So, It's About Jobs, Is It?

[bryanthompson]

Red-Beard - Next post is #3,000! make it count, buddy! maybe a grid-girls post for lucky 3k?

[CamB]

Nice John - well researched and I understood it just fine.

Cliff notes: John Kerry is in fact NOT a serial liar.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by fintstone
Gee tech...I imagine yuou had to look long and hard to find a chart that was old enough that it did not show last month where we broke the all-time employment record...what is that last dateon your chart...last Jan..almost a year ago???How convenient?

Still reading-impaired, eh? The chart goes through May.

Last month's employment increase didn't break any 'all-time record.' In fact, it was about an average monthly gain for the past 20 years or so.

Under normal circumstances, total payroll, seasonally adjusted, should grow about 120K per month, reflecting population dynamics and anything better than a stagnant economy.

[Brian Estep]

All I know is that I have now, as of last Wed, been laid off TWICE during the Bush administration. Kerry will have my vote.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by Brian Estep
All I know is that I have now, as of last Wed, been laid off TWICE during the Bush administration. Kerry will have my vote.

Stop screwing the boss' daughter.

[Brian Estep]

Originally posted by turbo6bar
Stop screwing the boss' daughter.

LMAO - I should have been - he had two that were quite attractive!

But alas I am happily engaged - will be married next Saturday - about the same time I expect my first unemployment check!

[911pcars]

"If we want to bring back jobs from India, wouldn't it be fair to tell Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, and BMW to close their US plants and send jobs back to Germany and Japan?"

These manufacturers have plants here (Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, etc.), not because they wish to pay higher labor wages, but because they don't. These sites don't pay union wages. They also reduce transportation costs; the markets for these cars is here - makes sense. Many parts vendors are also here so that helps the employment figures a little.

If our employment figures are so high, why then all the fuss about outsourcing? So there is no problem? Or maybe the lost, higher paying jobs are replaced by lower paying jobs. Employment net = zero loss. Have you called tech support for your HP or Dell computer? Guess who you're talking to? It's not Fred from West Virginia. It's "Fred" from Bombay. Where are the computer programming jobs these days? Same place. "Fred" now crunches code for Microsoft and other corporations. My cousin, a programmer, is now out of work because "Fred" is now doing it. Not to worry. There's a lower paying job down the street where he could work if need be. The global economy includes us, and as with most things in economics, the possible solutions may or may not produce the effect we want.

Bush's solution to the outsourcing problem is ...... (drum roll), education. Yes it is, but that's in the long run. Apparently education is his answer for minimum wages too (debate #3). How does that help the Freds of America who have a current family to support, a current mortgage to pay and current children to raise? And GWs answer is to enroll them in night school. BTW, who pays for that? Wouldn't some corporate incentives provide a win-win situation for everyone? Any MBA types here care to offer a possible solution?

Anyone check the cost of going to college lately? Yeah, I know, student loans. More debt for Fred. I don't see GW's leadership to reduce the cost of his primary solution to outsourcing. I have my doubts his eye is on this.

Tabs,
Your rationale of the war for losing jobs. Maybe another detail GW didn't anticipate when he signed off on it. Or maybe he thought it would create an abundance of wartime jobs.

Jyl,
thanks for the lucid explanation about job growth and decline.

Brian,
Congratulations on your impending wedding. Best wishes on your next job too. Hope things are better after 11/2.

Sherwood

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
Still reading-impaired, eh? The chart goes through May.

Last month's employment increase didn't break any 'all-time record.' In fact, it was about an average monthly gain for the past 20 years or so.

Under normal circumstances, total payroll, seasonally adjusted, should grow about 120K per month, reflecting population dynamics and anything better than a stagnant economy.

It seems that I am not the one who is reading impaired... The latest date on the chart is 01/04....how could that possibly be May? Even if it were...unless I am mistaken..this is October...so how could that show that the record was not broken in September????

Obviously last month's increase did not set the record by being the highest monthly increase, but it made the overall total number of people employed in the US as the highest in history...hence it clearly broke the "all-time record."

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Brian Estep
All I know is that I have now, as of last Wed, been laid off TWICE during the Bush administration. Kerry will have my vote.

What would make you think that the President had anything to do with you being laid off?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
Nice John - well researched and I understood it just fine.

Cliff notes: John Kerry is in fact NOT a serial liar.

Of course he is. The claim that "a certain number of jobs have been lost" is certainly not the same as saying the "percentage of jobs with respect to the population has decreased." just as posted...more people are employed in the US than ever before in history.....so stating that "X millions of jobs have been lost is clearly inaccurate," and obviously intentionally so.

[CamB]

Fint - you need to re-read John's post about what statistic should be used (not the extrapolated one you are using) and why.

Using the correct statistic, jobs have apparently dropped - maybe not as much as Kerry said (see John's discussion of adjustments) but they have.

Moreover, it might be time to admit that even if Bush breaks even, he has failed to create the jobs required to account for population growth (net 120k/month I believe).

[CarreraS2]

Showing "All employees" or "all jobs" - is that meaningful?

Yes, the population may be expanding, but is the *working population* expanding?

Aren't more people retiring ("baby boomers") than currently entering the work force? That's what I seem to hear as to why the social security system is going to collapse - more retirees and less new workers to pay.

