so you suggest that bush crashed the 'wonderfull' Clinton economy in just 2 short months? This simply isn't the case, their is a natural cycle to the markets and it was on it's way down at the end of Clinton, Gore would have presided over the same situation: just as bush Sr. did after Reagan.
As for the facts: unemployment rate being higher is good if and only if it's because people have entered the job market from the 'outside the labor pool' non-employment.
so a higher unemployment
is actually the only time a higher unemployment is a good thing;
just like a lower unemployment rate isn't good ifandonlyif it's because people have left the job market and gone 'outside the labor pool'
you misunderstand:
we have 300k more jobs, after taking into account lost jobs; Unemployment isn't the number of people without a job. Unemployment is the number of people who are looking for a job but have not found one. Adding a good number of jobs, but having a higher unemployment rate, means that more people are actually looking for a job who previously figured they'd just live without a job.
so we have about 350k fewer people who have decided to no longer resigned them selves to living off the welfare system AND we've got 300k fewer people without a job.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: chess9
Wolfdog:
Kerry has little chance of getting elected. Not to worry 'cause we'll get to kick GW around for four more years. I figure four more years of Bush and maybe we'll have a real Indpendent candidate appear, and I don't mean Nader or some Libertarian screw ball. Anyway, Americans should be darn near histerical about year 6 of the Bush regime.
-Robert
Dave/Moonie 2008
Gave up already on this election have you.
Really. That must be why week after week there are a couple hundred jobs in my local paper. If what you say is true, then there wouldn't be any jobs anywhere, but that isn't the case.
Of course the job number is bogus today, but it wasn't bogus when Clinton was President. Will the spinning and hypocricy ever end???
Ok, so that link shows me that about 140,000 people went from self-employed (contractors) to employed. Companies eliminating contractors and hiring them on full-time (typically done in a cost-cutting move). That's not new job creation, unless you want to "nuance" it.
Also, that shows about 100,000 people entered the workforce in a part-time job for economic reasons.
50,000 more got a part-time job for non-economic reasons.
That's ~300,000 which matches the number of "new" jobs created in March.
Hmmmmmmm
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: chess9
Wolfdog:
Kerry has little chance of getting elected. Not to worry 'cause we'll get to kick GW around for four more years. I figure four more years of Bush and maybe we'll have a real Indpendent candidate appear, and I don't mean Nader or some Libertarian screw ball. Anyway, Americans should be darn near histerical about year 6 of the Bush regime.
-Robert
Dave/Moonie 2008
Gave up already on this election have you.
Hey that VP spot is still open
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Really. That must be why week after week there are a couple hundred jobs in my local paper. If what you say is true, then there wouldn't be any jobs anywhere, but that isn't the case.
Of course the job number is bogus today, but it wasn't bogus when Clinton was President. Will the spinning and hypocricy ever end???
Again I have addressed this many times with proof as well unlike you.
The number has gone up in the local paper in just the last couple of weeks with outdoor seasonal jobs such as Marine workers, Landscaping and Golf Course work.
Many of the spots are not local, bogus and duplications. In December and January there was less than 20 positions in the paper that I posted the actual jobs.
Here is a link to todays:
Jobs in GAINESVILLE GA, US modified within the last 7 days
So if I work for 20 years, if I collect one day of my states unemployment fund (which typically comes directly from tax receipts) I'm living off welfare?! You have no idea the context of most of the people that re-entered the workforce (w/ or w/o a job). Some likely ran out of benefits, some may have completed education/re-education, some were just tired of being at home, who knows . . . But your blanket statement about people being resigned to live off the welfare system is pure poo. Now if you were describing a Tyco executive or corporate fund manager . . . I might be inclined to agree with you. Except in those cases, they think it's their job to rob people.
I hear Neil Bush's company is hiring . . . in Mexico.
Maybe you shouldn't post in this forum until you graduate Highschool. Pretty much all of the articles have given a explanation of why unemployment rose instead of dropping. More people who had stopped looking for a job reentered the workforce looking for work. See, unemployment only counts you if you are looking for a job. If you are like Dave, and are just being a lazy bum you won't be counted.
A bunch of you keep saying "we aren't economists." That is much is blatantly obvious, but the majority of us in here aren't economists either, but it isn't that hard to apply a HS or college level econ class to these reports. All of these reports typically give a laymen's version of the facts as well, so I consider it a cop-out to say you don't understand. What you mean is that you refuse to learn anything that might be positive news for the economy right now.
