Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (9355)	3/21/2004 5:35:00 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 81568

Lost jobs focus of Democratic radio address cnn.com

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (9355)	3/21/2004 5:59:59 PM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim. One little problem: It's not true. Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses. While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America’s economy has been steadily creating jobs. At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. And though the eight-month recession “officially” ended in November, economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery. The signs: The 5.6 percent unemployment rate is the lowest in two years and below the average of the 1980s (7.3 percent) and '90s (5.8 percent), and still continues to drop. The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000, and the number of so-called discouraged workers is less than .3 percent of the workforce, according to Paul Kersey of the Heritage Foundation. Consumer spending grew between 4 percent and 5 percent last year, and real hourly earnings rose 1.5 percent. Real earnings have risen over the last three years. Exports doubled to 19 percent in the fourth quarter, compared to less than 9 percent in the third. The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history. Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling. Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing. Productivity growth is extremely high. Now the doomsayers are criticizing the validity of the unemployment rate, which at 5.6 percent does not fit their gloomy story. Faulty Counting The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all. Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office. But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity. People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office. As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey." Credit Where Credit Is Due That’s not all. When doomsayers, and media spoiling for a fight in an election year, laughed at Bush’s prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, not everyone was scoffing. Ahmed, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others hardly batted an eye. Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels. "I don't think it's 'Fantasyland,'" Greenspan said. "I agree with him," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. "I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year." Ahmed is convinced that "the revision patterns of the early-1990s recovery cycle" will be repeated. A total of 1.4 million job gains were revised upward to 2.9 million in the first 21 months after the end of the last recession, just after Bush Sr. was voted out of office

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (9355)	3/21/2004 6:40:31 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Re. 1) The BLS payroll survey and household survey are showing different things. One says jobs have gone down, one say jobs have never been higher. Thanks for the bls link. Here are some things I found there. Here's some words from a discussion of the difference between the payroll (establishment) data and the household data: Differences in employment estimates. The numerous conceptual and methodological differences between the household and establishment surveys result in important distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys. Among these are: --The household survey includes agricultural workers, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, and private household workers among the employed. These groups are excluded from the establishment survey. --The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed. The establishment survey does not. --The household survey is limited to workers 16 years of age and older. The establishment survey is not limited by age. --The household survey has no duplication of individuals, because individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one job and thus appearing on more than one payroll would be counted separately for each appearance. ..... Another major source of nonsampling error in the establishment survey is the inability to capture, on a timely basis, employment generated by new firms. ..... bls.gov This shows employment numbers increasing from 136.4 million in Feb. 2003 to 138.3 in Feb. 2004. Meaning about 2 million more people employed now than a year ago: HOUSEHOLD DATA Table A-6. Selected employment indicators (In thousands) Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted Characteristic Feb. Jan. Feb. Feb. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 2003 2004 2004 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 Total, 16 years and over.......................... 136,433 136,924 137,384 137,318 138,095 138,533 138,479 138,566 138,301 bls.gov I know of a fellow who retired at 55 from the company I work for and now works as a contractor for the company (through an agency) four days a week. I would think he wouldn't show up on anyone's payroll but he is working. Re. 2) I don't like to see the deficit go up but I also know the economy took a hit from 911 as well as the continuing effect of the late 90's bubble bursting. If we weren't running a deficit now, the job situation would be much worse. Re. 3) Both Bush and Kerry (despite his hints to the contrary on the stump) are committed to free trade. Bush has only deviated from the free trade course in a couple areas involving steel tariffs and timber imports from Canada. In both cases, to protect American jobs. Ironic to for him to be criticized simultaneously for not creating enough jobs and for being over-protective of American jobs.