Is Neutron Jack Welch not so tough after all?

Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch / CBS
When Jack Welch was the CEO GE, he earned the moniker "Neutron Jack" (the nuclear bomb that maximized damage to humans, while leaving buildings standing) for the 100,000 job cuts that he engineered during his tenure. The tough guy boss who claims to "shoot straight from the gut" may have a thinner skin than most would imagine.
Following the September jobs report Friday, Welch suggested via Twitter that the Labor Department data had been manipulated by Obama administration officials (who he called "Chicago guys"). Within minutes of the Tweet, pretty much every reputable economist blasted Welch and called his accusation nonsense. Leading the charge in the Welch criticism was none other than Fortune (and its sister organization CNNMoney), the magazine to which Welch had been a contributor.
In response to the harsh treatment received by his very own publication, Welch announced that he will no longer contribute to Fortune, saying he would get better "traction" elsewhere...like a place that doesn't call him out for spinning his conspiracy theories.
Whether you admired Jack Welch for turning around a moribund industrial giant or you are in the camp of The Big Picture's Barry Ritholtz, who believes that Welch was one of the "luckier, more wildly over-compensated CEOs around" who partook in some good old fashioned cooking of books himself according to the SEC, (how did such a big company come within pennies of earnings estimates quarter after quarter?), the Twitter episode suggests recklessness on the part of a respected business figure.
At a time when the public's trust in government is at an all-time low, conspiracy theories that call into question the work of lifelong civil servants further undermines trust. After the heat was turned up, an alternative path for Welch would have been to write an article that owned up to his mistake and acknowledged that sometimes when you shoot straight from the gut, you bypass the all-important brain. He didn't choose that path.
Popular on MoneyWatch
- Amy's Baking Company: Post-meltdown PR campaign 45 Comments
- How to stop the mediocrity pandemic
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Top 10 professional life coaching myths
- Crowdfunding: Meet the Koch brothers
- Powerball: What to do if you won
- 4 Things Not to Buy at Costco
- 12 great college graduation gift ideas














Look at the actual BLS report (first URL below). The math simply does not add up until you look at Table A-8 (second URL below), where you discover that 582,000 part-time jobs were magically created. Does that make sense? Of course not.
And then consider the fact that BLS used those part-time jobs to lower the unemployment rate, yet did not include them in the jobs created. Perhaps it is not fraud, but it is certainly highly inconsistent.
Finally, look at the Bloomberg jobs graph (third URL below), especially the employment-population ratio which is a much better indicator of the health of our job market. Obama's job creation is an illusion.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/unemployment-drop-masks-labor-malaise-chart-of-the-day.html
http://saucymugwump.blogspot.com/2012/10/tweedledum-and-tweedledee-dance-to.html
Wow, five spelling, punctuation and/or grammatical errors in your first sentence alone!
If you ever read my blog, you would discover that I loathe Republicans and Democrats equally. But you, like most members of political parties today, assume that anyone not 100% with you is 100% against you.
saucymugwump.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------
looks like he has his own empty chair episode here.
amazing how insistence on sticking w/ an ideological belief can so completely block rational and cognitive reality.
---------------------------------------
well then ... maybe everything is actually much better than the numbers suggest.
or is it just that you need to accept only that which fits w/ your already set belief about something ... and anything to the contrary must be explained away w/ some form of rationalization ... like a conspiracy ... or cooking the books.
why would you use the numbers when they were worse to indict 'those you do not agree with' ... but discount them when they now show something better?
why do you suppose you'd be doing that?
http://*********.com/blogs/chairman/2012/10/09/manka-bros-would-like-to-offer-jack-welch-a-job/
If 114 thousand jobs are 3/10 of one percent of the labor force, the labor force is 38 million.
To assess the accuracy of the numbers, we need to know the size of the labor force.
The effective unemployment rate (= those counted as unemployed, as part time but seeking full time jobs, and as no longer seeking work) is 14%.
Jack Welch is obviously one of those people.