NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be a lot of negative talk going on especially since the new numbers came out on Monday about the lack of jobs created since the last time we checked them. Something like only 32,000 jobs were created when it was expected that something like 282,000 were expected to be created. All this negative talk about expectations that were not reached is bogus to me. Not to mention the fact that 32,000 new jobs is a good thing and that is 32,000 more jobs than we had in June. The survey they use is a little off as well, it doesn't take into account the self employed or the small businesses.

When you bother to do a little research, which I have done by going to the Department of Labor's website you find that Bush has a decent if not good record on jobs. Starting after the 9/11 attacks, since that is what really kicked the unemployment rate upwards lets look at some numbers.

October 2001 Unemployment rate = 5.4%
October 2001 Labor Force* = 144,171,000 people

July 2004 Unemployment rate = 5.5%
July 2004 Labor Force = 147,856,000

*Labor force as defined by the Department of Labor is the total number of people employed and those unemployed.

So the total labor force grew by roughly 3.8 million people and yet the unemployment rate while going higher than 5.5 during the time between October 2001 and July 2004 is only a tenth of a percent higher than it was in October 2001.

I happen to believe that the unemployment rate will keep going down from its high of 6.3% in June of 2003 and that the labor force will continue to grow. So much for the worst jobs record since Hoover.

You can find all the statistics I quoted above here
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
Simply click the boxes for Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment Rate under the Heading of Employment and it will bring both tables up on the same page.

Well this thread fell from the first page rather quickly, I guess when you present the solid facts, liberals scurry like a cockroach when the light is turned on. Its a shame these facts arn't getting much play in the mainstream media, I guess they're too busy trying to get Kerry elected.

No! Not John Kerry! I hate ketchup!

Keep in mind that this doesn't include jobs that were lost.

Or maybe your premise wasn't interesting enough to engage debate. President Bush has been campaigning on the great things he has done for the economy and the jobs market. You can try to make the numbers say anything you want to.

The fact is, since Dubya took office, the number of employed Americans has decreased. The average annual salary for the new jobs being created is about $10,000 LESS per year than the ones they are replacing.

So, people are getting laid off, spending some amount of time out of work where the unemployment they are getting is less than their old salary, then they settle for a job paying significantly less than they were. And you call this a good record on jobs?

It's interesting that when the facts are against them, the neocons say the media is trying to help the liberals. They never complain when the conservative media furthers its agenda with lies.

Your serve.

Actually, we don't scurry--I've just dumped on this enough in other threads that I felt no need to do it here.

Let me educate you on something--32,000 jobs is dogshit bad. The economy, in order to keep up with population growth, needs to add approximately 140,000 jobs a month. That's just to stay even. Bush's economy is still in the hole overall since he took office, to the tune of 1.2 to 1.8 million jobs depending on which survey you look at--the payroll or the household. The payroll number is the lower and it's generally the more accurate, so I'll use that one.

Now lets do a little math. Counting from February 2000, Bush has been in office for 43 months. In order to keep up with population growth, Bush needed to create about 6.02 million jobs. He's lost 1.2 million, which means he's 7.22 million jobs below where he ought to be. Not to mention that he's on track to be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs.

Oh--and the way the Bush administration is constantly revising job numbers downward every month, I wouldn't expect that 32,000 number to hold up either. It'll probably go down.

If you really want to talk economy understand the numbers you post first!

The labor force is just that: those who are available to work. The labor force is just a function of population growth, so by saying it's growing just means we're breeding. What a victory for Bush! Your own numbers showed the unemployment rate actually growing. The real number to look at is jobs growth or loss, which is the shamefull truth of the Bush economy.

The July 2004 jobs report is out, and it’s another losing month – just 32,000 new jobs created. Remember, any month below 150,000 is a losing month, because that’s rate by which the workforce expands in this country because of population growth.

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics adjusted the June 2004 number downward from 112,000 to just 78,000, a net loss of 34,000 jobs, which is even less than the 32,000 created in July. So, although 300,000 new jobs would have needed to be created during the past two months just to break even, instead there were only 120,000 new jobs. That’s 180,000 jobs below the break-even point.

