Posted on 04/10/2004 7:54:24 AM PDT by truthfinder9
Note how the unemployment is at its lowest in 30 years and growth is unprecedented. Where's the bad economy?
********
The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush
Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/25/171833.shtml
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.
Welcome troll newbie!
Neither number is an "accurate" reflection of the number of jobs "created" during the last 3+ years. While the payroll data is the more "precise" (an unfortunate error on Greenspan's part), neither is "accurate". Both have "holes" in the data that keep them from being a completely valid measure of employment from a political perspective.
For instance, while the payroll number IS more precise (a smaller MOE) it does not take properly into account the number of self-employed workers or the number of people working for start-up companies. In an expanding economy (which we are clearly in) you have more jobs created by these start-ups than you would at other times. Because the payroll (or "establishment" survey does not include these companies, it will under-report "new jobs".
While the household survey is FAR less "accurate" (if you're looking for a number of people employed), it is very useful for its intended purpose. That is, "what percentage of the people who want/can work are unable to do so?"
"How many jobs" that works out to be DOES depend on your measure of how many people are out there, but the percentage doesn't change.
Unfortunately, for people (like you?) who wish that Kerry would have a chance (he doesn't) at victory... The employment number is one of Kerry's "best" issues... and it's almost precisely at the same level Clinton's was when he ran for re-election. kinda hard to spin that as "dismal" considering the environment he had to work in.
Show 'em my motto!
-Col. Nathan R. Jessep- as played by Jack Nicholson
You got that right! The Dems know that there's no need for flipping when Duya's around.
In regard to what you were talking about (2.3 mill, yadda yadda yadda), it seems to me that you are one of the people who believe that the economy is in the dumps because of Bush. I live in Oregon, not too far away from Portland. The truck building company "Freightliner" layed off about 2/3 of their assembly lines. My father, who ran a machining business at the time felt the economy drop. When "Freightliner" went back online he was out of work. This war two years before the Adultrous Bill Clinton left office. Oh, and was it not Clinton that passed the NAFTA agreement? Have a nice day.
In regard to what you were talking about (2.3 mill, yadda yadda yadda), it seems to me that you are one of the people who believe that the economy is in the dumps because of Bush. I live in Oregon, not too far away from Portland. The truck building company "Freightliner" layed off about 2/3 of their assembly lines. My father, who ran a machining business at the time felt the economy drop. When "Freightliner" went back online he was out of work. This was two years before the Adultrous Bill Clinton left office. Oh, and was it not Clinton that passed the NAFTA agreement? Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.