Say Anything Blog

And here I thought illegal immigration was creating an economic crisis in this country. 

"Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.0 million, and the unemployment rate, 4.7 percent, were little changed in March.  The jobless rates for the
major worker groups--adult men (4.1 percent), adult women (4.1 percent), teenagers (15.7 percent), whites (4.0 percent), blacks (9.3 percent), and Hispanics (5.4 percent)--showed little or no change over the month.  The
unemployment rate for Asians was 3.4 percent, not seasonally adjusted. "

Sounds like a lot of Non-News to me.
   

Total employment was up in March to 143.6 million; the employment-popula-
tion ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was
little changed at 63.0 percent.  The labor force participation rate remained
at 66.1 percent and has been at or near that level for a year. 

Right there you see how skewed unemployment numbers are.  On one hand, the unemployment rate is 4.7%, othe other 63.0% are employed.

Wheres the other 32.3%?

The jobs that have been created are gov’t or defense (gov’t funded) jobs.

"January 2000, when President Bush took office, there were 111,622,000 private sector jobs in the US. Projected numbers for January 2005 are 110,862,000, a net loss of 760,000 private sector jobs. In comparison, in January 1997 there were 101,639,000 private sector jobs—meaning 9,983,000 were created during President Clinton’s second term of office.  "

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/145081.htm 

Real wages are down. 

What a Keynesian. 

Let’s take a closer look at the 90s.  The unemployment rate during the Bush I administration was 7.2% and during the Clinton Administration (1999) it was 4.2%.  The Clinton administration did a much much better job at the economy than has Bush.

Also we are not fully through 2001-2010.  Let’s look at the number by administration.

And here I thought illegal immigration was creating an economic crisis in this country. 

"creating" doesn’t mean we’re there yet.  Just because things are good now is no reason to avoid being vigilant for the future. 

Free, you’re comparing two different numbers.  The 63% is total employment, which is the percentage of all Americans (children and all) who are at work.  The unemployment rate indicates the percentage of work-elligible Americans who are working.  Comparing the two numbers is a little silly. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

WOOF,

Ouch.

Rob,

"creating" doesn’t mean we’re there yet.  Just because things are good now is no reason to avoid being vigilant for the future.

Reminds me of the reasoning I hear out of global warming advocates.  

The 63% is total employment, which is the percentage of all Americans (children and all) who are at work. 

Now Rob, look at my post where I quote the raw data that you refered to:

Total employment was up in March to 143.6 million; the employment-popula-
tion ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was
little changed at 63.0 percent. 

16 and over buddy.  I was working 20+ hrs a week when I was 14 (non-farm).

I don’t mean to be hard on ya chief, but thats what the data says. 

This is what you said:

Right there you see how skewed unemployment numbers are.  On one hand, the unemployment rate is 4.7%, othe other 63.0% are employed.

Wheres the other 32.3%

You can’t compare the two numbers.  One number indicates the percentage of the population eligible for work and wanting work but unable to find it.  The other is simply the percentage of the total population working.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

WOOF demonstrates why WOOF shouldn’t play with numbers:

January 2000, when President Bush took office, there were 111,622,000 private sector jobs in the US. Projected numbers for January 2005 are 110,862,000, a net loss of 760,000 private sector jobs. In comparison, in January 1997 there were 101,639,000 private sector jobs—meaning 9,983,000 were created during President Clinton’s second term of office.  "

Bush took office in January 2001, not January 2000.  And you’d have to be a complete idiot to assume that his policies had instantaneous effect on the economy.  Moreover, the economic downturn was well underway by the time that Bush’s policies took effect.  Since economic cycles are a normal component of any economy, how do you separate the policy decisions of the President from components of the economy that he has no control over???

Even if we check our brains at the door and play this stupid number game, the numbers don’t look at that different for the second Clinton term (1998-2002) and the first Bush term (2002-2006):

+4369 million jobs added for Clinton

+3458 million added for Bush

What’s the big deal? 

I do see what you were saying Rob.  I mentions the "the employment-population ratio" then it states the " proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs."

Strange wording, not sure whose right on this.

"One number indicates the percentage of the population eligible for work and wanting work but unable to find it.  "

Just because you aren’t looking for work, doesnt make you not-unemployed.

I know that’s how the formula is set up, its a full week in Macro 201.  It’s flawed math.

Taking economic numbers at face value without understanding the formulas is just as bad as parroting the party line.  (Which I am Not accusing you of.)

Just because you aren’t looking for work, doesnt make you not-unemployed.

I know that’s how the formula is set up, its a full week in Macro 201.  It’s flawed math.

I don’t think so.

4.7% of Americans want work but can’t find it.  63% of the total American population is employed.  I don’t see your basis for saying that either is flawed, and I certainly don’t see where you can compare the two and ask "Where’s the other 32%" as the two percentages were not calculated from the same numbers and thus weren’t supposed to add up to 100%.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

FreeRepublican:

I know that’s how the formula is set up, its a full week in Macro 201.  It’s flawed math.

If you think so, why not submit a peer-reviewed article to your favorite economics journal?  Or at the least, post an article briefing us on the problems?

There are problems with the indicators (and these have been spelled out by critics of the BLS statistics for years), though I’ve never heard anybody but you claim that there’s a  basic math flaw.  However, any flaws that critics level against the BLS are nothing compared to the inept way some of you Bush critics are trying to use them. 

Carrick,

It’s a flawed statistical number.  It doesn’t count people who have given up on finding a job, and it doesn’t include people that are working fewer hours than they would like to (under 40 hr full time level of course).

January payroll employment gains were revised downward from 170,000 to 154,000 new jobs. February payroll employment gains were revised downward from 243,000 to 225,000 new jobs.

What does this mean?

First let me just state that Iam a far right Christian conservative independent, and havent you heard just this week Bush fascinated us by establishing over 1,000 jobs. (see link below)

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/burgerking.php 

From AP (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/07/D8GR5SK0E.html) comes this corollary bit of news,

“Consumer confidence in the economy’s prospects improved in early April even as gasoline prices and borrowing costs marched higher.”

One of the things consumers feel really good about is the jobs climate, the Ipsos results suggested.

A measure tracking consumers’ sentiments on this front jumped in early April to 124.5, the highest on record. In March consumers’ feelings about jobs came in at 118.5, a buoyant reading. A year ago, this gauge stood at 116.2.”

With US casualties in Iraq diminishing, and the economy moving aloong a moderate but sustainable 3 to 3.5% rate of growth, there doesn’t seem to be much for the left to look forward to come November.  But then, Democrats aren’t much on optimism anyway. 

Puzzlefeet said, The Clinton administration did a much much better job at the economy than has Bush.

How many times are you going to say this without backing it up? What did the Clinton administration do besides giving us a tax increase that resulted in a recession that we didn’t get out of until the Republican House tax cut of 1995?

Go ahead and ignore that point once again.

It’s like debating a parrot.

The 4.7% also includes people transitioning from one job to another, not just the hardcore unemployed.

GW’s first budget didn’t take effect until October, 2001, so he had no direct effect on the economy until after that.  Of course, 9/11 had hit us by then, so that makes his accomplishments all the more impressive.  He also had Katrina and other hurricanes to contend with, which adds to his accomplishments in having such a good economy.