...ECONOMY.
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006086.php
February 29, 2004
IT'S ALL RELATIVE
Is 5.6 percent a low figure, or a high one? Depends. If only 5.6 percent of hamburgers are discovered to contain meat, that’s way low. But if 5.6 percent of teachers are using their students as drug mules in elaborate Asian heroin importing schemes, that’s sort of high.
We’re comparing apples and oranges here. Or junkies and burgers. What if we compare similar or identical figures on the same subject, and from the same source?
Here’s CNN in July 1996, as the Clinton-Dole election approached:
Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.
So 5.6 percent is “already-low”. Now here’s CNN in December 2001:
The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent in November - the highest in six years - as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy.
Can you “jump” to a figure 0.1 percent above that already defined as “low”? More from CNN, this time in March 2002:
The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent in February and businesses added jobs for the first time since last summer, the government said Friday, as the labor market began to recover from a downturn that led to more than a million job cuts in 2001.
The jobless rate fell from 5.6 percent in January as employers added 66,000 jobs to payrolls ...
That should read “fell from an already-low 5.6 percent in January”, surely. In January, CNN’s Mark Gongloff decided that an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent was bad news for Bush:
Though the unemployment rate posted a surprising decline, and many economists believe the job market will improve in 2004, Friday's report probably will keep Fed policy-makers on hold and may put some political pressure on President Bush.
A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches.
Gongloff repeated his line about Bush’s election chances earlier this month when a familiar number appeared:
The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent, the lowest level since January 2002, from 5.7 percent in December.
A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches.
Why? It didn’t for Clinton.
(Via Phisher at Free Republic.)
Posted by Tim Blair at February 29, 2004 02:24 AM
Comments
common sense doesn't come easily for most, which is why economics is so difficult for many to understand. those who want to spin 5.6% as bad will do so, and those dumb enough to believe it will vote kerry.
Posted by: anon at February 29, 2004 at 03:53 AM
common sense doesn't come easily for most, which is why economics is so difficult for many to understand. those who want to spin 5.6% as bad will do so, and those dumb enough to believe it will vote kerry.
Posted by: anon at February 29, 2004 at 03:54 AM
"Full employment: In principle, this is when all of our economy's resources are being used to produce output. This is one of the five economic goals, specifically one of the three macro goals (the other two are economic growth and stability). In practice, our economy is considered to be at full employment when the unemployment rate is around 5 to 5 1/2 percent and the capacity utilization rate is about 85 percent. This unemployment rate includes structural and frictional unemployment."
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/gls.p...ull+employment
[Some people are pissing up a stump.]
Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at February 29, 2004 at 04:53 AM
I still remember the Jimmy Carter era when unemployment was around 7 percent with inflation over 13 percent. Today we've got 5.6 percent unemployment, inflation is next to nothing, with a solid 4 percent growth rate, and the media acts as if we're in the midst of another Great Depression.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at February 29, 2004 at 05:04 AM
Here is the part that always amazes me, 1,000,000 jobs lost in 2001. Hmmm, lets see that is half of the job losses in 3 years, but Bush hadn't even had a chance to get the tax cuts and other economic stimulus going until the middle of that year. Though I disagree with the man on some of his social policies, his economic steps have been right on the money.
Posted by: wayne at February 29, 2004 at 05:39 AM
" "A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches."
Why? It didn’t for Clinton."
Because Clinton can do no wrong and Bush can do no right. *Anything* that can be made to stick, no matter the facts, will be thrown at Bush again and again. Plastic Turkey, anyone?
I continue to be amazed how many feminists not only gave Clinton a free pass, concerning sexual harrassment of women, but how they defended Clinton and went after the *women* who claimed to have been sexually harrassed by Clinton. These are the same feminists who have tried to brainwash many into believing that harrassment has taken place when the woman merely 'feels' harrassed because of a look or gesture. (Look or gesture,here, not being the obvious ones you'd associate with a sexual come-one.)
Pres. Bush has a female high-ranking member of his staff (Condi Rice) and has potentially helped thousands of women in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, the feminists are silent, at best, about Rice and her achievments. They are also pretty silent about the help given to the women in Afghanistan and Iraq because of our military actions.
