State by State NET Job growth for 2004

[classy]

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

I should have clarified what I meant by that statement. Back in the 60's and 70's compared to today more babies were being born. I should have said it has slowed down quite a bit from where it was. It was common to have 4 or more children back in the day, 2 seems to be the norm for today. But I didn't think much about immigration though, so your right on that point.

 

[nick1985]

dave update your sig. its RRRR now, not just RRR.


silly LLLLLLLLL

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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

:roll: Do tell how my numbers are "flat out wrong".

According to your own numbers above, total employed during the first term of Bush 43 increased by only 2.2 million, well below the approximately 7 million needed to keep up with population growth. Moreover, of those 2.2 million, over 1.1 million were only part-time jobs, i.e., the number of part-time jobs (due to economic reasons, not employee choice) increased by over 1.1 million. This corroborates the anecdotal reports of good full-time jobs being replaced by part-time jobs.

While we're reviewing BLS stats, you'll also note they show total unemployment increasing by over 2 million, and from 4.2% to 5.4%. This is further corroboration that the Bush administration ended its first term in the hole for jobs. By contrast, the number of unemployed dropped by about 2 million in Clinton's first term, and dropped by 1.5 million in his second. The unemployment rate dropped from 7.3% to 5.4% to 3.9% in his two terms.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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

:roll: Do tell how my numbers are "flat out wrong".

According to your own numbers above, total employed during the first term of Bush 43 increased by only 2.2 million, well below the approximately 7 million needed to keep up with population growth. Moreover, of those 2.2 million, over 1.1 million were only part-time jobs, i.e., the number of part-time jobs (due to economic reasons, not employee choice) increased by over 1.1 million. This corroborates the anecdotal reports of good full-time jobs being replaced by part-time jobs.



making up numbers again. The working population did not grow by 7 million. 1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs. You are just making up numbers





While we're reviewing BLS stats, you'll also note they show total unemployment increasing by over 2 million, and from 4.2% to 5.4%. This is further corroboration that the Bush administration ended its first term in the hole for jobs. By contrast, the number of unemployed dropped by about 2 million in Clinton's first term, and dropped by 1.5 million in his second. The unemployment rate dropped from 7.3% to 5.4% to 3.9% in his two terms.

And Bush43 is starting his second term with unemployment at 5.5% and somehow the economy is now bad. But i guess you are longing to return to a bubble economy.

:roll:

 

[Engineer]

Click me!

According to this, the US has a net loss of 5,366,000 jobs vs working age population from the start of the recession to December 2004.

Not sure how accurate this chart is, but it does show that the South West states (Nevada, Utah, etc) did experience a great job growth during that time. I've saw other tables on this forum that suggest the same so the numbers seem consistant (at least with other P&N posts)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Click me!

According to this, the US has a net loss of 5,366,000 jobs vs working age population from the start of the recession to December 2004.

Not sure how accurate this chart is, but it does show that the South West states (Nevada, Utah, etc) did experience a great job growth during that time. I've saw other tables on this forum that suggest the same so the numbers seem consistant (at least with other P&N posts)

Well accroding to the bls there is about 1% drop in work force participation. 1% would be about 1.4 million people. You could make a reasonable argument based on that, but I could make a reasonable argument that difference was feuled by a bubble economy.

 

[rahvin]

Utah and Idaho are probably two of the most beautiful states in the union. Combine that with low population densities, a still fairly affordable real estate market, population sizes that are right at the take off stage, competant educated workforces and the flight from california and you have a ripe recipe for growth. Nevada has gaming, hell they put up close to 30,000 homes a year in Vegas currently.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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

:roll: Do tell how my numbers are "flat out wrong".

