Labor Department reports weak job growth.
By on Jul 7th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Labor Department reports weak job growth.
“The labor market posted weak job growth for the third straight month, according to a government report Friday.†The economy had a net gain of 121,000 jobs last month, less than the 175,000 economists predicted.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Inflation is a fact, but I bet the manipulated media will ignore it, as with global warming.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:28 amBut somehow, this is good news for Bush.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:30 amI don’t quite know how, but it is.
His poll numbers are “rebounding,” dammit!
And the unemployment rate stays at 4.6%. Man things are bad!!
July 7th, 2006 at 11:35 amJust saw our President’s opening statement from Chicago’s news conference. He was touting economic growth and job increases. Hope some reporter there has statistics with which to confront him.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:37 amAnd the unemployment rate stays at 4.6%. Man things are bad!!
Horrible!
Hope some reporter there has statistics with which to confront him.
Eh, like there being job growth and the unemployment rate still at 4.6%? Yeah, hopefully a reporter will confront him with damning facts like that.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:42 amAnd the unemployment rate stays at 4.6%. Man things are bad!!
Comment by Ben
Thing are worse that that. Bush changed the formulation for calculating the unemployment rate shortly after coming into office. If he were held to the same standard as Clinton, it would be even worse.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:45 amhmmm, the most dangerous thing in aspen used to be getting onto the ski-lift…
July 7th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Since when is job growth of 121,000 new jobs in one month “weak”? And that’s more jobs than were created in May…
July 7th, 2006 at 11:49 am#6 – “Bush changed the formulation for calculating the unemployment rate shortly after coming into office. If he were held to the same standard as Clinton, it would be even worse.”
I looked around but could find no reference to this. Any suggestions?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:52 am“Nothing to see here move along”
‘….but but but Bush has created a 2 million jobs since Sep 2004(??)”
“….but but but if you think this number is low imagine if we raised the minimum wage”
July 7th, 2006 at 11:55 am#6
Why don’t you get off your butt and go out and get a real job instead of posting false information here?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:56 amWhat happenesd this month, the big box stores slow down hiring for their 7.00/hr jobs? $15.00/hr———————->$7.00/hr , who gives a shit about the # of jobs anyway?
July 7th, 2006 at 11:57 amI’ve looked also, but it doesn’t appear anywhere that I’ve looked. But that doesn’t change the fact that it happened. I’ll look further, but if memory serves, it was in April or May of ‘01. They changed, from the more-accurate business payroll survey, to the less-accurate household income survey.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:59 amI too would like to see any reference to changing the formula on calculating unemployment. On the other hand, economists estimated 175k and the number fell far shorter of that. Just as in estimating stocks, if a company comes in with lower actual numbers than what the estimate was the stocks suffer. So 121k is under what was being estimated and that is a cause for concern. Also what are the jobs that are being created?
July 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pmDon’t forget the push to reclassify fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs.
LOL
July 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pmWhy don’t you get off your butt and go out and get a real job instead of posting false information here?
Comment by Randy
I work the night shift. It wasn’t false Randy, you just don’t want to believe it.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pm#13 – Ok, man, keep hunting. I’m pretty sure that if they changed the method for determining unemployment rate, it would have recieved a fair amount of media coverage. Ok, actually I’m certain it would have.
I’m afraid you memory is in revolt.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#8 – Since when is job growth of 121,000 new jobs in one month “weakâ€? And that’s more jobs than were created in May…
Comment by Chase — July 7, 2006 @ 11:49 am
When those jobs are service sector jobs that are just above minimum wage while manufacturing jobs that pay a considerable amount more continue to be stagnant at best.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#8. It’s less than April, March, February, January, December and November. It’s also less than almost every month going all the way back to December 2003.
Sarcasm On. But, you’re right, it’s not so bad compared to Bush’s average of 43,000. I guess it’s real good compared to that. Sarcasm Off.
But it’s only about half of Clinton’s average of 237,000, and a little more than half of Carter’s 219,000. It’s less than Super-Ron’s average of 166,000.
It kind of sucks when you think abut all the high school and college graduates who were looking for work in June. It really suck when you think about all the tax cuts and deficit sepneding that was supposed to “stimulate the economy and create jobs.”
Sarcasm On. You know what? This month, after 5 years, 5 months, George W. Bush has added as many jobs (2,773,000) to the US Economy as Bill Clinton did (2,748,000) in his very first year. Now, that’s an accomplishment!
Sarcasm Off! George W. Bush’s economy is the worst unmitigated disaster in American history.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:06 pmi really have no idea, but, i am guessing if anyone is terribly interested, this site would be a good start…
i am sure that, given the opportunity, the bush crime family would find some way to LIE about the number. since it appears to be a number created from a sample, it seems prone to being tampered with by this group of sick miscreants.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:06 pmREAL WAGES DOWN for the first time in a long time, this year, but we’re doing GREAT!…and by the looks of it , they will be down for next year with rising inflation. GOOD JOB Republican dipshits!
July 7th, 2006 at 12:07 pmSo 4.6% it is since you guys cannot find any good evidence showing that “Bush changed the formula”. I always here that statement on here with no proof. Better luck next time guys.
Now while I think 4.6% is pretty good, the Fed Bank thinks its bad as they focus on keeping unemployment at 5% due to inflationary concerns. It is actually one of the reasons they keep increasing the interest rate. They are trying to get unemployment higher. Odd.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:16 pm#8, there are 150,000 people who enter the workforce every month, so when the number is below 150k, it means there’s not enough job growth. This is why I would question the rate of 4.6%. After 3 months of poor growth, there’s no way the rate would remain the same.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:19 pmCynicalfirl,
You can question it all you want. Now go find some actual proof to back it up. I for one, don’t believe that they changed anything.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:22 pmThe Labor Department is headed by a “Bush” appointee. Think about that for a
July 7th, 2006 at 12:23 pmminute… Do ya really trust these people?? And by the way, in what area was the job growth and were they good paying jobs? Remember, the Bush administration wants to make flipping burgers the same as manufacturing job.
