Why The Jobs Report Doesn't Tell Us The Truth About The Economy
People fill out questionnaires as they line up to try for jobs at the City University of New York's ... More Big Apple Job Fair March 20, 2009 at the Jacob Javits Convention Center in New York. An estimated 6,000 students and alumni showed up to apply for jobs overed by about 100 employers. AFP PHOTO/DON EMMERT (Photo credit should read DON EMMERT/AFP via Getty Images)
Every month, the jobs report drops. Cable news lights up. Economists chime in. Politicians spin. Somewhere, in a newsroom, a business reporter tries to explain it all in under three minutes.
For years, the U.S. unemployment rate has been treated as the economy's most important number. It leads headlines and drives markets. But the more you report on it, the clearer it becomes: that number hides more than it reveals. The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out a careful, well-constructed report. But it's built on averages. It smooths over gaps that matter. That gap shows up in the data. Forbes breaks down how one survey shows job gains while another shows losses. It's not a glitch. It's a warning. Gig workers, undocumented workers, people working multiple jobs, and people who've given up looking for work—they're often missing from the headline. So are questions of pay, stability, and dignity.
Jobs Day hits every first Friday at 8:30 AM Eastern, and the jobs number—6.1, 4.9, 3.7—gets treated like a verdict, not an explanation. The jobs report is based on a survey of 60,000 households. It only covers a specific week in the month, and it excludes a lot. The Labor Force Participation Rate, for example, is often overlooked. That number tells us who's working or actively looking—not just who has a job. Underemployment, long-term joblessness, and wage stagnation are also rarely part of the headline. Even the "quits rate," which shows how confident workers are to leave jobs, gets buried.
What the Jobs Numbers Don't Tell You
Black unemployment often remains nearly double that of white workers, and many impacted groups receive little attention in coverage. Large parts of the workforce see little change during periods labeled "growth." Editors and reporters may not always ask why. The sound bite comes fast. The story moves quickly. But these patterns deserve more space and context.
UNITED STATES - NOVEMBER 11: On the TV set with Maria Bartiromo as she tapes a "Wall Street ... More Journal" Show at the CNBC Studios, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey., (Photo by Bill Stahl Jr./NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images)
What we choose to measure reveals what we pay attention to. If we only ask how many people are working, we miss what kind of work they're doing, what they earn, and what they give up to keep those jobs. That number still drives coverage. It often flattens the story to a single digit. A number that doesn't speak to quality, stability, or power. The same gaps show up every month. Black workers are hit hardest during downturns and benefit least during recovery. The unemployment rate can fall while wages stay flat. Coverage tends to follow the topline number, not the full picture.
Ask different questions, you get different answers. Who's underemployed? Who's working part-time when they want full-time? Who's been out of the labor force so long they've stopped being counted? The Black unemployment gap isn't just persistent. It's structural. The unemployment rate among Black men in America has hovered at or above 10 percent for most of my adult life. That reflects deep disparities in access and opportunity.
Ask Different Questions, Get Better Answers
The topline number fits neatly in a headline, but it doesn't say what kind of jobs people are getting. In past reports, wages grew for some workers, but not all. Industries like hospitality and retail showed hiring gains, but those gains often came with lower pay and fewer benefits. That's a detail that rarely makes it to air. The rise in gig and contract work has also gone underreported. For many, it's become harder to find jobs that include health care, retirement, or even guaranteed hours.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - SEPTEMBER 12, 2018: A group of laborers take a break from their work in ... More the Union Square public plaza in San Francisco, California. (Photo by)
It's worth asking what these numbers do—and don't—tell us about the people they describe. In May 2010, the national unemployment rate was 9.3 percent. For Black workers, it was 15.8. For Hispanic workers, 12.4. For white workers, 8.7. Those gaps didn't just close overnight. Even when jobs came back, they didn't come back evenly. The recovery arrived on paper before it showed up in people's lives.
The stock market isn't the economy. And the jobs report isn't either—not for most people.
What counts as 'progress' depends on where you're standing. For many people of color, the economic crisis never really ended. It just got redefined. And each time the monthly report hits, we're reminded of that gap between measurement and meaning.