According to your own numbers above, total employed during the first term of Bush 43 increased by only 2.2 million, well below the approximately 7 million needed to keep up with population growth. Moreover, of those 2.2 million, over 1.1 million were only part-time jobs, i.e., the number of part-time jobs (due to economic reasons, not employee choice) increased by over 1.1 million. This corroborates the anecdotal reports of good full-time jobs being replaced by part-time jobs.



making up numbers again. The working population did not grow by 7 million. 1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs. You are just making up numbers





While we're reviewing BLS stats, you'll also note they show total unemployment increasing by over 2 million, and from 4.2% to 5.4%. This is further corroboration that the Bush administration ended its first term in the hole for jobs. By contrast, the number of unemployed dropped by about 2 million in Clinton's first term, and dropped by 1.5 million in his second. The unemployment rate dropped from 7.3% to 5.4% to 3.9% in his two terms.

And Bush43 is starting his second term with unemployment at 5.5% and somehow the economy is now bad. But i guess you are longing to return to a bubble economy.

:roll:

Are you quite finished with your little partisan snit? The numbers are what they are. I am not attempting to express any value judgments about the numbers; I am only trying to anlayze them. It would be nice if you'd do the same. Your claim that I am lying, that I am making up the 7 million figure, is not only a statement of your opinion, it is contradicted by the BLS information you linked.


Here's what we have:

Jan 2001: 143,788K employed, participation rate is 67.2%, total 16+ population = 213,970K.
Dec 2004: 148,203K employed, participation rate is 66.0%, total 16+ population = 224,550K.

Growth of 16+ population = 224,550 - 213,970K = 10,580K (10.58 million -- approx. what I estimated)

Growth of 16+ population (10.58M) * Participation rate (66%) = Jobs needed to support growth in working population: 10.58M * 66% = 6.98 million -- almost exactly what I estimated based on the widely-accepted rule of thumb that we need ~150K new jobs per month to meet growth. If I am "making up" that number, then so are most jobs experts along with the people that prepare the BLS reports.

Next, WTF is "1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs"? That's exactly what I said, only I didn't use deceptive wording. There was a net increase of about 2.2M jobs. Over 1.1M of them, i.e., a little over half, are only part-time jobs. The rest are obviously full time. To say that I'm "making up numbers" again demonstrates dishonesty (or innumeracy) on your part.

Finally, while you keep yammering about Clinton's bubble, it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical analysis of these statistics. It is a separate discussion, absolutely unrelated to anything I said. For the purpose of this discussion, I am merely trying to establish accurate figures. The blame storming can follow.

In short, my numbers are accurate. I made nothing up. You owe me an apology.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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

:roll: Do tell how my numbers are "flat out wrong".

According to your own numbers above, total employed during the first term of Bush 43 increased by only 2.2 million, well below the approximately 7 million needed to keep up with population growth. Moreover, of those 2.2 million, over 1.1 million were only part-time jobs, i.e., the number of part-time jobs (due to economic reasons, not employee choice) increased by over 1.1 million. This corroborates the anecdotal reports of good full-time jobs being replaced by part-time jobs.



making up numbers again. The working population did not grow by 7 million. 1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs. You are just making up numbers





While we're reviewing BLS stats, you'll also note they show total unemployment increasing by over 2 million, and from 4.2% to 5.4%. This is further corroboration that the Bush administration ended its first term in the hole for jobs. By contrast, the number of unemployed dropped by about 2 million in Clinton's first term, and dropped by 1.5 million in his second. The unemployment rate dropped from 7.3% to 5.4% to 3.9% in his two terms.

And Bush43 is starting his second term with unemployment at 5.5% and somehow the economy is now bad. But i guess you are longing to return to a bubble economy.

:roll:

Are you quite finished with your little partisan snit? The numbers are what they are. I am not attempting to express any value judgments about the numbers; I am only trying to anlayze them. It would be nice if you'd do the same. Your claim that I am lying, that I am making up the 7 million figure, is not only a statement of your opinion, it is contradicted by the BLS information you linked.


Here's what we have:

Jan 2001: 143,788K employed, participation rate is 67.2%, total 16+ population = 213,970K.
Dec 2004: 148,203K employed, participation rate is 66.0%, total 16+ population = 224,550K.