Here’s the proper way to asses the jobs data over the past 18 months, a time period from February 2003 until now that is fully within the window of the post-tax cut period the president keeps telling us is recharging our economy. Here are the monthly job creation figures for the period:

02/3 -159
03/3 -110
04/3 -20
05/3 -28
06/3 -14
07/3 -45
08/3 -25
09/3 67
10/3 88
11/3 83
12/3 8
01/4 159
02/4 83
03/4 353
04/4 324
05/4 208
06/4 78
07/4 32
Total 1,082

At first blush, it looks like the economy created almost 1.1 million jobs during the past year and half. But remember, the economy needed to create 2.7 million jobs just to absorb the number of new people entering the workforce during the past 18 months (18 * 150K = 2.7 million).

And thus, during the past 18 months the economy has effectively lost more than 1.6 million jobs relative to those needing them.

Now if factor in all the jobs lost during the first three years of his term, Bush is on pace to become the first President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs during his term, despite the population growth you cite. Nice job!

Now if you really want to learn about which party does a better job with jobs and the economy, read the article below:

Do the Math
By Michael Kinsley
Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B07
You know how sometimes, when it's really really hot, you get this urge to crank up the old spreadsheet, download a bunch of numbers from the Web and start crunching away like there's no next fiscal Me neither. But I did spend a bit of the past week watching the Democratic National Convention on TV, and I needed something to exercise my mind while that was going on. Convention season is the one time every four years when we pretend that political parties matter. In general we have accepted the reality that campaigns for national office have become entrepreneurial, united more by shared political consultants than by old-fashioned parties.

Is there a difference between the parties that transcends the differences between the candidates? Is one of the parties, for example, a better steward of the economy? One year won't tell you much, or even one administration. But surely differences will emerge over half a century or so, if they exist. With that thought, I headed for the Web. Specifically, I went to the charts attached to the President's Economic Report, released in February. There I downloaded like a madman and then distilled the mess into a few key stats.
The figures I'm using are from the 43 years 1960 through 2002.This odd stretch of time reflects the years that are included in all of the charts I wanted to use. By doing it this way, I hope to convince you that I didn't choose the years to skew the results. Because the results are pretty interesting. Maybe presidents have little power over the economy. And we know that they must fight with Congress over the budget. Still, elections are based on the premise that whom you vote for does matter. So let's at least en- tertain that assumption for a few minutes.

It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent on average under Republican presidents and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the Republicans).

What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans as under Democrats (2.74 percent versus 1.21 percent). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12 percent of GDP compared with 18.39 percent. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit. Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.

There will be many objections to all this, some of them valid. For example, a president can't fairly be held responsible for the economy from the day he takes office. So let's give them all a year. That is, let's allocate each year of an administration to the party that controlled the White House the year before. Guess what. The numbers change, but the bottom-line tally is exactly the same: higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans.

But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income.

As they say in the brokerage ads, past results are no guarantee of future performance.

The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company

If you really want to talk economy understand the numbers you post first!

:cool:

I guess reading my post and reading the idiotic first post just kind of proves the point....job growth is not keeping up with population growth. More people....higher unemployment rate. Interesting, huh?

This is only the number of people collecting unemplopyment benefits. After these run out, or those people simply "give up" they drop off the list.

I'm willing to bet that the first few days of August will provide some interesting numbers to this debate. I'm thinking unemployment will continue to fall like it has the last year while at the same time even more people will be added to the overall labor force. The statistics that I provided above show that job creation is keeping just barely with the new entrees into the labor force. Shall I quote the statistics again, maybe in a better format?

Here goes:
October 2001 Labor Force* = 144,171,000 people
July 2004 Labor Force = 147,856,000

October 2001 Unemployment rate = 5.4%
July 2004 Unemployment rate = 5.5%

*Labor force as defined by the Department of Labor is the total number of people employed and those unemployed.

So again, 3.8 million new entrees into the Labor market and yet unemployment has only risen by one tenth of one percent.

To confront the myth that the new jobs are lower paying jobs, a quote from todays Wall Street Journal:

"At the same time, rapid compensation growth pushed up the cost, in wages and benefits, of producing each unit of output by 1.9% at an annual rate, the fastest in two years."

This comes from an article by Greg Ip about the slowed productivity number coming out this month. If you want access to the full article, just let me know your e-mail address and I will e-mail the article to you through WSJ's system.

Here's some nice "flip-flopper" data; can Dubya even remember what side he takes on the issues?????

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
July 7, 2004
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

I'm willing to bet that the first few days of August will provide some interesting numbers to this debate. I'm thinking unemployment will continue to fall like it has the last year while at the same time even more people will be added to the overall labor force. The statistics that I provided above show that job creation is keeping just barely with the new entrees into the labor force. Shall I quote the statistics again, maybe in a better format?