The story of the economy should track more than recovery—it should track reality. We still don't have a good system for tracking underemployment. There's no clean number for job quality. No single metric can capture what it means to string together temp work, or drive for two apps, or work full time without paid leave. But those are all parts of the real economy, and they show up in the lives of real people. The way we count should reflect that.
Month after month, the story doesn't change. The same thing happens every month. The unemployment number comes out. The cable news shows light up. The number is low. The president takes a victory lap. The story moves on. And yet, if you dig into the numbers, the reality isn't moving at all. These reports can't explain what it means to be counted or not counted. The unemployment number often obscures the life behind the statistic. It doesn't account for the dignity of the job, the stability of the paycheck, or whether a person is working three part-time jobs just to stay afloat.
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 07: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks on the jobs report from the ... More Oval Office at the White House on March 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. The U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate rising slightly to 4.1%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Photo by)
The Jobs Report Isn't Built to Reflect Everyone
This isn't just about differences between groups. It's about how we define work. The labor force participation rate is key. That number includes those who are working or actively looking. But if someone stops looking? They disappear from the count. That's how you lose whole neighborhoods in the data.
Reporting on the jobs report can follow familiar patterns. I've been in newsrooms where editors assign the story before the data comes out. The angle is set. The quote from the White House is slotted in. The nuance gets edited out. That kind of routine can miss what really matters. If you're unemployed or underemployed, the number on a screen might not line up with your day-to-day life. People don't experience the economy in percentages. They experience it in rent. In groceries. In hours worked and time lost.
We can start by asking more grounded questions. What kind of jobs are people getting? Can they support a family? Can workers take a sick day without risking their paycheck? Can they get home in time to help their kids with homework? These are not abstract ideas. They are the daily terms of economic survival. The monthly release will keep coming. But if the story stops at the headline number, we miss the reality behind it.
This piece appears in Vanilla is Black, my newsletter about race, business, and American contradictions and listen to my audio reporting at Sonari.store.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's what's in Trump's "big, beautiful bill" passed by Congress
Washington — The House passed a massive spending and tax bill that includes signature policies of President Trump's second-term agenda Thursday, sending the so-called "big, beautiful bill" to the president's desk ahead of a July 4 deadline. Mr. Trump signed the bill into law on Friday afternoon. The House approved the bill in a 218 to 214 vote Thursday, after the Senate narrowly approved the bill Tuesday in a 51-50 vote that required Vice President JD Vance to break a tie. At the center the "big, beautiful bill" is an extension of Mr. Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was slated to sunset at the end of the year. The legislation would make most of the tax cuts permanent, while increasing spending for border security, defense and energy production. The bill is partially paid for by significant cuts to health care and nutrition programs, like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would add $3.4 trillion to federal deficits over the next 10 years and leave millions without health insurance. Republicans and the White House dispute those forecasts. Senate Republicans used a process known as budget reconciliation to pass the bill, which limits the types of policies that can be included in a simple majority vote. A handful of provisions that initially appeared in the bill were ultimately removed, including one that would have ordered the sale of public lands and another that would have paused state regulations on artificial intelligence. The House passed its own initial version of the legislation last month, with some key differences to the final Senate-crafted version. The lower chamber approved the Senate's changes Thursday, sending the measure to the president's desk. Here's what is in the 887-page bill: Medicaid restrictions The legislation includes restrictions on Medicaid, which provides government-sponsored health care for low-income and disabled Americans. The bill imposes work requirements for some able-bodied adults and more frequent eligibility checks. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would result in 11.8 million Americans losing health coverage under Medicaid over the next decade. The Senate parliamentarian determined that a measure cutting federal funds to states that use Medicaid infrastructure to provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants, along with banning Medicaid from covering gender transition services, wasn't in compliance with Senate reconciliation rules. The parliamentarian also weighed in on what's known as the provider tax, which states use to help fund their portion of Medicaid costs, in a blow to the Senate GOP's initial plan. Senate Republicans proposed steeper cuts to Medicaid funding, in part by incrementally lowering provider taxes from 6% to 3.5% by 2032. The timeline is delayed by one year from the Senate GOP's initial proposal, after the issue became one of the bill's sticking points in recent weeks. It's a departure from the initial House-passed bill, which