32,000 Jobs Created in July (UE Rate Down at 5.5%)

CNBC | August 6, 2004

[RWR8189]

32,000 jobs were created in July. The unemployment rate down at 5.5%

Details to come...

ouch

[LS]

I agree. But again, there are things that we simply can't predict. Say, for ex., he raised taxes by 2%, but that there was a fall of 15% in oil prices. It is highly likely that the 2% tax increases would not be noticed.

I'm NOT advocating higher taxes, and I'm not saying they don't have detrimental impacts. I'm saying that there are international macro-economic factors that can dwarf, in the short run, ANYTHING a president or congress can do.

[Grampa Dave]

You name is not on the to in my post.

To: SierraWasp; Liz; Coop; Southack; Smartass; nopardons; Valin
The reply that needs to be posted to these doomers/gloomers is a simple one.

"Okay, doomer/gloomer, tell me why we should vote for moi Kerri, because it is obvious that you hate GW and prefer moe Kerri. Why will moi Kerri be good for the economy and jobs and Americans like you? Don't tell us to waste our votes on someone who will get less than 2% of the votes. How will your butt buddy, moi Kerri, help the employment of people like you in America?"



415 posted on 08/06/2004 12:01:00 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (The Franchurian Dork Candidate, moi Kerri, in his convention speech "Judge me by my record"...)

---

Rather than go back to the first post, I just put into the to line who I want to send the message to.

[POA2]

Here is the best thing I have come up with (while at the office) to get out to family, friends and co-workers -

To try and help offset the negative media spin that will be touted 24/7 over the weekend concerning the jobs report -

Pass it along -

Once again, the press is reporting half the story on job growth for the month of July. None of the newly self-employed, contract workers, independent and freelance workers are being taken into account by the media who are reporting the 32,000 new jobs number.

Yet when one looks at the new data being released by the Houshold survey (where unemployment numbers are derived from) the U.S. economy added an incredible 629,000 new jobs in July!

Why isn't the media reportng both these numbers?

Think about it: unemployment just dropped in July to a historically low 5.5%! But the media are declaring July jobs data as a bad sign on the booming U.S. Economy?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

In a report likely to revive a political debate over how the government measures employment, the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics said its establishment survey of employers showed only a 32,000 job gain in July, while the nations survey of households found a whopping 629,000 increase.

The two surveys together make up the government's monthly employment report. Economists prefer the establishment report because it is larger, but the smaller household survey is used to calculate the unemployment rate -- a more familiar measure to the average American.

The jobless rate fell to 5.5 percent in July from 5.6 percent the month before.

[POA2]

Your first choice is so full of sh@#@ I'm surprised the letters aren't brown. And he is doing your second point at almost every campaign stop. So is Dick Cheney. But you still fail to mention how he can effect the international price of oil that is currently, and undeniably impacting our economy.

Doing thing at campaign stops is not the same (or ANYWHERE near) giving an address to the public from the oval office in prime-time - The idea that giving a speech during "working hours" 9 to 5 is silly - Most people are at WORK!! -

Lastly, you thinking addressing the nation over his energy bill is dumb - Well, say that to Ronald Reagan when the numbers weren't there for his tax-cuts in 1981!!! - He went straight to the public via a national address and demanded action - (History proves my point with the result - Reagan tax cuts passed with the Democrats having no choice but to come on board) -

GWB addressed the nation over stem cell!! - yet you suggest addressing the nation over energy security and our economy isn't worth it - (too funny).

[Grampa Dave]

Lower taxes, less governmental intevention and less of legal interferment enable creative people to do wonderful things.

Under a fascist economy, that Kerry would usher in, competition and creativity would be shut out by the trial lawyer and tons of federal government red tape.

The companies that support Kerry will do fine as their competition will have been eliminate. They would be like the old AT&T before their facist control of our phone lines was torn down.

If you want those good things you mention to continue to thrive and increase, we must keep Kerry out of the White House.

[Coop]

Thanks for the clarification.

[LS]

I told you, I'm with you on this, but you DO understand that you can have an idiot in the White House and have phenomenal economic growth don't you? You do get that there are international forces that are beyond even Mr. Greenspan's abilities? Politicians of both parties tried everything in the book in the 1870s and 1880s to "inflate" the economy, but they couldn't because the international gold stock was shrinking. It didn't matter---to an extent---who had the White House.

I just remember eating crow when I predicted Clinton would kill the economy. Now, year after year of stupid policies will eventually drag down anything. Had the Republicans not been elected in 1994, I'm convinced that Clinton would have managed to stifle even THAT good economy. But it does take quite a while.

[POA2]

But you still fail to mention how he can effect the international price of oil that is currently, and undeniably impacting our economy.

