NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, let's take a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

The employment numbers for August 2004 are 139,681,000.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The employment numbers for January 2001 (when Bush took office) are 135,999,000.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news

So through the beauty of elementary subtraction, we get 3.682 million jobs gained under Bush.

Ok, let's take a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

The employment numbers for August 2004 are 139,681,000.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The employment numbers for January 2001 (when Bush took office) are 135,999,000.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02022001.news

So through the beauty of elementary subtraction, we get 3.682 million jobs gained under Bush.
Just give me a minute...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/Foxxinnia/stickittotheman.gif

Are you accounting for population growth?

First, he guranteed 9 million in a campaign ad in 2000 I believe ((EDIT...He predicted 7 million throughout his term.

Second, you must account for pop. growth and expected job growth. That's why economists say that the 144k fell short of the 150k they expected and so on.


* 1.8 Million Lost Jobs. Since George Bush took office, the economy has lost 1.8 million private sector jobs. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

* 7 Million Jobs Short Of President Bush’s Prediction. After 9/11, the tech bubble, and the recession, the Bush Administration predicted nearly 6 million new jobs would be created between January 2001 and May 2004. Instead, we lost more than 1 million jobs - seven million jobs short. [Bureau of Labor Statistics; Economic Report of the President, 2002]

* Jobs Are Shifting To Lower-Paying Industries Paying $9,160 Less. On average, jobs in growing industries pay $9,160 less – or 21 percent less – than jobs in contracting industries. [Economic Policy Institute, “Jobs Shift From Higher Paying to Lower Paying Industries,” January 21, 2004]

Ahha! Found it!


Although the total number of jobs may have increased, the rate of unemployment has actually risen. What does this mean? It means that more people are working two or more minimum wage jobs to make ends meet.

Also, there are always more jobs in August than in January, because of seasonal farm labour, mainly concentrated around the summer months. You also neglect the increase in population and the fact that loosening of labour laws has allowed jobs previously taken by illegal immigrants to be declared and legitimised. Your basic arithmatic simply does not apply to such a complicated statistic.

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet (yeah yeah yeah)

Unemployed (Jan 2001): 5,997,000
Unemployed (Aug 2004): 8,022,000

Hmm...

Ahha! Found it!


Although the total number of jobs may have increased, the rate of unemployment has actually risen. What does this mean? It means that more people are working two or more minimum wage jobs to make ends meet.

Also, there are always more jobs in August than in January, because of seasonal farm labour, mainly concentrated around the summer months. You also neglect the increase in population and the fact that loosening of labour laws has allowed jobs previously taken by illegal immigrants to be declared and legitimised. Your basic arithmatic simply does not apply to such a complicated statistic.

Certainly. However, a number of partisans (Kerry) claim that Bush lost a million jobs. Clearly, this is a nothing but a lie, as arithmetic proves.

Are you accounting for population growth?
No he is not.

January 2001:The number of unemployed rose by about 300,000 to nearly 6.0 million,pushing the unemployment rate from 4.0 to 4.2 percent

August 2004:
Both the number of unemployed persons, 8.0 million, and the unemployment rate, 5.4 percent, were little changed from July to August

Unemployment has increased 1.2% under Bush's watch, translating in real terms to 2 million more people without jobs. The fact that their are more jobs in this circumstance simply means that more Americans are working multiple jobs for less pay and less dignity.

In a single sentence, the employment figures taken as a portion of the population have generally declined from previous years taken by corresponding month in 2001 through today, although August and July of this year have actually been higher than 2003 (although not 2002 or previous years) while May and April of this year held steady.

New Foxxinnia, would you please refrain from simply posting pictures in threads to the exclusion of actual written material? It's funny once or twice, but when everybody does it all the time it's nothing short of annoying.

Certainly. However, a number of partisans (Kerry) claim that Bush lost a million jobs. Clearly, this is a nothing but a lie, as arithmetic proves.
If that is the claim, its untrue, however the statistics you have there are significatly distorted by the spin you're putting on it: The economy is in worse shape since Bush took office.

Ahha! Found it!


Although the total number of jobs may have increased, the rate of unemployment has actually risen. What does this mean? It means that more people are working two or more minimum wage jobs to make ends meet.