If Clinton had done what Bush has in terms of his staffing and Iraq/Afghanistan, the feminists would not stop singing his praises.
I don't see a double standard here. Does anyone else? (=sarcasm)
Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 29, 2004 at 05:58 AM
CNN = Chicken Noodle Network. What more can you expect from these "spin cycle" idiots. It's true, Anon, the dumb ones will vote for Kerry. Chris, you are correct about Bush being a force in feminism - he HAS liberated Afgani women and Iraqi women. Unfortunately the media (especially the Chicken channel), never emphasises this.
Posted by: koranistoiletpaper at February 29, 2004 at 06:18 AM
Perhaps the point is one of expectations:
5.6% would be excellent for a Dem administration;
however, we expect more from a Republican one.
- and yes, a figure below 5% is very dangerous to an economy, and completely the wrong goal.
Chris: have you already forgotton that Condi is supposed to be called a white man? - conservatives all look the same, you know.
Posted by: Woody TwoShoes at February 29, 2004 at 06:32 AM
No way.
You're telling us that CNN holds Democratic and Republican administrations to different standards?
That thar's crazy talk, Tim.
Posted by: david at February 29, 2004 at 06:47 AM
Hmmm. Fuzzy math here it seems. How does the market add 66,000 jobs when unemployment falls 0.1%, but when it increases 0.2%, millions of jobs are lost. Seems likely that only 120,000 jobs were lost in aggregate between Dec 2001 when unemployment was 5.7% and Feb 02 when it dropped to 5.5%.
Maybe CNN uses the new math. Calculation doesn't matter as long as the answer feels right.
Posted by: Jim at February 29, 2004 at 08:34 AM
This is an OUTRAGE.
If 5.6% of the burgers I purchased were meatless, heads would roll.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 29, 2004 at 08:59 AM
5.6% of journalists have “already low” intelligence. The remaining journalists are just plan stupid.
Posted by: perfectsense at February 29, 2004 at 09:03 AM
One of my fixed opinions (so to speak) is that many political arguments could be resolved -- or would never occur -- if people were simply better educated. Especially in mathematics and, in particular, in statistics.
Posted by: George at February 29, 2004 at 09:04 AM
I'd love to live in a country where 5.7 per cent unemployment is considered HIGH.
Look at Germany - slumming around at 11%+.
Good thing they've got Michael Moore telling them they have a superior economic system.
Posted by: Quentin George at February 29, 2004 at 11:24 AM
Sortelli -- I've "clarified" that opening paragraph, as Howard Dean would say.
Posted by: tim at February 29, 2004 at 11:47 AM
Now you're flip-flopping on the burger platform, you... you...
McBlogger!
Posted by: Sortelli Divide at February 29, 2004 at 12:20 PM
Perhaps the US and International media, which hold the actual working class in such contempt, might concede that they believe at least 5.7% of Americans are unemployable knuckle dragging mouthbreathers who are fit only to grace the set of "The Jerry Springer Show" when they aren't out flying the flag and beating up Muslim neighbors.
Taken in that context, the unemployment rate is actually 0%!!! Good job, W! Well done.
Posted by: JDB at February 29, 2004 at 12:39 PM
Sortelli: use regular html pointy brackets, not php coding. I know the ".php" endings of the files here is confusing, but I have them php-enabled for other reasons.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 29, 2004 at 01:02 PM
as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy.
This is another media spin for the economically illiterate. Anyone want to guess how long the economic cycle between recessions is?
Posted by: Tim at February 29, 2004 at 01:36 PM
Perhaps we need to paint the parking lots at Wal-Mart's in a color scheme that represents employment and tax refunds. Maybe 90% of the lot in yellow lined spots; and each 1% more in various psychedelic colors. Then we all can measure the economy in the simplest and most direct manner. The more multi-colored parking spaces used, the better the economy, stupid. Hey, my 3rd grader understands it, maybe the democrats might-think?
Posted by: RangerAJ at February 29, 2004 at 01:43 PM
Thanks, Andrea. I knew better, but hit the post button a little too fast again.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 29, 2004 at 01:55 PM
Can you “jump” to a figure 0.1 percent above that already defined as “low”?
Yes. As long as you're starting from some place even lower.