Growth of 16+ population = 224,550 - 213,970K = 10,580K (10.58 million -- approx. what I estimated)

Growth of 16+ population (10.58M) * Participation rate (66%) = Jobs needed to support growth in working population: 10.58M * 66% = 6.98 million -- almost exactly what I estimated based on the widely-accepted rule of thumb that we need ~150K new jobs per month to meet growth. If I am "making up" that number, then so are most jobs experts along with the people that prepare the BLS reports.

Next, WTF is "1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs"? That's exactly what I said, only I didn't use deceptive wording. There was a net increase of about 2.2M jobs. Over 1.1M of them, i.e., a little over half, are only part-time jobs. The rest are obviously full time. To say that I'm "making up numbers" again demonstrates dishonesty (or innumeracy) on your part.

Finally, while you keep yammering about Clinton's bubble, it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical analysis of these statistics. It is a separate discussion, absolutely unrelated to anything I said. For the purpose of this discussion, I am merely trying to establish accurate figures. The blame storming can follow.

In short, my numbers are accurate. I made nothing up. You owe me an apology.

However you have made a couple of mistakes in your math. You calculated 7 million jobs were needed, but you did not subtract out the jobs that were created.

6.98 - 4.41(employment04-employment 01) =2.57
so lets now subtract out the difference in participation rate about 1% cal that 1.4 million

2.5-1.4 = 1.1

and we are currently not fueled by a bubble market and that is probably worth about another million or so jobs(1% difference in employment rates).

You are owned nothing but a math lesson. Consider your schooled.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Are you quite finished with your little partisan snit? The numbers are what they are. I am not attempting to express any value judgments about the numbers; I am only trying to anlayze them. It would be nice if you'd do the same. Your claim that I am lying, that I am making up the 7 million figure, is not only a statement of your opinion, it is contradicted by the BLS information you linked.


Here's what we have:

Jan 2001: 143,788K employed, participation rate is 67.2%, total 16+ population = 213,970K.
Dec 2004: 148,203K employed, participation rate is 66.0%, total 16+ population = 224,550K.

Growth of 16+ population = 224,550 - 213,970K = 10,580K (10.58 million -- approx. what I estimated)

Growth of 16+ population (10.58M) * Participation rate (66%) = Jobs needed to support growth in working population: 10.58M * 66% = 6.98 million -- almost exactly what I estimated based on the widely-accepted rule of thumb that we need ~150K new jobs per month to meet growth. If I am "making up" that number, then so are most jobs experts along with the people that prepare the BLS reports.

Next, WTF is "1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs"? That's exactly what I said, only I didn't use deceptive wording. There was a net increase of about 2.2M jobs. Over 1.1M of them, i.e., a little over half, are only part-time jobs. The rest are obviously full time. To say that I'm "making up numbers" again demonstrates dishonesty (or innumeracy) on your part.

Finally, while you keep yammering about Clinton's bubble, it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical analysis of these statistics. It is a separate discussion, absolutely unrelated to anything I said. For the purpose of this discussion, I am merely trying to establish accurate figures. The blame storming can follow.

In short, my numbers are accurate. I made nothing up. You owe me an apology.

However you have made a couple of mistakes in your math. You calculated 7 million jobs were needed, but you did not subtract out the jobs that were created.

6.98 - 4.41(employment04-employment 01) =2.57
so lets now subtract out the difference in participation rate about 1% cal that 1.4 million

2.5-1.4 = 1.1

and we are currently not fueled by a bubble market and that is probably worth about another million or so jobs(1% difference in employment rates).

You are owned nothing but a math lesson. Consider your schooled.

OK, I'll bite. Where did you come up with those figures (employment04 = 6.98, employment01 = 4.41)?

 

[BBond]

Bravo!

With all these new jobs you people should have no problem at all with fulling funding your share of the Social Security system!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Are you quite finished with your little partisan snit? The numbers are what they are. I am not attempting to express any value judgments about the numbers; I am only trying to anlayze them. It would be nice if you'd do the same. Your claim that I am lying, that I am making up the 7 million figure, is not only a statement of your opinion, it is contradicted by the BLS information you linked.