Ben: “So 4.6% it is since you guys cannot find any good evidence showing that “Bush changed the formulaâ€. – - Workers unemployed longer than six months drop off those rolls and are nollonger counted. Personally, I know four people who have been unemplyed far longer than that. Extrapolate that out and you’ll find an exponentially higher number than 4.6% unemployment. We have no idea how high that number of unemployed really is. Sort of like the number of Iraqis killed.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:34 pm#26 – I seem to remember the change being a reclassification of the term “unemployed” which they then use in their calculation. I can’t find any specific reference to it either though – funny. I seem to remember citing this nearly 2 years ago when I had a similar argument…must be censoring those stories about them changing it.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:39 pmCynicalfirl..Go look under your bed, there is a million dollars there for ya :-)
July 7th, 2006 at 12:41 pmHow about these damning facts?
The president’s own economic advisors predicted that the 2003 tax cuts would create 306,000 new jobs per month. By their own standard, this policy has been a failure for all but two months since the cuts!
Also, economic growth is not a panacea! What good is economic growth, which is just growth in total output, without creation of enough jobs paying a livable wage for everyone who wants to work?
July 7th, 2006 at 1:03 pmWell, I found this on the Common Dreams website:
Published on Friday, January 3, 2003 by the San Francisco Chronicle
George W Bush’s America
Shooting the Messenger: Report on Layoffs Killed
by David Lazarus
The Bush administration, under fire for its handling of the economy, has quietly killed off a Labor Department program that tracked mass layoffs by U.S. companies.
The statistic, which had been issued monthly and was closely watched by hard-hit Silicon Valley, served as a pulse reading of corporate America’s financial health.
There’s still plenty of economic data available charting employment trends nationwide. But the mass-layoffs stat comprised an easy-to-understand overview of which industries are in the greatest distress and which workers are bearing the brunt of the turmoil.
“It was a visible number,” said Gary Schlossberg, senior economist at Wells Capital Management in San Francisco. “In times like these, it was a good window on how businesses were cutting back.”
No longer. But then, businesses cutting back didn’t exactly jibe with the White House’s recent declarations that prosperity is right around the corner.
You had to look pretty hard just to learn that the mass-layoffs stat had been scotched. No announcement was made by the Labor Department, and no prominent mention of the change was posted at the department’s Web site.
In fact, news of the program’s termination came only in the form of a single paragraph buried deep within a press release issued on Christmas Eve about November’s mass layoffs.
It simply said that funding for the program had dried up and that the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics was unable to find an alternative source of funding.
No doubt as intended, the announcement slipped by virtually unnoticed. Even state officials were surprised to learn of the demise of what they called an important, if downbeat, barometer of the nation’s economy.
Sharon Brown oversaw compilation of the mass-layoffs number at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington. She was pleased to blow her agency’s horn.
HIGH-QUALITY PROGRAM
“This was a high-quality program, producing timely information on important developments in the labor market,” Brown said.
According to the bureau’s final monthly report, U.S. employers initiated 2, 150 mass layoffs in November, affecting 240,028 workers. A mass layoff is defined as any firing involving at least 50 people.
California by far had the most employees given the boot — 62,764, primarily in administrative services. Wisconsin was a distant second with 15, 544, followed by Texas with 14,624.
Between January and November, 17,799 mass layoffs were recorded and nearly 2 million workers were handed their hats by businesses.
Brown said that because of a bureaucratic quirk, the $6.6 million in annual funding for the mass-layoffs program — money primarily doled out to state officials to gather relevant data — was channeled through the Labor Department’s Employment and Training Administration.
FUNDING ELIMINATED
When that agency decided it needed more cash to handle its own affairs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was told to look elsewhere for its budget needs.
Apparently no extra money was to be found anywhere within the Labor Department, which had a total budget of $44.4 billion last year, up from $39.2 billion in 2001.
“With very finite discretionary resources, we have to make difficult decisions,” said Mason Bishop, the Labor Department’s deputy assistant secretary for employment training. “We didn’t see how this program was helping workers re-enter the workforce.”
Coincidentally, the same conclusion was reached in 1992 when the first President Bush canceled the Mass-Layoffs Statistics program amid election-year charges that he had bungled handling of the economy.
REVIVED BY CLINTON
The program was resuscitated two years later by the Clinton administration.
Now Bush the younger is following in his father’s footsteps, once again deciding that the American people have no real need to know how many mass layoffs are made each month.
“It’s questionable what value this program has for workers,” insisted Bishop.
On the other hand, the Labor Department this week released a sweeping study of volunteer work over the past year, reporting that 59 million Americans donated their time and know-how to helping others.
President Bush has spoken repeatedly about the virtues of volunteerism since taking office in 2001.
VOLUNTEERISM MEASURED
During his own stint in the White House, the elder Bush was a proud advocate of community service. That was also the last time the Labor Department was told to devote its finite discretionary resources to a study of volunteer work by U.S. citizens.
Then, as now, it’s difficult to see how feel-good surveys of volunteer activities contribute to an understanding of the economy’s vitality or the re- employment of displaced workers.
There does seem to be merit, though, in easily seeing how many people have received pink slips as companies tighten their belts, and which states and industries are in facing the greatest challenges.
“The United States economy is growing again,” Bush declared in a holiday radio address from his Texas ranch. “This economy is strong and it can be stronger.”
And if not, best to just sweep the whole mess under the rug.
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
My memory ain’t as bad as I thought.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:03 pmWell, Ben?
July 7th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#30 – Is that your evidence of Bush changing the formula?
July 7th, 2006 at 1:08 pmIt’s my somewhat misinformed use of “changed the formula.” I should have said “changed from a more accurate system (which takes into account both layoff data, and household incomes0 to a systen that only reports the good news. But my assertion that if Bush were held to Clinton’s standard, it would look worse than it currently does is still valid. Unless you can prove otherwise?
July 7th, 2006 at 1:16 pmTo recap:
You had to look pretty hard just to learn that the mass-layoffs stat had been scotched. No announcement was made by the Labor Department, and no prominent mention of the change was posted at the department’s Web site.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:18 pm#33 – The BLS “lay-off tracking” program didn’t contribute to the unemployment data.
Those figures contributed to a different index.
I’m looking for evidence that they actual unemployment rate formula was adjusted, as you claimed above.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:23 pmOh, my bad. I just realized it would be impossible for you to disprove my assertion, unless you’re keeping tabs of the companies in the survey yourself. Are you, Chase? ‘Cause the Bush labor department ain’t anymore.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:28 pmChase at 1:08.
