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:

[familyofman]

The total number of people in the workforce incresed by more than the number of people employed, resulting in an increase in the number unemployed. Does that help explain it for you?

Latest Numbers
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
www.bls.gov Search | A-Z Index
BLS Home | Programs & Surveys | Get Detailed Statistics | Glossary | What's New | Find It! In DOL


Change Output Options: From: 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 To: 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
include graphs NEW!
Data extracted on: August 11, 2003 (3:11:33 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force LevelLabor force status: Civilian Labor ForceType of data: PERSON COUNTS (NULL)Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1993 128400 128458 128598 128584 129264 129411 129397 129619 129268 129573 129711 129941
1994 130596 130669 130400 130621 130779 130561 130652 131275 131421 131744 131891 131951
1995 132038 132115 132108 132590 131851 131949 132343 132336 132611 132716 132614 132511
1996 132616 132952 133180 133409 133667 133697 134284 134054 134515 134921 135007 135113
1997 135456 135400 135891 136016 136119 136211 136477 136618 136675 136633 136961 137155
1998 137095 137112 137236 137150 137372 137455 137588 137570 138286 138279 138381 138634
1999 139045 138916 138716 138977 139077 139383 139465 139377 139636 139768 140025 140174
2000 142283 142423 142391 142795 142349 142624 142252 142508 142554 142636 142965 143279
2001 143797 143638 143871 143624 143280 143395 143616 143331 144042 144128 144296 144379
2002 143826 144510 144367 144763 144911 144852 144786 145123 145634 145393 145180 145150
2003 145838 145857 145793 146473 146485 147096 146540

---

Series Id: LNS12000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Employment LevelLabor force status: EmployedType of data: PERSON COUNTS (NULL)Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133078 132860 132943 132969 133266 133424 133432 133540 133709 133974 134287 134497
2000 136609 136637 136678 137312 136576 136953 136489 136644 136908 137078 137288 137620
2001 137846 137648 137763 137353 137036 136869 137006 136256 136858 136370 136218 136067
2002 135791 136450 136143 136196 136487 136383 136343 136757 137312 136988 136542 136439
2003 137536 137408 137348 137687 137487 137738 137478

---

Series Id: LNS13000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Unemployment LevelLabor force status: UnemployedType of data: PERSON COUNTS (NULL)Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1993 9325 9183 9056 9110 9149 9121 8930 8763 8714 8750 8542 8477
1994 8630 8583 8470 8331 7915 7927 7946 7933 7734 7632 7375 7230
1995 7375 7187 7153 7645 7430 7427 7527 7484 7478 7328 7426 7423
1996 7491 7313 7318 7415 7423 7095 7337 6882 6979 7031 7236 7253
1997 7158 7102 7000 6873 6655 6799 6655 6608 6656 6454 6308 6476
1998 6368 6306 6422 5941 6047 6212 6259 6179 6300 6280 6100 6032
1999 5967 6056 5773 6008 5812 5958 6033 5837 5926 5794 5738 5677
2000 5674 5786 5713 5483 5773 5671 5763 5864 5645 5559 5676 5659
2001 5951 5990 6108 6271 6244 6526 6610 7075 7183 7758 8078 8312
2002 8035 8060 8224 8567 8424 8469 8443 8366 8321 8405 8637 8711
2003 8302 8450 8445 8786 8998 9358 9062

---

Series Id: LNS14000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Unemployment RateLabor force status: Unemployment rateType of data: PERSON COUNTS (NULL)Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9
2001 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8
2002 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
2003 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.2

[TheDon]

"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."

Yet another reason to get a Republican governor in Cali ASAP! The Demorats will point to a poor national economy in the next presidential election, but neglect to mention that a Demoratically controlled state is pulling the numbers down big time.

[Chi-townChief]

It's like when they talk about "the Reagan-era" they always include the Carter year of 1980 to drag down the numbers.

[Redwood71]

"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."
_________________________________________

The President does not create the jobs. It is his duty to spur congress into making policy that promotes expansion and jobs by enticing the economy to grow.

Try looking at it this way, no matter what the jobs are, they didn't exist during the last few years of the previous administration, and employment was losing ground. (Also, the questionable actions done by big business happened on the Clinton/Gore watch as the problems grew during their control, not Bush's.) Unemployment didn't have an upswing of any kind until after the corrections were made by the current administration. We are currently running at 9000 on the dow and getting by. Additionally, with the increase of capital available to business, it will expand. Ask an accountant, they will tell you the same thing. Rich people have money, they don't need more. Their purpose in life is to make it. To do that, expansion.