It seems the unemployment number is more important than "all employee" or "all jobs" numbers.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by 911pcars
These manufacturers have plants here (Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, etc.), not because they wish to pay higher labor wages, but because they don't. These sites don't pay union wages. They also reduce transportation costs; the markets for these cars is here - makes sense. Many parts vendors are also here so that helps the employment figures a little.
[/B]

Why aren't the Germans enacting laws to eliminate this evil outsourcing to the US? After all, Germany has unemployment in the 9-11% range. Should we expect foreign companies to "outsource" to the US while expecting our jobs to stay?

Interestingly, from a quick search:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/01/08/germanys_unemployment_rate_rises/

"While three years of near-zero growth have boosted Germany's jobless rate, many economists say rules on hiring and firing are so rigid that companies hire fewer people because it's so difficult to drop workers in a slowdown.

In an attempt to deal with the problem, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has pushed through limited measures aimed at loosening labor market rules and trimming the burden on business of generous welfare state benefits."

Hmm, so regulations and generous welfare benefits are crimping the marketplace. Wow, who woulda thunk it?
Jurgen

[jyl]

Originally posted by fintstone
Of course he is. The claim that "a certain number of jobs have been lost" is certainly not the same as saying the "percentage of jobs with respect to the population has decreased." just as posted...more people are employed in the US than ever before in history.....so stating that "X millions of jobs have been lost is clearly inaccurate," and obviously intentionally so.

In stating that jobs have been lost during Bush's Administration, Kerry is simply relying on the same payroll survey data that virtually all knowledgeable people use to judge total job growth in the economy.

The people who claim total jobs have risen, citing the household survey that you're citing, are either (a) partisan hacks trying to mislead or (b) ignorant.

I'm going to show you some of those knowledgeable people now.

1. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve (who knows more about economic statistics than any political commentator or partisan blogger - even the nationally syndicated Neal Boortz!):

“I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate. Everything we’ve looked at suggests that it’s the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.”

http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2004/0406.html

2. Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Kathleen Utgoff (who heads the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that produces the surveys):

"I would like to comment on employment trends as measured by the payroll and household surveys, an issue that has been receiving some attention recently. Since November 2001, the NBER-designated trough of the most recent business cycle, payroll employment has fallen while nonagricultural wage and salary employment from the household survey has been essentially flat. Some observers have speculated that the household survey provides a better indication of the trend in employment at and around turning points in the business cycle. It is our judgment that the payroll survey provides more reliable information on the current trend in wage and salary employment."

http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~sieg602/Articles/Divergence.html

3. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' own statisticians, who designed and performed the surveys:

"Labor Department statisticians caution against using the levels of employment from the household survey, which is scientifically designed to measure rates of employment. The household survey showed the unemployment rate at 5.4 percent in September, down from a high of 6.3 in June 2003 but up from 4.2 percent in January 2001.

Labor statisticians believe the payroll survey, which uses data from more than 400,000 establishments, does a better job of measuring the monthly change in the level of employment. And its accuracy is enhanced as the data gets older, because the figures are repeatedly revised as more information becomes available.

That makes it especially "tricky" to make historical comparisons with the household survey, since the data is not "benchmarked" in the same fashion as the payroll survey, department staffers warn."

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?siteid=google&dist=google&guid=%7B511E344B-FB89-4A1B-A184-6EB7BADB6AFD%7D

4. Knowledgeable economists (such as these, on the New York Federal Reserve Bank site):

[discussing the payroll survey] "The BLS takes great care to arrive at accurate estimates. When compiling the payroll data, the BLS collects information from nearly 400,000 establishments—a large sample encompassing roughly 37 percent of total nonfarm employment. The numbers from this sample are scaled up to provide prompt monthly estimates of the number of jobs held in the nation as a whole. Then, in March of each year, the BLS revises its estimates by comparing them with a complete set of administrative records from the state unemployment insurance system. The records cover a full 98 percent of U.S. nonfarm employment, and supplemental sources are used to estimate the remaining 2 percent."

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:RxEQNMl_2goJ:www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci5-16.pdf+payroll+household+survey&hl=en

If you actually research this, as I have, you'll realize how unreliable the household survey's job count is. For example, a couple years ago the BLS raised the estimated population, which raised the estimated job count from that point forward, but the previous estimates were not changed. This is called a "series break" and makes the survey very unreliable to measure multi-year job growth. The survey is designed to measure the ratios of people in different employed/unemployed classification, not to measure total job growth. The people who designed the survey, run the survey, head the BLS, etc have all said that.

Compare to the payroll survey, which uses data from 37% of all payroll jobs in the US (an incredibly large sample) and is checked and calibrated every year against unemployment insurance filings. This survey is specifically designed to measure job growth, and is the data used by people who know what they're talking about. You know, like Alan Greenspan.

Hope this explains things to you. Some of Kerry's and Bush's claims are questionable, but the statement that jobs have been lost during this Administration is not one of them. That one is true.

[island911]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Showing "All employees" or "all jobs" - is that meaningful?

Yes, the population may be expanding, but is the *working population* expanding?

Aren't more people retiring ("baby boomers") than currently entering the work force? That's what I seem to hear as to why the social security system is going to collapse - more retirees and less new workers to pay.

It seems the unemployment number is more important than "all employee" or "all jobs" numbers.

Excellent point.

So I suppose that GW was wrong, 20+ years ago, when he should have been fathering babies as fast as he could.

Seriously, how disingenuious can the Liberals be? "Job creation" . .. how about looking at our low unemployment we are enjoying right now.

Lib's How's the saying go? Statistic don't lie, but liers use statistics. Too true.

For those who are going to jump in and claim 'but those aren't good jobs' I'll tell ya what; START a business that IS a "good job." ....then maybe you'll understand why there are fewer "good jobs" out there.