Since then, silence. Tick tock.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pmIt seems to me that this whole argument about the unemployment rate is a red herring meant to derail the question of whether enough new jobs are being created.
The answer is clearly “no.” From numerous standards, the president is a disaster: comparison to past presidents’ records, comparison to the number of new workers entering the workforce, comparison to the overall GDP growth, comparison to the presidents of predicitons, comparison to the amount of deficit spending and tax redustion. Relative to all the standards, this president is not performing.
Anyone who holds the unemployment rate as a mark of his success is simply polishing a turd.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pmEPI Highlights Truth About Unemployment Rate
May 23, 2006 – The Economic Policy Institute recently debunked misleading comments by the Bush administration regarding the U.S. unemployment rate.
The White House said: “The unemployment rate is at 4.7 percent – lower than the average of the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s.â€
However, the unemployment rate does not take into account potential workers who have given up looking for work and left the job market.
Therefore, a more accurate measure would be the employment rate – or the share of the adult population that is employed. That number has actually gone down 1.3 percent since March of 2001.
The EPI report states: “were job creation occurring at a similar rate as the last recovery, employment growth would be about 300,000 jobs per month as opposed to the current underlying trend of about 200,000 jobs per month.â€
Read the entire EPI report:
July 7th, 2006 at 1:40 pmBarfly,
Bush changed the formulation for calculating the unemployment rate shortly after coming into office. If he were held to the same standard as Clinton, it would be even worse.
If I remember correctly, you’re the one who believed Karl Rove was a German citizen, which is completely BS. I’ll wait with great anticipation for you to prove the above statement.
But my assertion that if Bush were held to Clinton’s standard, it would look worse than it currently does is still valid. Unless you can prove otherwise?
Ah, the “Pigs Can Fly, Now Prove Me Wrong” tactic. Clever.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:43 pm#23
And no one ever retires? Those aren’t new jobs, there are existing ones which may or not be filled which blow away conspiracy ideas you may be dreaming up.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pmThe Economic Policy Institute: Critiquing misleading White House statements about the economy
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060503
July 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pmCritiquing misleading White House statements about the economy, part 1
Income growth and median earnings
A recent White House news release contains this claim regarding income growth:
Real disposable income has risen 2.2 % over the past 12 months. Since January 2001, real after-tax income per person has risen 8.3%.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060411-9.html)
Since income growth is the primary determinant of living standards, the validity of this claim is central to the White House’s argument that their policies are lifting the living standards of most families. The problem here is that the measures cited are of limited use in judging the extent to which the recovery is truly reaching most families.
First, these measures represent the aggregate of trillions of dollars in income generated by the economy. Real disposable income (inflation-adjusted income after taxes) always tends to expand in recoveries because more persons are working. Disposable personal income (DPI) also includes income from business ownership, interest, and dividends, but is also lifted significantly by the high levels of executive compensation, as reflected in recent news reports (see The New York Times, “A cozy arrangement.” April 13, 2006).
To measure the effectiveness of the administration’s policies, the question is not whether real DPI is growing, but how fast are the growth rates relative to past recoveries. By both measures cited by the White House, the growth over this business cycle is considerably weaker than the average for past cycles.
As shown in Figure A, DPI per capita has gained 8.4% since March 2001, but the average for comparable periods is 11.1%.1 In addition, the 2.3% gain in real DPI over the past year—2005q1-2006q1—falls short of the average growth of 3.6% over comparable periods in past recoveries.
Figure A. Growth in real disposable personal income per capita, this cycle vs. past averages
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060503figa.gif
The second problem with the White House’s claim is that the increase in inequality in recent years has meant that average income growth is less descriptive of how the typical family is faring. As growth has flowed up the wealth scale, middle and lower income households have not enjoyed even the modest growth shown in the average income figure above. Median family income declined not only in the recession year of 2001, but has consistently fallen in real terms through 2004 (down 2.9 %, or $1,500). Though median income results for 2005 will not be available until late this summer, the trend in median earnings, shown next, suggests things are unlikely to have improved much since 2004.
Figure B shows the trend in real median earnings of full-time workers since 2001. Median earnings, representing the paychecks of the typical working person, have stagnated or declined since 2002, and by the end of the period are little changed from where they began, despite four years of recovery and strong productivity growth.
Figure B. Real median earnings, full-time workers, 2001q1-2006q1
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060503figb.gif
The gap between the per capita income growth and median earnings is a stark reminder of the unbalanced nature of the current recovery, one that contradicts the White House’s rhetoric regarding the success of their policy agenda.
Notes
July 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pm1. Notice that our comparison starts in March 2001 instead of January 2001. In order to make sound comparisons with past cycles, we examine the first five years of business cycles that have lasted at least as long as the current one.
Critiquing misleading White House statements about the economy, part 2
International comparisons of employment growth
A recent White House news release contains this claim regarding employment growth:
Since August 2003, we have added more than 5.1 million new jobs—more than Japan and the European Union combined.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060411-9.html)
International comparisons of employment growth are tricky—employment growth is very sensitive to the timing of different countries’ business cycles. In this case, the White House begins its comparison at the exact point when employment began to rise in the latest recovery, so as to avoid counting the longest jobless recovery on record.
Counting over the full course of the Bush Administration, which also corresponds (for the United States) to the standard that one should measure employment growth from the previous business cycle peak (the first quarter of 2001), the most recent comparable data (the third quarter of 2005) shows that the United States added 1.2 million jobs compared to 7.9 million for the EU15 (the group of 15 European nations referenced by the Bush Administration in their release) and a gain of just under 100,000 for Japan over this time period (see Figure A).
Figure A
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060504figa.gif
The White House result is due to “cherry-picking” the date when they start counting jobs, reinforcing the fact that international employment growth comparisons should be approached with some caution. More importantly, the United States should create more jobs than the EU15 or Japan because its working-age population is growing faster. Over the same time period, the working-age population grew by over 9 million in the United States compared to a rise of only 3 million for the Euro Area and a decline of over 1 million in Japan. The net effect of this differential employment and population growth is shown in Figure B, which shows the change in the employment to population ratio (or epop) for each of these areas. The employment to population ratio shows the share of the working-age population that is currently employed and is a key labor market indicator tracked by economists to measure labor market vitality.