Posted by: Robert at February 29, 2004 at 03:50 PM
From NewsMax: "The economy's performance in the second half of last year marked the best back-to-back quarterly performance since the first two quarters of 1984."
See full article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...27/85551.shtml
Posted by: Lee at February 29, 2004 at 11:08 PM
Tim- the template is already in for Bush and the economy. Liberal pundits will ignore everything except the raw job creation of the monthly payroll number- forget GDP, productivity the market etc. The Clinton bubble put Bush in a jobs hole and that is the club they are already using against him here . Bush= Hoover, that's the line that is already being pounded- circumstances be damned. If this country falls for it, it deserves Kerry.
Posted by: jj shaka at March 1, 2004 at 12:15 AM
All old media in America (the NYTimes, CNN, etc.) is just Jayson Blair lite. They know it, they've always known it, and now the rest of us are starting to catch on. Jayson's problem was that his making stuff up was too clumsy, too obvious. The rule is: don't obviously make stuff up, just spin and shade leftward, in everything and always.
Posted by: Sergio at March 2, 2004 at 03:08 AM
Hmm. I also seem to recall an interesting little debate in the late 1990s over whether or not the 5% mark was a natural unemployment rate; the consensus by the end of the decade was that 5% wasn't that important, as far as I remember. So, the goalposts have shifted, but not because of partisan animus, it seems to me. Oh well.
Posted by: Brett at March 2, 2004 at 03:10 AM
I have a little more faith in people. People are not stupid. They see a little more in their take home pay. They'll see a little more given back come tax time. And when people open their statements for those 401k's etc etc- they see nice returns in those also.
Posted by: shark at March 2, 2004 at 03:20 AM
You guys are ridiculous. Of course 5.6% is high for Bush and was ONCE low for Clinton. When Clinton started the unemployment was over 7%, so to get it down to 5.6% was a mammoth task. When he finished though, he was under 5% and very close to being under 4%. So, when Bush goes up from 4% to 5.6%, IT IS HIGH!
For example, when Bill Gates was 10 years old, $20 was a lot of money for him; $2 wasn't. Do you think if Bill Gates was to lose all his $40+ billion dollars and end up with only $20 he should still refere to that $20 as "a lot of money?" Of course not. The fact that we have regressed is the problem. Don't be dopes and argue a point you are know you are wrong about. You can say that Bush hasn't had enough time, you can say that there are other factors affecting the economy, but you can't say that economically we were worse off under Clinton that we were under Bush.
Posted by: Bill at March 2, 2004 at 03:27 AM
JJ shake is basically right I think but with some comments.
The 4% inflation rate in the late Clinton years established a new baseline. Before that 4% would have been assumed to cause wage inflation.
Also Dems may have built themselves a trap here. If job growth begins to exceed 200k/month in the late spring and summer, all Kerry will be able to say is something like, "the jobs should have come sooner" to which Bush can say "well if Congress had passed the tax cuts faster they would have".
Posted by: mhw at March 2, 2004 at 03:28 AM
The Dems are digging another hole on this one. Job creation will accelerate; in fact, it already has. In 6 - 8 moths (the election window), job creation and the jobless rate will not be anything you can hang a campaign on.
Fortunately, the Dem fellow travellers in the press will see to it that, like all their other false starts and dead issues, this one drops into the memory hole, too.
Posted by: R C Dean at March 2, 2004 at 03:37 AM
Guys
Bill has put it all in perspective for us: change the subject.
Alas, guys, they're gonna keep up the myths about the Economy: one of Billy Crystal's jokes last nite at the Oscars had it that the present economy is "tanking". Um, tanking, must've been thinking of Dukakis!
TomCom
Posted by: TomCom at March 2, 2004 at 03:55 AM
Pretty simple, unless you are a knee-jerk partisan. The unemployment RATE is low because of low participation, not because of a strong job market. If the job market were strong, there would be (a) plenty of jobs, and (b) quickly rising wages - we have neither. Instead, we have an extremely weak labor market, and the first net loss of jobs of any administration since Herbert Hoover.
Posted by: Dwayne Besuden at March 2, 2004 at 03:55 AM
Given their corporate business accumen in the years after the March 2000 tech bubble burst, CNN is probably more concerned about the 2001 5.6 percent jobless rate because so much of that was made up of former AOL Time Warner employees...
