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?
Yes they do. It's the payroll survey that doesn't include those things.
To give a comparison, in 1996, there were two months (May-June, I think) which showed a 600,000 job gain, but the payroll survey showed a 15,000 job LOSS. These two statistics are always out of synch at the beginning and end of the business cycle - but the MSM reports whichever benefits Democrats.
The government can't cout votes.
The government can't count jobs.
The government doesn't even know who authors the bills that change the government.
And Kerry wants more of this.
Last I heard, the payroll survey showed there were 131 million paying jobs (doublecounts where a person has more than one job - and shows a job loss when a person working two jobs gets hired on as full-time in another), and the household survey was showing 139 million employed.
Of course, you are quite correct.
My brain forgot to transmit that (if the rate of employment remained the same or greater) to my fingers.
Thanks for the correction.
Seems to me that this is a great counter to any arguments about jobs lost... as in "Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would call an increase a loss..."
Can anyone confirm this info and where the numbers are documented?
You may find them here at the Depart of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of people in civilian employment for 2004 as 147,186,000 (LNU01000000, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Civilian Labor Force Level) for September, 2004. That represents 65.7% of the population 16 years of age and older (LNU01300000, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Labor Force Participation Rate).
Unfortunately, 65.7% (hit four times this year in January, February, April, and September) represents the lowest monthly participation rate since January of 1993. For all of 2003, it was a weak 66.2%, the lowest annual percentage since 1991.
The highest absolute number of employed was hit in July, 2004, with 149,217,000 (not quite 150 million, a round figure that I think it would behoove the Republicans to hold up). While that is indeed good news, job growth is not keeping up with population growth.
Is this correct?
All businesses paying employees on W-2s have to submit the FICA collected within thirty days. I would think it would be a simple matter to add up electronically all the SS numbers that received payments each month--no surveying needed.
And you do not address my point about small business with no revenue or a net loss.
To Kerry, I am counted as a "job loss."
I'm coming up on the second anniversary of going independent. I work as a consultant on 1099. For the real entrepreneurs among you I look like an employee, but I bill 25 to 75 percent above what I would get in salary. And I am not counted as employed in the numbers being tossed about.
It's the boom in Real Estate.
Nearly every person in the Real Estate and Construction Business doesn't have a JOB according to the federal government.
The people who build the house... contractors who don't get a weekly paycheck if there isn't a house to build.
These contractors hire sub-contractors who are paid by the job as well.
Real Estate Agents, Mortgage Brokers, Appraisers, Title Attorneys are paid a commision or a flat transaction fee.
In other words, one of the largest and most lucrative businesses in the United States, employs very few people in a tradtional sense. However an awful lot of people earn income as a result of the Real Estate business.
5.7 was the number when Clinton was reelected in 1996.
As people use up their unemployment benefits they fall off the list.
It looks like the unemployment was 4.2 when W took over and is 5.4 now which is a loss of some 1.6ish million jobs.
When people retire they drop off of payrolls, as do people who choose to leave the workforce for other reasons, such as those opting to become stay at home parents. Many who do small business start ups stay with payroll paying jobs for awhile & there's no good way to track whether the business survives or goes under, so you may not know if the business license is applicable. Then you have independant contractors of many sorts, from ten percenters to real estate brokers to insurance sales people, many people who are not paid wages subject to withholding. Also too, some people die.
You'd need to cross reference a lot of different databases & there would still be some you'd miss, somewhere. IMO, sometimes a survey can be a more reliable way to figure something than trying to find a way to get a real number.
TSA????? There are a whole bunch of jobs!
The real data is this: in Jan, 01 there was a civillion employment of 137,790,000 out of a labor force of 148,873,000. for an unemploment rate of 4.3%. The unemployment( real numbers) and rate had been rising for the last six months of the Clinton administration and continued to ise until the unemployment rate peaked at 5.9% in April 02. Since that date the numbers have slowly improve until are cuurent position (9/04) of about 139,480,000 employed out of a civillian work force of 147,484,000 people for an unemployment rate of 5.4.
Note that the size of the work force dropped by 1.4 million people in the last 3.5 years. Also note that the number of emloyed is about 1.6 million more than in Jan 01.
The point is anyone can pull any of these stats to make any claim. Legitimate enconomists will tell you that any of these individual numbers are meaningless, as they all are merely factors in a much larger equation.
A much better indicator of how an economy is doing is the Gross domestic product. If it is growing at a healthy rate, the economy is doing well.
I'm unemployed, too. Been that way sinece 11-1990. I love it.
I have been waiting for the "are you better off today, than you were 4 years ago" line to come up...I'd love to show 'em my 1099's! :)
Everybody I know, EVERYBODY, s better off now, than then. My employees make more money, and keep more of it, even my Brother who has never had a job longer than 10 months in is life, is happily employed for 2 years now. What does that say? It says clinton was bs, the economy was smoke and mirrors.
You really want to see strong growth? Eliminate the minimum wage, allow opt in privatized social security, go back to the Reagan tax credits, and leave me alone!
:O)
P
If you have more people employed how do you come up with a net job loss?
Not exactly true. Really, really small payrolls get paid in less often, with a form 941. They may only be paid in quarterly. Big payrolls get paid in every single week. Social Security numbers are not included on the form 941. Fica & Federal withholding is only attached to particular Social Security numbers on an anual basis, with the filing of the form W-3, which will have a copy of each the employees' W-2's attached. The anual 940
I would think it would be a simple matter to add up electronically all the SS numbers that received payments each month--no surveying needed.
Cept things are not set up the way you seem to think it's set up.
And you do not address my point about small business with no revenue or a net loss.
In the land of opportunity, that's the way things work. I lived it.
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.