Figure B
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060504figb.gif
From 2001q1 to 2005q3, epops in both the EU15 and Japan have risen, while the U.S. epop has fallen. In short, in terms of creating enough jobs to keep pace with growth in the working-age population, the United States actually lags both the EU15 and Japan since the beginning of 2001.
* Note: Working-age population statistics are calculated using data from the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, using 2001 levels and applying 2001-03 growth rates over the full period. The resulting epops are the author’s calculations from these data. Due to lack of data, Belgium is not included in the EU15 numbers.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pmCritiquing misleading White House statements about the economy, part 3
International comparisons of economic growth
A recent White House news release contains this claim regarding economic growth:
Last year, the economy grew at a healthy 3.5 % rate—faster than any other major industrialized country.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060411-9.html)
This sort of comparison is hard because nations do not have synchronous business cycles and countries tend to grow faster coming out of a deep trough than at the top of a cycle. Further, a more relevant statistic than Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth for comparing economic outcomes is growth in GDP per capita. A good chunk of the U.S. GDP advantage over many industrial countries stems only from faster population growth. Growth in living standards is better captured by per capita growth rates.
The White House selects a small number of countries they define as peers with the United States. Among countries classified as “advanced” by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), six had per capita growth rates higher than the United States (see Figure A ).
Figure A
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060510.gif
In 2005, per capita GDP grew at 2.56 % for the United States. Japan’s per capita growth in 2005 was charted by the IMF as higher, at 2.70 %, while five other countries saw per capita growth rates above that of the United States.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:06 pmCritiquing misleading White House statements about the economy, part 4
The unemployment rate
A recent White House news release contains this claim regarding unemployment:
The unemployment rate is at 4.7%—lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060411-9.html)
The unemployment rate of 4.7% in April remains slightly above the rate at the peak of the last business cycle (4.3 % in March 2001).
But the unemployment rate presents too optimistic a picture of labor market slack. Since persons not looking for work are excluded from this measure, when potential workers give up looking for work and leave the job market, the unemployment rate does not fully reflect labor market slack.
Employment rates (the share of the adult population employed) are more revealing of the job market tautness. This rate is down 1.3 percentage points of its value at the last business cycle peak in March of 2001. Notably, the employment rate is even more depressed-down 1.9 percentage points-for college graduates, a group whose job prospects are presumably not limited because of any changes in skills required in the job market. (See Figure A.)
Figure A
http://www.epi.org/images/snap20060511.gif
One reason for the cyclical decline in the employment rate is the historically low rate of job creation over the recovery, even in recent months. According to research by EPI, were job creation occurring at a similar rate as the last recovery, employment growth would be about 300,000 jobs per month as opposed to the current underlying trend of about 200,000 jobs per month (though last month’s job gains were an off-trend 138,000).
Finally, as shown in the first Snapshot of this series, real earnings have been falling in recent quarters, strong evidence that we have not yet achieved a full-employment job market. In the latter 1990s, as the unemployment rate headed for 4%, real earnings grew quickly (median weekly earnings, full-time workers, were up 7%, 1995-2000). These wage trends are the most compelling argument against the White House’s claim that the job market is truly tight in historical terms.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:07 pmWell another 2 years of Bush and there will be ZERO job growth and NO jobs! Way to go Dubya Dunce Decider Despot Dictator > please resign or go ride your bike in Texas now!
July 7th, 2006 at 2:07 pmOK, I’m anxiously awaiting responses from the Bush Junta apologists.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:08 pmOK, I’m anxiously awaiting responses from the Bush Junta apologists.
Comment by JPV — July 7, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Could it be that you have scared them away? Not possible…they are calling Rush for talking points!
July 7th, 2006 at 2:11 pm125,000 lousy jobs?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not even keeping up the rate illegal immigrants are pouring in.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#41 – These are “new jobs.” Created positions. They may be all minimum wage, fast-food jobs. My guess is that some are.
Barfly – Sorry, I do take a lunch.
To start with, your “assertion” (I think a more accurate term is allegation) was that, since taking office in 2001, the Bush administration has changed the formula used to determine the unemployment rate. I respond, asking for evidence, because, well, I didn’t remember seeing this tidbit and if it were true, I would love to learn more.
You reply with a 2003 article discussing how the BLS had discontinued a program that kept tabs on corporate lay-offs.
I think you are misunderstanding your own article. This discontinued program did not contribute to the unemployment rate formula nor do these lost jobs go unrecorded elsewhere. This was merely an additional program that kept tabs on a specific category of job-loss that was discontinued.
If your original argument would have been to keep this program alive, I might agree.
But it wasn’t. And I’m still waiting.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:21 pmCHASE & SEXLESS, OR WHATEVER
Go to the Labor Departments labor statistics which in I think it was March 2001, laid out the change in reporting the unemployment rate.
It used to be simple, now it is complicated and the people who drop off the unemployment rolls are no longer considered unemployed, whether they dropped off because their limit was reached, or they had obtained work.
It is not rocket science to see that the less people you have unemployed (or reported as such) makes the unemployment rate LOWER.
Ask any economist and he will tell you that under the system used by all previous aadministrations the UR under Bush would be over 7%.
I know it is hard for you guys to understand, those of you who wake up each morning with your nose stuck in Bushs asshole.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#50 – Go ask one of those 125,000 folks that was hired last month whether they like being employed or unemployed better. I would suspect the former.
True, gaining 1,000,000 in June would have been better. But 125,000 is better than 10,000 which is in turn better than losing 25,000 jobs.
Could the news be better? Yes, but couldn’t it always? 121,000 new jobs is nothing to scoff at, particularly considering how dismal everyone would have us think the economy ‘REALLY’ is.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:24 pm#52 – I ask you too: find me an article that discusses a change in method. I’m sure something like that would have been discussed – particuarly during the 2001 recession.
I’m still waiting on Barfly, maybe you can help.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:26 pmCHASE – you have been pointed in the right directiion, oh, I would say about 5 times, but you are too ignorant to see it, too stupid to know it, and too arrogant to admit it.
Christ sake, what is wrong with you?