Posted by: John at March 2, 2004 at 04:01 AM
Apparently even simpler if you are a knee-jerk partisan: "Bush bad! Facts negotiable!"
Posted by: McGehee at March 2, 2004 at 04:03 AM
Bill,
You don't make alotta sense fella. The starting point should be irrelevant in using charged terms like "HIGH" and "LOW." Surely you see that.
Posted by: mike at March 2, 2004 at 04:12 AM
Bill
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I suspect you'll do that even if I'm right), but didn't Osama bin Ladin have a tiny bit to do with the job losses? I don't hear much discussion of this part of the equation. Beyond the economic damage he directly caused, the diversion of resources required to throw him out of Afghanistan, the increased costs of home defense, the need to eliminate the basing of terrorists in MidEast countries (a process started in Iraq), etc all have had a huge impact on the economy. Someone could probably calculate hom many of the job losses are due to this. In that Clinton had his chances to get the B**tard, I think that percent could be laid at his door, and the door of the party that hamstrung our intelligence efforts over the past decades.
Posted by: Scott at March 2, 2004 at 04:14 AM
Hey Dwayne, are you old enough to remember the Nixon, Ford and Carter adminsistrations? I thought not. You (and whoever you are parroting) don't know anything about job losses.
Posted by: eric at March 2, 2004 at 04:27 AM
Millions of jobs lost. First administation since Hoover to have a net loss of jobs. Unemployment benefits are running out without there being new jobs, so they fall off the unemployment rolls and are not counted. Remember, you need 150,000 jobs each month just to account for population increases. The unemployment rate is failing to show what the other unemployment statistics clearly show: a bad job market that's getting worse.
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. manufacturers may finally be close to adding jobs after 42 straight months of layoffs, a survey suggested on Monday, but they also face pricing pressures that could squeeze profits." May finally be getting close. Great news, guys.
Posted by: Dwayne Besuden at March 2, 2004 at 04:37 AM
Let's put a bit of perspective on this:
http://jobsearchtech.about.com/libra.../aa122099b.htm
If we measure "low" as something relative to previous years, that CNN report isn't that bias.
If we look at the jobless rate before Bush takes office and compare it to now... several million people are without jobs that had them before. Of course, one could always argue "high and low" are meaningless words and trends really matter. Jobs isn't an area "trending" well for Bush.
Look, if we're going to be taken seriously, the right needs to stop sniping about the media. We really sound like idiots. The same way the left does when it comes to defense.
Posted by: Mike at March 2, 2004 at 04:48 AM
Dwayne - check your math - Bush in office Jan 2001 until today = 37 months. Manufacturing job losses extend to the last 5 months of Clinton administration. How did ANY policy decision by GWB have ANY influence on that?? Answer = zero. The bubble had burst before Jan 2001.
Great news Huh?
If you are asking for honesty from conservative side, how about you? Or isn't this in your CNN talking points?
Posted by: Kevin at March 2, 2004 at 04:52 AM
Dwyane,
You fail to take into account the small business start-ups by those who are no longer looking for work. My family is one of those. Wife's position (mid management) was eliminated last fall. Unemployment ran out (she did have a nice vacation tho.) Started a small business. Life is great - however, technically, she is still listed as unemployed and not rehired. . . not exactly an accurate picture.
Regards.
Posted by: Mike at March 2, 2004 at 04:53 AM
What, you were expecting consistency from the media? You can't even get consistency from Clinton's director of National Economic Council Gene Sperling[now works for the Center for American "Progress", a "non-partisan" think tank].
06/09/1997 Washington Post
Myth No. 4: The deficit is balanced only for a nanosecond.
Another myth is that the budget achieves balance for an instant, then immediately returns to deficit. That's plain wrong. The budget agreement achieves balance in 2002 and then goes into a surplus of $ 5 billion in 2003 that grows to $ 34 billion in 2007. Now that we have balanced the budget, we must tackle the generational imbalance we face -- particularly in the areas of long-term Medicare and Social Security reform. This agreement, however, is a crucial step to prepare for the retirement of the baby-boom generation.
02/14/2000 Washington Post
With African American and Hispanic child poverty rates still disgracefully high, we have both an economic and moral imperative to use a good portion of our hard-won savings to attack child poverty and increase education and training while continuing the debt reduction and low interest rates to keep providing economic opportunity for all Americans.
