NationStates Jolt Archive

Last quarter, the United States experienced its largest economic growth rate in nearly 20 years, and now, CNN reports U.S. job growth soars (http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes) (308,000 jobs created in past month). Though one quarter and one month do not a trend make, could this be the turn-around point? If the economy is indeed on a rebound (the next quarter's growth rate should provide more concrete evidence), does this spell the end for Kerry's neo-it's-the-economy-stupid campaign?

I find your thread title misleading.

that title made me think of the apocalypse, not that the world economy was recovering :twisted: . please change it :)

Well, a economic growth plus the creation of jobs (both of which can be verified) generally mean the end of a recession. So i don't find it misleading at all. It asks the question... given these factors, is the recession nearing an end?


Sorry, didn't think of the apocalyptic overtones there

job figures have been being manipulated for quite a while now.
this is nothing new.

I only hve one thing to say I am proud to be Animarican. :D :D :) :) :lol: :lol: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :lol: :) :D :) :lol: :wink: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :tantrum: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :) :P :P :P :P :P 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :D :)

quit spamming the smilies

job figures have been being manipulated for quite a while now.
this is nothing new.

If they are manipulated, then why were they listed as negative in 2003? If i was manipulating numbers, then you can bet i wouldn''t have had 7 straight months of negatives. They are calculated via surveys conducted from census data, and it is not only cynical, but extremely unrealistic to believe that so many people would give false results.

I would wait till after the elections are over. Election Politics creates all sorts of statistics.

Even with the numbers given I would ask a break down of the numbers. Fulltime vs part time.

Out of work full timers taking a starbucks job out of desperation? Is that really employment?

Also question their definitions of a job. Don't forget the Shrub was trying to classify fast food workers as manufactoring jobs.

job figures have been being manipulated for quite a while now.
this is nothing new.

If they are manipulated, then why were they listed as negative in 2003? If i was manipulating numbers, then you can bet i wouldn''t have had 7 straight months of negatives. They are calculated via surveys conducted from census data, and it is not only cynical, but extremely unrealistic to believe that so many people would give false results.

They are manipulated in the sense that the only people considered 'unemployed' by the surveys are those actively looking for work. Those who gave up looking are not considered unemployed. So, if they went back to school, moved somewhere they could live off a family member, turned to crime and are not actively seeking work, they are not considered unemployed. If they just gave up and now live in a box behind the grocery store, they aren't considered unemployed.

So the numbers may be showing negatives, but they aren't showing the true numbers. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040401/ap_on_bi_ge/work_force_dropouts_2

I would wait till after the elections are over. Election Politics creates all sorts of statistics.

Even with the numbers given I would ask a break down of the numbers. Fulltime vs part time.

Out of work full timers taking a starbucks job out of desperation? Is that really employment?

Also question their definitions of a job. Don't forget the Shrub was trying to classify fast food workers as manufactoring jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

There's a chart giving a break-down as well as a written explanation.

The number not considered in the labor force has been constant over the last few months, so that has not been fiddled with to produce new numbers.

One would hope that there would be a bit of a pick up. After all none of this negates the fact that since George Bush has come to power he has lost jobs like crazy, no one since Herbert Hoover has ever done as poorly of a job on jobs as Bush. Also keep in mind that Hoover was president during the great depression. So, that sure doesn't say very much for George Bush now does it.