Another Democrat Non-issue

[Silver 6]

On here is one for jobs............

I should now be expecting the whiner squadron to start listing references also.............

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/25/171833.shtml

This is information that for some reason does not hit network news.

 

[GNandGS]

Great! Thats good info (but dated already) and puts it better than I can. Snippet:

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost."
SNIP!
"But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity. "

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by GN SBS
I challenge you to provide a reference for your claims.

(1) Is simply wrong: Employment was 132.5 million in March of 2001 and 130.2 million in November 2003 (2 million fewer). Source: US Department of Labor Payroll Survey (www.bls.gov).


-Scott

The First thing wrong with this is you can't compare November and March Job Data. There is a little thing around November called Winter and a little thing around March called Summer.

That's why there is a seasonal adjusted number.

From your source, the BLS:

The number of Jobs (people employed) in the US in February 2003: 138,301,000

the most people employed in any one month during Clinton: 137,632,000 in December 2000 (when Lame duck Clinton was getting his pardons ready and Lame duck Gore wouldn't get out of Cheney's house)

The "Jobless recovery" is for the most part a media fabrication to make the election close. Sure, Jobs aren't being offered like the stupid Dot com days (and they never will be, Democrat president or no), but if you have any skills at all there are jobs out there (just like they have always been).

 

[GN SBS]

Originally posted by UNGN
The First thing wrong with this is you can't compare November and March Job Data. There is a little thing around November called Winter and a little thing around March called Summer.

That's why there is a seasonal adjusted number.

From your source, the BLS:

The number of Jobs (people employed) in the US in February 2003: 138,301,000 the most people employed in any one month during Clinton: 137,632,000 in December 2000 (when Lame duck Clinton was getting his pardons ready and Lame duck Gore wouldn't get out of Cheney's house)

You're 100 % correct that not making seasonal adjustments is something to watch out for. The data I present, however, are seasonally adjusted and the comparison is appropriate.

Your figures are from the Current Population Survey (households), and mine are from the Current Employment Statistics survey (payroll). You can argue about which is a better measure, but economists tend to suggest that the payroll survey is better. See http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp148 for a nicely done review.

My point was simply that the statement that there are more jobs now then every before is not correct and deserves careful consideration.

It IS true that the labor market has not reacted as well as it has in the past during expansions-- more long term unemployed, less growth in jobs. The politicians are certainly putting a spin on it (both sides), but all blame aside, something different is happening this time around.

Scott

 

[GNandGS]

Hrrm... I think though you cant base job count by always going to the same place.

IE - Boeing lays off 500 people but nobody calls "GNSBS Widget Factory" to see if you hired them all. Maybe your doors opened only just last Thursday as a new company. Perhaps you and 100 other employers have them on contract?

 

[turbonatr]

Guys,

It's correct spelling is democRAT .

Thank you. Carry on.

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by GN SBS
You're 100 % correct that not making seasonal adjustments is something to watch out for. The data I present, however, are seasonally adjusted and the comparison is appropriate.

Your figures are from the Current Population Survey (households), and mine are from the Current Employment Statistics survey (payroll). You can argue about which is a better measure, but economists tend to suggest that the payroll survey is better. See http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp148 for a nicely done review.

My point was simply that the statement that there are more jobs now then every before is not correct and deserves careful consideration.

It IS true that the labor market has not reacted as well as it has in the past during expansions-- more long term unemployed, less growth in jobs. The politicians are certainly putting a spin on it (both sides), but all blame aside, something different is happening this time around.

Scott

The EPI isn't what you'd call an "Objective Source". Their argument is the household number is a smaller sample size and has been "revised more in the past".

If has been revised in the past, the numbers now would be acurate, no?

This recovery is NO different than the Recovery that started under Bush 1 (you know, the one Clinton got all the credit for). The late job growth is WHY Clinton got credit for that recovery.

The Ecomony was completely turned around 2 quarters before that election, but do you think the news media then was going to let anyone know about it?

They are in it for the big story, the more controversy, the better, and not for reporting the news.