Here's what we have:

Jan 2001: 143,788K employed, participation rate is 67.2%, total 16+ population = 213,970K.
Dec 2004: 148,203K employed, participation rate is 66.0%, total 16+ population = 224,550K.

Growth of 16+ population = 224,550 - 213,970K = 10,580K (10.58 million -- approx. what I estimated)

Growth of 16+ population (10.58M) * Participation rate (66%) = Jobs needed to support growth in working population: 10.58M * 66% = 6.98 million -- almost exactly what I estimated based on the widely-accepted rule of thumb that we need ~150K new jobs per month to meet growth. If I am "making up" that number, then so are most jobs experts along with the people that prepare the BLS reports.

Next, WTF is "1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs"? That's exactly what I said, only I didn't use deceptive wording. There was a net increase of about 2.2M jobs. Over 1.1M of them, i.e., a little over half, are only part-time jobs. The rest are obviously full time. To say that I'm "making up numbers" again demonstrates dishonesty (or innumeracy) on your part.

Finally, while you keep yammering about Clinton's bubble, it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical analysis of these statistics. It is a separate discussion, absolutely unrelated to anything I said. For the purpose of this discussion, I am merely trying to establish accurate figures. The blame storming can follow.

In short, my numbers are accurate. I made nothing up. You owe me an apology.

However you have made a couple of mistakes in your math. You calculated 7 million jobs were needed, but you did not subtract out the jobs that were created.

6.98 - 4.41(employment04-employment 01) =2.57
so lets now subtract out the difference in participation rate about 1% cal that 1.4 million

2.5-1.4 = 1.1

and we are currently not fueled by a bubble market and that is probably worth about another million or so jobs(1% difference in employment rates).

You are owned nothing but a math lesson. Consider your schooled.

OK, I'll bite. Where did you come up with those figures (employment04 = 6.98, employment01 = 4.41)?

6.98 is your number, 4.41 is the delta between 04 and 01.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond
Bravo!

With all these new jobs you people should have no problem at all with fulling funding your share of the Social Security system!

or fixing it for future generation as well.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Bravo!

With all these new jobs you people should have no problem at all with fulling funding your share of the Social Security system!

or fixing it for future generation as well.

Destroying it doesn't fix it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Are you quite finished with your little partisan snit? The numbers are what they are. I am not attempting to express any value judgments about the numbers; I am only trying to anlayze them. It would be nice if you'd do the same. Your claim that I am lying, that I am making up the 7 million figure, is not only a statement of your opinion, it is contradicted by the BLS information you linked.


Here's what we have:

Jan 2001: 143,788K employed, participation rate is 67.2%, total 16+ population = 213,970K.
Dec 2004: 148,203K employed, participation rate is 66.0%, total 16+ population = 224,550K.

Growth of 16+ population = 224,550 - 213,970K = 10,580K (10.58 million -- approx. what I estimated)

Growth of 16+ population (10.58M) * Participation rate (66%) = Jobs needed to support growth in working population: 10.58M * 66% = 6.98 million -- almost exactly what I estimated based on the widely-accepted rule of thumb that we need ~150K new jobs per month to meet growth. If I am "making up" that number, then so are most jobs experts along with the people that prepare the BLS reports.

Next, WTF is "1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs"? That's exactly what I said, only I didn't use deceptive wording. There was a net increase of about 2.2M jobs. Over 1.1M of them, i.e., a little over half, are only part-time jobs. The rest are obviously full time. To say that I'm "making up numbers" again demonstrates dishonesty (or innumeracy) on your part.

Finally, while you keep yammering about Clinton's bubble, it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical analysis of these statistics. It is a separate discussion, absolutely unrelated to anything I said. For the purpose of this discussion, I am merely trying to establish accurate figures. The blame storming can follow.

In short, my numbers are accurate. I made nothing up. You owe me an apology.

