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: Thomas Beckett <thomas AT tbeckett.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Economic growth figures rigged?
  • Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:37:45 -0400

Tony Spencer wrote:
Read the report:
<http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm>

" Payroll job growth was fairly widespread, as construction employment rose sharply and several major service-providing industries also * added jobs * . "

The report says that 308,000 jobs were added to the economy, while unemployment was "about unchanged" at 5.7%. "About" in this instance means up a tenth, from 5.6%.

Many of those counted as employed are only working part-time:

"In March, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons increased to 4.7 million, about the same level as in January. These individuals indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time jobs."

And then there are half a million "discouraged workers", folks who have given up on finding work altogether. That's what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. So while the one number, 308,000 new jobs, looks good, on the whole things are pretty lackluster.

Tony Spencer wrote:
> Well that is true but new jobs have been created every month for the
> past 7 months. Economists are now predicting growth of about 150,000
> jobs over the next several months, rising to 200,000 by the end of the
> year. Unemployment claims are at the lowest level in over 3 years.

We would need four (or three, depending on who's counting) years straight of 300K/month job growth to get us back to where when W took office. 150-200,000 jobs a month barely keeps up with the population increase.

BTW, I believe that the BLS derives these numbers by doing surveys of households, as opposed to aggregating state unemployment claims, etc. So I think that people who have run out of unemployment benefits but are still actively looking would be counted among the unemployed by the BLS.

I also cringe when I hear about job loss due to increased productivity from American workers. That essentially means that fewer people are doing more work -- the workload of the laid off -- for the same or less money. People working desperately hard so as not to get laid off themselves.

In my mind, the absence of recession does not make a recovery. A "limping along" more like. It is nice that the stock market is having a recovery, but for ordinary people there's no good news.

In conclusion, I congratulate George W. Bush for, in the last year of his term of office, having the least horrifically bad employment indicators of his entire presidency.

TaB





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page