Here goes:
October 2001 Labor Force* = 144,171,000 people
July 2004 Labor Force = 147,856,000

October 2001 Unemployment rate = 5.4%
July 2004 Unemployment rate = 5.5%

*Labor force as defined by the Department of Labor is the total number of people employed and those unemployed.

So again, 3.8 million new entrees into the Labor market and yet unemployment has only risen by one tenth of one percent.

To confront the myth that the new jobs are lower paying jobs, a quote from todays Wall Street Journal:

"At the same time, rapid compensation growth pushed up the cost, in wages and benefits, of producing each unit of output by 1.9% at an annual rate, the fastest in two years."

Here's the point: 144,171,000 * 5.4% unemployment = 7,785,234 unemployed
147,856,000 * 5.5% unemployment = 8,132,080 unemployed

That means, even accepting your figures, there is a net loss of jobs. This is not proof of a good economy, just of one that really sucks. A net loss, with your numbers, of 346,846 jobs. Now that doesn't even take into account the unemployed who have been off the job so long they don't count anymore. It doesn't take into account the net drop in average income adjusted for inflation. So please try to pick some other cooked books numbers to try to make your case; happy to de-bunk them any time you need.

who the hell cares? It's not the government's job to...er...supply jobs.

It is the governments job to create a socio-econonomic base of society to make investments and creating jobs attractive to possible entrepreneurs.
By the way, how many new jobs did get created due to recruitment drives for the military, which are sure in the direct responsibility of the government?

Thanks guys, you saved me the work of having to look it all up.

As a side note: once unemployment benifits run out, the person is no longer considered part of the work force by the goverment. So, all those people who have been out of work for a while don't even figure into those numbers.

There seems to be a lot of negative talk going on especially since the new numbers came out on Monday about the lack of jobs created since the last time we checked them. Something like only 32,000 jobs were created when it was expected that something like 282,000 were expected to be created. All this negative talk about expectations that were not reached is bogus to me. Not to mention the fact that 32,000 new jobs is a good thing and that is 32,000 more jobs than we had in June. The survey they use is a little off as well, it doesn't take into account the self employed or the small businesses.

When you bother to do a little research, which I have done by going to the Department of Labor's website you find that Bush has a decent if not good record on jobs. Starting after the 9/11 attacks, since that is what really kicked the unemployment rate upwards lets look at some numbers.

October 2001 Unemployment rate = 5.4%
October 2001 Labor Force* = 144,171,000 people

July 2004 Unemployment rate = 5.5%
July 2004 Labor Force = 147,856,000

*Labor force as defined by the Department of Labor is the total number of people employed and those unemployed.

So the total labor force grew by roughly 3.8 million people and yet the unemployment rate while going higher than 5.5 during the time between October 2001 and July 2004 is only a tenth of a percent higher than it was in October 2001.

I happen to believe that the unemployment rate will keep going down from its high of 6.3% in June of 2003 and that the labor force will continue to grow. So much for the worst jobs record since Hoover.

You can find all the statistics I quoted above here
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls
Simply click the boxes for Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment Rate under the Heading of Employment and it will bring both tables up on the same page.
So much for the worst jobs record since Hoover???

Still very much a reality:

Job growth stalls in last two months, underlining failure of tax cuts as job creation strategy

Job growth has stalled in the last two months. Payroll jobs increased by only 78,000 in June and a meager 32,000 in July, after rising 295,000 a month the previous three months. The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003.

The CEA projected that the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 3,978,000 jobs would be created over the last 13 months. In reality, since the tax cuts took effect, there are 2,565,000 fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts. As can be seen in the chart below, job creation failed to meet the administration's projections in 11 of the past 13 months.

http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040806_1differenceactproj650.gif

And since the recession began and 40 months later, it appears Bush is headed for a NET job loss, despite hundreds of billions of tax cuts!!
http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040806_3changeinprivateafter650.gif

There seems to be a lot of negative talk going on especially since the new numbers came out on Monday about the lack of jobs created since the last time we checked them. Something like only 32,000 jobs were created when it was expected that something like 282,000 were expected to be created. All this negative talk about expectations that were not reached is bogus to me. Not to mention the fact that 32,000 new jobs is a good thing and that is 32,000 more jobs than we had in June. The survey they use is a little off as well, it doesn't take into account the self employed or the small businesses.

