Job Statistics Fraud of the Left

Bureau of Labor Statistics ^ | 8/11/2003 | KMAJ2

[KMAJ2]

Why do the republicans allow the democrats to continue to distort and misrepresent the the employment figures ?

Let's look at the simple facts.

President Bush's first budget was not enacted until November of 2001. Until that point we were operating under a Clinton budget.

Yet, we allow the democrats to hang their hat on the distortional claim of "since Bush took office".

Here are the real statistics:

[KMAJ2]

Let's look at the simple facts.

President Bush's first budget was not enacted until November of 2001. Until that point we were operating under a Clinton budget.

Yet, we allow the democrats to hang their hat on the distortional claim of "since Bush took office".

Here are the real statistics:

The high point of employment: January of 2001 - 137,846,000

Employment figure when Bush's first budget was enacted: November of 2001 - 136,218,000

The latest employment figure: July 0f 2003 - 137,478,000

The conclusion to be drawn is that the majority of jobs lost occurred under a Clinton budget. To be fair, we have to include the effect of 9/11: September of 2001 - 136,858,000

The downturn from 9/11 bottomed in January 2002: January of 2002 - 135,791,000

It can be fairly concluded that under a Clinton budget and recession that just under 1,000,000 jobs were lost between January and prior to 9/11.

The economic effects of 9/11 can be credited for the majority of just over 1,000,000 jobs lost between September of 2001 and January of 2002 - 640,000 under the Clinton budget (September to November) and 430,000 under the Bush budget (November to January).

Since January of 2002, Bush's economic policies have resulted in 1,687,000 new jobs / more people employed and only 370,000 jobs short of the high water mark of January 2001.

My question is how long will this democrat distortion be allowed to be perpetrated ?

P.S. This is my first original post, so forgive me for any mistakes made in this presentation

[marlon]

My answer as long as NY Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, LA Times, Wash Post, etc., etc., etc., can get away with it.

[Chi-townChief]

Welcome aboard - Most people don't want to think about it that deeply.

[AdamSelene235]

This stuff all started back in 95, when Klintoon needed to be re-elected.

Bush's three big mistakes have been:

Reappointing Greenspan.

Expanding the welfare state.

Ignoring the GSE situation.

But we haven't gotten the bill for those yet.

Don't worry, we will.

[KMAJ2]

I apologize the link to bureau of labor statistics did not work.

Here is the url: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

Checkmark the box for: Civilian Employment (Seasonally Adjusted)

Then scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.

[BushCountry]

Never confuse the doom and gloomers with facts. You are going to take a hit my friend. Thanks for the useful post.

[Iris7]

Politics is done on the mythic level, the level Mark Twain called something like "what people believe that ain't so."

The actual truth of the matter is that the current "economic malaise" is caused by malinvestment during the time of the "internet bubble." Examination of the economic time series shows that the bubble could have been successfully avoided with least pain if correct action had been taken in 1992 or maybe 1993. The later action is taken the worse the results will be. Action has not been taken yet, at this time.

As far as politics goes, politics is not rational action. Each side simply keep up a drumbeat of the lies popular with their constituents. Politics is more of a celebration of "us" than an examination of the facts.

[ARCADIA]

Since January of 2002, Bush's economic policies have resulted in 1,687,000 new jobs / more people employed and only 370,000 jobs short of the high water mark of January 2001.

Good; Now tell us what kind of jobs he has created and who is actually filling them? It is not enough to replace a high tech high premium positions with menial and public sector employment; especially with increase in the amount of imported labor.

[familyofman]

"The high point of employment: January of 2001 - 137,846,000

Employment figure when Bush's first budget was enacted: November of 2001 - 136,218,000

The latest employment figure: July 0f 2003 - 137,478,000 "

Why pick the date of first budget, does that mean that nothing Bush did in his first 10 months in office had any meaning? This seems to be an attempt at what you are decrying - manipulation of data to fit your purpose. The date of innauguration I think is a lot easier to relate to & is generally viewed as the date from which measurements are taken. If not, why are so many people interested in a POTUS first 100 days in office?

[Willie Green]

My question is how long will this democrat distortion be allowed to be perpetrated ?

With the benefit of a GOP controlled Congress, the economy is sqarely on Dubya's shoulders.
Klintoon was an arsehole, but it's time to quit using him as a scapegoat.
If Dubya wants to claim he's a "conservative", it's time that he start taking responsibility for his own inept bungling instead of passing the buck.

[JNB]

The "Doom & Gloomers" have the facts, and in most of these threads, it is the "Doom & Gloomers" that present logical arguements backed up with facts, and not simpily parroting what Limbaugh says.

[theDentist]

The point still remians, there are highly-trained people who have been out of work for well over a year, and no jobs on the horizon. And those who have jobs are at MacDonalds, or pushing brooms at home depot.

[Fpimentel]

The future impact of legislation is why people are interested in the first 100 days. Are you saying that Clintons last budget had no effect in 2001? Just as the budget of President Bush 41 had an impact in 1993.

[Iris7]

I agree on the M3, but like percentage change in real GDP divided by percentage change in M3 better. Shows the increasing ineffectiveness of increasing money supply more rapidly than the "real" economy grows, analogous to the increasing insulin resistance as diabetes progresses.

Of course this has been going on for a very long time. Looks like it takes longer for economies to die of overeating credit than it takes for humans to die of overeating food!

[big bad easter bunny]

Looks like the dems got to your statistics, they must be lurking for trouble?

