Poll part Deux- Don't let media tell you Walker's up

Now I want to go back to the PPP poll and look at the Governor's race, because that poll also produced a surprising result, with Walker holding leads between 5 and 12 points above all Dem challengers. Now, some of this reflects the fact that the Dem primary has yet to be settled and one candidate hasn't emerged as the choice (any candidate's numbers should go up after that happens), but I want to re-examine those suspicious demos and see how much of an effect they have.

Ther are a number of fishy responses in these crosstabs (voters under 30 will vote for WALKER by double digits when they vote Dem by 20 points in many polls? Women vote Dem +15-20 nationwide but only Dem +6 against the guy who just repealed the ability to get damages in workplace sex discrimination cases? 95-97% of Republicans will vote for Walker? CMON!), but let's go into a few typical ones.

Demographics of April PPP poll
Dem 31
GOP 32
"Independent" 37

Liberal 18
Moderate 43
Conservative 38

Obama voter 50
McCain 41
Didn't vote 9

However, we know that these numbers fly in the face of who actually should be expected vote, whether we're using the example of the 2011 recall election polls or the 2010 exit poll, both of whom were pretty bang-on with their numbers. For statewide races, we'll use the 2010 exit poll, and go from there.

We know that the liberal number went up 3 and the conservative number was down 2 in 2010. It also had a Dem +1 ID and a much smaller Independent figure, so let's do that as well.

PPP poll with 2010 exit poll demos-Party ID
Walker-Barrett- 50-46 Walker
Walker- Falk- 51-45 Walker
Walker-Vinehout- 50-39 Walker
Walker-La Follette- 51-41 Walker

PPP poll with 2010 exit poll demos- ideology
Walker-Barrett- 48-46 Walker
Walker- Falk- 48-45 Walker
Walker-Vinehout- 48-39 Walker
Walker-La Follette- 49-41 Walker

Little closer, isn't it? Walker can't even get to 50% in this case. You'll also notice that poll respondents said they voted for Obama 51-40, while the actual result was 56-42 Obama. Well let's just say we get a turnout that looks more like 2008, and I'll drop the margin a couple of points down to 12 to reflect a bit of churn (and I'm giving the GOP a break, because given how old the average GOP is, it's probably more likely that their 2008 voters will be the ones who are DEAD). So let's go with 55-43 Obama, as we assume those who didn't vote might split their votes (the PPP poll says they'll vote 3 to 1 for Walker. Given that a lot of 2010 non-voters or Green Party voters were part of the protests, I find that extremely doubtful)

PPP poll with 55-43 Obama sample
Walker-Barrett- 47-46 Walker
Walker- Falk- 47-45 Walker
Walker-Vinehout- 48-39 Walker
Walker-La Follette- 48-40 Walker

Now it's basically a toss-up with the 2 front-runners, and single digits with Vinehout and La Follette. Puts a little different look on it, doesn't it?

What gets me angry about polls like this is that the media blindly run with the results without looking how those results show up. So they portray some agenda as "Walker's winning" that the casual bystander might catch onto, and it'll encourage or discourage that voter into casting a vote, helping the candidate that is ahead in the poll. This certainly happened in 2010, as evidence by low Dem turnout leading to the disaster we know as Fitzwalkerstan.

The flip side is that when a poll with more legitimate cross-sections comes out, it'll be perceived as having the gap close (or reverse if one or more Dems go ahead). And then the media will start to pressure Walker into trying to "stem the tide". The bottom line is not to get too down with a poll like this, because inside the numbers, it's pretty clear that the poll is GOP-skewed garbage.

But it also shows the opportunity, and the way this race will be decided. If Dems and progressives navel-gaze and complain that everything isn't going their way, then we have a good chance of getting stuck with Scott Walker for 2 1/2 more years. The tightie righties might be fired up to take to the polls, and PPP seems to give them that credit, but they expect us to be a bunch of moody bitches and give up. But PPP is wrong, because we ARE taking this shit back. PPP shouldn't dare underestimate what we'll do, or how hard we'll work, and they'd better start changing their poll demos to reflect the fact that we aren't going lay back and allow Walker and the WisGOPs to hurt us any more.