Economics in a definitional manner is really based on common sense, so if you have common sense you'll easily understand how things are defined. Now Economic Theory is much more complex and there is much great debate on how to stimulate the economy, curb inflation, create new jobs, etc. You've got many schools of thought on what is best for the economy. Some things are a given however... i.e. higher fuel prices are NOT going to help the economy. This is why Dave wants Gas and other fuel prices to rise. He acts as if he does it because he is concerned with the environment, or thinks we should explore alternative fuels, but that really isn't the case. Dave knows if the economy stays down he can still attempt to convince us in a deluded manner that he can't find a job. Dave is the only person I've ever seen that deals totally in the extreme. He doesn't see Ford Explorers at Gas Stations, he sees Hummers and other bigger SUVs. Dave doesn't see Garden Homes, he sees some kind of new-fangled alien housing initiative. He spreads more FUD than an individual I've ever met.
The key thing for understanding Dave, is that any problem he has is always someone else's fault.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I don't blame Bush for the lack of high paying jobs. It's not as if he can really do something about it. The economy is cyclical and he just had the misfortune of becoming President during a downturn in the economy. He also had the bad luck of being President when the economy took a hit from 9/11. I mean come on, you have all heard him spewak, do youi really think he is capable of being the Financial Genuis it would take to create a policy to change things overnight? Hell things didn't turn around during the 90's until we got ourselves a Republican Congress to offset the Democrat Executive Branch. In fact it takes having one Party in control of Congress and another in control of the Whitehouse to get both parties to start acting financially responsible.
Whats funny is, manufacturing job loss is close to a 30 year trend in the US. It is a 10 year trend world wide. China's manufacturing employment is down 15% since 1995, Japan's is down 16%, Brazil is down 20%, all of Europe, with the exception of Spain is down sharply in that same period. The US was down 11% over the same time period, however right now we are at record high production levels.
Lets compare this trend with a past trend in ag.
In 1890, farming still accounted for nearly 43 percent of all U.S. jobs. But farm jobs had dropped to 17 percent of employment by 1940 and to 1.7 percent by 1960.
Production workers in manufacturing likewise accounted for 26 percent of U.S. nonfarm employment in 1952, 18 percent in 1972, 11 percent in 1992, and 8 percent in 2002.
Then lets look at the past "fears" like Japan, or Germany overtaking the US in manufacturing by the mid/late 1990s. It was a very popular belief, one pushed by Clinton-Gore in 1992. It was little more than a scare tactic backed with no factual information. Or information that contradicted itself.
What I am wanting to know is, WTF is Kerry smoking, when he says he will revitalize manufacturing? Theres nothing he can do to stop a trend such as the one manufacturing is experiancing, nationally and internationally. Why? Its called like with farming a half century ago, technology is replacing humans.
You see that Bush is really partly to blame for the poor state of the economy. Although there is still the congress and senate that are both bungling bunches of morons. You see the economy doesn't have to be cyclical in nature. The fact of the matter is that the tax cuts haven't worked. There are so many here without jobs simply because they can't find work, so they give up. So how is this Bush's fault you ask. I'll put in a few poinient things that Bush should have control over.
1) The cost of living. You know actually controlling the price of things like natural gas and petroleum for that matter. Now that he has gone back on a PROMISE he made during the 2000 election of controlling those prices he is even more of a liar.
2) Having fiscal responsability and not giving out more than the country makes. This can be seen as the 500 billion he wanted to give to africa for AIDS relief. This can also be seen in the big POS lie about WOMD in Iraq and the billions that have been spent paving thier roads and feeding thier people.
3) Creating a sense of security which isn't a bold face lie. Telling americans that they are now safe on americas airplanes when in fact they are not. Airport security still sucks.
ETC ETC
Bush is the head of the state and needs to seriously grow a set. Gas prices and dairy prices are on the rise which means billions of dollars are being pulled out of the economy in leau of goods and services. You see though this is an artificial gas shortage and the prices are not supply and demand. Blaming it on EPA standards? That should only rise the cost of gas 1-4c not the gouging we are seeing now and set to see. He has control of what can steer the economy and he is screwing the pooch. As for getting reelected the economy is the issue that most feel Kerry will do a better job. With more massive layoffs on the way and possibly another attack........
The proof will be in the pudding come this november.