However you have made a couple of mistakes in your math. You calculated 7 million jobs were needed, but you did not subtract out the jobs that were created.

6.98 - 4.41(employment04-employment 01) =2.57
so lets now subtract out the difference in participation rate about 1% cal that 1.4 million

2.5-1.4 = 1.1

and we are currently not fueled by a bubble market and that is probably worth about another million or so jobs(1% difference in employment rates).

You are owned nothing but a math lesson. Consider your schooled.

OK, I'll bite. Where did you come up with those figures (employment04 = 6.98, employment01 = 4.41)?

6.98 is your number, 4.41 is the delta between 04 and 01.

Sorry, still not following. The 6.98 is already a delta between 16+ in 2001 and 2004. Where do you get 4.41 for 01?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Bravo!

With all these new jobs you people should have no problem at all with fulling funding your share of the Social Security system!

or fixing it for future generation as well.

Destroying it doesn't fix it.

There are no plans to destroy it bob.

 

[Bowfinger]

???

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Are you quite finished with your little partisan snit? The numbers are what they are. I am not attempting to express any value judgments about the numbers; I am only trying to anlayze them. It would be nice if you'd do the same. Your claim that I am lying, that I am making up the 7 million figure, is not only a statement of your opinion, it is contradicted by the BLS information you linked.


Here's what we have:

Jan 2001: 143,788K employed, participation rate is 67.2%, total 16+ population = 213,970K.
Dec 2004: 148,203K employed, participation rate is 66.0%, total 16+ population = 224,550K.

Growth of 16+ population = 224,550 - 213,970K = 10,580K (10.58 million -- approx. what I estimated)

Growth of 16+ population (10.58M) * Participation rate (66%) = Jobs needed to support growth in working population: 10.58M * 66% = 6.98 million -- almost exactly what I estimated based on the widely-accepted rule of thumb that we need ~150K new jobs per month to meet growth. If I am "making up" that number, then so are most jobs experts along with the people that prepare the BLS reports.

Next, WTF is "1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs"? That's exactly what I said, only I didn't use deceptive wording. There was a net increase of about 2.2M jobs. Over 1.1M of them, i.e., a little over half, are only part-time jobs. The rest are obviously full time. To say that I'm "making up numbers" again demonstrates dishonesty (or innumeracy) on your part.

Finally, while you keep yammering about Clinton's bubble, it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical analysis of these statistics. It is a separate discussion, absolutely unrelated to anything I said. For the purpose of this discussion, I am merely trying to establish accurate figures. The blame storming can follow.

In short, my numbers are accurate. I made nothing up. You owe me an apology.

However you have made a couple of mistakes in your math. You calculated 7 million jobs were needed, but you did not subtract out the jobs that were created.

6.98 - 4.41(employment04-employment 01) =2.57
so lets now subtract out the difference in participation rate about 1% cal that 1.4 million

2.5-1.4 = 1.1

and we are currently not fueled by a bubble market and that is probably worth about another million or so jobs(1% difference in employment rates).

You are owned nothing but a math lesson. Consider your schooled.

OK, I'll bite. Where did you come up with those figures (employment04 = 6.98, employment01 = 4.41)?

6.98 is your number, 4.41 is the delta between 04 and 01.

Sorry, still not following. The 6.98 is already a delta between 16+ in 2001 and 2004. Where do you get 4.41 for 01?

You calculated what was needed without subtracting what was created.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: 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.

49% of the people are not looney left liberals. Anyway, just because you had to move doesn't mean you had to move to a state with crappy job growth, but even before that you weren't able to find a job in Atlanta, so really I guess it didn't matter. I've never felt any ill-will toward you. Sadness at your blatant disregard for reality, but not ill-will or hatred.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mill

49% of the people are not looney left liberals.

Anyway, just because you had to move doesn't mean you had to move to a state with crappy job growth, but even before that you weren't able to find a job in Atlanta

Oh that's funny, before this the RRRR has been saying not only is the left looney liberals but losers too.