If we stay engaged, bring the fire that many of us had in 2008, had at the Capitol in 2011, and that we still have and are ready to go with, we turn that fire into action. That translates into GETTING OUT AND VOTING ON MAY 8 AND JUNE 5, and getting your friends and family engaged and voting as well. We do that, we make history and blow that bastard out of office. I think it sounds like a plan.

Wisc poll says only GOPs and Indys will vote in Senate recalls. They're wrong

Saw that PPP released another poll this week on the Wisconsin recall races, and unlike 6 weeks ago, the numbers weren't all that encouraging. This poll had Scott Walker up 5 on Tom Barrett, 7 on Kathleen Falk, and double digits on Kathleen Vinehout and Doug La Follette. The Senate numbers showed all 4 Dem candidates behind, albeit with one race at 2 points and with both candidates under 50%. This could be seen as even more worrysome because PPP nailed the Wisconsin Senate recall elections last Summer.

So what happened? Did a whole lot of people just change their mind and decide "it's working?" Uhhh, no. Let's let PPP explain it themselves.

The biggest change is probably that this was our first time using a likely voter screen, We found with almost all of the recall elections last summer that the electorate just wasn't as Democratic as 2008, even if people were at least more excited about the recalls than they were about the 2010 elections. Gov. Scott Walker gains a few points as a result of that.

In other words, they consciously changed who they were polling, and it shows in the demographic numbers at the bottom of the page.

Demographics of April PPP poll
Dem 31
GOP 32
"Independent" 37

Liberal 18
Moderate 43
Conservative 38

Obama voter 50
McCain 41
Didn't vote 9

Let's go back to the 2010 CBS exit poll in Wisconsin, and remember that voting population in a GOP-slanted year- 21 liberal, 43 moderate, 36 conservative, and 37 Dem, 36 GOP, 28 Indy. Then remember that Obama carried Wisconsin 56-42 in 2008. So PPP's screen indicates that many of the Obama voters in 2008 won't show up here, and the voters taking their place will be more likely to be GOP or independent (and remember, a sizable amount of "Independents" are Tea Baggers, who are nothing more than Republicans in disguise).

However, when you look at PPP's success in 2011, the theory that a lot of Obama voters leave the scene isn't true. Let's use Craig Gilbert's excellent article using Wisconsin Senate districts and the 2008 and 2010 vote, then compare to PPP demographics in their accurate polls in the 6 GOP senate elections that took place last August.

voting by Senate districts, 2008, 2010, PPP poll 2011
District 2- Obama +6, Walker +16, 2011- McCain +3, Walker +10
District 8- Obama +4, Walker +9, 2011- Obama +0, Walker +3
District 10- Obama +2, Walker +18, 2011- McCain +2, Walker +12
District 14- Obama +5, Walker +16, 2011- McCain +2, Walker +7
District 18- Obama +4, Walker +16, 2011- McCain +3, Walker +8
District 32- Obama +23, Walker +1, 2011- Obama +14, Barrett +2

Looking at the data, looks like the dropoff is generally the same for both Walker and Obama voters (the La Crosse-area District 32 is the exception, as Obama's dropoff is 9 vs. Walker's 3). So let's run the same test with PPP's 2012 polls on the 4 GOP Senate recalls. The one slight difference is that the poll asks who the person would favor in a recall guv election, Walker or Barrett.

voting by Senate districts, 2008, 2010, PPP poll 2012
District 13- McCain +3, Walker +26, 2012- McCain +4, Walker +19
District 21- Obama +12, Walker +8, 2012- Obama +0, Walker +7
District 23- Obama +12, Walker +13, 2012- Obama +4, Walker +15
District 29- Obama +9, Walker +16, 2012- McCain +2, Walker +23

All of a sudden Scott Walker gets more support in District 23 (Eau Claire) and Distirct 29 (Wausau) than he did when he was less known in the 2010 elections? In districts that are heavily unionized and with a huge UW campus in District 23? And in districts where the recall threshhold was easily reached? BULLSHIT. Between that and the double-digit drop-offs for Obama in District 21 (Racine) and District 29, you know that poll sample is slanted badly for the GOP, except for the Fitzgerald-Compas race in District 13, which if anything favors Lori. Not surprsingly, that race is 54-40, which is a bit big but within striking distance, and an 12 point shift that would be a huge help for Walker's Dem opponent.