[Steven W.]

It is not enough to replace a high tech high premium positions with menial and public sector employment;

This is either the old standby DemoncRAT "hamburger flipping" mantra or totally ignorant of the fact that much of the late 90's boom was totally fraudulent - ficticious and fraudulent companies making ficiticious & fraudulent money. The fact people had those jobs when they did not posess the tre skills or were not otherwise capable of sustaining such positions when those fraudulent or ficitious companies went away should not leave one with the impression that there were more "high tech" jobs than there ever were (meaning a lot of those people filling "high tech" jobs working for fraudulent or stupid lose-money companies in the 90s should have always been flipping burgers)

[JNB]

The "Blue chip" economic indicators dramatically over estimated what future growth would be for the last year or so. This is what tpdays economic activity all comes down to, and its one word, housing. Housing and housing related activities such as re-fis is what has basically kept the economys growth in the positive range since Fall of 2000, and it also kept the 2001 recession from getting worse. Yes, applications to buy new homes shot up in a effort to "lock in" low rates, and mantra of the sheeple since Fall of 2000, and what single handedly kept the real estate bubble getting bigger.

With rates going up 1.25% in the last 6 weeks, re-fis are basiclaly dead. With the ability to re-fis gone, that should show itself up in Q4 of this year. This quarter will probbaly have decent growth, but again, it all hinges in housing and housing related activities.

Bushcounty, like it or not, the economic problems can not be solved by spin or what Limbaugh claims. We will see a new set of problems as consumers lose the ability to further refinance their homes.

[BushCountry]

I did not make up the statistics in post 20, please read everything in the post again slowly, or maybe twice.

Cliff notes:
Retail sales - up, housing up, manufacturing - up, productivity up, business spending on equipment and software, new plants, office buildings and other structures - up, air travel - up, consumer confidence up, GDP up, US service sector up, CEOs saying they're worse off now than they were 6 months ago - down, Companies' unit labor costs - down, A low inventory supply that will provide a boost to production, etc...

[txhurl]

I am still concerned about those 'brilliant' non-US IT guys that we need to be poised to help come over and take IT jobs that you were talking about on another thread.

[JNB]

Yes, and again, minus the re-fis and large surge in govrenment spending, and as bene discussed, the big increase in Gov spending in Q2 accounted for 1.4% of the 2.4% annual GDP growth, the economy would be heading back towrds recession.

Optimisim is a dangerous thing, that rots rational thinking. The economic states reflect condition in gov spending and re-fi extracting equity out of homes that can not be sustained.

There are also issues on how the BLS tabulates its staistics, namely productivity figures that ignore the 5-10 million illegal immigrants in the US, not to mention how it adjust the unemployment figures as well. As for air travel, I read that air travel was down, and consumer confidence is less than expected, with the big boost coming after the US declared victory over Iraq.

Again, its time many conservatives turn off Limbaugh, and check out why the stats the way they are.

[BushCountry]

There are plenty of smart, intelligent people outside of the United States, so please give me a break, I want the HIB program suspended, the law enforce to make companies comply.

Crap a heck of a lot of this country's greatest inventions are founded on genius of immigrants (you know that Albert guy who won World II for us). Based on the responses of several surveys, about one patent in four (26.4%) is created by immigrants alone or by immigrants collaborating with U.S.-born co-inventors.

[BushCountry]

I get it now, look for dark clouds in every silver lining. The airline travel projection was just out today and is great news. Capital spending on software/hardware, buildings, has nothing to do with the housing boon. Productivity gains and low inventories have nothing to do with re-fi either, but mean that business will need to find employees. The 4.6% GDP projection for the forth quarter was out today. You do realize that jobs were not lost, even though unemployment was up? There are 2 million more jobs now then there were a year and half ago.

[KMAJ2]

"Since January of 2002, Bush's economic policies have resulted in 1,687,000 new jobs"

"Unemployed on 1/2002 = 8,035,000, on 7/2003 = 9,062,000; an increase in the unemployed = 1,027,000"

"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."

What this reflects is that of those 2,714,000 new members of the workforce, 1,687,000 found work. While it is true job creation has not kept pace with the growth of the workforce, job growth cannot be denied. When you couple that with the fact that the tax cut of 2003 is the first significant economic package implemented, and with it just kicking in this July, the economic data coming in signals an upturn in the economy.