Were you aware that the NORMAL growth rate of jobs just with new people coming into the work force, generally is around 125,000 per month? So an increase of 32,000 jobs really means that there are not enough new jobs for people just starting out in the work force.

Here's the point: 144,171,000 * 5.4% unemployment = 7,785,234 unemployed
147,856,000 * 5.5% unemployment = 8,132,080 unemployed

That means, even accepting your figures, there is a net loss of jobs. This is not proof of a good economy, just of one that really sucks. A net loss, with your numbers, of 346,846 jobs. Now that doesn't even take into account the unemployed who have been off the job so long they don't count anymore. It doesn't take into account the net drop in average income adjusted for inflation. So please try to pick some other cooked books numbers to try to make your case; happy to de-bunk them any time you need.


OK
Since most of you have no understanding of an economy and hwo it works, and how most of the job losses is not bushs fault. Heres a lesson :

When an economy goes into recession, we do what? Loose jobs!!!!!
When bin laden decides to fly planes into the world tower what happens?!?!? we loose more jobs because of another recession!!!!!!!
When did the receission begin??? before bush was even in office!!!!!

everyone ignores the fact that in a 4-5 month period he created 1.2 million jobs.
He had the lowest rate of inflation during a presidency
He had some of the highest GDP growth ever recorded
He had some of the lowest interest rates ever!!!

But honestly, none of this is under his control.
Thank greenspan for rocking.
and thank bin laden, clinton, the bubble burst, companies like tyco and enron, for making our recession happen.

Plus in the end a drop from 6.2% to 5.5% is pretty good in about a year or two dont you think?

Furhtermore you cannot say one month is the begining of a new pattern! of non growth?!?! that is the stupidest thing i ever heard. A pattern is formed out of atleast 3-6 months. You kno what a recession is? 2 quarters of gdp loss. thats 6 months!!!!!!!!! to tell if were in a recession, not 1 month not even 3 months. but 6.
So the day we have 6 months of job losses, then i can understand everyones bitching and would heartedly agree, But until then, everyone is just looking for blind reasons to hate this man. Please find an original reason worth merit .

We fail to take into a ccount that the reason why jobs havent been gained as muhc is because of high energy prices( greenspan said it just yesterday), which can be blamed on many many things besides bush as well. like opec running nearly at full capacity, and russian oil firm yukos going into bankrupcy. not to mention the fact hte US doesnt have enough refineries here, and growing demand in china, and developing nations which are outpacing supply.

and one last thing to add to my rant. If any of you watch the market you would understand that we go in ups and downs, sometimes slight sometimes massive, but to hold too many months of ups is unsustainable. I admit bushs previous projectiosn were imo, very veyr optimistic, in other words it pretty much guessed that everything would remain stable, but things have not. Weve had a larger isnurgency, and high oil prices weighing us down.

OK
Since most of you have no understanding of an economy and hwo it works, and how most of the job losses is not bushs fault. Heres a lesson :

When an economy goes into recession, we do what? Loose jobs!!!!!
When bin laden decides to fly planes into the world tower what happens?!?!? we loose more jobs because of another recession!!!!!!!
When did the receission begin??? before bush was even in office!!!!!

everyone ignores the fact that in a 4-5 month period he created 1.2 million jobs.
He had the lowest rate of inflation during a presidency
He had some of the highest GDP growth ever recorded
He had some of the lowest interest rates ever!!!

But honestly, none of this is under his control.
Thank greenspan for rocking.
and thank bin laden, clinton, the bubble burst, companies like tyco and enron, for making our recession happen.

Plus in the end a drop from 6.2% to 5.5% is pretty good in about a year or two dont you think?

Furhtermore you cannot say one month is the begining of a new pattern! of non growth?!?! that is the stupidest thing i ever heard. A pattern is formed out of atleast 3-6 months. You kno what a recession is? 2 quarters of gdp loss. thats 6 months!!!!!!!!! to tell if were in a recession, not 1 month not even 3 months. but 6.
So the day we have 6 months of job losses, then i can understand everyones bitching and would heartedly agree, But until then, everyone is just looking for blind reasons to hate this man. Please find an original reason worth merit .

We fail to take into a ccount that the reason why jobs havent been gained as muhc is because of high energy prices( greenspan said it just yesterday), which can be blamed on many many things besides bush as well. like opec running nearly at full capacity, and russian oil firm yukos going into bankrupcy. not to mention the fact hte US doesnt have enough refineries here, and growing demand in china, and developing nations which are outpacing supply.