So let's make this change be reflective of what really happened in the 2011 recall elections, and the results might look more like this. Then I'll divide the differences by 2 to show what the shift in the overall numbers might be.

District 13- McCain +10, Walker +19 (shift from poll GOP +3)
District 21- Obama +4, Walker +0 (shift from poll Dem +7.5)
District 23- Obama +4, Walker +7 (shift from poll Dem +4)
District 29- Obama +2, Walker +9 (shift from poll Walker +9)

So let's now use the adjusted Obama and Walker figures, and we can try to create a hybrid that might give us a better idea.

District 13- Fitz +17 (GOP)
District 21- Lehman +5.5 (Dem)
District 23- Moulton +6 (GOP)
District 29- Petrowski +5

Looks a whole lot closer now, doesn't it? And after all of the GOP and Walker moves against women, including the limiting of damages from the Equal Pay Law, does anyone not think this will shift further Dem as the election gets closer? Of course it will.

The last thing I want to bring up on this poll is another comment from PPP's Tom Jensen, whose Senate polls have samples that are consistently 75% GOP and INdependent outside of District 21.

One thing we saw in all these state senate polls is a much more GOP-friendly electorate than 2008. That suggests to me that Democratic voters are suffering from recall fatigue— this has been going on for so long and we are now so far removed from the protests in early 2011 that the passion Democratic voters have for coming out and removing these folks from office just isn't what it was a year ago. It's possible those folks could be reenergized by the campaign over the next couple months but right now Democratic interest in these elections isn't what it needs to be.

Sounds like someone's not out on the ground. Because if you don't think we're not going to be blasting full-force by June 5 and our determination to blow Scott Walker and the GOP Legislature out of power has flagged, you aren't talking to anyone that's actually here in Wisconsin. After gathering over 900,000 signatures and being this close to making history, we'll be damned if we'll fizzle out, not turn out to vote, sit back and let this thuggish gang continue wrecking the state we love. Hell no.

Great moments in J-S false equivalence

Great catch by Man MKE at Uppity Wisconsin, who catches the Journal-Sentinel trying to portray yesterday's Koch-funded Tea Party rally as being as big as the anti-Walker rally last month. The Journal-Sentinel article claims "several thousand" attended Saturday's rally, but this picture seems to indicate differently.



Now, compare that with another rally attended by "several thousand"- the anti-Walker rally last month in the same place. With similar sunny weather.



And that's the street level- where the Bagger rally couldn't even reach. Interestingly, the J-S isn't carrying a wide-angle "up top" picture like that on the Tea Party rally. Makes you wonder why, eh?

Oh, but the J-S will continue that the recall movement and the Tea Party movement are equally intense and worthy of coverage, just like they did last year when the Baggers were outnumbered 20 to 1 at their own rally. Suuuuure they're equal. The J-S just keeps getting themselves closer to being Occupied with this act.

Hey Baggers, your work ethic IS being redistributed

As infuriating and stupid as I think Tea Partiers are, one thing that riles me up in particular is a Bagger bumper sticker that says "Redistribute my work ethic." The implication is along the lines of "I work hard, so why is the government giving funds to others that don't (allegedly) work as hard as I do? My taxes should be lower as a result" And I can see where that frustration comes from, because people are working harder than ever and getting less back from it. But I got a tip for these guys, because they're on the right track, but it ain't the government that's taking money out of your pocket and sending it to others.

A good example of this is the one major economic stat that seems to be getting kept out of what I've been calling the Obama Recovery, and that's wage and income growth. This week illustrated this troubling trend, as the BLS reported that real (inflation-adjusted) hourly earnings dropped by 0.1% in March and weekly earnings went down 0.4%. In addition, real hourly earnings are now down 0.6% compared to this time last year, and the only reason weekly earnings are flat is that the average work week has gone up a bit (granted, that's a good thing, as it shows more people are being hired full-time).

And those numbers continue the trend we've seen in the last 3 years, where real earnings were stagnant or declined.