July 7th, 2006 at 2:31 pmPlease address the information that I posted instead of incessantly harping on whether a specific method was changed or not.
Either way, IMO, the Bush administration is misrepresenting the figures.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:33 pmI would imagine that it’s pretty obvious what’s wrong with him.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pm#55 – I’m just asking for an article. That’s all I want. I tried finding one and came up short.
#56 – I’m harping on the specific method because that’s exactly what Barfly alledged the Bush administration had altered to supress unemployment figures.
In fact, the formula DOES underestimate the level of unemployment. But then again, it always has. I have an issue with the claim that it is now somehow different then when Clinton was in office. That’s just plainly false.
As for the info you posted above: it’s good. It’s probably true. I’m sure if I really wanted to I could go back and find economists who, during the Clinton era, took issue to some of his allegations regarding the economy.
There will always be professionals who look at the same set of data and arrive at divergent opinions. That, JPV, is not my point. My point is bald-faced lies such as “Bush changed the formula” should not be accepted, by either side. They bring nothing to the debate.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:44 pmRebel,
Ask any economist and he will tell you that under the system used by all previous aadministrations the UR under Bush would be over 7%.
Point us in the direction of a single one. Thanks.
Barfly,
You still haven’t proven your claim. Tick tock.
JPV,
I was simply interested in Barfly’s allegation, and not you dumping entire articles about critiques of all sorts of things. If you can’t argue the article more concisely in your own words, then you don’t seem to be able to actually critically evaluate and present its contents.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pmhttp://www.financialsense.com/editorials/wallenwein/2004/0410.html
Payroll Numbers:
Using the Truth to Lie
by Alex Wallenwein, Editor & Publisher
The Euro vs Dollar Currency War Monitor
April 10, 2004
There is probably not a single gold-buff who doesn’t look at the March 2004 non-farm payroll numbers with the greatest amount of suspicion.
What exactly has changed from February, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported only 21,000 new jobs added? How did we get from there to 308,000 inside of one month? Did anyone read any news that would explain such an increase?
Yet, as always, it is too easy to just jump up and scream: “Lies. Lies! Nothing but Liieeesss!!!!†What is needed is evidence. Is there any evidence that the government – or the media – lied?
Well, there are some grounds for suspicion:
1.
That “308,000″ number is just too pretty, just too darn close to what the President said he and his administration would “create†for this year: an average of 300,000 new jobs added each month for the rest of the year. (After last month’s dismal report, and the November elections rapidly approaching, so much honesty just can’t be tolerated, I guess.)
2.
Strange also, in that connection, that last months figures were “revised upward†by more than one hundred percent! From 21,000 to 47,000, to be exact. A four or five percent margin of error may be tolerable, on the outside. But an over one hundred percent margin of error??? Gimme a break! What kind of light does that throw on the reliability (and, shall we call a spade a spade?) on the credibility of the current figures?
Normally, direct evidence of outright government lying is hard to come by – at least not right away. The truth always has to work itself through the worm holes of the human psyche before it gets a chance to shine again.
But this time, it’s different.
On the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ own web site, in their own Employment Situation Summary, they show a perfect example how the government/media conglomerate lies by using the truth. It’s an age-old game, and it’s called “partial truth.â€
Here are the true facts as actually reported by the BLS (assuming that those actually are the facts – but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, this time). Following, you will see the truth – all of it. Not just the part that looks good. It’s a strange thing that nobody cared to actually look and see if the media reports were true.
The truth is that:
1.
Yes, non-farm payrolls increased by 308,000 – but the total economy actually lost 3,000 jobs during March.
2.
Unemployment in total numbers actually rose by 182,000 during the period. (Don’t ask me how that jibes with the 3,000 jobs lost. Please contact BLS for the answer.)
3.
Unemployment as a percentage of the working population remained at 5.7 %.
4.
14,000 more people dropped out of the labor force altogether in that time.
5.
The largest increases were seen in the service sector, goods-producing, and construction. Manufacturing stayed flat: a perfect zero.
6.
The number of workers who had to accept part-time instead of full-time employment rose to 4.7 million (were are not told by how much it rose).
How can such a whale of a positive news blast as the media’s report on the non-farm payrolls increase was, coexist side by side with an open admission by BLS that the total number of unemployed persons in the economy remained almost exactly the same (5.7% in February, 5.7% in March)?
How about the realization that the number of existing manufacturing jobs also hasn’t changed att all from that of February? Yet that is the one sector Americans are the most concerned about. Did any news story report on that? I haven’t seen any. Have you?
Now, what kind of a picture does that show? A bit more sobering, is it not?
I know that fuzzy math has been institutionalized during the last twenty years or so, but, please help me out, here: If the total number of unemployed has not decreased at all despite 308,000 workers being “added†last month, where are the jobs that were “subtracted�
The only possibility is the farm sector, but isn’t this spring time? Isn’t this the time when farm workers are usually hired instead of laid off? Are we outsourcing our food production as well, now?
No explanation was given at all for this screaming discrepancy. On the non-farm payroll side, everything either increased or remained stable. There were no job losses reported that could account for this. How likely is it that agricultural payrolls fell exactly by the same amount in which the non-farm payrolls increased during March so that total employment figures remained “stale�
Now, to all of this sheer wonderment, let’s add some controversy. The following is an excerpt from FxStreet’s Commentary of Sunday, April 5, 2004:
The data was followed by a bit of controversy as markets, particularly electronic trading of the U.S. Dollar Index Futures, became overly active just minutes before the release. The suspicious price action left many participants to speculate that the numbers had been leaked prior to the official release. A report on Yahoo from Reuters containing the jobs figures with a time stamp of 8:28 has been the center of focus. Reuters and Yahoo insist the data was released at 8:30 with an erroneous time stamp. Nevertheless, an investigation has been announced by the Labor Department.
Interesting? That’s nothing. It gets better.
Please refer back to our most recent article, “Stand Back! The Economy is Reflating!!â€. What did Mr. Fed governor Poole say on March 30. 2004? Was he not heard mumbling something about an “upside surprise†when he was asked when (long) rates would start going up again?
Well, surprise, surprise!
Was he actually preparing the way for exactly such a “surprise†with his remark? Did he already know this “surprise†was coming? Or is he preparing his flock for slowly receiving the truth about inflation, i.e., that it is coming back – with a vengeance?