I wasn't able to find a Technology job in Atlanta because a ton of Technology has left Atlanta, yes there is still some left but it is certainly not the mecca for Tech that it was.

No I didn't have to move to New Orleans but I'm doing the best I can to make Lemonade after getting Lemons.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Are you quite finished with your little partisan snit? The numbers are what they are. I am not attempting to express any value judgments about the numbers; I am only trying to anlayze them. It would be nice if you'd do the same. Your claim that I am lying, that I am making up the 7 million figure, is not only a statement of your opinion, it is contradicted by the BLS information you linked.


Here's what we have:

Jan 2001: 143,788K employed, participation rate is 67.2%, total 16+ population = 213,970K.
Dec 2004: 148,203K employed, participation rate is 66.0%, total 16+ population = 224,550K.

Growth of 16+ population = 224,550 - 213,970K = 10,580K (10.58 million -- approx. what I estimated)

Growth of 16+ population (10.58M) * Participation rate (66%) = Jobs needed to support growth in working population: 10.58M * 66% = 6.98 million -- almost exactly what I estimated based on the widely-accepted rule of thumb that we need ~150K new jobs per month to meet growth. If I am "making up" that number, then so are most jobs experts along with the people that prepare the BLS reports.

Next, WTF is "1/2 the new jobs are not part time jobs"? That's exactly what I said, only I didn't use deceptive wording. There was a net increase of about 2.2M jobs. Over 1.1M of them, i.e., a little over half, are only part-time jobs. The rest are obviously full time. To say that I'm "making up numbers" again demonstrates dishonesty (or innumeracy) on your part.

Finally, while you keep yammering about Clinton's bubble, it has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical analysis of these statistics. It is a separate discussion, absolutely unrelated to anything I said. For the purpose of this discussion, I am merely trying to establish accurate figures. The blame storming can follow.

In short, my numbers are accurate. I made nothing up. You owe me an apology.

However you have made a couple of mistakes in your math. You calculated 7 million jobs were needed, but you did not subtract out the jobs that were created.

6.98 - 4.41(employment04-employment 01) =2.57
so lets now subtract out the difference in participation rate about 1% cal that 1.4 million

2.5-1.4 = 1.1

and we are currently not fueled by a bubble market and that is probably worth about another million or so jobs(1% difference in employment rates).

You are owned nothing but a math lesson. Consider your schooled.

OK, I'll bite. Where did you come up with those figures (employment04 = 6.98, employment01 = 4.41)?

6.98 is your number, 4.41 is the delta between 04 and 01. You calculated what was needed without subtracting what was created.

(Note: condensed the nested quotes.)

I believe you've made a couple of mistakes. First, the BLS stats you're using are for total labor force, NOT total employed. According to BLS, they include those unemployed who are still considered part of the workforce by actively seeking employment. Therefore, your delta between 12/04 and 1/01 is NOT the number of jobs created. It is merely the growth in the labor force. My math was just fine.

Second, the 1.2% difference in participation is percentage of the total 16+ population, not just the labor force as you've been calculating. 1.2% of 224,550K is almost 2.7 million fewer people (proportionally) in today's labor force than there were four years ago. Presumably, most of them are discouraged workers who have given up seeking employment, a/k/a the chronically unemployed, but I'm sure there are other reasons as well. As far as I can tell, BLS does not try to explain the difference in participation.

Finally, you cannot ignore the 1.1 million increase in people who are only able to find part-time work. Those part-time jobs inflate the BLS employment statistics, creating an unrealistically rosy employment picture. BLS also does not measure the underemployed, as far as I can tell, e.g., technical professionals who are working retail because they can't find tech jobs. That omission also paints an overly rosy employment picture.

Class dismissed. Care to apologize for your "making up numbers" attack yet?

 

[charrison]

prepare to be schooled, again.

(Note: condensed the nested quotes.)

I believe you've made a couple of mistakes. First, the BLS stats you're using are for total labor force, NOT total employed. According to BLS, they include those unemployed who are still considered part of the workforce by actively seeking employment. Therefore, your delta between 12/04 and 1/01 is NOT the number of jobs created. It is merely the growth in the labor force. My math was just fine.

