Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Economic growth figures rigged?

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Economic growth figures rigged?
  • Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:40:40 -0400


On Apr 12, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Tony Spencer wrote:

Job growth is poor? Perhaps you didn't see the numbers for March and the
revised numbers for January and February.

In 2001 and 2002 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov, the combined net job loss was 11,130,000. That's eleven million jobs gone. You can look it up yourself just as I did.

They haven't published the actual revised figures from the 1st quarter of 2003 so I can't comment, but the original 1st quarter figures as published on the BLS website was for a net job loss of 658,000 in the 1st quarter of 2003.

When you're dealing with large numbers, its easy to get excited, but you have to remember that the point is to compare the job growth figures with what we should have. The reason its called a "jobless recovery" is the job growth is less than half what you'd expect IF the economy was in a recovery given the reported increase in the gross domestic product.

Here's the table I calculated for the last few years:

Net Job Gain/Loss
2000: +1,961,000
2001: -10,774,000
2002:-356,000
2003: (1Q) -658,000
________________________________________________________________________ _________
If you put up a large switch in a cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying "End-
of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH", the paint wouldn't even have time
to dry. -- Pratchett
-- michael at czeiszperger dot org, Chapel Hill, NC





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page