NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Important 1st Paragraph :

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: MAY 2004

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 248,000 in May, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor reported today. The May increase in payroll employment
follows gains of 346,000 in April and 353,000 in March (as revised). Job
growth in May again was widespread, as increases continued in construction,
manufacturing, and several service-providing industries.


Edited : May, not March

Blah, blah, blah. You knew I was going to say that, right? :D

Yes, and it's seasonal work and McJobs which they're factoring into those numbers. Additionally, May is always higher because of summer temporary positions in retail and such. A minimum wage service job that will last for approximantely three months doesn't do much to reassure someone who was making over $40,000 annual in their last position and is leveraged way over their head. Also, the unemployment rate stayed at 5.6% so we're not creating new jobs so much as breaking even. This rate doesn't even count the hundreds of thousands of workers who lost their jobs and who's unemployment benefits have run out so they're no longer counted in that 5.6% even though they can't find work. Our total umemployment figure, from the Economic Policy Institute is 8.2 million (which actually went up in May 32,000) displaced workers and this doesn't count the influx of new workers entering the job market. New workers accounted for 233,000 persons seeking a job which brings the new influx of workers into the labor market up to 503,000 since February. Household employment is growing incredibly slowly and if we want the unemployment rate to come down, it must pick up in order to not only accomodate new workers but displaced workers with experience.

The job market is recovering, slowly, but we are still nightmarishly behind where we were four years ago and, with gas prices and terror threats, the recovery is far from solid. It will only take one crisis to shatter it and send us right back to where we were.

Furthermore, the suggestion is that Bush has already lost this issue and voters are not impressed with the "miracle" economic recovery.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5067838/

That's the great thing about Bush. There are just sooooooooooooo much to dislike! :D

they might not be great jobs, but they'll put food on the table

but not permanantly. And they are dead end. What sort of world is it when you can have a dead end job, or just be unemployed? Or you could just hope you are born into a higher caste and into money.

Blah, blah, blah. You knew I was going to say that, right? :D

Yes, and it's seasonal work and McJobs which they're factoring into those numbers. Additionally, May is always higher because of summer temporary positions in retail and such. A minimum wage service job that will last for approximantely three months doesn't do much to reassure someone who was making over $40,000 annual in their last position and is leveraged way over their head. Also, the unemployment rate stayed at 5.6% so we're not creating new jobs so much as breaking even. This rate doesn't even count the hundreds of thousands of workers who lost their jobs and who's unemployment benefits have run out so they're no longer counted in that 5.6% even though they can't find work. Our total umemployment figure, from the Economic Policy Institute is 8.2 million (which actually went up in May 32,000) displaced workers and this doesn't count the influx of new workers entering the job market. New workers accounted for 233,000 persons seeking a job which brings the new influx of workers into the labor market up to 503,000 since February. Household employment is growing incredibly slowly and if we want the unemployment rate to come down, it must pick up in order to not only accomodate new workers but displaced workers with experience.


There's been almost one million jobs created in three months. If there is even half the amount of revision upwards for this month as there was last, it will be over one million. Thats quite a season, even though jobs have been coming in positive since sometime last year.

Scroll down and look at the economic report, and it gives this information :

Construction Industry gained 37,000 jobs
Manufacturing gained 32,000
Mining added 18,000
Services gained 64,000
Health and Social Assistance gained 36,000
Leisure, Hospitality, and Food serviced gained 33,000
Financial Activities gained 15,000
and Telcoms are down 5,000

McDonalds, along with other jobs like that, if I'm not mistaken is classified under the Leisure/Hospitality/Food section. That means that, even if EVERY job in that section were hirings by McDonalds, there would still be over 200,000 job hirings not in that section. I have no idea what Walmart is classified as. But even taking away Walmart's category, there's still a lot of jobs around. Not to mention that, according to an Economist issue a few weeks ago, Americans are more likely to hold their job now than they were in the dot-com boom.

On the unemployment issue, taken from the National Bureau of Labor Stats again,
http://data.bls.gov/labjava/servlets/graphics/generated_graphs/LNS14000000_137574_1086456098601

It takes time. From 7% in 1993, it took about 4 years to go to 5%. That less than 1% a year. So, yes, your right. If we use March, which is a better month (because what seems to be the current economic situation in employment didn't really start until March), to start the number of people coming into the labor market, there's still a decent number of surplus jobs being created. Unemployment is a rather static statistic, though, it dosen't move in big movements but rather in small movements as you probably know.