sought to lower federal costs by freezing states' provider taxes at current rates and prohibiting them from establishing new provider taxes. The bill also includes a rural hospital stabilization fund after some GOP senators expressed concern over how rural hospitals could be impacted by the Medicaid restrictions, allocating $50 billion for rural hospitals over the same period that the provider taxes would be lowered. Homeland security and immigration The legislation includes more than $46.5 billion for border wall construction and related expenses, $45 billion to expand detention capacity for immigrants in custody and about $30 billion in funding for hiring, training and other resources for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also includes a minimum $100 fee for those seeking asylum, down from the $1,000 fee outlined in the initial House bill. The Senate parliamentarian ruled out the $1,000 fee for anyone applying for asylum. Increasing the state and local tax deduction, or SALT The package also includes an increase to the cap on the state and local tax deduction, raising it from $10,000 to $40,000. After five years, it would return to $10,000, a departure from the initial House-passed bill. The issue was a major sticking point in the House, where blue-state Republicans threatened to withhold their support without the increase to the deduction. But with no Republicans hailing from blue states in the Senate, the upper chamber has been contending with its own dynamics. Before the rule, taxpayers could deduct all their state and local taxes from their federal taxes, which some policymakers have said mainly benefits wealthy homeowners in states with high taxes, such as New York and California. But advocates for increasing the caps argue that the $10,000 cap is increasingly impacting middle-class homeowners who live in regions where property taxes are rising. Green energy policies The final bill passed by the Senate would largely terminate numerous tax incentives from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act for clean energy, electric vehicles and energy efficiency programs that benefited consumers. It would end tax credits for new and used electric vehicles, installation of home EV charging equipment and insulation or energy efficient heating and cooling systems. The bill also ends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which gives funding to nonprofit organizations providing financing for projects that reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in communities. Existing contracts and grants under the program are not affected. Restrictions on food stamps The bill still shifts the costs of SNAP, or food stamps, to some states. The program is currently fully funded by the federal government. The federal government would continue to fully fund the benefits for states that have an error payment rate below 6%, beginning in 2028. States with error rates above 6% would be on the hook for 5% to 15% of the costs. States are also given some flexibility in calculating their share. The package also aligns with the initial House version on age requirements for able-bodied adults to qualify for SNAP benefits. Currently, in order to qualify, able-bodied adults between 18 and 54 must meet work requirements. Both the Senate and House bills would update the age requirement to 18 and 64, with some exemptions for parents. Alaska and Hawaii could receive waivers for the work requirements if it's determined that they're making a "good faith effort" to comply. Addressing the debt limit The legislation would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, going beyond the $4 trillion outlined in the initial House-passed bill. Congress faces a deadline to address the debt limit later this summer. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has urged Congress to address the debt limit by mid-July, saying that the U.S. could be unable to pay its bills as early as August, when Congress is on recess. By addressing the debt ceiling as part of the larger package, Republicans in Congress aimed to bypass negotiating with Democrats on the issue. Unlike most other legislation in the Senate, the budget reconciliation process that governs the package requires a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote threshold to move forward with a bill. Child tax credit The current $2,000 child tax credit is set to return to the pre-2017 level of $1,000 in 2026. The tax credit would permanently increase to $2,200 under the bill, $300 less than the initial House-passed hike. Limits on overtime and tips deductions The bill would allow individuals to deduct a certain amount of tip wages and overtime from their taxes. The provisions would expire in 2028. The "no tax on tips" provision in the spending bill would create a new deduction for tipped workers, eliminating what they owe in federal income tax. Tipped workers would still have to pay state and local income tax and payroll taxes. The Senate version varies from the initial House-passed provisions on a few key points, including how much a worker could claim in deductions. The Senate proposal limits that deduction to $25,000, while the early House version was uncapped. Under the initial House measure, meanwhile, only people with annual income of $160,000 or less would have qualified for the tipping tax break, while the Senate version phases out benefits for individuals whose income exceeds $150,000 or couples whose income exceeds $300,000. Changes to standard deduction The bill seeks to permanently expand the basic standard deduction, which was nearly doubled in 2017. The increases will expire at the end of the year. What a new DOJ memo could mean for naturalized U.S. citizens July 4 holiday week expected to set record for travelers Group meets to handwrite the U.S. Constitution
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Does the "big, beautiful bill" eliminate taxes on Social Security?
