State by State NET Job growth for 2004

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Train
Found this map, looks interesting. I wonder why Nevada, Utah, and Idaho did so well.

Michigan, of course is the only state with a Net loss. Interesing as it was the only place I could get a job in 2004. Good thing I'm not into manufacturing.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/jan05/296322.asp

Well I think it is time to move from Michigan. Last one out turn the light off.

Interesting how the American Sheeple have adopted being Nomads is OK.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that bogus statistic? It's 150,000, not 300,000.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that bogus statistic? It's 150,000, not 300,000.

I am not even sure the 150k number is correct.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that bogus statistic? It's 150,000, not 300,000.

I am not even sure the 150k number is correct.

Oh that's right I keep forgetting, according to the Bush Regime 1 job a month is net growth ahead of population, what was I thinking???

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that bogus statistic? It's 150,000, not 300,000.

I am not even sure the 150k number is correct.

Oh that's right I keep forgetting, according to the Bush Regime 1 job a month is net growth ahead of population, what was I thinking???

Unemployment rate is about 5.7 % or so, probably less. When compared to some of the european countries you guys love so much, its much less

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Most of the job growth is happening in red states.

Interesting...a quick (and possibly innacurate) count reveals 7 blue states with between 1% and 2% job growth, compared to 10 red states in the same catagory and 5 blue states with 2.1% to 3% growth compared to 6 red states in that catagory. Of course there are three red states above 3% while only 1 blue state above 3% as well.

Not too impressive if you ask me, considering there are several more red states than blue states overall. Red states DO lead in all the catagories however, including the less than 1% catagory, 12 to 7 by my count. And of course that's not even taking populations into the equation, a 1% job growth in California represents MANY times the number of jobs that 3% job growth in Idaho represents.

Just what map were you looking at?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

LOL, where the hell did you come up with that bogus statistic? It's 150,000, not 300,000.

I am not even sure the 150k number is correct.

Oh that's right I keep forgetting, according to the Bush Regime 1 job a month is net growth ahead of population, what was I thinking???

Unemployment rate is about 5.7 % or so, probably less. When compared to some of the european countries you guys love so much, its much less

Who was talking about Europe here? Whipping out the liberal stereotypes is not an effective way to argue an economic point.

Now I happen to agree that 5.7% is pretty good for unemployment, but that is far from a complete way to measure economic strength. An unemployed software programmer shows up on unemployment, while he doesn't even if his new job is working part time at Wal-Mart. Not saying that's the case, but numbers only mean so much.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Train
Found this map, looks interesting. I wonder why Nevada, Utah, and Idaho did so well.

Michigan, of course is the only state with a Net loss. Interesing as it was the only place I could get a job in 2004. Good thing I'm not into manufacturing.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/jan05/296322.asp

Look at Georgia and Alabama.

What huge job gains do they expect there? They building a ton more Churches???

You tell us, you're the bright one that moved from a state with a 1.15 to a state with a 0.29. Great career move. :roll:

If you must know, Alabama has several knew auto related factories and businesses opening, a burgeoning health care industry, and an expanding banking industry even after Southtrust was bought by Wachovia. Not only that, but they've got a nice technology and science epi-center in Huntsville, and Mobile, Birmingham, etc are all growing and adding jobs. You picked the 4th WORST state in the Nation for job growth. No freaking wonder you can't find a goddamn job. I'm just glad I get to hear about it EVERY damn day in the forum. Thanks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Is there a map that shows wage changes in these states?

 

[MadRat]

The map is misleading since its *NEW* job growth and no mention of existing jobs refilled or eliminated. Just another way to pump sunshine.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The map is misleading since its *NEW* job growth and no mention of existing jobs refilled or eliminated. Just another way to pump sunshine.

IF this map showed negative job growth you folks would be all over it, proclaiming how accurate it is.

 

[classy]

That is really not that bad, except for all the states that are at less than 1%. That's not good

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

Hmmm I question that number, especially considering the population is not increasing much. There are far less babies being born now.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Train
Found this map, looks interesting. I wonder why Nevada, Utah, and Idaho did so well.

Michigan, of course is the only state with a Net loss. Interesing as it was the only place I could get a job in 2004. Good thing I'm not into manufacturing.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/jan05/296322.asp

Look at Georgia and Alabama.

What huge job gains do they expect there? They building a ton more Churches???

You tell us, you're the bright one that moved from a state with a 1.15 to a state with a 0.29. Great career move. :roll:

If you must know, Alabama has several knew auto related factories and businesses opening, a burgeoning health care industry, and an expanding banking industry even after Southtrust was bought by Wachovia. Not only that, but they've got a nice technology and science epi-center in Huntsville, and Mobile, Birmingham, etc are all growing and adding jobs. You picked the 4th WORST state in the Nation for job growth. No freaking wonder you can't find a goddamn job. I'm just glad I get to hear about it EVERY damn day in the forum. Thanks.

Thanks a lot your holiness, it wasn't a "career" move by choice, I basically had less than 30 days to throw away 14 yrs in Atlanta and find a new home and life due to divorce, try reading a bit more than the doom and gloom you perceive.

Oh and I never said I was "the bright one", in the P&N who are you thread I put "Chief P&N Dumba$$".
I'm just an ordinary LLLL Looney Left Liberal Loser like the rest of the 49% of America.
I just crap plain smelly stuff, not gold & cross laden bricks like the RRRR Rich Radical Religious Right.

Oh and even though Louisiana is a Red State, the reason it is 4th worst in the Country job growth wise is because of two things going against them, they still follow 14th Century French Napoleon Traditions and the Politicians are even more corrupt than Georgia which most would think was not possible.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

Hmmm I question that number, especially considering the population is not increasing much. There are far less babies being born now.

Immigration

 

[Engineer]

Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: raildogg
Nice to see things improving. We added 2.2 million jobs in 2004 and 150,000 jobs are being created each month. :thumbsup:

You do realize that 300,000 jobs a month is needed to keep up with population increase???

Hmmm I question that number, especially considering the population is not increasing much. There are far less babies being born now.

Immigration

Thank you Engineer. Corrected my earlier "educated guess", I knew the 150K was Bullsh!t.

Oh and to the RRRR there is no immigration, they are just our southern and foreign citizens.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

How many are of working age?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: classy
That is really not that bad, except for all the states that are at less than 1%. That's not good

That is my point, there are members here like yourself, that take all bad numbers at the truth. Any good numbers are considered false.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Engineer
Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

How many are of working age?

And how many are passing away or leaving the work force every 12 seconds.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Engineer
Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

How many are of working age?

And how many are passing away or leaving the work force every 12 seconds.

Click the link. That number is already adjusted for death. It does NOT consider retirement. We know the number of people dying is less than the number of people retiring (because we're told the population of elderly retirees is growing). This would pull the 219K/month figure down somewhat. A certain percentage of people do not enter the workforce, e.g., stay-at-home spouses. That also pulls the 219K number down.

The numbers I've seen from reputable sources are 140K to 160K new jobs per month to keep up with the natural growth of the workforce. That is 1.7M to 1.9M new jobs per year to break even. This means the first Bush 43 administration saw an effective job shortfall of approximately seven million jobs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Engineer
Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

How many are of working age?

And how many are passing away or leaving the work force every 12 seconds.

Click the link. That number is already adjusted for death. It does NOT consider retirement. We know the number of people dying is less than the number of people retiring (because we're told the population of elderly retirees is growing). This would pull the 219K/month figure down somewhat. A certain percentage of people do not enter the workforce, e.g., stay-at-home spouses. That also pulls the 219K number down.

The numbers I've seen from reputable sources are 140K to 160K new jobs per month to keep up with the natural growth of the workforce. That is 1.7M to 1.9M new jobs per year to break even. This means the first Bush 43 administration saw an effective job shortfall of approximately seven million jobs.