We don’t know. All we can do is watch the inflation news every day and observe. Interestingly, Mr. Poole has come out again on April 6, 2004, only a week after reassuring everyone that inflations was not a problem – except this time, he said the Fed must act “aggressively†to combat inflation at the earliest possible sign.
It definitely looks like he, on behalf of the Fed, is preparing the masses for a rate-increase sometime this year. The official line was until recently that rate increases will not happen until the economy is on a stronger footing. But it doesn’t look like the economy as a whole is really adding a whole lotta jobs. Yet, a rate increase is apparently deemed necessary to keep the dollar from falling through the floor.
So, did our rulers need some uplifting news to pretty-up the employment picture a little by wowing people with this tremendous jobs growth half-truth, so that any coming rate increase would be more digestible to the common man?
Judging from the recent past, the selling of economic illusions appears to have become a standard policy tool by those who would lead us. The entire “new-economy†valuation bubble of the late nineties is probably the strongest example of this policy focus. So is the post-911, not-so subliminal message that: “Spending is good. Saving is bad. Getting into debt – to consume more – to save the economy – is patriotic!†Or how about this one: (it’s been around for quite a bit longer): “Gold is bad. Paper-money is goodâ€?
Whether this was a wise policy move is indeed questionable. A lack of market follow-through after Monday, April 6, 2004 is being passed off as a reaction to bad news on the war against terrorism/Iraq front, but it quite possibly reflects a realization by many investors that these employment figures aren’t quite what they were pumped up to be.
One thing is for sure: the Fed wasn’t betting on price-inflation coming back to bite them in the rear this fast. Until recently, they were quite content with keeping interest rates low to jazz up apparent economic performance a bit more so that we could actually start adding some jobs before the rates will have to be raised. Now, jobs figures still aren’t dancing the jive yet, but prices are spiraling higher and higher, mocking the Fed’s directorate for central planning.
To all of these economic-designer woes, we must now add one additional major headache for our fearless rulers: the hand that reaches into our pockets every year to sustain their gargantuan federal bureaucracy is about to get slapped away.
Countless numbers – literally millions – of people are about to discover for themselves that their leaders have, for eight decades, financed their voracious appetites for power by illegally enforcing an otherwise legally imposed tax.
Very soon (if people in this country have any sense of moral outrage left in them), without their coveted ability to help themselves to our money, our leaders will need to seriously re-think how they are going to run this country. (On top of that, Americans will have to seriously re-think how they will allow their leaders to run their country in the future.
As almost everyone who frequents gold web sites knows, it is far easier to keep politicians and bankers honest if you give them less money to play with. It should be equally clear that a return to honest money will keep them even more honest.
Once weakened in their power by not being able to reach into your pockets anymore, and once Americans recognize where their leaders ill-informed policies have led them economically, a call to a return to gold as money may not appear so utterly hopeless any longer.
Exciting times are coming for gold.
I hope you got some.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:49 pmHere is a link to a PBS article talking about the unemployment rate about 10 years ago when it was at 5.1% in Sept ‘96, down from 5.4% in August. Jim Solman was literally fawning over Abraham about how great the numbers were. It makes you wonder why the MSM isn’t jumping up and down when the current number is much lower now. Of course the MSM isn’t biased so I wonder what it is?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/september96/employment_9-6.html
July 7th, 2006 at 2:50 pmAnd no one ever retires? Those aren’t new jobs, there are existing ones which may or not be filled which blow away conspiracy ideas you may be dreaming up.
Comment by Randy — July 7, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
And no one ever has babies, who grow up and want jobs? The population is INCREASING, therefore jobs need to increase.
The birth rate and immigration rate in our country is far higher than the death and retirement rate – why we have 100 million more people now than we did in 1970… Understand?
July 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pmJPV,
I was simply interested in Barfly’s allegation, and not you dumping entire articles about critiques of all sorts of things. If you can’t argue the article more concisely in your own words, then you don’t seem to be able to actually critically evaluate and present its contents.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
LOL! Nice attempt at a dodge there.
Silly me, but I find that the writers at sites like The Economic Policy Institute are far more knowledgeable and eloquent than I could ever be regarding these sorts of matters. I think that their assessments carry more weight and validity than mine. After all, writing about these sorts of issues is their profession.
Then there’s always the inevitable fact that If I made some claims, that you guys might disagree with, I would be challenged about it and there would be requests for proof. I figure this method just cuts to the chase.
Oddly enough you are criticizing other posters for not presenting facts and trying to discredit me for presenting them. Very confusing indeed. Maybe you should work on getting a consistent method down. As it stands, you really don’t come of very credible at all.
Get back to me with your next “talking points”. Hopefully the next batch will be a little better… I won’t hold my breath though.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pmGo ask one of those 125,000 folks that was hired last month whether they like being employed or unemployed better. I would suspect the former.
Comment by Chase — July 7, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Could you give us the number to your fellow paid trolls so we can ask them?
Independent studies show that the unemployment rate is much closer to 10%. 4.6% are only those who are collecting benefits.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:07 pmOh, and the articles that I posted aren’t “about critiques of all sorts of things.” They are very specifically articles about the Bush administration manipulating the unemployment data to their advantage.
I would say “nice try” but it wasn’t. It was in fact a VERY lame attempt to discredit pertinent information that doesn’t jibe with you point of view.
Do your “handlers” realize what a pathetic job you’re doing? You better shape up or you’ll be out of a job soon.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:11 pmGee, in Chicago today, Bush boasted of the 120,000 jobs that were created.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pmHis press conference today was an hour of bull shit.
Dang, this is two threads Sexion is being slammed on, and then again, I have only been reading two, could actually be more. Going to be a long day for you buddy!!!
JPV – Sexion does not believe in actually having to supply facts to follow up on his allegations. Only progressives are required to do this. And when we do he whines about how we are always picking on him.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:15 pmJudging by the lame and obviously paid trolling going on around here, my guess is that the bulk of those 125,000 new jobs are paid Bush Junta Internet trolls. Nobody could be so stupid as to fall for this crap.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#64 – If it’s 10% now (according to these unnamed independent studies), what was it “really” during the Clinton years? Exactly what the BLS reported? Or was it also 10% then?
