[So Cal Rocket]

Unfortunately, you're misinterpreting what the data says. "Civilian Labor Force" is all people who are working, or actively looking for work. This is broken down into two pieces - "employed" and "unemployed".

"Employment" figures for year-end 1993-2003(thru Nov) are:

1993 112203
1994 116056 +3.4%
1995 118210 +1.9%
1996 121003 +2.4%
1997 124361 +2.8%
1998 127364 +2.4%
1999 130509 +2.5%
2000 132445 +1.5%
2001 130661 -1.3%
2002 130198 -0.4%
2003 130174 -0.0%

[Jaysun]

Unfortunately, you're misinterpreting what the data says. "Civilian Labor Force" is all people who are working, or actively looking for work.


If what you say is true, what is the purpose of the "Persons who currently want a job" report?

(Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now
16 years and over
not in labor force

(Number in thousands)
1994 6218
1995 5670
1996 5451
1997 4941
1998 4812
1999 4568
2000 4413
2001 4590
2002 4677
2003 ?

The "Employment-Population Ratio" report also points to the idea that the Liberals claims are false. I also found another "breakdown" of the report data which - once again - support my claim:

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Where did you get the data that you provided? I'm not unable to admit that I'm mistaken - but all of the information that I've seen supports my claim that the "Bush has lost (whatever) millions of jobs" isn't at all true.

[Steve_Seattle]

Good point, but it is still instructive that the biggest drop-off occurred in 2001, before Bush's policies had time to take effect. And we still have about three million more jobs than in 1998, the sixth year of Clinton's presidency. Still, I believe that these stats are mainly of demagogic value, and that presidents don't have nearly the effect on the economy that they're given credit/blame for.