1) The cost of living. You know actually controlling the price of things like natural gas and petroleum for that matter. Now that he has gone back on a PROMISE he made during the 2000 election of controlling those prices he is even more of a liar.
2) Having fiscal responsability and not giving out more than the country makes. This can be seen as the 500 billion he wanted to give to africa for AIDS relief. This can also be seen in the big POS lie about WOMD in Iraq and the billions that have been spent paving thier roads and feeding thier people.
3) Creating a sense of security which isn't a bold face lie. Telling americans that they are now safe on americas airplanes when in fact they are not. Airport security still sucks.
ETC ETC
Bush is the head of the state and needs to seriously grow a set. Gas prices and dairy prices are on the rise which means billions of dollars are being pulled out of the economy in leau of goods and services. You see though this is an artificial gas shortage and the prices are not supply and demand. Blaming it on EPA standards? That should only rise the cost of gas 1-4c not the gouging we are seeing now and set to see. He has control of what can steer the economy and he is screwing the pooch. As for getting reelected the economy is the issue that most feel Kerry will do a better job. With more massive layoffs on the way and possibly another attack........
The proof will be in the pudding come this november.
The Gateway store is a horrible joke. For the most party they are very overpriced compared to Best Buy or Circuit City. They were foolish to think they can charge a premium for a non-premium brand name.
So, by your logic we magically "lost" 277K part time jobs(in Feb) and then this month they all came back. Look at the trend conjur. So, by your "logic" if last month we gained about 50K jobs(revised net) but still "lost" 277K part time ones(according to A-5) that means 327K full time jobs were created last month? Don't think so.
Your logic is flawed because this "part-time" number you are looking at isn't "new" job creation. Lets take a look at what the report said about these numbers:"In March, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons
increased to 4.7 million, about the same level as in January. These indivi-
duals indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part
time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find full-time jobs."
No where is that numbers stated to be a "new" job creation number - it's only a number indicates how many people "feel" they why they aren't working full time or that want to work full time but only have part time jobs. So again - these 300K new net jobs aren't the same as the "increase"(this month to the same as previous months) in people who had part time jobs for economic reasons.
*************
It's hilarous to see how much this good news has affected the tune of the left(and the anti-bushies). It's been "show us the jobs" for a while now and they've excused ANY rise in jobs with numerous "excuses" and also have excused ANY other good economic news like manufacturing indexes, GDP growth, etc with the stand by "show us the jobs" BS. Well, here are some jobs....anyone ready to acknowledge that the economy is doing better than what dave and the left are selling it as? ....didn't think so...
Oh well, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So, by your logic we magically "lost" 277K part time jobs(in Feb) and then this month they all came back. Look at the trend conjur. So, by your "logic" if last month we gained about 50K jobs(revised net) but still "lost" 277K part time ones(according to A-5) that means 327K full time jobs were created last month? Don't think so.
"In March, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons
increased to 4.7 million, about the same level as in January. These indivi-
duals indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part
time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to
find full-time jobs."
No where is that numbers stated to be a "new" job creation number - it's only a number indicates how many people "feel" they why they aren't working full time or that want to work full time but only have part time jobs. So again - these 300K new net jobs aren't the same as the "increase"(this month to the same as previous months) in people who had part time jobs for economic reasons.
*************
It's hilarous to see how much this good news has affected the tune of the left(and the anti-bushies). It's been "show us the jobs" for a while now and they've excused ANY rise in jobs with numerous "excuses" and also have excused ANY other good economic news like manufacturing indexes, GDP growth, etc with the stand by "show us the jobs" BS. Well, here are some jobs....anyone ready to acknowledge that the economy is doing better than what dave and the left are selling it as? ....didn't think so...
Oh well, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess
CkG
I swear to God, republicans should change their name to the Borg. You guys are just drones, following the collective. LOL When the unemployment rate goes down then you can talk. Until then, please go in the corner, face the wall, and be quiet. Thats the nice way of saying the alternative.........
1) Lose the fvcking condescending attitude CkG. You're just being an asshat. I'm just looking for detail behind these numbers.
2) Where do you get 277,000 lost part-time jobs in Feb.?
Part time for economic reasons - Jan: 4,784 Feb: 4,764 Mar: 4,868
Part time for non-economic reasons - Jan: 19,555 Feb: 19,653 Mar: 19,616
That's an increase in part-time jobs each month this year. Although, I must have misread some numbers to post earlier that an additional 50,000 sought part-time jobs for non-economic reasons.