03/20/2001 Boston Globe
Therefore, there is reason to fear that it is more than coincidental that since Vice President Cheney made headlines in early December by claiming we were on the front edge of a recession, expectations about the future have fallen a whopping 32 percent, even though confidence about present circumstances are high and have fallen only 8 percent. Indeed, the difference between overall consumer confidence and expectations for the future is the largest since 1973.
Since Cheney's initial warning bell, President Bush has repeatedly sought to send out the same dark message. He continually used the bully pulpit to describe his tax cut as needed to make sure our economy does not go into a tailspin. In his State of the Union address, while he mentioned that two pictures could be painted of the United States, he led his address speaking about warning signs, increasing layoffs, and rising energy prices without a single reassuring word about the current economy.
By my count Gene Sperling is an economical opportunistic commentator. His prediction of a declining deficit going away in a nanosecond as false came true. His prediction of fiscal irresponsibility with a surplus as false came true. His assessment of Cheney and Bush as telling the truth about the economy as damaging to consumer confidence was entirely true.
I guess that when you work for and advised the smoothest cat to ever hold the White House telling the truth wouldn't get you a job with the Center for American "Progress". Of course Gene Sperling is consistent. He's consistently WRONG!
Posted by: Brennan Stout at March 2, 2004 at 04:58 AM
What happens when the unemployment rate falls below the theoretical structural unemployment rate of 5-6%? Is it a good thing?
When the rate was about 4% I took my car in to have the brakes adjusted. The head mechanic said he didn't want the kids he had on duty that day to work on them. Apparently, they could barely manage oil changes.
The inexorable law of supply & demand cuts both ways in the labor market. When labor supply is tight, incompetents are hired at high wages and perform to the level of their ability. In the short term this is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to auto brakes.
Posted by: Hudson at March 2, 2004 at 05:00 AM
Dwayne,
While you're at it, please explain for the rest of us the cost of labor (esp. gov't. imposed costs); it's relationship to the unemployment/employment rate; how that applies to labor markets in western Europe; and how John Forbes Kerry or any Democrat (I don't care, pick any of them) would fix all that so the jobs market rebounds.
Blaming Bush for the business cycle and the unfortunate effects of 9/11 is easy.
Extra points if you can show how tax increases (which all Democrat candidates promise) and deficit reduction (which no Democrat candidates speak to) lead to IMMEDIATE stimulation of the job market. Double extra points for showing how curtailing free trade agreements lead to IMMEDIATE stimulation of the job market.
Don't worry, take your time.
We'll wait.
Posted by: Tim at March 2, 2004 at 05:01 AM
Dwayne-
The unemployment rate is falling because the HOUSEHOLD survey is used to calculate the unemployment rate, not because people are giving up. According to the Household jobs survey, almost 2 million NET new jobs have been created under Dubbya. "How can this be??" asks CNN. He CAN'T have created JOBS. There must be some mistake.
The main difference between Household and Payroll surveys? The household survey takes into account independant contractors and those who start their own business. These people are employed, but do not show up on the Payroll survey.
It just BURNS when facts get in the way, doesn't it Dwayne?
Posted by: Bryan at March 2, 2004 at 05:06 AM
Bill forgets one thing w/Bubba v. W.
So, Bill, how many millions of people have we added since 2001?
Do you think that might make a difference?
There's also an argument that w/the tax cuts, more SAHM decided to find a job because pay was more attractive.
Posted by: Sandy P. at March 2, 2004 at 05:11 AM
You're parsing words and playing "gotcha" while ignoring the real danger to the President.
These are the national unemployment rates for the past few election years:
1992 - 7.4%
1996 - 5.4%
2000 - 4%
And now 5.6%, a significant increase when only about 500,000 votes separated Bush and Gore in 2000. Whether or not low unemployment rates are good for the economy, people who had jobs under Clinton and don't under Bush are probably of one opinion about it.
Posted by: Nels Nelson at March 2, 2004 at 05:15 AM
Also, Dwayne and Bill need to start reading Bill Hobbs.
Check out the LLCs started in TN alone in 2003.
And one can make a wonderful argument against National Health Care when one realized that a lot of the uninsured are SBOs and making $50K and above who CHOOSE not to have health insurance.
