Election economics (WERE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The Washington TImes ^ | 16 Sep 03 | By Alan Reynolds

[.cnI redruM]

When government officials asked people if they had a job last month, 137.6 million said "yes." But when employers were asked, they said they had only 129.8 million on nonfarm payrolls.

There are several reasons why the number of people on business payrolls is bound to undercount the number of workers. If more people are working at home as self-employed consultants, or working through temp agencies, they would not show up as payroll employees. And "nonfarm payrolls" ignores the fact that agriculture added 155,000 workers in August. What is nonetheless quite remarkable is that these two measures of employment are now much further apart than they were back in early 2001.

[.cnI redruM]

It's over, man. Time to stock up the bomb shelters and run for the hills. (sarcasm)

Yep, I'm posting good economic news. That makes me E-VIL. Worse than Dracula. Lower than a snake. Oh well!! I enjoy my acts of skullduggery.

[Tarl]

Thanks for the GOOD news!

[Akira]

Good article, although I don't think Bush ever had Streisand's vote to lose.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

(WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Again?

[ModelBreaker]

But, But . . . aren't all American jobs handled by East Indians now? I don't understand . . .

[proxy_user]

This should be pretty easy to figure out.

Just go the the 2001 or 2002 tax returns, whichever are the latest available for statistical purposes, and see what percentage of personal filers only received 1099 or schedule C income.

Take the number of jobs reported by employers, and add the appropriate multiplier.

Does this equal the number of people who say they are working?

[LS]

Thanks. I have been ridiculed here for stating (from personal experience) that I know some people claim to be unemployed who really are not. These people fall into many categories, including self-employed who, well, lie to government surveyers, people who were "downsized" in the 1990s and who had sufficient income from stock options, etc., to not look for a job again, and other undercounted people.

That said, I think we are in the middle of a fundamental reordering of economic society into a totally unseen level of productivity, and for a few years that will result in higher unemployment #s than, say, in the 1980s until we get the baby boomers out of the work system---then there will be a labor shortage, big time.

[Choose Ye This Day]

But, But . . . aren't all American jobs handled by East Indians now? I don't understand . . .

No, you're right; this article must be wrong. I should know: My wife's cousin's friend's sister's father-in-law's secretary's niece just got laid off last month. Every last single, solitary job has been outsourced to India or China, and no U.S. employer will ever, ever hire another American again. Howard Dean said so. Or was it Pat Buchanan?

[.cnI redruM]

Yep, that just shows how mean and insensitive you are!! (Sarcasm)

[.cnI redruM]

Naw, that makes too much sense....

"WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMMMEEEEDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[daveoverpar]

I work for the state employment service in Alabama. In the local area we have 2 employers begging us to find them welders and fitters which means their orders have gone up. Especially since 1 of these employers wasn't even sure they would be able to keep the doors open a month ago. We also have a major Japanese company building a parts plant that will employ 300-350. This is a rural area so these jobs are going to have a major impact on our local unemployment rate which is only about 5.9. We have gone thru textile plant shut downs like most small southern towns so we have been hurting.
A recovering economy is a trickle down economy. As larger companies hire those newly hired employees have more money to spend at the local Sears, Walmart, restaurants, hardware stores, car dealerships, etc. These places then hire more employees and the manufacturers then have to hire more employees to make the products everyone is buying.
The economy is on the rebound. Unemployment takes a while to increase and will take a while to decrease. Come Nov 2004 the economy will have recovered. Tax revenues will increase. States will have more to spend, but I hope they learn to live under their means.
Bush's tax rebates and cuts probably helped shorten and soften the recession and thereby helped the economy start back up sooner. Once again an incumbent president will be able to take credit for a booming economy.

If the economy continues to improve the Dems won't have a leg left to stand on. Then they can kiss their butts goodby.

[Starwind]

When government officials asked people if they had a job last month, 137.6 million said "yes." But when employers were asked, they said they had only 129.8 million on nonfarm payrolls.

There are several reasons why the number of people on business payrolls is bound to undercount the number of workers

Chief among them and not mentioned by Reynolds is the Employment Establishment data sepcifically excludes supervisory personnel (often 1 manager for every 15 workers, on average), and the Household data counts as employed everyone who honestly answers the survey that they worked at something, paid or not, full time or not.

Assuming in those household surveys, 1 in 15 have a 'manager' at home who honestly answers they worked, then they were included in that 137.6M stat. However to compare apples to apples, one would have to assume the same manager ratio and add 8.65M (1/15th of 129.8M) to the establishment data of 129.8 for a total of 138.5M - slightly in excess of the household employment number but considerably closer.

[Tauzero]

good point

[arete]

This same story has been posted and recycled in different forms at least 10 times already and we have not as yet identified any of those mystery jobs although they are definitely out there as the large number of unemployed are forced into becoming "independent contractors".

Richard W.