Real hourly earnings, all non-farm workers 2009-2011
2008 vs. 2009- -1.0%
2009 vs. 2010- +0.3%
2010 vs. 2011- -0.9%

And if you're on the lower end of the wage and education, this is no real surprise to you, because if you don't have a college degree, you really don't make any more money than you would have a generation ago. (as usual, click the page to see a larger picture)

Real wages and education, 1979-2009

And it's not like people have been stagnant when it comes to getting the job done, as you may recall this graph showing where productivity is way up in that time, while incomes for both the private and public sector have barely creeped up.
Productivity vs. wages, 1989-2010


So you're working smarter and faster, but chances are that you haven't been paid much for it. Unless you're a 1%-er. In that case, you've gotten big returns since 1979, well above those in the top 20%, let alone those who aren't lucky enough to be upper-middle class or above. And remember that this graph hasn't been updated to show the negative real incomes for those of us on Main Street since the start of the Great Recession at the end of 2007.



Oh, and the top marginal income tax rate in 1979? 70 percent. Since then, it's been:

1981-82- 50 percent (Reagan)
1987- 38 percent
1988- 28/33 percent (Reagan-Bush I)
1991- 31.9 percent
1993- 40.8 percent- (Clinton, minus Medicare tax)
2001-2003- 40.3 percent- 36.1 percent (Bush II, minus Medicare tax)

Not coincidentally, the capital gains tax rates (which are paid on legalized gambling like the stock market and real estate) have also gone down

1978- 39%
1979- 28%
1981- 23.7% (Reagan)
1982- 20%
1987- 28%
1988- 28/33 percent (Reagan-Bush I)
1991- 31.9 percent
1993- 29.2 percent (Clinton)
1997- 21.2 percent
2003- 16.1 percent (Bush II, divdends too)

(you can check the history of top and bottom tax rates here, it's good stuff).

Anyone else sense a coincidence here? As you drop the highest income tax rates and capital gains taxes, these funds are confiscated by rich and corporate interests for themselves, as the "penalty" for hoarding incomes and profits is less, and there is less incentive for them to hire and pay workers (or work themselves) when they can just throw the money in some risky investment and get taxed less if their gamble pays off. And this trend has been going on for over 30 years.

So it's no surprise that working and middle-class people would be upset that they feel they're seeing no benefit to the hard work they put in, as there is a group that is stealing money that the workers helped make - the idle rich and the corporates who take all the benefits, without putting in all the work that we do. And those culprits keep the cycle going by paying off the politicians to keep the tax code and government policies in their favor, and they buy and pay off the media to keep them from bringing this reality to the attention of the average everyday worker.

See, if our media and our politicians did their job of being responsive and informational to the public, we might have a real Tea Party, where people would be rightfully protesting the redistribution of their work ethic. But if they did, this time they'd be recognizing the reality that the redistribution is going to the rich, corporate and well-connected, and they wouldn't need the Koch Brothers and talk-show hosts to sponsor the fake outrage, because it would be the real thing.

I hired her to work while I campaigned, she did campaign work for me, but it's a pure coincidence!

That is what you have to believe if you believe Scott Walker has nothing to do with the criminal charges that Kelly Rindfleisch is facing as part of the John Doe investigation, and two developments this week prove it.

The first is the release of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's Open Records request to Milwaukee County, which shows that Scott Walker signed off on accused Walkergate criminal Kelly Rindfleisch's appointment in January 2010, and promotion to Deputy Chief of Staff 2 months later (and making a tidy $58,000 a year). And a County Executive or Mayor is the one who is responsible for the staffing his or her office, it is a different and more direct hiring method than lower-levels positions, which are usually funneled through the DOA office and approved that way. This means Rindfleisch was WALKER's PICK FOR THE JOB.

Now combine that with Rindfleisch's motion this week to again ask that her trial be moved from Milwaukee County (where she allegedly broke the law by campaigning on the taxpayer's dime) to Columbia County (where she has a home in Columbus). If you look at Pages 8 and 9, this passage proves mighty interesting:

...Rindfleisch acknowledges staying at a friend's home in Milwaukee County a few night a week while she was employed by the County,[the home of former Walker Chief of Staff Jim Villa] but she asserts that at all times relevant to these proceedings, her permanent residence was her home in the City of Columbus, in Columbia County, Wisconsin. Specifically, Rinsfleisch averred that she purchased a home in Columbus, Wisconsin in 2001, that she still owns that home and, but for seasonal clothing and a few personal items, she left her possessions in that home when she traveled to Milwaukee County for work....