You may cite the 2001 tax cut, but that was so heavily backloaded (a concession to the democrat controlled senate), most of it not taking effect until 2004, that it's effect was negligible, except in it helping to make the 2001 recession the shortest in history.

If you know anything about economics, you would know that job creation always lags an upturn in the economy. Bush will have to run on the results of the 2003 tax cut, he won't be able to run away from it.

I would feel more comfortable if he would show more fiscal restraint with federal spending (i.e. the new drug plan) then he has shown so far.

[KMAJ2]

"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."

Was I reading this wrong ? Is this actual people working or people able to work ? The added figures of new jobs and increased unemployment add up to this figure.

No matter, jobs are the last figure to show an upturn with a rebounding economy, and almost every key economic indicator shows the economy is on it's way.

Even Keynesian economists, the bulk of those who were against the tax cut, are predicting an upturn. The monetarists and supply siders have predicted this would be the effect of the tax cuts all along. Fiscal restraint by our federal government is now the key to making this a big economic boom.

[lepton]

If not, why are so many people interested in a POTUS first 100 days in office?

Because that's generally the period where the President is most able to pass initial important legislation.

[lepton]

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?

Population growth would be one source.

[lepton]

If you know anything about economics, you would know that job creation always lags an upturn in the economy.

Typically 15 to 20 months.

[BushCountry]

Fiscal restraint by our federal government is now the key to making this a big economic boom.

You hit the nail on the head!

[JNB]

4.6% projection? I would like to know based on what. Again, one has to look at reality, look at the reasons why the economy grew, anmd the blunt and brutal truth is that the economy has been mostly propped up with housing activity, either on the construction end of the re-fi/financial end of it. Agaian, think of the impact housing has had on employment, it has enabled consutcution jobs to increase and it has enabled retailers to avoid layoffs. The re-fi boom even has put a massive cushion underneath the automakers because risiong home prices have made consumers feel bolder to spend money, even if they didnt extract their homes value though a home equity loan.

What has enabled this to take place is the fact that the 10 year bond, the bond that determines home loan rates, has had a steady decline in yeild from 6.3% in summer of 2000 to 3.07% by mid June. The 10 year bond yeild is back at almost 4.4%, and the burst in home sales reflects panic buying. Again, the "lock in low rate" mantra has created many suckers, but the sheeple have not been good with their finances for 20 years now. If rates resume their downward trend, and go below 3.5%, or even 3.75% on the 10 year bond, they may be able to keep the re-fi boom and real estate bubble going for a little longer, if bonds stay where they are, real estate will go on for a few more months but re-fis will remain dead, if the 10 year bond goes above 4.5%-5%, then the bubble will pop. When the real estate bubble pops and consumers can not longer extract equity out of their homes, it will rapidly cause a whole new set of problems.

Spin and soundbites make for great politics and radio, but do liyttle to describe economic reality. Because of the record number of re-fis in the first half of this year, especially in May-June, the re-fi money in the pipeline will help growth this quarter, but unless the FED and Tresury can get bond yeiolds to go back down, this one trick ponyy that has been used to stimulate the economy since Fall of 2000 will lose its punch.

[BushCountry]

This is another projection out today by another group, about the 4th quarter of this year being 3.7%, not quite the 4.6% of next year, but still pretty impressive.

The U.S. economy will gain strength in the second half and keep accelerating into 2004 when it will expand by the most in four years, a private survey of economists showed.

U.S. gross domestic product will rise at a 3.7 percent pace in the current quarter and at a 3.8 percent rate in the final three months, according to the average forecast of 54 economists surveyed Aug. 4-5 by Blue Chip Economic Indicators of Kansas City, Missouri. In the last survey, economists had expected a 3.6 percent increase in third-quarter growth.

Economists raised their third-quarter estimate because the Federal Reserve's benchmark overnight bank lending rate is at a 45- year low, corporate profits have risen five straight quarters for Standard & Poor's 500 companies, and the U.S. government has cut taxes.

``Expectations remain high that the U.S. economy is finally poised to post sustainable real GDP growth,'' the Blue Chip report said. ``A flurry of recent statistical reports and private-sector surveys has reinforced earlier signs that the expansion began to strengthen as the second quarter came to an end.''

[Lancey Howard]

ping

(This looks like it may be down your alley.)