U.S. Economy Adds 1,000 Jobs, Fewer Than Forecast; Unemployment Rate Drops

bloomberg ^ | 01/09/04 | Bloomberg

[sinkspur]

So if the coporations are paying no taxes, why are they complaining that they need lower taxes?

They will be more competitive. They will have more to spend on R&D. They will not have to pass the tax costs along to consumers.

[RockyMtnMan]

Since 50% of all businesses fail in the first 3yrs you can put that at 500,000 if that is a real number.

[1rudeboy]

So what, exactly? You favor that more people make less? Less people work more? Productivity is real GDP divided by hours worked.

[nutmeg]

ping

[oceanview]

an absolutely horrendus jobs report, we will likely be shifting back to loss of jobs in these reports in coming months as corporate offshoring plans for 2004 kick into high gear and the layoffs materialize. the service sector cannot create enough burger flipper and checkout clerk jobs to stop the bleeding in tech, white collar, and manufacturing (down for the 41st straight month).

Now we likely see why Bush made the alien amnesty gambit. They must see the handwriting on the wall for jobs reports in 2004, they have to get votes from someplace.

I know that most freepers trash talk those of us who have been warning about offshoring of jobs. All I can say is: WAKE UP BEFORE ITS TOO LATE. We created 1000 jobs last month when 150,000 were expected. We have 8% economic growth and no job creation, what's going to happen when we fall back to 3-4% growth.

I can't wait to hear that idiot Neil Cavuto tonight explain this away.

[lelio]

Some guy on Fox and Friends said we added 1,000,000 jobs last year because these numbers don't account for new people entering self-employment.

And likewise we don't know when they fall out of employment either. How many new businesses fail in the first year?

I think the government should just say "We have no idea what's going on with the economy" and get on with doing something else.

[lelio]

So what, exactly? You favor that more people make less?

No, he was just pointing out how the definition of productivity can't be used over time when "outsourcing" used to mean sending work to a company down the street to now when it means sending work halfway around the world.

There's nothing in there, no matter how hard you try, about this being bad or good. Its just discussing the definition of the term and how today's "productivity gains" can't be compared to 10 years ago.

[Malsua]

>>So what, exactly? You favor that more people make less? Less people work more? Productivity is real GDP divided by hours worked.<<

Claiming that American Manufacturers are shedding jobs due to productivity is a canard. American Manufacturers are shedding jobs to low wage countries and the resultant profits show up as productivity. It's not the same thing. In the example I cited, 110 workers are producing the same thing that 30 had done previously. In aggregate it's negative productivity. It's an issue of causality.

Get it yet? Anyone that claims "Companies aren't hiring because of productivity gains, not due to outsourcing/offshoring" has got it backwards.

[templar]

......why not make the coroporations pay all the taxes and let the wage earners keep 100%?

Actually, I've been an advocate of NRST for longer than it's been called NRST (since the '70's). I doubt that income tax revisions will ever create a level playing field (or anything close to it) and they end up effectively exporting a lot of our taxes in the form of costs that get passed on in our exported goods prices (which is a major reason we are losing out to the third world in manufacturing. it's a part of the low labor costs overseas that usuallly gets overlooked). NRST wouldn't be perfect, nothing would, but it would be fairer than what we have now and it would help make our industry more competitive in the world makretplace. Administrative overhead (all the bookkeeping, accounting, legal research, etc.) would be reduced to a fraction of what is is now and that could result in both lower prices of our exported goods and better wages for our workers as well as increased profitability of our corporations.

IMO and FWIW

[templar]

...an absolutely horrendus jobs report, we will likely be shifting back to loss of jobs in these reports in coming months as corporate offshoring plans for 2004 kick into high gear and the layoffs materialize.

Not nescessarily. We can always change the way we calculate job loss/creation and unemployment numbers to get a more positive report.

[oceanview]

I think they know full well. And when CEOs like Fiorina and Barrett open their mouths, instead of keeping quiet, we all get a glimpse of it.

Amazing how few people are posting on these two jobs reports threads today, alot of freepers with their heads in the sand.

[Glenn]

None of their magic math works. Things are up and down at the same time. Spare me from analysts.

[oceanview]

we already do that now with the unemployment numbers, people who drop out and exhaudt their unemployment benefits, are not counted. they should be, until they are employed, they should be counted as unemployed unless they retire or die or take up a life of crime.

watch the labor department include the new guest workers under the "new jobs" category, 8 million instant new jobs.

[templar]

watch the labor department include the new guest workers under the "new jobs" category, 8 million instant new jobs.

Lots more than that probably. They'll bring their families. Probably something more like 25 million immigrants total: all low paid, all needing health care and other social services to make it. Should result in huge new numbers of jobs created in the healthcare and (government) social service areas. Not to mention police. Don't forget about the resulting need for lots of new police.

[lelio]

We can always change the way we calculate job loss/creation

Beyond being influenced by politics, its just hard to count "employment" numbers. Does going from being the CEO to working as a fry cook change the employment number? No. Likewise, moving up in pay doesn't either.

Plus how does this account for a 1099 worker that's going through a dry spell and then suddenly is working 80 hours a week? Or if he brings in some additional help?

Does the IRS release quarterly figures on their tax receivables? Maybe that might help us get a better picture of the economy as it counts 1099 work done, that is if they file quarterly.

Is there one place where I can find bankruptcy per state? Looked around and can't find it.

[KC_Conspirator]

If you have 10 jobs, and ship 5 overseas, how does that result in rising productivity?

Because the difference in paying lower wages and no health insurance equates to higher productivity. Its also the reason that these job growth numbers are disappointing.

[waterstraat]

We have been letting in 200,000 immigrants each month for decades, 1000 new jobs menas that means 199,000 more immigrants dont have a job compared to last month. Not much of a recovery.

If we are going to keep letting in 50,000 more immigrants each week, we need to add more than 50,000 more jobs each week, and more than 200,000 new jobs each month just to stay even.

[waterstraat]

Get it yet?

I got it, we can produce more cars with fewer american workers - thus increasing productivity numbers, esp when the engine is made in mexico, the steel in japan, the seat and upolstery in china, etc.

[sarcasm]

We don't need jobs anymore - we can become daytraders.