I dunno much about economics, so I'll just say:

Try to losen up on the exclamation points!!!!!!! And try to use better grammer, if just a bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dunno much about economics, so I'll just say:

Try to losen up on the exclamation points!!!!!!! And try to use better grammer, if just a bit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wut can i say i get excited on my subject :D
about the grammar.
so long as im not at work, i will not follow the rules of grammar : )

This reminds me of Benjamin Disraeli's much-used quote of:
"Lies, Damned lies and Statistics"
You can always use statistics to back your own beliefs. I personally feel the US economy is in worse shape than it was in 2000, and as a consequence the World's economy is/will be in worse shape. Your surplus has become a massive deficit. That in itself is worrying.

And to prove that statisitcs can say whatever you like:
"Turning to domestic affairs, Bush declared that the "economy is strong, and it's getting stronger." He noted that Iowa's unemployment rate is 4.3%, well below the 5.6% national average."
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040721/pl_usatoday/bushreelectionwillensureussafety&e=4)
What he doesn't mention is that b4 the last election, Iowa had an umeployment rate of 2.2% (October 2000, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost). The USA Today story doesn't mention it either, but what do you expect from a 'liberal, anti-republican' media?

This reminds me of Benjamin Disraeli's much-used quote of:
"Lies, Damned lies and Statistics"
You can always use statistics to back your own beliefs. I personally feel the US economy is in worse shape than it was in 2000, and as a consequence the World's economy is/will be in worse shape. Your surplus has become a massive deficit. That in itself is worrying.

And to prove that statisitcs can say whatever you like:
"Turning to domestic affairs, Bush declared that the "economy is strong, and it's getting stronger." He noted that Iowa's unemployment rate is 4.3%, well below the 5.6% national average."
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040721/pl_usatoday/bushreelectionwillensureussafety&e=4)
What he doesn't mention is that b4 the last election, Iowa had an umeployment rate of 2.2% (October 2000, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost). The USA Today story doesn't mention it either, but what do you expect from a 'liberal, anti-republican' media?

early 2000 even though our recession was starting we were at a very high point in our cycle even though it was moving down...cycle started moving back up around 6/01, and was actually doing decent until 9/11, when the market crashed.companies started not meeting expectations and then cutting back even more jobs, then we had the investor scandals that took place which made people want to invest less,then there was afghanistan, and iraq.

Todays economy is not great by any means, but it is in a state of recovery, which means we will have a great economy soon, it is on the way.
Anyways how do you define a great economy.as far as GDP were better then we were in 2000 right now, interest rates are lower, inflation is extremely low, and jobs are being created not lost. Plus the stock market isnt quite as volatile as it was in 2000.

in 2000 we had a low gdp, jobs being lost(albeit a lower unemployment rate), interest rates were higher and being lowered, inflation was a risk as well.Stock market was even riskier then it is now

I dont kno choice seems easy to me.

The recession began in March of 2001. Look it up. By then the Bush budget was already in place and guess what? Recession. Budget deficets do matter, they have killed the economy. Tax cuts to the people who are less likely to put the money back into the economy (i.e. the wealthy) only hurt the economy, ask any economist. We need to go back to fiscal conservatism of the 90's and away from the tax-and-spend entitlement for the rich policies of GW Bush. Interesting how the tables are turned? The true conservatives these days are the Democrats, pushing for a balanced budget, strong military, and keeping the government off our backs. The republicans are the true liberals, pushing for an expanded governement that knows best, more control over our private lives (gay marraige, abortion, stem cell research, etc.) and entitlements and welfare (for the rich and corporations). If you are a true consevative and believe in our constitution, then you have to be a Democrat!

The recession began in March of 2001. Look it up. By then the Bush budget was already in place and guess what? Recession. Budget deficets do matter, they have killed the economy. Tax cuts to the people who are less likely to put the money back into the economy (i.e. the wealthy) only hurt the economy, ask any economist. We need to go back to fiscal conservatism of the 90's and away from the tax-and-spend entitlement for the rich policies of GW Bush. Interesting how the tables are turned? The true conservatives these days are the Democrats, pushing for a balanced budget, strong military, and keeping the government off our backs. The republicans are the true liberals, pushing for an expanded governement that knows best, more control over our private lives (gay marraige, abortion, stem cell research, etc.) and entitlements and welfare (for the rich and corporations). If you are a true consevative and believe in our constitution, then you have to be a Democrat!