Rindfleisch futher stated in her affidavit that she has never owned property in Milwaukee, registered to vote in Milwaukee County, resided in Milwaukee County for more than a few days at a time or intended to establish a permanent domicile or residence in Milwaukee County. She stated that she has always intended to return to her home in Columbia County.

That second part is the real smoking gun. If she was hired at the start of 2010 to work in Milwaukee County, but never intended to work there full-time and planned to go back to Columbia County, why would she take the job? The answer is obvious: SHE WAS DOING WORK FOR THE 2010 ELECTIONS, and would get some state staffer job after the election was over.

And how do we know this? Because Kelly Rindfleisch admits it herself in the evidence against her! Straight from Rindfleisch's criminal complaint, Pages 3-6:

(Rindfleisch is Internet chatting with a friend, I've cleaned up the language and line breaks to give a clearer view of what is said)
Friend: do you have a residency requirement?
Rindfleisch: yep, I live on the corner of 93rd and Greenfield, you actually get six months to move, which in this case, if he (meaning Scott Walker) wins, it wouldn't matter
Friend: dude, did you sell your house?
Rindfleisch: no, it's my friend villa's house
Friend: nice
Rindfleisch: I stay 2 nights a week, hence having Michaela take care of the beasts
Friend: so when he wins, you can just live in Columbus
Rindfleisch: yep

(later on, Rindfleisch is chatting with another friend)
Friend: Who do you work with?
Rindfelsich: tim russell
Friend: What are your policy areas
Rindfleisch: fran, I don't have specific policy areas, I do projects tim gives me
Friend: what's your title?
Rindfleisch: policy advisor
Friend: that's fancy
Rindfleisch: but I don't need fancy
Friend: I wish you didn't work for government...now I can't talk to you about campaign stuff online
Rindfleisch: I'm on my laptop, separate system
Friend: oh...not shit, so it's cool?
Rindfleisch: yah
Friend:are you going to be helping out the campaign too?
Rindfleisch: really, half of what I'm doing is policy for the campaign, its policy stuff but its for use over there

So Rindfleisch just admitted in her court filing that these statements are true, and that she only took the Milwaukee County job as a campaign position for the election season. Put this together with then-County Exec Walker being the sole person signing off on Rindfleisch's hiring and promotion, and you see that Scott Walker brought Kelly Rindfleisch on as a campaign worker, but paid her out of the County Executive's Office, in clear violation of state law.

And lastly, let's not forget that Rindfleisch admits in the chats that she does projects for Tim Russell and has the separate laptop and computer system. And what did Scott Walker do on the night the Darlene Wink resignation happened, and the Walkergate web was starting to be revealed? He sent Tim Russell (who Rindfleisch was doing projects for on the separate laptop and wireless system, remember) the following message:

We cannot afford another story like this one. No one can give them any reason to fo another story. That means no latops, no websites no time away during the work day, etc.

As Garry Trudeau put it during another scumbag GOP's scandal nearly 40 years ago:

Thoughts from tonight's Dem forum

Just got back from the Dem forum at the Madison Concourse. The place was packed beyond capacity and the Dane Dems should have been smart enough to hold it at somewhere like the Wisconsin Union Theatre or the Orpheum or somewhere bigger, but it shows the intensity and interest that's still out there. I highly recommend checking one out if you get a chance.

Quick thoughts on the candidates:

Tom Barrett- If this Tom Barrett had run in 2010, he'd be governor today and we wouldn't have this mess. He rightfully attacked Walker on Scotty's inability to not get things done because Walker would rather pose and be ideological instead of getting results. He's gonna be coming out swinging if he's the nominee and he clearly backed collective bargaining rights being restored with the smart political move of calling a special session. He had a great personal story about how his wife got laid off in MPS cutbacks due to Walker's budget, and how it hurt to see how the teaching profession was being attacked by WisGOP and their allies.

