Replies

Here are the latest employment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics dated October 8, 2004

Employee Statistics (Workers employed by others)
From Peak Employment 03/01 to 09/04 -940,000
From Lowest Employemnt 11/01 to 9/04 +696,000

Household Statistics (Workers self employed and employed by others)
From Peak Employment 03/01 to 09/04 +2,254,000
From Lowest Employment 11/01 to 09/04 +3,464,000

The Democrats claim 1.6 million jobs lost, since Bush took office, and that is simply not true.

The Republicans claim that 1.3 million jobs have been created over the last 13 months and, based on BLS statistics, that is accurate, if we use the "Employee" statistic.

If "Household" measure, which includes workers who start their own businesses and work for themselves as well as employees who work for others, is used then more than 2 million jobs have been created since Bush took office.

I am not sure what justification the BLS has for not including the employed who work for themselves in determining "employment" in the US.

That statement was a terrible blunder on my part. I know what I was thinking but I'm incorrect about that one. I suppose I could attempt to argue my point by showing how those assets (insurers reserves) indirectly come from the balance of payments from trade through the wealth effect but it is twice removed and a very argument.

I can however, with full confidence this time, state that because of our trade deficit, foreign banks have purchased American assets. When the buy our debt, we use those loanable funds to finance things such as business expansion and homeownership. Because they continue to buy, it keeps interest rates on loans low for American consumers and businesses. When the buy our equity securities, the take a stake in America and become partial owners of our businesses. This makes them interdependent on the health of our economy and less apt to try and ruin it. Their stock transaction provide more market liquidity. When they buy our property many times they will use it to run one of their multi national corporations from, in-sourcing jobs that require higher skilled labor, running their corporations from our soil.

Does this at all seem bad to you? Perhaps you'd like it the other way around and for us to be financing them, increasing their investment activities and expansions. The truth is, it really doesn't matter because it's two different sides of the same coin and all the countries involved will benefit in their unique way. Are their tradeoffs? Yes, there are in everything; which way do you want it?