[familyofman]

"Since January of 2002, Bush's economic policies have resulted in 1,687,000 new jobs / more people employed and only 370,000 jobs short of the high water mark of January 2001. "

The Civilian Labor Force 1/2002 = 143,826,000, labor force 7/2003 = 146,540,000; resulting in an increase of 2,714,000 more people in the workforce.
Unemployed on 1/2002 = 8,035,000, on 7/2003 = 9,062,000; an increase in the unemployed = 1,027,000!!!!!

The above numbers also come from the BLI website. If you want to use selective numbers, don't complain about others doing the same. GWB does not have a good record to run on when it comes to employment - only the hope that things get better.

[BushCountry]

This doesn't make any sense, you state that nearly three million more people are working, yet the unemployment numbers are 1 million more. Huh?

[BushCountry]

The first 100 days are of interest because that is when the President will be able to enact or push through the most legislation, in theory of course. It is his honeymoon, it has nothing to with his ability to shape the economy.

[expat_panama]

Never confuse the doom and gloomers with facts.

Amen to that!  Never mind that the unemployment rate is falling, income is increasing, the economy is expanding, or anything else that can be measured. Doom and gloomers only care about how bad they feel and that they won't feel better without another increase in my import taxes.

[BushCountry]

I post facts about the economy being in a rebound and they are ignored. Here I will do it again for you.

It is the synergistic effect of all the good news lately. The sum is much greater than the whole. The economy is on the mend, only the blind would denied it.

The numbers are looking up in almost every other regard, in fact, it is projected that the increase in GDP will be around 6.5%. Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter that showed economists have pushed forecasts for U.S. economic growth higher. The average forecast called for third-quarter U.S. gross domestic product to grow at a 3.7 percent annual rate, up from 3.6 percent forecast in July and from 2.4 percent in the second quarter.  Company profits are up, durable goods are up, stock market up, tax rebates are in the mail, consumer confidence up, home sales up, consumer and business spending up, etc...

Businesses, which cut spending on equipment and software in the first three months of this year, boosted such investment in the second quarter at a sizable 7.5 percent rate. That marked the biggest increase in three years.

After six straight quarters of slashing spending on new plants, office buildings and other structures, businesses boosted this spending by 4.8 percent in the second quarter.

The US service sector surprised experts with a fourth consecutive month of growth in July that helped fan hopes of a recovery, according to Institute for Supply Management.

Demand for U.S. manufactured goods rose at the sharpest rate in three months in June as a solid rise in orders for long-lasting items joined with a small gain in demand for other goods, the government said Monday.

A recent survey shows that the percentage of CEOs saying they're worse off now than they were 6 months ago has dropped from 51% to 26%.

Americans applied for mortgages to buy homes in near-record numbers the first week in August. Applications for mortgages to buy homes rose 6.9 percent in the week ended Aug. 1 to their second highest level on record.

America's business productivity soared in the second quarter of 2003 and new claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a six-month low last week, a double dose of good news as the economy tries to get back to full throttle. Productivity - the amount that an employee produces per hour of work - grew at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the April to June quarter, the best showing since the third quarter of 2002, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That marked an improvement from the 2.1 percent growth rate in productivity posted in the first three months of this year.

Companies' unit labor costs, meanwhile, fell at a rate of 2.1 percent in the second quarter, boding well for profit margins. That compared with a 2 percent rate of increase in the first quarter.

Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter that showed economists have pushed forecasts for U.S. economic growth higher. The average forecast called for third-quarter U.S. gross domestic product to grow at a 3.7 percent annual rate, up from 3.6 percent forecast in July and from 2.4 percent in the second quarter.

Retailers sales were above expectations for many merchants, even the struggling department store sector. As retailers reported their sales results Thursday, all industry segments appeared to benefit from an improved selling environment. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the industry leader, boosted its profit outlook for the second quarter. J.C. Penney Co. Inc., Kohl's Corp. and Gap Inc. were among the retailers reporting sales that beat analysts' forecasts. Even May Department Stores Co., which has struggled with sales declines, eked out a solid increase in sales at stores open at least a year, surpassing analysts' forecasts.

June wholesale inventories were unchanged as the large 1.5% jump in sales stripped warehouse supply. The combination left a 1.22 month inventory to sales ratio -- just above the 1.21 record low of March. Low inventory supply will provide a boost to production as inventory rebuilding will strengthen under a stronger growth economy to provide a welcome tailwind.

World air traffic is forecast to begin a gradual recovery next year, after three years of recession, holding out hope for an end to the worst financial crisis ever suffered by the global airline industry.  The International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao) forecast on Monday that world airline passenger traffic would grow by 4.4 per cent next year followed by faster growth of 6.3 per cent in 2005.

In a second report from the department, new applications for jobless benefits fell by a seasonally adjusted 3,000 to a six-month low of 390,000 for the work week ending Aug. 2. It marked the third week in a row that claims were below 400,000, a level associated with a weak job market. This suggest the pace of layoffs is stabilizing. Claims hit a high this year of 459,000 during the work week that ended April 19.

John Lonski, an economist with Moody's Investors Services, said the boost in productivity and drop in labor costs should set the stage for a resumption of payrolls growth in the next few months by making it more "profitable" for employers to add workers. He predicted that the government's employment report for August will show an increase of about 40,000 in nonfarm payrolls.

Unemployment typically lags the rest of the economy, since employers usually wait until a recovery is guaranteed before they hire new workers.  Everything I stated above combined, will create millions upon millions of jobs like the last recovery. There are hundreds of cities in the United States with unemployment under 4.0 % (considered by many to be full employment). You take the poorly managed California out of the national equation and the recovery looks 10 times better.   California has 10 of the top 25 cities with the highest unemployment.