The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush

NewsMax ^ | 2-25-04 | Paige McKenzie

[jmstein7]

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. Even better, the number of so-called discouraged workers declined in December.

# 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.

[socal_parrot]

Wait! This has got to be pure BS! If this was true we'd hear it in the mainstream medi.....


Oh. Nevermind.

[Jim Robinson]

It's all Bush's fault.

[RWR8189]

No no no...

You don't understand!

There is not a single person in the country with health insurance!

And at least half the people are HOMELESS!

There were NO homeless people in the 1990's and everyone had health insurance!

[JulieRNR21]

Spread the word.......BUMP

[jmstein7]

LOL!

[My2Cents]

"I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year."

If true, the Democrats will be dead by November.

[paul51]

It's all Bush's fault

And john kerry is a decorated war hero from vietnam anyhow

[Afro_conservative]

I wouldn't bring up job creation, although this tries to put the president in good light this is filled with some spin. More jobs where lost during the last four years. Do not get caught with trying to spread this around as I am always cautious to news that tells me what I want to hear. I would forget campaigning strong on producing jobs and put more effort into the war on terror, tax cuts and use the gay marriage issue because it is muy caliente right now.

[Jaysun]

There is not a single person in the country with health insurance! And at least half the people are HOMELESS!

The fear of losing my health insurance has had me huddled over in the corner of my office; going in and out of delirious hallucinations for months.

[LandOfLincolnGOP]

Okay, this bugs me enough to stop lurking. I support the President, I believe the economy is improving, but this Household Survey argument really bugs me. I was laid off last year. I don't want to go on unemployment, so I've been freelancing while looking for work. It's true that I'm making more money than I would on unemployment, and it's also true that if the Household Survey contacted me, I would be classified as a "new job."

BUT...

* I make less than half what I used to, and it's not really enough to live on.

* I no longer have health insurance or other benefits.

* Despite the fact that I'm working, I'm still looking for a job.

A lot of people I know are in this exact same position. So when people wave around this Household Survey argument, I know they're talking about me. Well, I don't consider myself fully employed, and I don't think the statistics should either.

I'm not complaining about my situation. But I don't buy this BS that what I'm doing know is the same thing as the payroll job I had before. And I don't think most other people do either.

[HiTech RedNeck]

What's the score for (number of jobs - number of Mexican illegals in those jobs)

[Jaysun]

I wouldn't bring up job creation, although this tries to put the president in good light this is filled with some spin. More jobs where lost during the last four years. Do not get caught with trying to spread this around as I am always cautious to news that tells me what I want to hear. I would forget campaigning strong on producing jobs and put more effort into the war on terror, tax cuts and use the gay marriage issue because it is muy caliente right now.

I disagree friend. The Democrats have been delivering frantic harangues on "job losses" without end. In fact, it's one of their main "issues." I've made similar observations about the job loss tripe. Their lies about the President's job record need to be refuted. To refute those lies would make them totally impotent.
I did a post last December on the subject, and included numbers and a link from the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm

[Afro_conservative]

I too have looked at the numbers and the net loss is higher man you just have to deal witht the truth and besides the other stuff is much more fun to use.

[tinamina]

What about the 2 million illegals that entered the workforce during this period? They're working too, aren't they? I mean, they all just come here for the jobs, right?

[vger]

evidence, evidence, evidence....that's all you got!

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - ECONOMICS - EMPLOYMENT

[Once-Ler]

Wow! and bookmarked

[Jaysun]

I too have looked at the numbers and the net loss is higher man you just have to deal witht the truth and besides the other stuff is much more fun to use.

You haven't looked at the numbers on the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics website if you believe that "the net loss is higher." The reports presently shown (as of 30 seconds ago) show no loss.

[Fledermaus]

But you shouldn't then be counted as unemployed. You are just not fully employed and our politicians don't want to open a debate for discussion.

It's just, "you lost jobs"! "No, I didn't"! "Yes you did", blah, blah blah.

If we can't even decide how we measure "unemployment" then what's the point?