Job Losses Under Bush - A few points

[sam h]

1) It will be interesting to see if he tries to spin it differently, but obviously the news today was terrible for Bush. 96,000 jobs added is way below projections and, indexed against population growth, actually represents a proportional loss.

2) Indexing against population growth is the absolute key in looking at job figures. Most people estimate, fairly conservatively, that we should add 150,000 jobs a month just due to a burgeoning population. Thus, ceteribus paribus, if Bush has been in office for 45 months, we would have expected 6,750,000 jobs to be added during this time period! Now, of course he inherited a recessing economy and had to deal with 9/11. But the fact of the matter is that every other recession in history has turned around in a manner much different than this one. In every other recession, three years later total employment has been substantially above pre-recession levels.

3) I've never been into the idea of trying to pretend the side I root for (Kerry) is somehow virtuous while the other is not. They're all scumbags. But I hope that people who are Bush partisans can agree that any ad or debating point tonight that purports to claim that adding 2M jobs over the last year - that is, not much more than we would expect with population growth - is some sign of progress is just total bs.

[GWB]

It is folly to base projections on a single month. Factors, such as the hurricanes which affected at least a half dozen states in September can have a big impact on the numbers.

Jobs not filled due to the huricanes are not lost, just deferred to the next month after the crisis is over.

Over the past year the job growth rate is above what one would expect due to population growth. A single month's figure has as much predictive value as one day's stock market results predict the general market trend.

All the BS you hear today is pro-Kerry media spin, what you would expect from a pro-Kerry media.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past year the job growth rate is above what one would expect due to population growth. A single month's figure has as much predictive value as one day's stock market results predict the general market trend.

All the BS you hear today is pro-Kerry media spin, what you would expect from a pro-Kerry media.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno about that, I just heard some prime GWB BS.

Employment statistics (Non farm payroll).

Source www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov)

'000 jobs
Oct 03 126
Nov 03 57
Dec 03 1
Jan 04 112
Feb 04 21
Mar 04 353
Apr 04 346
May 04 248
Jun 04 112
Jul 04 32
Aug 04 144
Sep 04 96

Total over last 12 months: 1,552,000

Population growth last 12 months: 1,800,000

Net loss in jobs: 248,000

Nice try GWB. Unlike the presidential debates you get called on your lies at 2+2.

[andyfox]

If the media is so pro-Kerry, how come he's behind?

[adios]

The non-farm payroll survery does not take into account those who are newly self employed.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If the media is so pro-Kerry, how come he's behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to grey Kerry's ahead.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Total over last 12 months: 1,552,000

Population growth last 12 months: 1,800,000

Net loss in jobs: 248,000


[/ QUOTE ]

Even sam_h said jobs growth Indexed to population growth. Only a fraction of the US population is employed (when you consider children, college students, retirees, homemakers etc. are all part of the population but not the labor force, less than half of this country's population holds a job). You are comparing apples to oranges, when you adjust properly you will see that the growth rate in jobs is exceeding the growth rate in population. Your numbers are in error, please try again.

Don't forget folks, the unemployment numbers are near a 30-year low right now. The Democrats have people thinking that a 5.4% unemployment rate is bad, when in fact it is damn good. More Liberal Media Spin. Are you falling for it?

[KLGambiT]

Just beacuse 90% of the media wants kerry to win doesnt mean the average american does, why do u think fox news has double the ratings of its CNN and more than triple everyone else

[pokerjo22]

*sigh* sorry George. I forgot Math wasn't your strong point (I thought even you could multiply 150000 by 12).

U.S. grows at about 3.2 million a year. Labor force participation rate about 66% i.e. about 2.1 million new jobs needed per year. Or about 175,000 jobs needed per month. (I was throwing you a bone by using sam_h conservative estimate 150,000 jobs per month.)

Using government figures:

Source
www.census.gov (http://www.census.gov)
www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov)

Revised figures:

Total jobs created over last 12 months: 1,552,000
Population growth over last 12 months (in the labor force of course!): 2,100,000
Net loss in jobs: 548,000

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
less than half of this country's population holds a job

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy that one's a doozy. Do you know something we don't George? Is the bureau of labor statistics massaging the figures for you THAT much.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
More Liberal Media Spin. Are you falling for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Spin this.

The overall economy has 585,000 fewer jobs than when you took office in January 2001. This makes you the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a decline in employment.

Since Hoover's term, we've had 11 administrations. They faced wars, they faced recessions, they faced all sorts of challenges. Every one of them managed to create jobs except you.

[wacki]

My question is, is it really fair to compare jobs under Bush to Clinton, or any other administration that was handed a decent economy?

Seriously look at all we have gone through. Florida has been his by so many Hurricanes loosing billions upon billions. The WTC was destroyed... costing billions and loosing thousands of lives as well as disrupting the economy in an unprecedented scale. The Clinton economy was smoke and mirrors hoisted up with the e-commerce bubble and cooked books of companies like Enron. A war, and massive increases in oil prices. Look at all Bush has had to deal with. Even with all of this, unemployment is near a 30 year LOW! I find that amazing!!!!!

I never would of guessed the economy would be doing as well as it is, not to mention growing!!! I'm curious. If you took the loss of all those companies like Enron, the e-bubble, the WTC, the oil, the terrorist mess, and the hurricanes and added it to the current economy, what would it look like? Probably fantastic!

Look, I'm not saying I like Bush's economic plan, in fact there are alot of things I don't like. Still, based on all that this country has been though in the last 4 years, and the current economic state, you can't complain. Seriously, we all should be very thankful our economy is doing as well as it is.

I think the last 4 years is a great example of how badass americans are and how strong this country really is. We have been through hell in the last 4 years and we are not only surviving but growing! How can you complain about that?

[pokerjo22]

Gosh, you're such an optimist.

I guess I'm confused. Why do you say the economy is 'growing'? Dow Jones where it was in 1999, a virtually non-existent savings rate, and a 20% decline in the dollar. And why is the dollar falling? Could it be because we're going deeper and deeper into debt, as we struggle to finance our middle East escapades and compete with the Asian economies?

But GDP growth is positive right? Sure, but only when you measure it in dollars. I could make GDP increase by 100% a year if I was president. I'd just make every dollar worth two dollars. Then we'd all be twice as rich as we were last year right?

Well I wish I could share your optimism. To me it looks like we're broke. But what the hell do I know?

[wacki]

I'm not going to argue with you, or anyone else about the current state of the economy. All I'm saying is that, considering all that this country has been through in the last four years, you can't really compare the current stats to past stats. It's apples and oranges. Even if you do, Bush doesn't look all that bad in JUNE non the less. In fact he looks like he's in decent shape. That's not optomism.

http://www.investors.com/images/editimg/issues0728.gif

As for the GDP, it isn't calculated like that. The value of the dollar is taken in consideration when calculating GDP growth. Anyone that took freshman level macro knows that, and you should know that.

I'm done argueing about this topic.

Glad to see your actually taking the time to do a websearch before you open your mouth. It's an improvement. Keep it up.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
It is folly to base projections on a single month.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything like that. The job news has been consistently disappointing - that is, below administration predictions - for many months now anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past year the job growth rate is above what one would expect due to population growth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but only marginally so. But you don't seem to be campaigning on the slogan of a "flaccid, small recovery."

[Stu Pidasso]

I'm curious as to how people are out collecting unemployment benes while engaged in other economic activities. If I were to lose my job today, I would be quite picky in chosing a new one. I could afford to be because I could make enough money selling on ebay or playing poker. Those economic avenues were not available to me until just a few years ago.

Stu