Now, let's look at the overall numbers:
Agriculture and related industries....... Jan: 2,108 Feb: 1,956 Mar: 2,025
That's an increase of ~70,000. 47,000 of that are the grocery workers returning from strike.
Then, there's this:
Nonagricultural industries............... Jan: 134,676 Feb: 135,428 Mar: 135,666
Self-employed workers.................... Jan: 8,985 Feb: 9,196 Mar: 8,955
Increase in Nonagricultural workers from Feb. - Mar.: 238,000
Decrease in Self-employed workers from Feb. - Mar.: 241,000
And we have that increase in the number of government jobs...bigger gov't...more deficit spending.
2) Where do you get 277,000 lost part-time jobs in Feb.?
Part time for economic reasons - Jan: 4,784 Feb: 4,764 Mar: 4,868
Part time for non-economic reasons - Jan: 19,555 Feb: 19,653 Mar: 19,616
That's an increase in part-time jobs each month this year. Although, I must have misread some numbers to post earlier that an additional 50,000 sought part-time jobs for non-economic reasons.
Now, let's look at the overall numbers:
Agriculture and related industries....... Jan: 2,108 Feb: 1,956 Mar: 2,025
That's an increase of ~70,000. 47,000 of that are the grocery workers returning from strike.
Then, there's this:
Nonagricultural industries............... Jan: 134,676 Feb: 135,428 Mar: 135,666
Self-employed workers.................... Jan: 8,985 Feb: 9,196 Mar: 8,955
Increase in Nonagricultural workers from Feb. - Mar.: 238,000
Decrease in Self-employed workers from Feb. - Mar.: 241,000
And we have that increase in the number of government jobs...bigger gov't...more deficit spending.
Wow, people that were making 80K a year are forced into making far less, part time, just to make ends meet, are counted as "rising employment". Way to go
Supposedly the job jump, which reasons were pointed out by Conjur, but unemployment is still higher than the jump, in other words, it's still going UP ^^^.
Supposedly the job jump, which reasons were pointed out by Conjur, but unemployment is still higher than the jump, in other words, it's still going UP ^^^.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Well that was more than they were making after they lost those 80K a year jobsOriginally posted by: cr4zymofo
Wow, people that were making 80K a year are forced into making far less, part time, just to make ends meet, are counted as "rising employment". Way to go
1. wipe your nose.
2. look at the A-5 chart(and it's actually 285K for Non-farm - the 277K for ALL)
PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME - Nonagricultural industries - Part time for economic reasons
Nov2003: 4782K
Dec2003: 4727K
Jan2003: 4613K
Feb2003: 4328K
Mar2003: 4622K
So you see- March's "increase" only really brought the numbers back in line. But again, using your "logic" then Febuary's "loss" in part time for economic reasons means that the ~50K net jobs in Feb was really ~325K because you'd have to add in those 285K "part-time" ones
But anyway yes - you seem to be looking at different numbers now than before. You are currently looking at the non-seasonally adjusted numbers where as before you were looking at the seasonally adjusted ones which showed a dip in febuary and then an "increase" back up to around pre-feb dip numbers. So yes - your original attempt at trying to say that the 300K new net jobs were because of the increase in part time jobs doesn't add up - expecially when those "part-time" numbers you are looking at aren't "new" like I pointed out previously.Grocery store - no, 47K of those are NOT from the strike. One could easily attempt to claim they are but it's not true when you have to figure that the strikers coming back means that the replacement hires are now without a job. So at best economist are saying that MAYBE 10-20K of that is from the returning stikers.
And yes there were 31K new gov't jobs included in the 308K reported by the DOL/BLS("Within government, the March job gain was concentrated in state and local education.")
So have anything else to excuse this good job data away?
CkG
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Wow, people that were making 80K a year are forced into making far less, part time, just to make ends meet, are counted as "rising employment". Way to go
Supposedly the job jump, which reasons were pointed out by Conjur, but unemployment is still higher than the jump, in other words, it's still going UP ^^^.
Are you kidding me? The tech bubble caused a massive bubble in the amount of wages people were being paid, and also the number of people employed. Reality started setting in when Clinton left office. Those of you who act as if Bush or Clinton can just wave a finger and influence jobs are completely silly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter