Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/3/2004 4:29:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 4:29:40 AM EST by Cincinnatus]
U.S. Economy Added 144,000 Jobs in August
By REUTERS

Published: September 3, 2004


WASHINGTON(Reuters) - The U.S. job market brightened in August as employers added 144,000 workers to their payrolls and hiring totals for the two prior months were revised up, the Labor Department reported on Friday.

With the economy growing in importance as an issue in November presidential elections, the department said the August unemployment rate dropped to 5.4 percent from 5.5 percent in July. It was the lowest rate since a matching 5.4 percent in October 2001 and was certain to be cited by President George W. Bush as a sign that his tax cuts have helped stimulate economic activity....




Last

Nail­

Kerry's




Coffin


Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:32:29 AM EST
Bush could lose.

The AWB could be extended.

The Saints could win the Super Bowl.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:34:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 4:37:30 AM EST by sterling18]

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Bush could lose.

The AWB could be extended.

The Saints could win the Super Bowl.



Isaac Hayes in the background.

[shaft]Bush is one bad Mother ---- Shut your mouth[shaft]

[shaft]Just talking about Bush[shaft]
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:38:09 AM EST
I don't follow the unemployment rate. I've been working at the same company for 11 years, right out of college, and I feel very stable. Our last couple years have seen record growth.

That said, 5.4% (or even 5.5%) seems plenty low to me. What percentage of people don't WANT to work? Is that accounted for?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:44:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 4:45:20 AM EST by Carbine_Man]
WOOOOT!! WOOOOT! WOOOOT! Now hear this! Now hear this! John Kerry's swift boat going down! I repeat, John Kerry's swift boat going down! Kommander Kerry last seen firing wildly into the bushes with spitballs! Standby!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:46:18 AM EST
Actually, I anticipate many more nails in his coffin.

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:47:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Bush could lose.

The AWB could be extended.

The Saints could win the Super Bowl.



The Cubs could play the Red Sox in the World Series.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:48:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Bush could lose.

The AWB could be extended.

The Saints could win the Super Bowl.



The Cubs could play the Red Sox in the World Series.




Yeah...and I will be Moderator of GD some day

Sgatr15


Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:49:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Bush could lose.

The AWB could be extended.

The Saints could win the Super Bowl.



The Cubs could play the Red Sox in the World Series.



...and then the Sox could Win!



(Before any of you Mass folks lock and load, I'm a sox fan)
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:49:36 AM EST
I heard a little of John Kerry's "rebuttal" speech last night. He said that RNC stands for "Really Not Compassionate". All I could think of was President Bush's face when he was talking about his meetings with people who "had recieved a folded flag".

All I heard from Bush and Cheney was a positive plan for the future of this country, and a contrast of political records between Bush and Kerry. All I heard from Kerry was "I was in Vietnam, I'm a war hero!"

John Kerry is toast!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:51:43 AM EST
Two months is a long time, but somehow, I just see Kerry digging a deeper hole. Kerry is running around demanding the respect for his Vietnam service that he denied to all of his fellow veterans. I don't think that's going to work for him. His position on the important issues of today is murky as hell. For the past year, he hasn't even been a part of the process.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:57:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 4:57:37 AM EST by Cincinnatus]
Having EVERY SINGLE speaker before Bush, all week, savage Kerry, was genius.

Remember 911.

Kerry is a joke.



That was the message.


Kerry is an idiot.
He holds a MIDNIGHT press conference, where he ONCE AGAIN WHINES about Bush and Cheney criticizing his Vietnam service.
But they didn't mention it, except to praise it.
Does he think that NO ONE watched the President speak?

(psssssst..... hey John... no one watched YOU)
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:00:44 AM EST
Seriously, WTF would anyone vote for sKerry? I just don't understand the logic, or lack of....
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:06:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Kerry is an idiot.
He holds a MIDNIGHT press conference, where he ONCE AGAIN WHINES about Bush and Cheney criticizing his Vietnam service.
But they didn't mention it, except to praise it.
Does he think that NO ONE watched the President speak?



Amen, brother. I heard 15 seconds of Kerry last night, and I've seen children whine with less force than he did.

He got kicked in the nuts and knows it.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:11:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
... Kerry is running around demanding the respect for his Vietnam service that he denied to all of his fellow veterans. I don't think that's going to work for him....



Bullseye.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:18:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 5:18:39 AM EST by wetidlerjr]

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
I don't follow the unemployment rate. I've been working at the same company for 11 years, right out of college, and I feel very stable. Our last couple years have seen record growth.

That said, 5.4% (or even 5.5%) seems plenty low to me. What percentage of people don't WANT to work? Is that accounted for?



What percentage of people are still unemployed but not shown in that figure ?


The Bureau of Labor Statistical Magic

First, some would argue that we should not be whining about unemployment. It is, after all, only 5.6%, which is historically not all that high. But current headline Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates are not the whole story. The magic of statistics is that if you get to define the terms, you can make the numbers say what you want them to say.

No great conspiracy here, but the unemployment numbers are developed in such a way that unemployment is understated. If there was some conspiracy, we would not be able to look at the detailed way in which the numbers are developed. The fact that most commentators do not look beyond the headline number is not a conspiracy. It is laziness. Big difference.

The unemployment numbers are useful as they give us a direction of employment, which has been improving, and a basis for historical comparison. But there is more when you look at the underlying actual numbers that make up the statistics and how they are counted.

For instance, the BLS does not include people in the category of unemployed who want a job but have not looked for one in the last four weeks. If you add in the people who want a job but are not counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate goes up to 8.8%.

There are also 4.4 million people who are working part-time but would like a full time job. If you add those in also, we have 11.8% of the population who are unemployed or are under-employed.

But the statistics are even more ambiguous than that. If you look at the actual numbers for February 2004 (www.bls.gov) you find that the total number of people classified as unemployed went down by 127,000. Doesn't that mean we created 127,000 jobs?

The answer is no. Let me throw you some odd statistics. First, since November, the actual labor force (according to the BLS) has dropped by over 700,000, even though the population rose. The number of people actually employed dropped by a seasonally adjusted 265,000. The number of people who are now considered not in the workforce rose by over 500,000.

Yes, in the world of government statistics, we can have a rising population, the number of employed go down and still see the unemployment rate drop. We simply use a definition for unemployed which ignores many of those who are in fact unemployed and would like a job.

The number of people not in the work force has risen by almost 1.7 million in the last year. Part of the rise in the number of people not in the labor force is due to retirement, going back to school and other natural forces, but a significant part is simply reclassifying people as not part of the labor force because they have not looked for a job in the last four weeks. The labor participation rate is 62.2%, down by 0.2% from this time one year ago, yet supposedly the unemployment rate has dropped almost 1%.

John Mauldin 03-06-2004



Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:18:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 5:19:08 AM EST by JCKnife]
Someone tell me why this is a fucking AP NEWS story instead of an Op. Ed. column?

abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040903_315.html

DNC damage control hard at work!

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:21:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:
For instance, the BLS does not include people in the category of unemployed who want a job but have not looked for one in the last four weeks. If you add in the people who want a job but are not counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate goes up to 8.8%.



Lazy turds like this are unemployable and should not be counted.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:25:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
I don't follow the unemployment rate. I've been working at the same company for 11 years, right out of college, and I feel very stable. Our last couple years have seen record growth.

That said, 5.4% (or even 5.5%) seems plenty low to me. What percentage of people don't WANT to work? Is that accounted for?



What percentage of people are still unemployed but not shown in that figure ?


The Bureau of Labor Statistical Magic

First, some would argue that we should not be whining about unemployment. It is, after all, only 5.6%, which is historically not all that high. But current headline Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates are not the whole story. The magic of statistics is that if you get to define the terms, you can make the numbers say what you want them to say.

No great conspiracy here, but the unemployment numbers are developed in such a way that unemployment is understated. If there was some conspiracy, we would not be able to look at the detailed way in which the numbers are developed. The fact that most commentators do not look beyond the headline number is not a conspiracy. It is laziness. Big difference.

The unemployment numbers are useful as they give us a direction of employment, which has been improving, and a basis for historical comparison. But there is more when you look at the underlying actual numbers that make up the statistics and how they are counted.

For instance, the BLS does not include people in the category of unemployed who want a job but have not looked for one in the last four weeks. If you add in the people who want a job but are not counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate goes up to 8.8%.

There are also 4.4 million people who are working part-time but would like a full time job. If you add those in also, we have 11.8% of the population who are unemployed or are under-employed.

But the statistics are even more ambiguous than that. If you look at the actual numbers for February 2004 (www.bls.gov) you find that the total number of people classified as unemployed went down by 127,000. Doesn't that mean we created 127,000 jobs?

The answer is no. Let me throw you some odd statistics. First, since November, the actual labor force (according to the BLS) has dropped by over 700,000, even though the population rose. The number of people actually employed dropped by a seasonally adjusted 265,000. The number of people who are now considered not in the workforce rose by over 500,000.

Yes, in the world of government statistics, we can have a rising population, the number of employed go down and still see the unemployment rate drop. We simply use a definition for unemployed which ignores many of those who are in fact unemployed and would like a job.

The number of people not in the work force has risen by almost 1.7 million in the last year. Part of the rise in the number of people not in the labor force is due to retirement, going back to school and other natural forces, but a significant part is simply reclassifying people as not part of the labor force because they have not looked for a job in the last four weeks. The labor participation rate is 62.2%, down by 0.2% from this time one year ago, yet supposedly the unemployment rate has dropped almost 1%.

John Mauldin 03-06-2004






Nothing new there. It has always been that way.

So, are you voting for Bush in November?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:25:58 AM EST
How can you want a job, yet not look for one for over four weeks?!!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:43:52 AM EST
Shiftless?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:46:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By pen:
How can you want a job, yet not look for one for over four weeks?!!



NO SHIT!

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:11:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

He (Kerry) got kicked in the nuts and knows it.



Line of the day! LOL! Preach it!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:12:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 6:14:26 AM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
I don't follow the unemployment rate. I've been working at the same company for 11 years, right out of college, and I feel very stable. Our last couple years have seen record growth.

That said, 5.4% (or even 5.5%) seems plenty low to me. What percentage of people don't WANT to work? Is that accounted for?



What percentage of people are still unemployed but not shown in that figure ?

The Bureau of Labor Statistical Magic

First... blah-blah-blah...
.
.
.
If you add in the people who want a job but are not counted as unemployed, the unemployment rate goes up to 8.8%. [A statistical-gimmick that was NEVER used in criticising the unemployment rates of the 80's or 90's]
.
.
.
But the statistics are even more ambiguous than that. If you look at the actual numbers for February 2004 (www.bls.gov) you find that the total number of people classified as unemployed went down by 127,000. Doesn't that mean we created 127,000 jobs?

The answer is no. Let me throw you some odd statistics. First, since November [of 2003], the actual labor force (according to the BLS) has dropped by over 700,000, even though the population rose. The number of people actually employed dropped by a seasonally adjusted 265,000. The number of people who are now considered not in the workforce rose by over 500,000.
.
.
.
The number of people not in the work force has risen by almost 1.7 million in the last year. Part of the rise in the number of people not in the labor force is due to retirement, going back to school and other natural forces, but a significant part is simply reclassifying people as not part of the labor force because they have not looked for a job in the last four weeks. The labor participation rate is 62.2%, down by 0.2% from this time one year ago, yet supposedly the unemployment rate has dropped almost 1%.

John Mauldin 03-06-2004


What the FUCK!?!??

You're dragging out a SIX-MONTH OLD editorial which refers to data from TEN MONTHS AGO in order to comment on economic data from YESTERDAY!??!??

WHAT A FRICKING DORK!!!



Hey - here's some statistics for you to chew on:


Number Of Americans Not in Labor Force But Who Want a Job Now

* August 1996 - 5,461,000 (Clinton's re-election)
* August 2004 - 4,844,000 (GWBush's re-election)


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics


Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:17:33 AM EST
At that rate, there would be 1.7 million jobs added per year, which translates into a labor shortage a year from now requiring about 1 million more illegals.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:23:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
John Mauldin 03-06-2004

What the FUCK!?!??

You're dragging out a SIX-MONTH OLD editorial which refers to data from TEN MONTHS AGO in order to comment on economic data from YESTERDAY!??!??

WHAT A FRICKING DORK!!!



It's all he can do...he has no real data to back up his unreasoning hatred.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:30:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

He got kicked in the nuts and knows it.



Actually to know it would require a set of nuts in the first place, which Kerry has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn't have.

SG
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:37:04 AM EST
Does anyone know where, or even if, TV ratings data is available for all nights of both the DNC and the RNC? I suspect Bush had a significantly larger audience, and hopefully reached far more fence-sitters.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:38:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Bush could lose.

The AWB could be extended.

The Saints could win the Super Bowl.


Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:41:45 AM EST
OT: -Absolut-'s sig makes me all warm and happy.

Every day in every way it's getting better and better.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:43:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
OT: -Absolut-'s sig makes me all warm and happy.

Every day in every way it's getting better and better.

SINGLE DIGITS!!!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:46:06 AM EST
My favorite portion of the speech..

“The people we have freed won't forget either. Not long ago, seven Iraqi men came to see me in the Oval Office. They had "X"s branded into their foreheads, and their right hands had been cut off, by Saddam Hussein's secret police, the sadistic punishment for imaginary crimes. During our emotional visit one of the Iraqi men used his new prosthetic hand to slowly write out, in Arabic, a prayer for God to bless America. I am proud that our country remains the hope of the oppressed, and the greatest force for good on this earth.”

Awesome, moving moment.


FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:47:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
Someone tell me why this is a fucking AP NEWS story instead of an Op. Ed. column?

abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040903_315.html

DNC damage control hard at work!




And the DU says the media is right wing!

But the United States has more than five times the number of troops in Iraq than all the other countries put together. And, with 976 killed, Americans have suffered nearly eight times more deaths than the other allies combined.

Isn't that the way it always is with our military? How about when we saved Europe -- TWICE! I'm pretty sure many more americans took part in Normandy than Brits or Frenchies.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 7:47:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 7:49:16 AM EST by wetidlerjr]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
]What the FUCK!?!??

You're dragging out a SIX-MONTH OLD editorial which refers to data from TEN MONTHS AGO in order to comment on economic data from YESTERDAY!??!??

WHAT A FRICKING DORK!!!



Hey - here's some statistics for you to chew on:

Number Of Americans Not in Labor Force But Who Want a Job Now

* August 1996 - 5,461,000 (Clinton's re-election)
* August 2004 - 4,844,000 (GWBush's re-election)


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics





Read it again, ASSHAT. It explains how the unemployment rate is manipulated and I included the date so anyone besides a dumb ass (like you, apparently) would know that the figures given are NOT the recent ones. For someone that thinks he has a handle on things, you sure need to "get a grip".

Other than that, "Have a nice day!"
Top Top