Good News! Another big increase in jobs in April

[fintstone]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040507/D82DRN6G1.html

Employers added 288,000 jobs to their payrolls in April as the nation's unemployment rate slipped to 5.6 percent, reinforcing hopes for a sustained turnaround in the jobs market that had lagged for so long.

[dd74]

This actually is good news, and Bush should tout this highly.

Of course Kerry came back with there are still 8 million Americans out of work. Of course, he didn't define a course to get those 8 million Americans back to work.

[350HP930]

I just took a new part time job as an automotive machinist which brings my total job count up to 3.

I am part of the bush economic miracle.

[vash]

stoney, what field are you in?

and someone please explain how bush stimulated the job market. low interest rates?

[techweenie]

unfixed: "...someone please explain how bush stimulated the job market. low interest rates?"

Uh, no, 2,000,000 jobs were lost in the past 2-1/2 years. A few are dribbling back. Drops in unemployment rates include people no longer being counted as 'unemployed.'

Actual, meaningful job growth is not 288,000 jobs per month for one month, but a pattern of several hundred thousand new jobs per month. Bush's record is so stunningly bad that his supporters are looking under every rock for good news.

Here's the context as of February '04:

[vash]

that i what i thought. i have alot of friends out of work.

[pohsche]

Yeah, Jack in the Box, McDonalds and Wal Mart hired more people. That is the type of jobs that are being added today. Numbers are a liars best friend!

Alan Poh
'77 Carrera 3.0

[techweenie]

It should be noted that the January jobless rate was also reported at 5.6%.

The unfortunate fact is that after you're unemployed long enough, you don't get counted anymore.

[speeder]

And if you used to be a highly skilled worker who is panhandling in front of the 7-11, they count that as a job.

Still, it's better news than another month of job losses. He will have to add something like 700,000 jobs a month until the election to not be the first net job loser since the great depression.

[RoninLB]

The Fed #s for payroll is not the whole pic. The household/small business #s aren't figured. Both #s gyrate somewhat independently.
so looking at part of the whole pic is better than no info. I like to average both for a clearer pic. I think that the actual monthly trend #s is what's important.. and I think keeping below the 6% unimployment is necessary for a strong economy..
I could never figure out why Calif has 28% of the employed working Off the books ?
ie: they don't pay any taxes.

[BGCarrera32]

Another trusted news source...some gooooood stuff on that site...

[fintstone]

Originally posted by unfixed
stoney, what field are you in?

and someone please explain how bush stimulated the job market. low interest rates?

Cliff..I am retired from the miltary...Was an Engineer/Program Mgr (Elect Engineer/MBA type) before unemployed. Currently living on my modest investments.

Don't let these guys fool you. The overall economy is on fire. The unemployment rate is relatively low and still improving each month. It is weaker in some areas than others so where you live might be trailing.... But there have always been people out of work, so it is not unusual to have friends in that situation. The traditional measures of financial health in this country are better than in Clinton's first term in spite of 9/11 and the bust of the dot-com bubble. That is why the Kerry campaign reinvented the "misery index"...because the traditional one made the Bush economy look quite good. You will see posts of anywhere from a loss of 2 to 3 million jobs lost from some posters..they are either using old data or are mathmatically challenged. The actual number is down to around 1.5 million now and will be a lot less in a few months at the current rate.

Lower tax rates and lower interest rates stimulated the job market and prevented a deeper downturn. That along with the cyclical nature of the economy recovering from the recession that started in the last quarters of 1999.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by fintstone

Lower tax rates and lower interest rates stimulated the job market and prevented a deeper downturn. That along with the cyclical nature of the economy recovering from the recession that started in the last quarters of 1999.

lower tax rates have become conventional wisdom for the assist to a rebound. Foreward thinkers are already planning for the lower rates to become permanent due to 2 reasons..

1] it is voter distain to raise taxes. Even the Dems know that.
2] lower rates designed to stimulate jobs and business have historically proved successful.

and FWIW reducing debt by raising taxes is unproductive to overall eco health. The proven method of reducing deficts is thru eco growth.

[djmcmath]

I had hoped this thread wouldn't go political. I'm so naive. (sigh) Cool, neat to hear that jobs are up. Maybe if the economy skyrockets, I'll succumb to temptation and quit doing this stupid "Submarine" thing for the offers of wealth and power on the outside. Thanks for the news, fintstone.

FWIW, the head-hunters are telling me about the same thing -- jobs are beginning to show some signs of life. There is hope in the civilian world of making a living. The recent job fairs by Bradley-Morris on the east coast have been back up to reasonable levels, it seems. West coast jobs are still pretty rotten, but the east coast seems to be reviving. Or so says my head-hunter, anyway.

I'm rambling. Somebody slap me and send me to get some sleep already!!!


Dan

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by djmcmath
I had hoped this thread wouldn't go political. I'm so naive. (

my info wasn't meant to be political.
The president who set the foundation for tax cut stimulation was JFK

[techweenie]

"Another trusted news source...some gooooood stuff on that site... "

Those are Department of Labor statistics. Distrust the Department of Labor?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
"Another trusted news source...some gooooood stuff on that site... "

Those are Department of Labor statistics. Distrust the Department of Labor?

Well, clearly that chart itself did not come from the BLS. If the author took their data from the BLS, either they did the math wrong or it is old and they did not count the last couple of months. It would still be negative, but much less so.
Wonder why they did not use all the positives that the BLS reports to make a chart....or better yet, the universally accepted "misery index?" which puts the current administration in a pretty darn good light?

[techweenie]

The chart is Average Monthly Job Growth, nothing more nor less.

You can make a chart from any statistics, just like the nice fellow did on the music site.

Love to see the source for other 'positives' you speak of.

[350HP930]

If it doesn't put the bush administration or military in a positive light, fint will never believe any information no matter what the source.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
The chart is Average Monthly Job Growth, nothing more nor less.

You can make a chart from any statistics, just like the nice fellow did on the music site.

Love to see the source for other 'positives' you speak of.

It certainly is less if you choose not to use the best months for one president, but manage to use all the worst ones. Do the math yourself. I did. Use the figures that have been reported through the date you posted the chart and see if you get the same average.

The source I refer to is the Dept of Labor...the source you suggested. That is where the data for the "Misery Index" comes from.