Last month, the Mitt Romney presidential campaign decided to defend itself on claims that a Romney presidency would hurt women by alleging that the Obama administration has already hurt women.† Their favorite new talking point?† That “90 percent of the jobs lost under President Obama belonged to women.”
It turned out that the numbers were fudged a bit to make them say what the GOP wanted them to say, but they were still based on factual numbers, just with the timeline jimmied to provide the result the Republicans wanted.† Or so we thought.
Now, it turns out that the numbers themselves were incorrect, too.† Broner’s Economics reports now that the basic data in the Bureau of Labor and Statistics must have had a technical glitch. “Although I am not sure about how the BLS discovered their error, I believe I have an explanation.† Alan Robinson of the Direct Communications Group (@CEP_Observer) didnít believe the numbers in my April blog post (three weeks ago) about womenís job losses at the US Postal Service.† After I sent him the data I used and a link to the BLS website, Alan still didnít believe the data.† His inquiries to the BLS caused their economists and statisticians to take a closer look at the data, which uncovered the apparent errors.”
The Bureau has admitted its mistake and is pulling the data until it can be fixed, saying, “BLS staff discovered data-processing errors that occurred during the November 2009ĖApril 2012 period and resulted in an incorrect ratio of women employees to all employees. Correcting these errors will increase the number of women employees but does not affect total employment levels. Series of women employees were removed for the U.S. Postal Service, federal government, government, service-providing, and total nonfarm.”
Do what does that do to Romney’s claim?† A lot.† There’s not a clear picture yet, but based on other data, Broner’s reports that rather than the alleged 90 percent of jobs lost belonging to women, like the campaign claims, the number is really somewhere around 56 percent.
That’s quite a big difference.
Photo credit: Thinkstock