GOP spreading propaganda on editorial page.

[thuper]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: thuper


Want to reconsider that statement?

I guess I didn't see that, I'm a dumbass. I do like how they conveniently converted the extra money to gallons of gas.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison
IT does appear the left has got their talking points out as well, judging from the last 2 posts.

Nevermind the fact that more people are employed today, than 4 years ago.

*Cough* BS Household survey *cough* . . .

Well then all previous unemployment numbers are wrong as well. As this BS household survey has been part of the unemployment calculation for a long time.

Dude the Establishment survey has ALWAYS been considered the most accurate and useful snapshot of REAL employment.

Even some Bushies de-emphasize the Household survey

The U.S. Department of Labor defended the accuracy of its weaker-than-expected July payrolls data on Friday, saying a much stronger jobs growth count in a second, smaller survey was less reliable.
---
Economists prefer the establishment report because it is larger, but the smaller household survey is used to calculate the unemployment rate -- a more familiar measure to the average American.
---
The Bush administration, seeking to accentuate the positive during a slow employment recovery last year, often highlighted the strength of job growth revealed in the household survey.
---
The household report is derived from a poll of about 60,000 households, while the payrolls count comes from a sampling of about 400,000 work sites -- about one-third of all nonfarm payroll workers.

Unlike the establishment survey, the household survey includes farm workers, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, private household workers and people on unpaid leave among the employed -- possibly boosting its count.
---
"I think, as Greenspan has been saying, you have to believe the payrolls figures. It seems as if the strong momentum in job growth that we had in the spring has slowed down," said David Sloan, U.S. economist at 4CAST Ltd in New York.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison
IT does appear the left has got their talking points out as well, judging from the last 2 posts.

Nevermind the fact that more people are employed today, than 4 years ago.

*Cough* BS Household survey *cough* . . .

Well then all previous unemployment numbers are wrong as well. As this BS household survey has been part of the unemployment calculation for a long time.

Dude the Establishment survey has ALWAYS been considered the most accurate and useful snapshot of REAL employment.

Dude I am not disagreeing with you. But they are still used in the formulation of the unemployment rate.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Fair enough but the Household survey is used to determine unemployment b/c it doesn't make sense to call domestic servants, farmers, self-employed, stay at home parents, or people on unpaid leave as being "unemployed". Accordingly, the Establishment survey is not used to measure the unemployment rate.

Then again it doesn't make sense not to count people that aren't doing anything but discouraged from looking for work as being "not unemployed". Nah mean?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fair enough but the Household survey is used to determine unemployment b/c it doesn't make sense to call domestic servants, farmers, self-employed, stay at home parents, or people on unpaid leave as being "unemployed". Accordingly, the Establishment survey is not used to measure the unemployment rate.


And these to two surveys have long been used for employment data. If they are wrong now, they were wrong before.





Then again it doesn't make sense not to count people that aren't doing anything but discouraged from looking for work as being "not unemployed". Nah mean?

Discouraged workers are counted in one of the stats. However if they are not looking for work, I dont think they should be counted as looking for work.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: thuper
http://www.dailykos.com/ (Yes, a biased site, but google, his tool isn't)

Stupid papers and GOP astroturf
by kos
Tue Aug 17th, 2004 at 21:00:29 GMT

The GW04 site has handy templates for letters to the editor. See the top one on the list:

New job figures and other recent economic data show that America's economy is strong and getting stronger - and that the President's jobs and growth plan is working. The Labor Department announced that employers added 288,000 new jobs in April. In total, over 1.1 million jobs have been added since August, with 8 consecutive months of gains.

Now google that entire phrase, and see the results. About 60 newspapers have run that letter, sent by GOP automatons too stupid to vary the wording even a tiny bit.

This is why I can't stand republicans right now.

http://www.georgewbush.com/btl/WriteNewspapers.aspx


hmmmmmm



Oh, and real wages?

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib196
http://www.epinet.org/images/ACF5D.gif

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1846

July 16, 2004

There are three factors contributing to the decline of real wages in the current labor market. The first and most important factor is the lingering effect of the formerly jobless recovery. Though employment is growing again, considerable slack remains in the labor market. The unemployment rate, for example, at 5.6% in June 2004, is at the very same rate as in November 2001 when the current recovery began. Under these labor market conditions, with an oversupply of workers relative to employers? demands, there is little pressure to bid wages up.

Second, the quality of the net new jobs appears to be putting downward pressure on wage growth. Specifically, industries and occupations that are adding jobs most quickly pay less than those growing more slowly. There is considerable confusion on this point. For example, analysis published by factcheck.org reported that more job growth has occurred in sectors paying above the median wage than below that wage level.1 But this is not what drives wage growth. Instead, the average wage is driven up when high-wage sectors grow faster than average and vice versa. Over the past year, industries and occupations growing faster than average pay 7% less than those that are growing more slowly.