That’s my argument! I’m not saying the BLS unemployment data is completely accurate. I’m saying the methods are absolutely consistant.
#65 – See above. And pardon my loose language.
Question: do you think every administration (hell, every organization for that matter) spins numbers to the best of their advantage? I think it’s a pretty common practice in any kind of management. The EOP is not immune.
And what pathetic job I’m doing? What do you mean!?
July 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pmWasn’t talking about you. Sensitive, aren’t we?
July 7th, 2006 at 3:20 pmAnd when we do he whines about how we are always picking on him.
Comment by jules — July 7, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
That’s exactly when you know he knows that he’s lost the debate – when he starts that “Oh stop, you’re being mean to me…” pity-the-victim-routine…
I hope he’s an only child.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:26 pmDang, this is two threads Sexion is being slammed on, and then again, I have only been reading two, could actually be more. Going to be a long day for you buddy!!!
No problem. All in a day’s work for Seixon. He is working a beat here, and he knows that anyone who stands up to the tough guys is going to get roughed up once in a while. Really, it is a sort of validation for his lonely honor.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pm#70 – Haha, no no (everyone thinks I’m sensitive today. Trust me: I live by the credo of don’t dish out what you can’t take.)
I just thought you might know something I don’t know, that’s all.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pmI just thought you might know something I don’t know, that’s all.
Comment by Chase — July 7, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Well, I do.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:33 pmBill Clinton isn’t currently in office… So he isn’t relevent to what Bush isn’t doing here – creating enough new jobs to meet the demand.
By the way, Clinton created enough jobs so that the unemployment rate wasn’t an issue or a problem. Unlike now…
July 7th, 2006 at 3:34 pmjules,
JPV – Sexion does not believe in actually having to supply facts to follow up on his allegations. Only progressives are required to do this. And when we do he whines about how we are always picking on him.
I haven’t made any allegations here, so why do I need to prove allegations I haven’t made? And yes, when people call me skinhead, Nazi, neo-Nazi, fascist, retard, stupid, moron… I think that counts as “picking on” me. You might have another opinion on the matter, but I see that logic isn’t one of your skills. You can’t even write my name correctly.
JPV,
I was only interested in Barfly’s allegation that Bush changed the formula for unemployment, and you have not added anything to that debate.
RealScientist,
At least I have honor.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:42 pmUnbelievable, I have to disagree with you. Bill Clinton is an example of how a competent president performs. This president could aspire to Bill Clinton’s kind of success. He just made it all look so easy.
As for the rate of population growth… According to the US Census, there are about 18,000,000 more Americans today than there were in 2000. Certainly many of these are children, but many are adult immigrants seeking employment. Just as certainly, a number like 18,000,000 are children who were born decades ago and who have come of age and are seeking to join the workforce. All these people need jobs. When the president’s economic plan produces only 2,773,000 jobs, he is falling about 15,000,000 jobs short. Eighteen million in about 6.5 years is about 230,000 jobs per month. Only 121,000 is a pathetic attempt; about 110,000 short.
If Bush could average only 121,000 per month, he would have about 9,500,000 jobs by now. That’s sorta respectable. But he’s only done 2,773,000, which is only 43,000 per month, which just sucks.
The unemployment number is just an index that the President and his stooges hide behind. The real number is the new jobs. Why can’t Bush deliver? Why can’t his trolls explain?
July 7th, 2006 at 4:02 pmpete,
You do know that there was a recession in 2001, right? Let’s not all pretend that everything in the world is the same as it was during Clinton, either.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pm78. that was a pretty shallow recession. some economists are reluctant to call it that. seems like a similar event occurred about 1993, too.
besides, that recession was years ago. bush has had several tax cuts that were meant to stimulate and create since then. quit using the recession as a crutch. be a man.
finally, clintons record is about 10 times as many jobs as bush’s. the recession wasn’t that bad.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:25 pmPete,
The economy is no where as bad as liberals pretend it to be or as the “drive by” media would have you to believe. Bush is twice the president that Clinton ever wished to be because not only he did have to face as recession as Clinton did at the beginning of his presidency, he had to begin to fight the war on terror. How many of the Clinton jobs were due to the dot.com wave that went belly up right before he left office? History will not paint a favorable legacy for Clinton no matter how much you scream and rant.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:29 pmJPV,
I was only interested in Barfly’s allegation that Bush changed the formula for unemployment, and you have not added anything to that debate.
Comment by Seixon — July 7, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
You mean like this?
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/07/news/economy/unemployment/index.htm
July 7th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
oh, now it’s the dot.com excuse. how many jobs were lost in the dot.com bust? do you know? clinton’s record is ten times bush’s. no way the dot.com or the recession is responsible for that difference.
bush needs 15 million new jobs to employ all the new people. where are they coming from?
what war on terror? all i see is a bunch of american-based multi-nationals plundering the us and iraqi treasuries while the us army gets killed standing in the street. besides, if the gwot really existed, it would be producing all kinds of employment, like WW2 did.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:42 pmThe economy is no where as bad as liberals pretend it to be or as the “drive by†media would have you to believe.
Comment by Randy — July 7, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
I hope that you’re getting paid to type this drivel. I would hate to think that anybody was really ignorant enough to parrot lame GOP/Limbaugh lines like “Drive-by media”. Give me a break.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:43 pmPete,
During Clinton’s first term unemployment averaged at 6% but during his second it went down to 4.4%.
During Bush’s first term unemployment averaged at 5.5% but it also went down during his second at 4.9%.
Clinton will be remembered for Monicagate while Bush will be holding this country together after 9/11.
p.s.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:46 pmWhy were some economists reluctant to call the recession in the early 90s a recession? Didn’t Clinton win with “Its the economy stupid”?
Clinton will be remembered for Monicagate while Bush will be holding this country together after 9/11.
Comment by Randy — July 7, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Holding it together? WTF are you talking about? The country is more divisive now then I have ever seen it.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:49 pmPetey,
You need to move out of your mama’s basement and find a real job!