Yes, there have been nearly a million jobs created since the beginning of the year, but there have also been nearly half a million new people coming into the workforce since February and that trend is only going to continue over the next couple of months as college grads head out to seek their first career jobs. Therefore, that leaves only a net gain of around half a million jobs to go to the currently 8.2 million unemployed (both still on unemployment benefits and those who's benefits have run out and fallen off the official government rolls).

Furthermore, the job loss for women continues at a staggering rate. From March 2001 to March 2004, women lost over 300,000 jobs and the ratio of population to employment remains stubbornly low.

Last July, Bush's "Jobs and Growth Plan" tax cuts took effect and he promised the creation of 5.5 million new jobs by the end of 2004. Here we are, six months into the year, and we've only seen a creation of 1 million and over 500,000 new entrants into the job market. We're still way behind this most recent promise and let's not even mention the campaign promise which was shattered before the first year of his presidency was over.

As for the McJobs issue, you're right in your numbers but wrong in your interpretation. The jobs created outside of the Leisure sector are either not paying anywhere near the previous salaries qualified workers came to depend on or are temporary or are part time and seasonal positions that always open up in May and even opened up in May when we were showing net job losses over the past three years. Simply put, the industries that are expanding pay less and for people who are morgaged and leveraged on credit out the wazoo, these jobs are no help at all in meeting their monthly bills, let alone providing for their future. I agree, some job is better than no job, but some job isn't going to work when we start to see massive forclosures and reposessions.

On top of all this, wage growth for the currently employeed has moved lock step with inflation at 2.2% so no one is getting ahead. Payroll employment remains down at 1.3%. The percentage of those out of work for over six months remains at a recessionary level of 21.9% in May, which is a 0.5% increase from a year ago. Average unemployment length went up in may from 19.7 weeks to 20 weeks. That's an average of FIVE MONTHS to find a new job, if you find one at all. Who has enough money to hold on for five months while they're looking for work? Finally, the number of part-time employees wanting full time jobs went up in May to 4.7 million. People want to work, but they still can't find a job that pays the bills.

I'll agree, this is good news, but it's far too little too late and with too many caveates to save Bush or his promises. Employers are hiring again, but they're hiring late and slow and in industries where the quality of job is below that of industries that are still contracting. Hopefully, though, this will turn around. I want it to turn around. I want people to be able to pay their bills and put food on their table and send their kids to college and be able to travel. I want this so much that I'm willing to give this one to Bush if he can make it happen, but so far we haven't seen this and I think it's important to remember that the job market is far from recovered, regardless of the gains over the past few months.

Remember when a 5.6% unemployment rate would have been horrible? I do--back in 2000 when the unemployment was 3.9%. You're allowed to officially start talking shit about Bush's economic package when he gets unemployment below 5%. Until then, give me a break.

Does any of this really matter? I mean he's still at a 1.9 million job deficit just to break even from when he took over in 2000. When he creates more jobs then he started with.. Then I'd say you have reason to cheer. Not until. You may spin this any way you like.. however, the cold hard facts are no president since Herbert Hoover has lost and not created jobs while in office.. Recession or not.

Remember when a 5.6% unemployment rate would have been horrible? I do--back in 2000 when the unemployment was 3.9%. You're allowed to officially start talking shit about Bush's economic package when he gets unemployment below 5%. Until then, give me a break.

You're right. They did it much better during the Clinton years when unemplyment averaged 5.7%.

France also has a more firm grasp on it with their 10% unemployment.

Remember when a 5.6% unemployment rate would have been horrible? I do--back in 2000 when the unemployment was 3.9%. You're allowed to officially start talking shit about Bush's economic package when he gets unemployment below 5%. Until then, give me a break.

You're right. They did it much better during the Clinton years when unemplyment averaged 5.7%.

France also has a more firm grasp on it with their 10% unemployment.When Clinton took over, unemployment was firmly in the 6%+ range. By the time he left office, it was at 3.9%. Your number is a perfect example of why in statistical terms the word average means jack shit.

Meanwhile, under George W. Bush, unemployment has gone from 3.9% to as high as 5.9% and is now hovering around 5.6% despite job growth the last three months--some of which is questionable at best. I refer to the website of Brad DeLong, professor of Economics for the explanation of that phantom growth.