Also, there are always more jobs in August than in January, because of seasonal farm labour, mainly concentrated around the summer months. You also neglect the increase in population and the fact that loosening of labour laws has allowed jobs previously taken by illegal immigrants to be declared and legitimised. Your basic arithmatic simply does not apply to such a complicated statistic.
no, it hasnt. you want me to quote the BLs for you?

If that is the claim, its untrue, however the statistics you have there are significatly distorted by the spin you're putting on it: The economy is in worse shape since Bush took office.

Agreed. All I'm saying is that the damn ads that say Bush lost a million jobs are bloody lies, nothing else.

Certainly. However, a number of partisans (Kerry) claim that Bush lost a million jobs. Clearly, this is a nothing but a lie, as arithmetic proves.

Bush lost them by failing to make our job growth be where it ecomonmically should be.

From http://stats.bls.gov/
Click on "Get Detailed Statistics"
then "Access to Historical Data for the "A"...."
then "Table A-1..."
Check "Employed" under the Seasonally Adjusted column, go down to the bottom of the page, and hit the button:

January 2001 the number is 137790, this month its 139681.

Looks good, doesn't it?
However.....
Go back and this time check the Civilian Labor Force Level (seasonally adjusted):

January 2001 the number is 143372, this month its 147704.

So the employed sector has risen 1 891 000 but the total available workforce has risen 4 332 000 over the same time.
That means there's a deficit of 2 441 000 jobs. Or if you like, nearly 2 1/2 million more ppl entered the workforce than there were jobs created over the last 3 years.

Agreed. All I'm saying is that the damn ads that say Bush lost a million jobs are bloody lies, nothing else.
Actually, I may have to go to LiberalisticSociety on this, I have little economic education but he seems to know what he's talking about vis-a-vis lost jobs.

Agreed. All I'm saying is that the damn ads that say Bush lost a million jobs are bloody lies, nothing else.
Certainly are. It's more like 2 1/2 million.

From http://stats.bls.gov/
Click on "Get Detailed Statistics"
then "Access to Historical Data for the "A"...."
then "Table A-1..."
Check "Employed" under the Seasonally Adjusted column, go down to the bottom of the page, and hit the button:

January 2001 the number is 137790, this month its 139681.

Looks good, doesn't it?
However.....
Go back and this time check the Civilian Labor Force Level (seasonally adjusted):

January 2001 the number is 143372, this month its 147704.

So the employed sector has risen 1 891 000 but the total available workforce has risen 4 332 000 over the same time.
That means there's a deficit of 2 441 000 jobs. Or if you like, nearly 2 1/2 million more ppl entered the workforce than there were jobs created over the last 3 years.

Nice research. :)

From http://stats.bls.gov/
Click on "Get Detailed Statistics"
then "Access to Historical Data for the "A"...."
then "Table A-1..."
Check "Employed" under the Seasonally Adjusted column, go down to the bottom of the page, and hit the button:

January 2001 the number is 137790, this month its 139681.

Looks good, doesn't it?
However.....
Go back and this time check the Civilian Labor Force Level (seasonally adjusted):

January 2001 the number is 143372, this month its 147704.

So the employed sector has risen 1 891 000 but the total available workforce has risen 4 332 000 over the same time.
That means there's a deficit of 2 441 000 jobs. Or if you like, nearly 2 1/2 million more ppl entered the workforce than there were jobs created over the last 3 years.There's your lost jobs.

Nice research.
Thank you. Mind if I allow myself a smug smile for a few seconds?

Thanks. Mind if I allow myself a smug smile for a few seconds?
You earned it. ;)

Thanks. Mind if I allow myself a smug smile for a few seconds?
I think it's well deserved.

I think it's well deserved.
Oh you two! Stop it. My head's swelling! :p

Wow its nice something I posted could actually cause a new thread. :)


@ People : You can't lose jobs by just having the workforce increase. If the labor force increased by twenty million and they all became unemployed, but no jobs were cut, then the jobs number would remain "0". Unemployment would go up, but jobs wouldn't see a decrease of twenty million. More people can be employed without the jobs number increasing. The jobs number refers to people on payrolls in nonfarm industries.