the recent economic downturn.
3. People at the Census Bureau have been falsifying numbers being collected for the Labor Department.
That seems simple enough to me.
Now, what about the Brookings report on new-business formations that I quoted? Well, you’ll have to take it up with Brookings, but the esteemed research group said the data it used were the latest available. And it said that the trend it found — fewer startups — hadn’t seemed to reverse itself.
Sorry if I’m making you think, but that’s the only way we can get closer to the truth.
Dear John: I’m sure you don’t remember me, but I wrote to you some months ago with modification advice, having worked in the field.
I read the letter from A.S. recently about their modification struggles with Chase. It sounded like all they have are recorded conversations but nothing in writing.
The issue is that representatives may report wrong information to customers in review for a modification. My recommendation — and I have seen this work — is to e-mail Chase CEO Jamie Dimon (jamie.dimon@chase.com) with exactly the same story he wrote to you.
In a matter of days, a head honcho in the CEO’s mortgage modification division will contact them. Once this man explains all the recorded conversations and offers to send to them the tapes, someone will review their case very closely and hopefully they will receive the modification under the terms they were promised very shortly.
If not, hopefully, the attorney will assist them. I truly feel awful for them. R.H.
Dear R.H. I find that going to the top is always the better option. It’s the trickle-down sense of fear that works.
There are a couple of things, however, that you didn’t mention.
One, it’s illegal in some states to tape-record conversations. So be careful that you are in a so-called “one consent” state if you are recording a conversation. In one-consent states, only one party to the conversation needs to know it is being recorded.
Second, Chase itself has a rule that customers can’t tape conversations. I had a run-in with the bank a while back on this issue.
Otherwise, sound advice.