Finally, faster inflation in recent months has meant that nominal wages need to grow faster to beat price growth. Yet, because of the factors noted above, nominal wage growth has slowed sharply, from an annual average of 2.9% in the second quarter of last year to 2.1% in the same quarter this year. Inflation over this same period has accelerated from 2.2% to 2.8%. Thus, even if inflation were back to its level of a year ago, wages would still be stagnant at best, with real wage growth far behind the growth rate of productivity.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: thuper
http://www.dailykos.com/ (Yes, a biased site, but google, his tool isn't)

Stupid papers and GOP astroturf
by kos
Tue Aug 17th, 2004 at 21:00:29 GMT

The GW04 site has handy templates for letters to the editor. See the top one on the list:

New job figures and other recent economic data show that America's economy is strong and getting stronger - and that the President's jobs and growth plan is working. The Labor Department announced that employers added 288,000 new jobs in April. In total, over 1.1 million jobs have been added since August, with 8 consecutive months of gains.

Now google that entire phrase, and see the results. About 60 newspapers have run that letter, sent by GOP automatons too stupid to vary the wording even a tiny bit.

This is why I can't stand republicans right now.

http://www.georgewbush.com/btl/WriteNewspapers.aspx


hmmmmmm



Oh, and real wages?

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib196
http://www.epinet.org/images/ACF5D.gif

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1846

July 16, 2004

There are three factors contributing to the decline of real wages in the current labor market. The first and most important factor is the lingering effect of the formerly jobless recovery. Though employment is growing again, considerable slack remains in the labor market. The unemployment rate, for example, at 5.6% in June 2004, is at the very same rate as in November 2001 when the current recovery began. Under these labor market conditions, with an oversupply of workers relative to employers? demands, there is little pressure to bid wages up.

Second, the quality of the net new jobs appears to be putting downward pressure on wage growth. Specifically, industries and occupations that are adding jobs most quickly pay less than those growing more slowly. There is considerable confusion on this point. For example, analysis published by factcheck.org reported that more job growth has occurred in sectors paying above the median wage than below that wage level.1 But this is not what drives wage growth. Instead, the average wage is driven up when high-wage sectors grow faster than average and vice versa. Over the past year, industries and occupations growing faster than average pay 7% less than those that are growing more slowly.

Finally, faster inflation in recent months has meant that nominal wages need to grow faster to beat price growth. Yet, because of the factors noted above, nominal wage growth has slowed sharply, from an annual average of 2.9% in the second quarter of last year to 2.1% in the same quarter this year. Inflation over this same period has accelerated from 2.2% to 2.8%. Thus, even if inflation were back to its level of a year ago, wages would still be stagnant at best, with real wage growth far behind the growth rate of productivity.

There does appear to be confusion here. Either one the two describes scenerios would create growth of high paying jobs. I doubt factchecks numbers are dishonest.

 

[nageov3t]

bullet point memos are wonderful things

Jon Steward did a thing a few weeks ago where he showed a bunch of politicians using the exact same phrase over and over again.

anyone see the interview where he totally pwned some guy on the "number 1 and number 4 most liberal senators" phrase by trying to make him explain where it came from.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fair enough but the Household survey is used to determine unemployment b/c it doesn't make sense to call domestic servants, farmers, self-employed, stay at home parents, or people on unpaid leave as being "unemployed". Accordingly, the Establishment survey is not used to measure the unemployment rate.


And these to two surveys have long been used for employment data. If they are wrong now, they were wrong before.





Then again it doesn't make sense not to count people that aren't doing anything but discouraged from looking for work as being "not unemployed". Nah mean?

Discouraged workers are counted in one of the stats. However if they are not looking for work, I dont think they should be counted as looking for work.

Dude your argument is SO circular. The Establishment survey covers fully 1/3 of nonpayroll jobs . . . the Household survey covers 40,000 families. The Establishment survey is a reasonable way to measure month-to-month employment growth (or decline) as the case may be. The Household survey is better than nothing for measuring unemployment . . . but any economist with a brain would tell you it is likely neither accurate (measures a particular phenomenon) nor precise (repeatable measure of a particular phenomenon).

In typical Bushophile fashion you've totally warped both my words and the quotes from the link (BLS, Greenspan). I'm not sure who you believe has ever claimed the Establishment survey is inaccurate. There's little doubt that the Household survey is inaccurate and imprecise. But like I said, an inaccurate and imprecise measure such as the Household survey is better than a finger in the rectum.

Neither the Establishment (b/c it has no means) nor the Household survey (b/c it doesn't care) measure discouraged nonworkers. Clearly, these people are "unemployed against their will" . . . just b/c their will to look has weakened does not make them less "unemployed". The houseparent, domestic worker, person on leave, and self-employed have JOBS. The Household survey tracks these people which I think is fine. Accordingly, the Household survey tallies the people "looking for work" and calculates an unemployment rate. Clearly, this "rate" does not reflect unemployment. It reflects the unemployment rate of people looking for jobs. Once you factor in underemployment, the Household survey becomes even more wanting as an assessment.

These criticisms do not apply to the Establishment survey b/c the Establishment survey is NOT used to calculate unemployment.