Second, the 1.2% difference in participation is percentage of the total 16+ population, not just the labor force as you've been calculating. 1.2% of 224,550K is almost 2.7 million fewer people (proportionally) in today's labor force than there were four years ago. Presumably, most of them are discouraged workers who have given up seeking employment, a/k/a the chronically unemployed, but I'm sure there are other reasons as well. As far as I can tell, BLS does not try to explain the difference in participation.

Finally, you cannot ignore the 1.1 million increase in people who are only able to find part-time work. Those part-time jobs inflate the BLS employment statistics, creating an unrealistically rosy employment picture. BLS also does not measure the underemployed, as far as I can tell, e.g., technical professionals who are working retail because they can't find tech jobs. That omission also paints an overly rosy employment picture.

Class dismissed. Care to apologize for your "making up numbers" attack yet?

Class is now in session.

noninstitutional population 2001
216M
noninstitutional population 2001
224M

Difference 8 million




civ labor force 2001
144M
civ labor force 2004
148M

4 Million more in the workforce

Employed 2001
136M
Employed 2004
140M

4 Million more employed.

So it apears that your 6.98 is completely bogus. That would just not be possible with these numbers from the bls.

Persons that could only find part time work 2001
1.1m

Persons that could only find part time work 2004
1.3M

Difference, 200,000
So it appears your 1.1 million number is completely bogus as well

Class dismissed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: 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.

49% of the people are not looney left liberals. Anyway, just because you had to move doesn't mean you had to move to a state with crappy job growth, but even before that you weren't able to find a job in Atlanta, so really I guess it didn't matter. I've never felt any ill-will toward you. Sadness at your blatant disregard for reality, but not ill-will or hatred.

OMG, someone is admitting that not everyone who didn't vote for Bush is a looney left liberal! Quick, I better bookmark this...and send it to cwjerome

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mill

49% of the people are not looney left liberals.

Anyway, just because you had to move doesn't mean you had to move to a state with crappy job growth, but even before that you weren't able to find a job in Atlanta

Oh that's funny, before this the RRRR has been saying not only is the left looney liberals but losers too.

I wasn't able to find a Technology job in Atlanta because a ton of Technology has left Atlanta, yes there is still some left but it is certainly not the mecca for Tech that it was.

No I didn't have to move to New Orleans but I'm doing the best I can to make Lemonade after getting Lemons.

I don't know WTF a RRRR is supposed to be, but whatever. You may be a loser, but that doesn't mean the rest of those that voted for Kerry might not be. Regardless, there is still much more opportunity in Atlanta for a tech job, and once again you will ignore the facts and bleat about some kind of random conspiracy. New Orleans is not very tech heavy, but Atlanta sure as hell is.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Mill

49% of the people are not looney left liberals.

Anyway, just because you had to move doesn't mean you had to move to a state with crappy job growth, but even before that you weren't able to find a job in Atlanta

Oh that's funny, before this the RRRR has been saying not only is the left looney liberals but losers too.

I wasn't able to find a Technology job in Atlanta because a ton of Technology has left Atlanta, yes there is still some left but it is certainly not the mecca for Tech that it was.

No I didn't have to move to New Orleans but I'm doing the best I can to make Lemonade after getting Lemons.

I don't know WTF a RRRR is supposed to be, but whatever. You may be a loser, but that doesn't mean the rest of those that voted for Kerry might not be. Regardless, there is still much more opportunity in Atlanta for a tech job, and once again you will ignore the facts and bleat about some kind of random conspiracy. New Orleans is not very tech heavy, but Atlanta sure as hell is.

Why the defending of Atlanta as being some kind of Tech Mecca it is not?

You can not say that Atlanta has not lost a ton of Tech jobs. Show me an influx of Tech jobs into Atlanta.

You didn't like the three letter acronyms so added Rich to Radical Religious Right just as I added Losers to the Looney Liberal Left.