Posted by: Sandy P. at March 2, 2004 at 05:15 AM
Here is a chart of the 10-year NASDAQ, and here is a chart of the 10-year GDP growth. Notice the tight overlaps during the contraction, and notice the fundamentals of the last ~18 months.
Everything you need to know about the economy:
-the bubble rose and burst on Clinton's watch
-the collapse was accompanied by a decline from 7% growth to 1% growth, followed by a small bounce then a quarter of negative growth, and then another small bounce (all of that occurred under Clinton)
-the 'official' recession started during Bush's first quarter (also Clinton's last quarter), with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, but it clearly began much earlier
-the 'official' recession ended in Q4 of 2001, but the bubble continued collapsing into Q3 of 2002; we did not start real growth until the bubble had finished contracting back to 1996/1997 levels
-we are at the 14-month point in the real recovery, and job creation usually kicks in at the 12-18 month window, and we are right on schedule; expect +200k jobs every month from May forward, assuming there is no other major blow to the economy.
-Bush policies eased the recession (indeed, we had positive GDP growth while the bubble continued to contract), and have facilitated a strong recovery. Low capital taxes, low interest rates, and low exchange rates combined in a very powerful mix.
In sum, the Democrats don't have much of an argument against Bush's handling of the economy, given the mess that he inherited. What they can complain about (to their base anyway) is that Bush did not do enough to ease the pain and suffering of the people whose jobs were destroyed in the bubble's contraction. My personal opinion is that those kinds of policies are why Europe is suffering so much (paying their people not to work, redistributing [aka, destroying] capital, etc), and we should not be following their lead. Bleeding hearts have different beliefs, of course.
Posted by: Ursus at March 2, 2004 at 05:27 AM
Bryan, the facts are clearly burning you, as Bush. The loss of jobs is real and clear. The job statistics, taken as a whole, show an extremely weak job market. The length of time people spend on the unemployment rolls makes this abundantly clear.
Only partisans are claiming the job market is strong. There are people who have left the job market out of frustration, and some who prefer to call themselves "self-employed" rather than unemployed, but the weakness of the job market shows up in statistic after statistic.
If the job market were strong as you claim, and people are able to work for themselves at decent rates, salaries would be rising quickly. Instead, we see flat salaries. The payroll data tell truth, which the voters see and feel.
Posted by: Dwayne Besuden at March 2, 2004 at 05:27 AM
Those that are screeching the "sky is falling" are either economically ignorant or politically motivated liars. Very simple. Hmmm, let's see "millions of jobs lost" from the peak of an economic bubble that by any economic analysis was not sustainable....nor SHOULD it have been sustained for the long term health of our nation. Yes, a bubble mania is the standard by which we judge success in the economy. Uhhh huh.
Posted by: ken at March 2, 2004 at 05:49 AM
I am enjoying watching Dwayne hold his ears and scream "I'm not LISTENING!!!!" - anyone else?
Posted by: Deoxy at March 2, 2004 at 05:59 AM
Dwayne Besuden
According to the BLS there are ~2 million more employed workers in 2003 than there were in 2000.
The job loss has to be parsed to reflect factual evidence. Manufacturing jobs have been lost. That statement is true.
What I would like liberals to explain is why they love more government workers while hating privatisation. Then they love payroll employees as a product of giganto corporate privatisation and start hating the "self employed" privatisation. I guess the next in line for liberal hatred are government workers assuming the future White House increases the government labor force. This last statement is only reflective if there is a Republican in the big house though.
Posted by: Brennan Stout at March 2, 2004 at 06:01 AM
Don't forget Krugman saying the lowest sustainable unemployment rate was 5.5% to 6% -- and using this to lambast the stupid illogic of the "four percenters" who wanted to target 4% economic growth.
Because five years of 4% economic growth would reduce the unemployment rate to an obviously impossible 1.5%.
This being just before the economy experienced 4% growth for five years. ;-)
http://www.economicclub.org/Pages/ar...ch-krugman.htm
To top it off, he used the lesson he administered here to illustrate why he was an "irritating economist" in the minds of so many.
That being: He applies rigorous thinking, logic and models to determine the *truth*, and he has the character to tell it -- which of course is very irritating to logicless fools like the "four percenters" who just believe what they want to believe.
