Skip to comments.
3 Million jobs lost is a MYTH!
Bureau of Labor Statistics ^
| March 2004
| Bureau of Labor Statistics
Posted on 04/05/2004 1:18:30 PM PDT by smc
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 137,790,000 Civilian Sector jobs when Bush took office (Jan 2001).
As of March 2004, there were 138,298,000 Civilian Sector jobs. This is a gain of 508,000 jobs.
How is it that this data is being portrayed as 3 million private sector jobs lost?
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economy; jobs; myth; thebusheconomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
1
posted on
04/05/2004 1:18:31 PM PDT
by
smc
To: smc
Easy. Clinton apologists suddenly out of work (more or less).
To: william clark
Very interesting indeed!
Nam Vet
3
posted on
04/05/2004 1:23:50 PM PDT
by
Nam Vet
(Shopping for a new tag-line)
To: smc
As of March 2004, there were 138,298,000 Civilian Sector jobs. This is a gain of 508,000 jobs.
How many people have entered into the workforce during those 38 months of 13k / month job growth?
4
posted on
04/05/2004 1:23:50 PM PDT
by
lelio
To: smc
Yeah, I know... I have yet to see a good explanation.
5
posted on
04/05/2004 1:24:08 PM PDT
by
demlosers
(Coulter: Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying.)
To: smc
Your figure is a net figure. The 3 million lost jobs is not adjusted for new jobs created, just those lost.
6
posted on
04/05/2004 1:24:08 PM PDT
by
sharktrager
(Kerry is like that or so a crack sausage)
To: All
Rank |
Location |
Receipts |
Donors/Avg |
Freepers/Avg |
Monthlies |
25 |
Colorado |
215.00
|
5
|
43.00
|
|
|
125.00
|
9
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
To: smc
You don't really expect the media to do fact checking before they report the news, do you?
8
posted on
04/05/2004 1:25:15 PM PDT
by
MattMa
(I'm not a victim, I am a conservative and if you get to close, I just may bite.)
To: smc
Didn't I read that the Bush Administration was going to reclassify the hamburgers assembled in fast food restaurants as new industrial workers? The media simply took the McD's Billions and Billions Served slogan, divided by 50 years in business to get hamburgers per year. This new policy has not taken effect so only some portion (.4%) of those hamburger-workers have been counted by Bush's fact-skewing scientists in the DOL. So, the Dems calculated that 3.5 million of these hamburgers-workers were made since the Bush took office. After that, it's simple subtraction.
9
posted on
04/05/2004 1:25:49 PM PDT
by
NYFriend
To: smc
Easy
the dems only look at Payroll jobs. It is easier to measure change. Second the Dems use this number because Allen Greenspan uses this number to make his formulas work.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What is left out is the 16 million small business owners etc who are NOT on the payroll list.
My numbers say the total civilian worker base is near 146,000,000 total workers.
The 3 million job loss is a myth.
you are correct.
To: smc
So, we probably DID lose 3 million jobs, and the ECONOMY (not the government) made 3,508,000 jobs.
Leftists will twist anything out of context in order to express their hatred at being out of power, so why would this be any surprise?
11
posted on
04/05/2004 1:27:26 PM PDT
by
MrB
To: NYFriend
Correction, that second-to-last sentence should read "Bush", not "the Bush". That should clear up any confusion.
12
posted on
04/05/2004 1:27:32 PM PDT
by
NYFriend
To: MattMa
Worse in this case the media know the facts.
1. The household survey shows a gain in jobs.
2. The establishment survey shows a loss of jobs.
3. For decade the focus on the unemployment rate means we have gone with the househould survey.
But the media is happy to carry the water for the Dim candidate. There is just no way around that.
13
posted on
04/05/2004 1:27:41 PM PDT
by
JLS
To: smc
Keep saying it's a myth long & hard enough and pretty soon Dorothy you'll be back in Kansas. The number of jobs lost/gained over any period has been measured consistently by BLS & they do try to explain the vast amount of data they supply - but it's not easy. If you can convince the BLS that they are mistaken - three cheers for you.
To: MattMa
The figures were leaked to the press showing job growth and a general overall boost to the economy.
I have it - they never learned to read and they are deaf!
Are you going tomorrow night?
15
posted on
04/05/2004 1:28:21 PM PDT
by
dixie sass
(To all that have served and are serving - Thank you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.)
To: CHICAGOFARMER
From Bureau of Labor Statistics.
LNS1100000000 report
2001 Jan 143787
2002 Jan 143842
2003 Jan 145875(1)
2004 Jan 146863(1)
To: CHICAGOFARMER
My favorite statistic: 87% of statistics are made up on the spot. The democRATS invented fuzzy math.
17
posted on
04/05/2004 1:30:28 PM PDT
by
Vitamin A
(Family values news & activism: www.familyreporter.com)
To: smc
Its kinda like when democrats claim that taxpayer dollars are lost when taxes are low. They never really had it so its really not lost.
18
posted on
04/05/2004 1:30:28 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(you tell em i'm commin.... and hells commin with me.)
To: cripplecreek
Or that a reduction in increase of spending is a budget cut.
Lie - "We cut the budget by 10% - there is no money to keep schools open!"
Truth - "The 20% increase for the next two years was cut by 10% - we are still making 10% more than last year."
19
posted on
04/05/2004 1:34:35 PM PDT
by
CyberCowboy777
(We should never ever apologize for who we are, what we believe in, and what we stand for.)
To: sharktrager
Your figure is a net figure. The 3 million lost jobs is not adjusted for new jobs created, just those lost. Creation and job loss happen during any period in time. The net job loss or gain is more accurate when discussing Macro Economic than saying X amount of jobs have been lost over time.
It's intellectual dishonesty.
20
posted on
04/05/2004 1:34:55 PM PDT
by
demlosers
(Coulter: Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson