http://www.thestreet.com/markets/economics/10164556.html May: +248,000 net new jobs created April: Revised upward to +346,000 (from +288,000) March: Revised upward to +353,000 (from +337,000) Last, but not least the unemployment rate stays at 5.6%.
Virtually every major private sector of the economy added jobs in May, from retailing to construction industries. There was a dip in government employment. Particularly notable were 32,000 new hires in manufacturing -- a fourth straight monthly increase and the biggest for any month since August 1998 when 143,000 manufacturing jobs were created.
You Will Hear None Of This From Kerry And Company... GEORGE BUSH AND HIS ECONOMIC PROGRAM ARE WORKING! Vote Bush/Cheney in 2004! IntheNet
Excellent news all around and I state that as someone who can't stomach to vote for either of the guys running for president. I have a question. Why are these numbers always quoted as excluding the farm payrolls? Andy
USASoccer's guess is a good one, but I have another. I'll bet anything that the gvt. started tracking this stuff in the Great Depression. Back then, it would have been just about impossible to track it, plus it would have been just about impossible to come up with a working definition that would properly evaluate everyone working on the family farms that were so numerous then. Does Mom have a job? Does 17 year old high school dropout Junior? 13 year old 7th grader Jimbo? 11 year old Sallie Mae? How would you draw the line between "chores" and "work"? And they just never redefined the statistic. Sorta like how our unemployment stats have never been redefined to include people who aren't looking for work. Back in the 30s, the number of people who a) weren't old and b) weren't looking for work (excluding housewives) was small. Nowadays, you have people living off of gvt. checks who could work, and probably more people willing to live off of relatives who have jobs. Side note...one reason Europe's unemployment rates are always higher than ours is because they use a very, very different set of definitions. If our economies were in exactly the same shape, Europe's stats would still be several points higher. So when people oppose certain benefits that are available in Europe, arguing that our minimal-benefit model is superior because of our lower unemployment, it's a specious argument. I understand the gvt. not wanting to change the way we calculate it, but it would be smart public policy to have another definition, more in line with the norm in Europe. That would be useful for tracking world economic trends, and for comparing social policies.
IntheNet, this is so only because employers are expecting Kerry to be the president soon. They are preparing another gold age under the Democratic Kerry administration once again. Bush is bad news for this country.
Not to poop on anyone's party, but... Not so fast, guys... http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/01/news/economy/challenger/index.htm?cnn=yes http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040604/ap_on_bi_ge/maytag_restructuring
Re: Not to poop on anyone's party, but... from the first article: "Challenger cited recent heavy job-cutting announcements in retail -- 10,868 announcements in May" Taken together with the earlier point "Particularly notable were 32,000 new hires in manufacturing" So it looks like people are moving from retail to manufacturing, so now we don't have to here this crap about how all the jobs are at Taco Bell.
Re: Not to poop on anyone's party, but... I think this might get a couple of dissident responses. You've served up a cholesterol-laden, fat, juicy softball on the new definition of manufacturing.
Re: Not to poop on anyone's party, but... Paging Mr. Loney... Seriously, though, I think one difference in the lay-offs that have been happening over the last few years is that they've not targeted to poor, who don't vote, but the middle-class who do vote. This should be very worrying to Bush because you can bamboozle an uneducated know-nothing into thinking that he got laid off because of unions or commies under his bed but you'll have a harder time fooling someone who is educated or economically aware. It's not impossible, mind you, but it is more difficult. And the raw job numbers only tell a small part of the story. It's also important to know what kinds of jobs are being lost and/or created. In another thread, I'd linked to a story that said that the longer-term trend has been for more and more Americans to accept part-time work and low-pay, low-benefit service jobs because they've given up on finding full-time quality jobs. My guess is that is especially true among the younger adults less than 30 years old. So whenever someone who wants and is qualified for a good job takes a McJob out of desperation to make ends meet, that counts as a Good Thing according too our job creation data. You can add this to superdave's post about how our employment data get distorted.
Re: Not to poop on anyone's party, but... http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11041748&BRD=988&PAG=461&dept_id=141269&rfi=6
Re: Not to poop on anyone's party, but... Coincidentally, one of the major players in a certain manufacturing field (you could say they are the "King" of their category) closed its manufacturing plant right next to my subway stop. A competitor has a manufacturing plant down the block. Maybe they'll hire the laid off manufacturing workers, but I'm not optimistic.
Try actually reading the thread next time. And Bush is still on track to be the second coming of Herbert Hoover.
I think we all need to step back and keep in mind that these statistics are nothing more than the cyclical economic curve at work. The president can help the economy by creating a favorable environment for businesses which create jobs, as president Bush did with his tax cuts. The federal reserve can influence the economy by raising or reducing interest rates, for example if it wishes to help slow down an overheated expansion. But other than that there is little that government can do. When John Kerry looks at the American people in the eye and says with a straight face that President Bush is responsible for millions of job losses, he is pulling a fast one on Americans who don't understand economics. Lets discuss the US economy soberly. During the nineties America, and other nations, had an unprecedented economic expansion, fueled by the new technologies like faster computers, the internet and celular technology. All economists knew that the growth rate which we enjoyed was unsustainable over the long term, and eventually it was predictable that the bubble burst. This happened in the US at the end of the Clinton administration and carried into the first year of the Bush administration. Intelligent people who understand economics will not blame it on either administration, because it was primarily due to factors not related to government policy. The statistics that democrats like to throw at the American people will show that close to two million jobs were lost during the first year of the Bush administration. Obviously this was a time when even the limited effect that a president policies might have on the economy could not yet have taken effect. I don't believe his first budget was even passed by congress until almost the end of his first year. And of course, any economic effect of goverment policies has a delayed reaction of several months. So, to say that these job loses where due to president Bush would be erroneous even if people where to believe that presidents are personally responsible for economic news. We also would be foolish to blame the president for structural changes that are taking place everywhere in the world, affecting America just as much as they affect Europe and other developed nations. As we integrate the world's poorest people into the global economy, it is inevitable that the economies of the countries which have long been at the top will have to make some adjustments. But that is not something that presidents are responsible for. To imply so is to play the politics of lies and deception. So, we should keep all these things in mind when we consider the economic news of the past few years, good and bad, so we can put it all into perspective.
I don’t Blame Kerry or Bush for telling people what they need to hear to get them to vote. I blame the voters who fail to educate themselves and fall for the lies.
Okay, job news is certainly good. Bush might even be able to avoid the onus of being the only President to having less jobs in the country when he finished than when he started. Maybe. Meanwhile, gas prices are up, interest rates will surely rise a couple of times before election day and there's a lot of fear that "Bring 'em on" Bush has laid the groundwork for more terrorist attacks before election day.
The rise in the price of gasoline has nothing to do with president Bush. If the rise in gas prices was a function of the policies of the president of the United States, then how come the prices are also rising in Europe and the rest of the world? There is just too much demand for gasoline, especially with the emergence of China as a major consumer. As far as interest rates, the very reason that they are likely to rise is that the economy has been stimulated and is growing again. From a logical standpoint, you can hardly use that as an issue against the president. So, forget gas prices and interest rates as a relevant issue. I guess you are left with the strategy of hoping to put the blame on president Bush if, God forbid, we were to have another terrorist attack.
well, I got fired today, they got two part timer and three interns to replace me. I don't care what people say about higher employment rate, the small business I worked for don't have to pay anything for the part timers besides hourly wages, and don't even have to pay the interns. I guess I needed to suck up to the boss more. Well, you live, you learn.