There is nothing you can do about oil prices NOW - and that is my point - It is why something had to be down 18 months ago!! (if not sooner) - But you and your crowd kept saying...."just wait, the magic will happen" - "just wait, oil prices will be coming down...magically" -

I have been told 10 times if I've been told once on here that I'm being pessimistic when I've said Oil prices were going to be an issue and they better start coming down -

Oil prices are where they are because of Refinery Capacity issues (mainly) - that along with our inability to even address the option drilling for our own Oil (the option alone would make OPEC put out more out-put) -

GWB never addressed the nation over the seriousness of this - He just allowed the premise to hang around his neck that he was "in bed with big oil" -

Funny now that you are complaining about oil prices being high and NOTHING we can do about it RIGHT NOW - I fear this is what we are going to see you posting come NOV 1st (nothing we can do about the poll numbers now!! - we just need to make sure we all get out and vote!) -

[Rokke]

"GWB never addressed the nation over the seriousness of this"

I guess you missed his State of the Union Address. I guess you've missed the fact that he's constantly barraged by environmentalists for his support of drilling in ANWR. Funny that they know more about our president than you do.

[xzins]

Don't they just disappear from the numbers? Is there really any way at this point to gauge just how many people are unemployed? And then there are people who have taken one or two low-paying jobs just to work at something.

That was the reason for my question about the "new" welfare law....didn't it require job applications for continuing welfare benefits?

[xzins]

I agree with you on the gas price.

I think the case for a 5.5% unemployment rate is exceptionally strong. Did you know that Pres. Bush's 1st term unemployment rate is lower than Clinton's, and lower than any since Eisenhower! His enemies can make no case there.

In terms of the stock market, I don't think a case can be made there, either. Everyone accepts it as a gamble. Everyone knows it was injured by the clinton tech bubble. Everyone knows it was attacked on 9/11.

Gas prices, though, annoy people 3 or 4 times a week.

I thought Michael Moore said the Saudis and all those big oil folks were Bush's best buds.

[oceanview]

you clearly don't understand that Kerry is going to win this election if the current economic trend continues. $45 oil, bad jobs reports, market closing today at the lows for the year.

you want to criticize my ideas, fine. propose SOMETHING of your own.

[xzins]

Ridiculous.

He has one of the best UE rates in the 60 years.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

[oceanview]

nobody is buying the household numbers - you can talk about it until you are blue in the face, you won't hear any media or financial reporters lending it any credence. and neither does the equity market, look at the stock market today.

[SerialRants]

Oh brother. Some of you people just amaze me. We're still creating jobs, but you buy into the expectations game and about slit your wrists. Geez.

What amazes me is how everyone thinks it's the President's fault if jobs are up or down in one month. Give me a break here... Contrary to what most may believe, Bush and Clinton had little to do with how busines in the private sector is conducted. The Government only works to 'hinder' growth and do little to help it. Best thing the Government can do is get out of the way and let people do business...

[oceanview]

the government controls trade policy, immigration policy, and tax policy. that plenty of areas for control to achieve a desired result.

[No Income Tax]

Someone who understands the Bureau of Labor Statistics and how they come up with their numbers can help me out.

I went to the BLS site because the numbers I heard this morning made no sense:
- 32,000 increase in non farm employment
- 629,000 increase in total employment
- Decrease in unemployment rate from 5.6% to 5.5%

How could farm employment have increased by almost 600,000 jobs in July while all other industries only went up 32,000? I did some checking on the BLS web site and found some strange differences in how the numbers are reported.

The BLS news release states non farm employment increased from 131.240 million to 131.272 million.

However, according to Table A-5, nonagricultural employment increased from 136.675 million to 137.274 million. Here is the link to Table A-5:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t05.htm

Agricultural employment decreased from 2.289 million to 2.271 million.

The difference between non farm employment number and the nonagricultural employment number is 6 million. Why is there is a difference between the two numbers?

Based on Table A-5, almost 600,000 non agricultural jobs were added in July (seasonally adjusted).

[POA2]

I guess you missed his State of the Union Address. I guess you've missed the fact that he's constantly barraged by environmentalists for his support of drilling in ANWR. Funny that they know more about our president than you do.

AGAIN - a SOTU address is not the same as an address from the oval office (it simply is not) - in fact an address from the oval office will gather more viewers then the SOTU will -

Also, why didn't GWB just address the Country concerning Stem Cell at the SOTU?? - I heard him mention stem cell in the SOTU - Why didn't he leave it at that?? - Why did he address the nation over it!! -

Are you saying Stem Cell is the more important issue with the voters - more important then the economy and the war in Iraq?? - (Gezz, the pollsters are really missing this ground swelling issue of stem cell that is hiding out there) -

Giving speeches from 9 to 5 is fine - (he has to keep doing that) - But it is not the same as an address from the oval office - Period.

Again after months of you calling anyone who said Oil Prices are going to be a problem a troll....NOW your answer is there is nothing we can do about it RIGHT NOW...so stop complaining - (again, I fear this will be your answer come Nov 1st - we are down...but there is nothing we can do about it now....just get out in vote...the "magic" will happen then - we are just keeping our powder dry until election morning...then shzzzbaammm we are going to nail them).

[SerialRants]

the government controls trade policy, immigration policy, and tax policy. that plenty of areas for control to achieve a desired result.

True, perhaps I overstated a bit. I just get tired of the President taking the benefit and the blame for things that appear to be part of the natural business cycle. For instance, Clinton did nothing in preparing the way for the dot-com boom and at the same time probably did little in preventing the dot-com bust. Even if Bush has power over such things as tax, immigration and trade policy, those thing are mere hinderances to the economy. The less tax that's taken, the free-er the trade, the better the economy.