Well I have seen wide ranging estimates on what is required to keep track. There is now way there was shortfall of 7 million jobs the last 7 years. More people are employeed today, than 4 years ago.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Engineer
Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

How many are of working age?

And how many are passing away or leaving the work force every 12 seconds.

Click the link. That number is already adjusted for death. It does NOT consider retirement. We know the number of people dying is less than the number of people retiring (because we're told the population of elderly retirees is growing). This would pull the 219K/month figure down somewhat. A certain percentage of people do not enter the workforce, e.g., stay-at-home spouses. That also pulls the 219K number down.

The numbers I've seen from reputable sources are 140K to 160K new jobs per month to keep up with the natural growth of the workforce. That is 1.7M to 1.9M new jobs per year to break even. This means the first Bush 43 administration saw an effective job shortfall of approximately seven million jobs.

Well I have seen wide ranging estimates on what is required to keep track. There is now way there was shortfall of 7 million jobs the last 7 years. More people are employeed today, than 4 years ago.

That is an emotional response, not an objective one. You want to think employmnet is better. The issue is whether the hard statistics support you.

How many more people are employed today? At a rate of 219,000 people per month, the U.S. population has grown by more than 10.5 million in the last four years. If the number of employed has increased by more than that, your wish was clearly granted. If not, then we have to fall back on the estimated 7 million jobs necessary to keep up with growth. If the actual number of jobs has increased by 7M - 10.5M, we can assume that the difference (10.5M - # of additional jobs) represents people who probably didn't want jobs anyway. If the number of additional jobs is less than 7M, then job growth clearly did NOT keep up with a growing population. The delta is the total job shortfall during the first term of Bush 43.

So what are the numbers?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: classy
That is really not that bad, except for all the states that are at less than 1%. That's not good

That is my point, there are members here like yourself, that take all bad numbers at the truth. Any good numbers are considered false.

WTF are you talking about? Can your dumbass read? I said it was not that bad, meaning the growth is ok, but the states that have less than 1%, that is not good. Clown :roll:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Engineer
Based on the numbers Click me!, we have a new person to this country every 12 seconds, or 219,000 per month (average when /12).

Also, the birth rate is higher than the death rate even without immigration.

How many are of working age?

And how many are passing away or leaving the work force every 12 seconds.

Click the link. That number is already adjusted for death. It does NOT consider retirement. We know the number of people dying is less than the number of people retiring (because we're told the population of elderly retirees is growing). This would pull the 219K/month figure down somewhat. A certain percentage of people do not enter the workforce, e.g., stay-at-home spouses. That also pulls the 219K number down.

The numbers I've seen from reputable sources are 140K to 160K new jobs per month to keep up with the natural growth of the workforce. That is 1.7M to 1.9M new jobs per year to break even. This means the first Bush 43 administration saw an effective job shortfall of approximately seven million jobs.

Well I have seen wide ranging estimates on what is required to keep track. There is now way there was shortfall of 7 million jobs the last 7 years. More people are employeed today, than 4 years ago.

That is an emotional response, not an objective one. You want to think employmnet is better. The issue is whether the hard statistics support you.

How many more people are employed today? At a rate of 219,000 people per month, the U.S. population has grown by more than 10.5 million in the last four years. If the number of employed has increased by more than that, your wish was clearly granted. If not, then we have to fall back on the estimated 7 million jobs necessary to keep up with growth. If the actual number of jobs has increased by 7M - 10.5M, we can assume that the difference (10.5M - # of additional jobs) represents people who probably didn't want jobs anyway. If the number of additional jobs is less than 7M, then job growth clearly did NOT keep up with a growing population. The delta is the total job shortfall during the first term of Bush 43.

So what are the numbers?

According to bls

2000
137.8M working

2004
140M working

participation rate 2000
67 % Still fuelled by the dot com bubble

participation rate 2004
65.8% only a little more than 1% difference

It appears your numbers are just flat out wrong.


linkage