Quick disclosure on Barrett: I worked for Tom in a past life, and I really like the guy as someone to work for, but this edge and forceful approach on Walker is something that he generally did not show either as Mayor or as a candidate for Guv, and it probably cost him in 2010. I think this primary is making him a better candidate, and it makes you think that the Dems dropped the ball by shoving people out of Barrett's way in 2010, because it didn't toughen him up and didn't allow him to be introduced to enough Wisconsinites before the election.

Kathleen Vinehout: It is hard not to like her. She's firey, she's very wonky at times (as evidenced by her excellent blog work at Uppity Wisconsin.), and is awesome at getting down into the details of how government works and how to make it better. I can see why she has a passionate following (the Vinehout supporters are pretty evident at most of these forums, they're the ones in orange enthusiastically giving you stuff on her), and I would love to see her mop the floor with Walker in a debate.

She also seems to legitimately have fun at these kinds of things, laughing along at others' points, and when she gets going, she is hard to slow down. Don't be surprised if she does well on election night, and if we had instant runoff voting, I'd bet she'd finish second on everyone's ballot if they didn't vote for her.

Doug La Follette: An old-school politician who has excellent ideals on good government and working together. It's a lot of things that we have lost in the last 25 years in this state in clean government, and is his very understated kind of way, La Follette has core beliefs in the Wisconsin Way that are endearing. Not exactly the most photogenic guy in the world, but I can see him being a real asset on the stump with people who know the Walker Way of pay-to-play isn't proper, and it's clear that everyone respects him. Can't see him winning (or even finishing 3rd), but his real boost will come in May and late June when he helps the winner.

Kathleen Falk: Another disclaimer, I generally don't like her, as I've always found her kinda scheming and somewhat self-absorbed. However, the competence and results she had when Dane County Executive are indisputable. And when she concentrates on those items, and how we can restore Wisconsin, she's very good. She can even loosen up and be somewhat personable in the right circumstances (she was greeting some people on the way in and it didn't come off as fake or forced, very unlike the stone-faced ice queen she's often portrayed as), and in quite a few times, I could see why people could get behind her.

But then they had the inevitable question on "How would you restore collective bargaining if you didn't have an all-Dem Legislature?" And Falk blew it even more than she did when she announced the stupid union-suckup pledge to veto the budget if it did not include collective bargaining rights. Falk explained that the GOP-led Legislature wouldn't take up collective bargaining after she was elected anyway, so it wasn't worth it to try. This reasoning was dumb because it is 1. Defeatist (it assumes it won't work) and 2. Doesn't put pressure on the GOP to make a statement before the November elections. Especially if Walker gets blasted out by 8-10 points (very possible if things are run right), you know every GOP will be running scared, and you know it'll be a Dem Senate with 18-20 votes in it.

The second part of Falk's answer on the veto pledge was equally non-sensical. She says that the Legislature has to pass a budget by law and that it allows her to neogtiate from a position of strength by saying what she will do and will not accept. Actually, saying what you will do is often a sign of weakness in negotiation, especially when Teabaggers in the Legislature could just sit on their hands and do nothing, which keeps the disastrous Walker budget in power, AND keeps bargaining rights from happening. Don't doubt that it could be the GOP strategy in that scenario, and a Governor Falk would catch some of the blame for "not compromising" (not my thoughts, but the "both sides" media would certainly portray it that way) and focusing on one issue instead of the whole budget.

Barrett (and to an extent Vinehout) got the answer right- You call a special session for July, and you put the pressure on the GOP to allow bargaining rights. You know there's a lot of first-term GOP Assembly members that'll be feeling the footsteps of the public, especially if Walker gets his ass kicked on June 5, and maybe Jeff Fitzgerald will try to hold up a bill through the GOP primary in late August, but after he gets blown out in that (and he will), a whole lot GOP legislators might be willing to tell Little Fitz to fuck himself instead of fucking them over in the next election. If nothing else, going special session would be a great political move coming right around the time a lot of schools and municipalities will be discussing budgets, and if the GOP continues to bow to ALEC instead of Wisconsinites, they'll be a minority party in this state for quite a while, redistricting or no redistricting.