July 7th, 2006 at 4:49 pmClinton started at over 7% and brought it down every year to 4%. Bush started at 4% and went up every year (unitl this year) to a max above 6%. Their average unemployment is similar because Clinton started high and went down. Bush started low and went up. Plotting it on a graph tells the story so much better than using silly averages. You should try it.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:54 pm86. nice personal attack.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:58 pmClinton started at over 7% and brought it down every year to 4%. Bush started at 4% and went up every year (unitl this year) to a max above 6%. Their average unemployment is similar because Clinton started high and went down. Bush started low and went up. Plotting it on a graph tells the story so much better than using silly averages. You should try it.
Comment by pete — July 7, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
Unemployment
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/unemploy.jpg
Job Creation
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/jobcreation.jpg
Budget Surplus/Deficit
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/deficit.jpg
July 7th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#87
July 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pmI downloaded the rates from the bureau of labor statistics which how I arrived at the averages. Averages tell a better story from a historical perspective since they smooth out any anomalies. Since we can at least agree that Bush and Clinton have had similar records when it comes to unemployment, why doesn’t Bush get more credit in the media. I mean come on, the rate is at historical lows and no out there with the exception of talk radio or Fox News will give any credit.
I mean come on, the rate is at historical lows and no out there with the exception of talk radio or Fox News will give any credit.
Comment by Randy — July 7, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Well, you pretty much answered your own question didn’t you?
July 7th, 2006 at 5:04 pmHey, I made an error. For a second I started to think unemployment rates really measured something important. I almost forgot that they only measure the number of people actually collecting unemployment benefits and not the number of people who actually want jobs and can’t get them. From now on, let’s talk only about the 15,000,000 jobs Bush is going to stmulate the economy to produce.
See, this post was originally about how many – really, how few – jobs this economy produces. All I want to talk about is the subject of the post: every month there aren’t enough jobs.
Thanks JPV. Nice graphs.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:09 pmhttp://www.thinkandask.com/news/jobs.html
The “official” unemployment rate in the United States is 5.5 percent (July 2004), a contradiction to the actual number of unemployed men and women in the United States, which stands at 16,265,736. The United States government only keeps you “unemployed” for six months, whether or not you find a job. The Labor Department (BLS) reports that an additional 300,000 workers fell out of the labor pool (an average monthly share throughout 2003.) Some 6,700,000 professionals have fallen off their unemployment benefits without finding a new job. Employers added no hope, creating only 32,000 jobs in July 2004.
Those who have filed for unemployment, allow benefits to run the course without finding a job already know that when you call the unemployment office that one extra time…hoping to slip in one more $300 check request….the recording tells you that you are no longer listed as “unemployed.”
—
According to the Los Angeles Times, the true number of unemployed in the United States tops 16 million at the end of 2003. The number of professionals in part-time or freelance work while waiting-out their job hunt is 4.9 million, and 1.5 million professionals seek jobs due to imminent layoffs, added too 9 million already unemployed — the US-unemployment is the highest in 20 years. The actual percentage of “unemployed” in the United States is 9.7 percent, up .3 percent from 2002.
—
Where are the unemployed men and women in the United States? Are there 5 million idle millionaires who simply care not to work and thus miss the statistical counters? One way in which people drop out of the unemployed category is to declare themselves “disabled,” which makes them eligible for government payments without being counted as “unemployed.”
During the past 23 years the number of professional workers receiving disability payments rose from 3.8 million to 7.7 million. Disability payments have also increased overall, cushioning the blow of losing a job and unemployment benefits. Men whom contract HIV qualify for full-time disability, as would anyone physically or emotionally injured on the job.
Additional reasons that professionals drop-out of the market is due to disinterest or depression. Workers will stop looking for work officially — thus fall off the government’s tally — return to school, work for cash, or work for temp agencies in order to “wait out” the economic depression.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:10 pmI mean come on, the rate is at historical lows and no out there with the exception of talk radio or Fox News will give any credit.
Comment by Randy — July 7, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Perhaps what it really means is that more people have given up on finding employment than ever before in the history of our country. Many have probably gone on the dole and are now part of the welfare system.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:15 pmJPV – That article at 81 is more along the line of what I’m looking for. Why Barfly couldn’t find that is beyond me, but I digress.
From what I gather, the BLS tends to pick whichever method of unemployment measurement looks better and reports on that one. I wouldn’t conclude that CNNMoney is saying the BLS altered the formula (for instance, one month including “discouraged workers” and the next not).
Nevertheless, not using the same method each month unnecessarily obfuscates the figure. But I hardly think this kind of practice began with the Bush administration.
In any event, thanks for finding that.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pmhttp://www.freedomtofascism.com
July 7th, 2006 at 5:37 pmNevertheless, not using the same method each month unnecessarily obfuscates the figure. But I hardly think this kind of practice began with the Bush administration.
In any event, thanks for finding that.
Comment by Chase — July 7, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
Yeah, I’m sure that manipulating the figures is a time honored tradition for both parties. The only difference, and this applies to every other issue, is that I believe that these sorts techniques are getting more advanced and sophisticated as time goes on. In that case then the Bush administration may have adopted a more aggressive tactics than previous administrations. Certainly the next administration will evolve their techniques even further.
That being said, we do seem to be losing a lot of jobs. I’m basing this on personal observation, with people that I know, and not statistics.
Anyway, unlike other people on this and other forum, I don’t see the Democratic Party as being the saviors of the country. They are both corrupt beyond redemption.
July 8th, 2006 at 3:49 amCracks House
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pmCash Loan Advance
Phenomenal cash loan program providing cash advances for US residents.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:37 amTrading Futures In Currency Only
Hi – just wanted to say good design and blog -
April 6th, 2008 at 4:11 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 10:25 amRetirement Plan Participants Sign On
Thanks for this post!
April 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pmcurrency graphs
Didn’t realise there was this type of information out there
April 6th, 2008 at 10:13 pmMy Trusted Cracks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 7:23 amTrading Currency Futures
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:50 amweight lift routine…
The strawberry flavor was very good as well. So, while Muscle Milk may contain slightly more fat than low-fat high-carb products, our…
December 1st, 2008 at 12:55 amweight lift routine…
EvoPro? includes these alpha and beta micellar caseins, Alpha-Lactalbumin, Purified Bovine Colostrum Extract (rich in Secrotory IgA and IGF-1),…
December 1st, 2008 at 12:56 am