Posted by: Jim Glass at March 2, 2004 at 06:01 AM
Yes, a bubble mania is the standard by which we judge success in the economy. Uhhh huh.
ken: Show me JAMES CARVILLE/PAUL BEGALA! I'm waiting for the first pundit to say "What terrorist attack on 9/11?".
Posted by: Brennan Stout at March 2, 2004 at 06:06 AM
I nailed this lame argument a month ago.
Posted by: Jay at March 2, 2004 at 06:06 AM
Whether the bubble level was sustainable, and whose fault it is for the employment picture, is a different question. But the employment picture today is far worse from what it was at 5.6% a few years ago. The voters know this, and Bush is too smart to claim that getting a job (or a raise) is as easy today as it was in 1996.
Posted by: Dwayne Besuden at March 2, 2004 at 06:19 AM
Are employers hiring like crazy, just calling them "contractors" instead of "employees"?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4407705
Posted by: Dwayne Besuden at March 2, 2004 at 06:26 AM
The government jobs figures are wrong. Read Virginia Postrel's article in the NYT magazine 2/22/04. The feds says there are 30,000 manicurists. Somehow the states think there are 56,000 nail salons, most with a number of employees. Same goes for massage therapists. These two professions account for 500,000 missing jobs.
Posted by: Chester Whit at March 2, 2004 at 07:18 AM
For a good time, check out the BLS statistics pages here. You can play with the numbers all day.
The gap between household and payroll employment is interesting. Apparently only about 25 percent of the discrepancy is due to self-employment.
Posted by: tbrosz at March 2, 2004 at 07:25 AM
There is one way the CNN spin is justified (although not mentioning the fact opens them to the criticism we see):
unlike under Clinton in 1996, the discouraged job-seekers not counted among the "unemployed" is now much higher; in that sense, the unemployment rate is worse now.
--Orson
Posted by: Orson Olson at March 2, 2004 at 07:47 AM
Not only are independent contractors and home business owners and other entrepreneurs drastically under-represented in the government's official employment statistics, but I would argue that these unacknowledged jobs are much better jobs. Not necessarily because they pay more than traditional jobs (although they often do), but because they are much more responsive to opportunities and consumer demands.
I happen to work for a giant corporation, which is constantly launching new management initiatives in an effort to better connect to the marketplace, reduce costs, increase productivity, etc., etc. It's not easy, because a large company has a lot of inertia and a big overhead structure which burdens its costs and limits its competitiveness. "Big" and "nimble" don't go together very well. My company actually does quite well, but it faces a constant struggle to keep from becoming obsolete.
My wife and my daughter each run their own home businesses, advertising over the Internet. They have invented products, created markets, and innovated in a whole host of different ways. Ten years ago, maybe even five years ago, they couldn't have done it; the Internet infrastructure wasn't developed enough. Now they are filling unmet demands and satisfying customers who didn't even know such products existed. In a year or two they could become wealthy (or at least extremely well compensated) if their respective business take off as it appears they might.
The United States' economy is much healthier and more robust because of all the self-employed entrepreneurs who are not tied down by old assumptions and ossified business structures. And government statistics which fail to capture this vibrancy are worse than useless.
Posted by: Daniel Wiener at March 2, 2004 at 07:52 AM
I for one, am married to a millionare because she was laid off in the '90s and 'had' to start her own business. Self employment is not the end of the world for the people involved, trouble is, when someone becomes responsible for themselves, they become Republican, if they weren't already, as in our case.
Posted by: slf at March 2, 2004 at 07:53 AM
Once again, it is shown how the moronic liberal media corrupt every single thing they report.
They don't say that the recession started under Clinton, they won't say Kerry is a bankrupt (morally) liberal who voted time and time again to make this country weaker in the military and intelligence and who takes lobbyist money but condemns it, and they won't say that the Democrats have absolutely no plan to do anything except to beat George W. Bush.
I have said it once and I will say it again: a vote for John Kerry and the Democrats this November is a vote to sign the surrender papers to Osama bin Laden.