I'm not making an endorsement, at least not yet (though I can think you can tell who I like and who I won't vote for). But it was also very telling that Dane County Dem chair Mike Basford made a call for all supporters to come together after the primary on May 8 to defeat Walker, and he was met with a rousing ovation from the crowd. We may disagree on our candidates, but unlike what Sly, the AFSCME people and the Journal-Senintel are trying to portray, there is no major split going on in the Dem party (just a few loudmouths), and we will unite behind whoever wins this primary. And any of these 4 will be a major improvement over what we have now.

U.S. weather well above average in March. Jobs? Meh

I wanted to follow up with something I examined earlier, which looked at the incredibly warm winter and whether it was changing some economic stats. I certainly thought it had a minor effect on Wisconsin home sales and jobs through February, as seasonal layoffs were lessened and home sales were slightly up. However, February's warmth was nothing compared to March, which broke records in nearly half of the states in the U.S., and included new records for EVERY Midwestern state (marked by the bright red state and the "118").



Wisconsin was especially warm in March, even among all the states setting records. Look at this chart showing Green Bay's average temperature from Jan 1 to March 31. Needless to say, the Tundra wasn't exactly frozen before March 1, and then month number 3 blew everything away, even among the previous records.



So you'd think that might speed up Springtime hiring in jobs such as landscaping and construction and even retail food and beverage outlets (if they had an outdoor area- I guarantee you the Union Terrace a UW-Madison set a March record). However, you take a look at the March employment report that dropped on Friday, that didn't seem to be the case. The media concentrated on the lower-than-expected 120,000 jobs created for March, which by itself isn't that big of a deal, because the U.S. has still created 1.9 million jobs for the last 12 months and 2.1 million in the private sector, as steady growth continues. I'll worry that we're slowing down if I see those numbers stay down at the 120K levels each of the next 2-3 months, but it very well could be a one-off.

What I found interesting was when I went inside the numbers and looked at the different sectors of job performance for the month. I was expecting construction and related outdoor jobs to go up past the typical seasonal adjustement, but that didn't happen. The only exception seems to be places like the Home Depot. Meanwhile, restaurants and bars definitely hired up.

Change in jobs, U.S. February-March 2012
Construction -7,000 seasonally adusted, +86,000 non-seasonal
Food and beverage stores -6,100 seasonally adjusted, -8,500 non-seasonal
General merchandise stores -32,300 seasonally adjusted, -18,800 non-seasonal
Building material and garden supply stores +5,300 seasonally adjusted, +50,900 non-seasonal
Food services and drinking places +36,900 seasonally adjusted, +214,200 non-seasonal.

Where we might have seen a difference with the warm winter comes from the household report that determines the unemployment rate. In particular, a lot of entrants to the work force in February was offset by fewer-than-normal entrants in March, and a similar amount of non-seasonal job gains translated into many fewer seasonal job gains.

Work force numbers, February, March 2012
February- +679,000 non-seasonal, +476,000 seasonal
March - +202,000 non-seasonal, -164,000 seasonal
Two-month change- +881,000 non-seasonal, +312,000 seasonal

"Employed" status, February, March 2012
February- +740,000 non-seasonal, 428,000 seasonal
March- +728,000 non-seasonal, -31,000 seasonal
Two-month change- +1,468,000 non-seasonal, +397,000 seasonal

So when you look at it that way, it's possible that some of the activity that would usually have happened in March already happened in February, and that in reality the 2 months reflect what would normally be job growth in the 180,000 range each month instead of +240K in February and +120K in March.

We'll see in a couple of weeks how this plays out in Wisconsin, as last year's initial report of 9,100 seasonally-adjusted jobs was less than the non-seasonal increase of 13,200 (it was later revised down to 4,300 seasonal, by the way). This seasonal deflating of jobs is the opposite of the first two months, where lower-than-normal construction layoffs translated into a "gain" of jobs.

To review, looks like the weather boost from the record heat wasn't very much in the U.S. except for a few minor sectors, and it's not helping construction nationwide. What it may have done, however, is helped move some activity forward into February, as the dead of winter wasn't so dead, but the start of Spring in many parts had already sprung by March 1, so you didn't see a lot of help there. Wisconsin could prove the exception (we usually still deal with major snows in March, instead of seeing green grass and trees blooming like this year), but nationwide, the hiring bump didn't happen.