Remember when a 5.6% unemployment rate would have been horrible? I do--back in 2000 when the unemployment was 3.9%. You're allowed to officially start talking shit about Bush's economic package when he gets unemployment below 5%. Until then, give me a break.

You're right. They did it much better during the Clinton years when unemplyment averaged 5.7%.

France also has a more firm grasp on it with their 10% unemployment.

Er, no. When Clinton took office, unemployment was at 7.5%. By the end of his eight year run, he had given us the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 at 4.2% and prior to this it had remained below 5% for 30 months in a row. 20.4 million new jobs were created under Clinton, adding an averate of 245,000 jobs per month, the highest of any president, with 18.8 million of those jobs being created in the private sector. Also, under Clinton, real wages were up 6.5%.

lucky americans with your employment

Oh God, another fascist Nazi skinhead, here we go again....

hey i was only joking around so get off your high horse and chill ok?

That's good, I found a job in April, so, my number must have counted this month. :P

What good are millions of jobs if they're in a bubble? None, in the long term.

No one's doubing that there's still a net loss, although by January at the current rate of the last three months, there will be a (small) net gain. September 11th and the dot-com bust both contributed to the slowdown effect. Both were out of Bush's control.

Furthermore, the job loss for women continues at a staggering rate. From March 2001 to March 2004, women lost over 300,000 jobs and the ratio of population to employment remains stubbornly low.
Staggering? The unemployment rate for women is lower than that of the average, and considerably so once teenagers are factored out. Losting over 300,000 jobs in a period where millions were lost net is not staggering at all. If anything, its the men that were taking the bigger share of the burder, but the sex of whoever's jobs are being lost dosen't really matter.

The jobs created outside of the Leisure sector are either not paying anywhere near the previous salaries qualified workers came to depend on or are temporary or are part time and seasonal positions that always open up in May and even opened up in May when we were showing net job losses over the past three years. Simply put, the industries that are expanding pay less and for people who are morgaged and leveraged on credit out the wazoo, these jobs are no help at all in meeting their monthly bills, let alone providing for their future. I agree, some job is better than no job, but some job isn't going to work when we start to see massive forclosures and reposessions.
Massive forclosures and reposessions won't happen. Its an economic recovery turning into boom conditions. The almost a million jobs that have happened over the last 3 months aren't seasonal. In the late 1990s the months of March, April, and May were by no means ones were huge gains compared to other months. The largest gains traditionally came in the group of November/December/January, not in the Spring. If you want a good example of overborrowing and the bad effects of it, look no further than 4-5 years ago and the 3 years of recession that followed.

On top of all this, wage growth for the currently employeed has moved lock step with inflation at 2.2% so no one is getting ahead. Payroll employment remains down at 1.3%. The percentage of those out of work for over six months remains at a recessionary level of 21.9% in May, which is a 0.5% increase from a year ago. Average unemployment length went up in may from 19.7 weeks to 20 weeks. That's an average of FIVE MONTHS to find a new job, if you find one at all. Who has enough money to hold on for five months while they're looking for work? Finally, the number of part-time employees wanting full time jobs went up in May to 4.7 million. People want to work, but they still can't find a job that pays the bills.

The Median number, in some ways a better indicator, is much more bright. The median length of unemployment is down 1.7 weeks since its peak in June of '03 to 10. It did go up from May to April, but it went down from March to May. Median unemployment length hit double digits once in the past 20 years, aside from the recent recession. Of course we both know that there was a recession in the early 1990s, and unemployment length isn't the way to indicate whether there is one or not. As to payroll numbers, I'm not sure what you mean by that, seeing as how payroll numbers have increased since the low-water in 03. Average weekly earnings are up a little over 2% since March (520.93 to 531.76). The highest during Clinton's term? 474.03.

What good are millions of jobs if they're in a bubble? None, in the long term.

Agreed, but Bush did nothing to try and soften the impact of that burst. Although, to be fair, neither did Clinton.


No one's doubing that there's still a net loss, although by January at the current rate of the last three months, there will be a (small) net gain. September 11th and the dot-com bust both contributed to the slowdown effect. Both were out of Bush's control.

Assuming these are long term positions. Assuming these positions pay living wages (which minimum isn't anymore, by the way). Assuming these positions aren't temporary. Assuming these positions are full time. And, most importantly, assuming the trend continues at present rates. If you want to talk about recent trends, I could say that since May's job growth was less than Aprils, we could be seeing signs of a job growth slowdown with companies becoming more reluctant to hire again as terror threats increase, world instability increases and gas prices increase. It's probably not true, but it shows the danger in taking a couple of months of gains as a definite indicator of things to come.