Posted by: James Parker at March 2, 2004 at 07:59 AM
You liberals are totally stupid and wrong. Bush's economy is creating millions of new manufacturing jobs at McDonalds and Burger King right now! The proud employees of those companies don';t have Helath Insurance becasue they DON't WANT IT! It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that liberal media that hand-held the public through the Iraq war - and credulously reported every rumor fed to it by the administration - is trying to ruin our greatest president by painting him as a loser on jobs. If it was not for Bush, the stock market would not be blistering hot. I just wish I made enough money in my programming job to afford to buy some stock - since my employer froze out matching funds for our 401K. In any case, I am proud to support George Bush.
What do the Demoncrpas have anyway? No ideas and stupid ideas. They want a national healthcare system - what communists. Some of them did not want us to go into Iraq - stupid liberals. They want to repeal bush's tax cuts - and repeal the astounding growth along with it. they want to add all kinds of costly rgulations to industry - what are they? Communistic simpletons.
We don't need any sort of communistic national Healthcare plan. Private industry is already providing a great service at a low price. I don't mind my premiums going up by 250% every year while my deductible grows faster than my salary. I know that when I need service, I can find at least 1 doctor within 150 miles that my PPo will work with.
We needed to attack Iraq. obviously Saddam Hussein hid all his weapons really well - but I know we will find them - and those liberals will be sorry. Besides, soon all that iraqi oil will be flowing to the pumps - and our gas will get cheaper and cheaper.
Why do those liberals want to repeal the tax cuts? i don't know. I think they just hate average Americans and they hate that Geroge Bush gave us back our money so that we could spend it how we saw fit. i used mine to pay for my property tax - it was able to pay off a good 40% of that. Our liberal governor had the gaul to increase our property taxes - just to mess up President Bush's plans. My friends, the liberals are destroying America.
They moan about deficits - well, duh - the deficits will be gone in a few years after we are all made rich by astounding growth. They moan about a sinking dollar. They seem to think that the increased crude oil costs becasue of poor dollar conversion will dull the incredible economic boast the shareholders of American exporters get. I mean, come on - when those expporters move their businesses to India, they are saving a ton of money - which translates to more Hummers and more Rolexs at home!
Liberal hate America cause they don't like anyone to be free. They want us all to moan about how horrible everything is - when in fact - compared to Haiti, our country is doing fantasitcally.
you see, it's all relative!
GWBush in 2004!
Big Brother in 2008!
Posted by: SCOTT FANETTI at March 2, 2004 at 08:05 AM
The phony benchmark behind CNN's jobs spin is the unsustainably high employment numbers produced by the Fed-generated artificial boom of the late 1990's -- with businesses in a frenzy to anyone and everyone for jobs which had no chance of being permanent. The best explanation of this artificial Fed-generated boom and bust comes from economist Roger Garrison.
Posted by: PrestoPundit at March 2, 2004 at 08:15 AM
Dwayne,
Going to your Reuters' story, I noticed the following quote:
'Chicago Fed President Michael Moskow expects "very strong" job growth in 2004, though economic slack, which means fairly high unemployment and unused factory capacity, could persist for "some time."
Two things here: First, "very strong" job growth is expected in 2004. If this means 200k/month is yet to be seen, but it certainly means something. However, we've been seeing strong showings in the manufacturing sector over the past nine months. This is only one example, but the unemployment trend has been downward. Economic growth has been strong and constant. I don't see any reason for the unemployment rate not to decrease.
Second, the reporter refers to 5.6% unemployment as "fairly high unemployment." Your arguement is that the unemployment rate is an unimportant indicator because it fails to account for an "extremely weak job market." Fair enough, please show me then the quantifiable data which is able to distinguish job seekers and those who have given up. What can you present to prove to me that the jobs being created are significantly worse, in pay, benefits, etc... matched to a reliable index? Could you please explain to me how jobs being created for the long term (as it seems reasonable to assume) are worse than those created in a bubble?
I will admit that the job situation looks worse than in 2000, but remember that Bush managed to beat Gore, despite that economy. John Kerry is not the successor to Clinton. This economy is not bad enough to give him a decisive edge over Bush, and I don't see this being the tipping point for independents.
Posted by: sobotkaj at March 2, 2004 at 08:20 AM
I don't get it. I mean, why did they fuck with the formula? Where are the car songs? There's only one song about surfing and it's a downer!
Linear Mode
