Posted on 10/14/2004 6:12:13 PM PDT by golfnut
If we lost a net of 1.6 million jobs during the last 3.5 years (according the the Dems), why is the unemployment rate now (5.4%) LOWER than the unemployment rate when Clinton left office (5.7%)
Maybe I am just dumb, but maybe that means one of the stats is simply wrong. I understand the "Household" survey shows a very different net jobs lost due to small business starts that aren't counted in the other survey.
Or maybe it means we have a net loss of population in the US (a little more than 1.6M) during the last 3.5 years.
Can anyone help out this poor confused soul with some data?
How many illegal aliens are coming across the border every day to work in the US? If those jobs were factored in, how many jobs would George Bush have "created"?
As far as I know, the 1.6million figure does not include the newly self-employed, nor does it cover government employment.
That'd explain quite a bit.
50 million....:)
The payroll survey shows a loss of 600,000 when prior months adjustment is added and of course Kerry doesn't add in public sector workers like teachers and homeland security to get his 1.6 million lost.
Why would you need a survey when all you have to do is colate unemployment claims to know how many have just left work.
A much easier way would be for the IRS to report ceasation of reciepts. 237,532 social security numbers stoped withholding in the last 14 days. That's a pretty good indicator that people were terminated for whatever reason.
New business licenses could be run against those to eliminate those who are opening private businesses.
Therefore, if you have a population increase of 5-6 million and 1.6 million jobs are lost, the unemployed percentage actually decreases because you have more people and more employed.
Ratios and percentages! More people in the U. S. Math!
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
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 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.7
2002 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7
2004 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4
I was gonna use that on one of my Lib lipped friends, but I checked first at:
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
and found the above figures.
There must be some caveats to the 5.7 that is said to be clinton's number.
:O)
P
BTW, Those numbers, like all I've found, report fron age 16 and up. Why is that?
:O)
P
self employed, independent contractors, realtors, etc...None of these people account for the payroll survey of jobs. NONE of them.
I know I am one of them. I am one of the 1.7 million jobs lost....but obviously I created my own job...just the Dept of Labor has no idea because I have no payroll. I am an independ. contractor.
I especially enjoyed this gem: "And yet, think where we are. Added 1.9 million new jobs in the last 13 months." Excuse me? The new employment numbers came out just before the debate -- 95,000 new jobs last month, not even enough to keep up with the 150,000 newbies who come into the labor market every month. In other words, a net job loss of 55,000 in September, for a grand total of nearly 1 million jobs lost under Bush. How dumb does he think we are?So that's how the game is played. If you just graduated High School and have never had a job, but are entering the job market -- she considers it a "job loss" even though you never had a job to lose.
How dumb does she think we are?
Of course the untold story about the employment numbers from the middle of 1996 to the end of 2000 is all the dotcomers who were paid in IOUs by companies that never made a dime. When their bubble burst all they had was a lot of worthless paper.
Basically, no one knows what is really going on.
If you look at the payroll numbers, the number of jobs our down. Therefore, if unemployment is down, many discouraged job seekers must be leaving the work force. They could be going back to school, returning to their native countries, becoming stay-at-home mothers, retiring, or just living on savings and disability.
The household survey tells a different story; it show an increase in the number employed. However, there is one important caveat. This survey counts you as self-employed if you engaged in business activity with the intent to make money in the past month. Thus, if you have a business card, a laptop, and a cell phone, and have been busy calling on potential clients, you count as employed, even if you have not booked a single dollar of revenue, far less made a profit.
So no one really knows.
I really don't understand why Bush didn't hammer the Household Survey numbers. There was no net loss of jobs in his administration, period.
I have a job. I guess I don't understand the significance of the statistics on "lost jobs". It appears that all those who want jobs have jobs. (well yes, I understand there is always a certain number of job seekers in transition--so the number will never be zero or minus zero.)
Is there some specific, cast in stone, magical unemployment number that is directly assignable to a President's domestic policy?
I didn't know Presidents could directly effect the employment statistics unless he hired them on to the White House Staff. Mostly the President is at the mercy of Congress to send him legislation that is "employer friendly"... so employment stats if they mean anything are a reflection on Congress, before they are a litmus test on the success of a President's domestic policy
Ping
They never want to include seasonal empolyment either (i.e. Xmas retail) If those jobs were included, the employment rate would be a negative percentage. The retailers in my area cannot find enough staffers.
Of course the Dems sneer at those jobs as too low-paying to be worthy enough to count towards recovery. So when the minimum wage is raised, these jobs should "count" by my logic.
Other opinions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.