Massive forclosures and reposessions won't happen. Its an economic recovery turning into boom conditions.

What?!?


The almost a million jobs that have happened over the last 3 months aren't seasonal.

Not all of them, no, but a significant portion are, as well as temporary or part time. Also, the sectors that are growing offer lower quality jobs than those we've lost. And, again, I point out that since Feb there have been over 500,000 new entrants into the job market with a total unemployment figure over 8 million. Under a million jobs created since January (particularly since we can't attribute this creation to Bush's tax programs of June 2003) are a drop in the bucket with no guarantee that there will be any more or any increase in monthy creation totals. Not to mention that the average length of unemployment is rising, wages are not improving and the unemployment rate is staying steady. New jobs are great, but we need more of them and they need to be better for us to say this is anything other than a jobless recovery and the only "boom" conditions that exist are for corporate heads who squeeze every drop of effort and productivity out of their employees.


In the late 1990s the months of March, April, and May were by no means ones were huge gains compared to other months. The largest gains traditionally came in the group of November/December/January, not in the Spring.

But Spring months traditionally show a stronger job gain than other months. Of course not as much as the temporary seasonal gains of the end of the year months with the consumerisim orgy that Christmas has become, but as graduates leave school and the tourisim market swings into prominance


If you want a good example of overborrowing and the bad effects of it, look no further than 4-5 years ago and the 3 years of recession that followed.

And we're in that exact same situation again, except this time we don't have eight years of explosive economic growth to fall back on.

Not all of them, no, but a significant portion are, as well as temporary or part time. Also, the sectors that are growing offer lower quality jobs than those we've lost. And, again, I point out that since Feb there have been over 500,000 new entrants into the job market with a total unemployment figure over 8 million. Under a million jobs created since January (particularly since we can't attribute this creation to Bush's tax programs of June 2003) are a drop in the bucket with no guarantee that there will be any more or any increase in monthy creation totals. Not to mention that the average length of unemployment is rising, wages are not improving and the unemployment rate is staying steady. New jobs are great, but we need more of them and they need to be better for us to say this is anything other than a jobless recovery and the only "boom" conditions that exist are for corporate heads who squeeze every drop of effort and productivity out of their employees.
Unemployment is slowly going down - although May should be no suprise. Most colleges let out in May, meaning the biggest wave of new entrants to the job market every year comes in May. The second biggest comes in June. Average amounts of new entrants are generally worthless when talking about unemployment month-to-month because entrants don't come in average amounts. They come in waves. And wages are increasing. Slowly? Yes. But inflation isn't a roaring problem yet. Wages are slowly outpacing inflation, and seeing as how the big job hirings only began in March, its not a big suprise that they're not taking bigger strides yet. One big thing that effects wage averages, as well, is huge CEO salaries. Even if a few dozen companies have big scandals or big CEO cuts, average wages go down. Thats the problem with averages over medians when talking about economic terms, a few CEOs making 30 million pull up and distort the average.

In case anyone cares to know, most economists agree that full employment is anything between 5 and 6%, and we are currently in that range.

In case anyone cares to know, most economists agree that full employment is anything between 5 and 6%, and we are currently in that range.

Er, no, we're higher than that. There are, at best estimate, currently 8.2 million people out of work which is a higher percentage than the 5.6% number government statistics give us. The 5.6% number does not take into account people who are no longer receiving unemployment because it has run out. It also doesn't take into account part time jobs, seasonal jobs, temporary jobs or figure into the equation the quality of the job.

In case anyone cares to know, most economists agree that full employment is anything between 5 and 6%, and we are currently in that range.Actually--full employment is considered to be between 3 and 4%, and we're not near that range yet.

Another fascinating point I just picked up the other day. According to the Labor Department, there are no fewer than 6 different definitions for unemployment, and the rate depends on which definition you use. If you use the strictest definition, the rate falls closer to 5%--if you use the loosest, it rises to nearly 10%.

Does any of this really matter? I mean he's still at a 1.9 million job deficit just to break even from when he took over in 2000. When he creates more jobs then he started with.. Then I'd say you have reason to cheer. Not until. You may spin this any way you like.. however, the cold hard facts are no president since Herbert Hoover has lost and not created jobs while in office.. Recession or not.
And Herbert Hoover had an extremely small impact on the economy at the time.