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/

Read that link, first off their thinking of pushing the start back to november of 2000, but also it states that neither clinton nor bush can be blamed for a cyclical recession.
If raising an interest rates affects the economy after about 6 months, how can a president entering office for only 2 months barely be able to effect hte economy into recession?
all budget deficits do is raise interest rates, nothing more.
by the way anyone seen our interest rates lately?
lowest in 20 years :D well not anymore since theyv been raising interest rates again.

There seems to be a lot of negative talk going on especially since the new numbers came out on Monday about the lack of jobs created since the last time we checked them. Something like only 32,000 jobs were created when it was expected that something like 282,000 were expected to be created. All this negative talk about expectations that were not reached is bogus to me. Not to mention the fact that 32,000 new jobs is a good thing and that is 32,000 more jobs than we had in June. The survey they use is a little off as well, it doesn't take into account the self employed or the small businesses.

It also doesn't take into account the underemployed, which is around 10% of the nations current employed work force. Underemployed meaning people who are only marginally attached to the job market, via contract positions, temporary positions or part-time positions. Furthermore, while 32,000 is growth, it is important because it is so tragically far below Bush's own projections. According to his own numbers, the "Jobs and Growth Plan" tax cuts of June 2003 were to have created over 5 million jobs by the end of 2005. Hell, these same advisors said that even without the JGP cuts, the economy would spontaneously create over 228,000 jobs a month (as compared to 306,000 jobs with the tax cuts). Since the cuts went into effect, the monthly job numbers have only reached the projections two months out of the last 13. These same projections said that, currently, we would be sitting pretty with 3,978,000 new jobs by this point. In fact, we have been only 1,413,000 jobs created, leaving a shortage of 2,565,000 jobs when considered by the President's own numbers (http://jobwatch.org/creating/bkg/cea_on_bush_tax_cuts_20030204_macro_effects.pdf). So, yes, I think it is important to point out that Bush himself has made promises and projections that he has not kept.


When you bother to do a little research, which I have done by going to the Department of Labor's website you find that Bush has a decent if not good record on jobs. Starting after the 9/11 attacks, since that is what really kicked the unemployment rate upwards lets look at some numbers.

October 2001 Unemployment rate = 5.4%
October 2001 Labor Force* = 144,171,000 people

July 2004 Unemployment rate = 5.5%
July 2004 Labor Force = 147,856,000

*Labor force as defined by the Department of Labor is the total number of people employed and those unemployed.

So the total labor force grew by roughly 3.8 million people and yet the unemployment rate while going higher than 5.5 during the time between October 2001 and July 2004 is only a tenth of a percent higher than it was in October 2001.

It's interesting that you chose to pull numbers from the DOL after both the beginning of the recession in March of 2001 and the 9/11 attacks. So, basically, what your numbers are saying is that now, three years later, after terrorists attacks and a recession, we are still not back to where we were 7 months into a recession and one month after 9/11. I'm not sure how this helps your case. A more interesting comparison would be between unemployment as of July 2000 to July 2004.

Regardless, the point is that this is the longest sustained job loss since the great depression. In each of the recession/recovery periods since 1939, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking records, jobs lost at the outset of a recession have been regained 31 months afterwards. If this was true, we would now have 6.2 million more jobs than it does. But we don't, so now, 40 months and counting after the recession officially began in March of 2001, we are still no where near recovered from it. So when the Bush Administration starts trying to trumpet success on jobs and the economy, they damn well better have bigger numbers in light of doing nothing over the past three years.


I happen to believe that the unemployment rate will keep going down from its high of 6.3% in June of 2003 and that the labor force will continue to grow. So much for the worst jobs record since Hoover.

Based on what? It hung at 5.6% for the last couple of months and then only went down by a 0.1% last month and that may very well be because of people who have fallen off the government unemployment rolls or have given up looking for work.

Despite 9/11, corporate scandals, two wars, post-9/11 fear of flying, and the burst of the tech stock bubble at the end of the Clinton administration, it's still Bush's fault. :roll:

Despite 9/11, corporate scandals, two wars, post-9/11 fear of flying, and the burst of the tech stock bubble at the end of the Clinton administration, it's still Bush's fault. :roll:

It is if he can't even live up to his own numbers and predictions. I'm not even talking about the recession, I'm talking about his "Jobs and Growth Plan' tax cuts of June 2003 which aren't doing what he said they would.