As Congress was approving President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" on Thursday, the Social Security Administration touted the legislation by stating that it "eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries." That claim, which echoes previous promises by Mr. Trump to remove taxes on Social Security, may have come as welcome news for the millions of older and disabled people who depend on the program for income. So does the bill deliver? Not entirely. In a press release, SSA said that the tax and spending package, which the president is set to sign into law on Friday, "ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits." That figure draws on a June analysis by the White House's Council of Economic Advisers that said 88% of seniors — or 51.4 million people — on Social Security will pay no tax on their payments under the measure because their deductions would exceed their taxable benefits. The bill "includes the largest tax break in American history for our nation's seniors," CEA said, adding that "the deductions ensure that seniors who earned their Social Security through years of hard work get more money back in their pockets." Yet while it's true that the bill offers fresh tax relief for some people on Social Security, it is misleading to suggest that the measure does away with taxes on Social Security benefits, policy experts told CBS MoneyWatch. Rather, the bill offers relief by creating a new "bonus" tax deduction for beneficiaries. "While the deduction does provide some relief for seniors, it's far from completely repealing the tax on their benefits," Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank, told The Associated Press this week ahead of Congress approving the bill. The Social Security Administration did not respond to a request for comment. The White House declined to comment. How does the "big, beautiful bill" impact Social Security? The bill doesn't eliminate taxes on Social Security, but rather introduces a temporary deduction that beneficiaries can claim to lower their federal income tax. Notably, that deduction applies to all of a senior's income — not just to Social Security benefits. Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., told CBS MoneyWatch the bill doesn't change the taxation of Social Security benefits. Eliminating taxes on Social Security under the bill was impossible because of a congressional restriction (dubbed the Byrd Rule after late West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd) that limits what the Senate can include in a reconciliation bill like the Republican budget measure. What the bill does do is provide a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for seniors aged 65 and older. The tax break is available to people with an adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less and $150,000 or less for couples filing jointly. The deduction is set to expire at the end of 2028. "Each spouse can take the deduction, for a total of $12,000, if both are 65-plus," AARP explains in its analysis of the budget bill. The deduction phases out for people who earn above those amounts. Social Security recipients under 65 and people above the specified income thresholds are ineligible to claim the new tax deduction. It also won't benefit the many low-income seniors who already pay no federal income tax because they earn too little. "Boosting the amount that you get to write off when you already get to write off everything does not help you at all," Kogan said. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan policy research group, said in a June report that exempting Social Security benefits from taxation would not change the after-tax income for the bottom 20% of taxpayers, noting that "those taxpayers are already exempt from taxation on their Social Security benefits." The biggest beneficiaries of the bill will be higher-income seniors, said Martha Shedden, president and co-founder of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts, which focuses on Social Security education. "The people who benefit by definition have to be richer, and people who benefit the most are the richest people," Kogan added. More pressure on Social Security? Providing a temporary tax deduction is likely to help some Social Security recipients, but it could also worsen the retirement program's fragile financial state, Kogan said. Social Security is on track to deplete its trust fund by 2034 if Congress does not take action. "We already have a problem of not enough money going into the trust fund. This bill makes even less money go into the trust fund," he said. The Penn Wharton Budget Model, a University of Pennsylvania think tank that studies fiscal issues, estimates that eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits would lower federal revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase the federal debt by 7% by 2054. As the debate continues over how to shore up Social Security while offering tax relief to older Americans, one thing is clear, and perhaps politically unpalatable: cutting benefits. According to a AARP-funded survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance released in January, 85% of Americans think benefits should not be reduced, or that they should be increased, even if it means raising taxes on some or all Americans. "Virtually all Americans want their Social Security benefits to be preserved and are willing to do what it takes to ensure the program continues to provide meaningful support for future generations," said AARP Chief Public Policy Officer Deb Whitman in a statement after the survey was released. What a new DOJ memo could mean for naturalized U.S. citizens July 4 holiday week expected to set record for travelers Group meets to handwrite the U.S. Constitution
Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump signs tax and spending bill at White House picnic in photos
WASHINGTON (AP) — At a Fourth of July White House picnic, President Donald Trump signed a major tax and spending bill, celebrating its passage through the Republican-led Congress. ___ This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
