Bush speaks of job growth, endorses fuzzy math

[chrischross]

David Huether, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said he had heard that some economists wanted to count hamburger flipping as manufacturing, which he noted would produce statistics showing more jobs in what has been a declining sector of the economy.

That's the key graph right there. Buried at the very end of the story. Manufacturing employment has declined for 42 straight months. These guys are amazing.

[Rspaight]

Cheney on Kerry's economic statements:

"If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years, the kind of tax increases that both Kerry and Edwards have talked about, we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had," Cheney said.

1) What tax increases? The Dems are talking about getting rid of some of Bush's fiscally catastrophic tax cuts. Starting from a 2001 baseline, no increases would have been needed.

2) What job growth? The highly *negative* job growth? In that case, he's right -- we may have actually gained jobs without Bush in the driver's seat...

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Well, Februrary didn't do much to build toward that 2.6 million. *Well* short of what was expected...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Nonfarm employment was little changed (+21,000) in February, and the
unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Employment levels in most
of the major industries were little changed over the month.

Plus, the 112,000 last month has apparently been revised down to 97,000. ( http://briefing.com/Silver/Calendars/Ec ... lendar.htm )

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Digging deeper into the numbers, we find that private sector jobs actually posted no gain. The 21,000 newjobs were all government. That sound you hear is the heads of "real" conservatives exploding all over the country.

Plus, even the crappy 16,000 in December was revised down to 8,000.

February Job Growth Surprisingly Weak
Fri Mar 5, 9:22 AM ET Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers added a paltry 21,000 workers to their payrolls last month, according to a surprisingly weak government report on Friday that appeared certain to weigh on President Bush as he seeks re-election.

The Labor Department's report said private-sector employment was unchanged in February, while the government added 21,000 workers.

The report also showed job creation in December and January was weaker than previously thought, adding to the gloomy tone of the report. The department revised lower its count of jobs gains in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and for December to just 8,000 from 16,000.

February's unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent, as people dropping out of the labor force offset the impact of plummeting employment as measured by a separate survey of households.

Economists at top Wall Street firms had forecast a February payrolls gain of 125,000 new jobs and the market reaction was quick and sharp. Prices for U.S. Treasury bonds shot up, sending interest rates lower, as investors viewed the report as pushing back the day the Federal Reserve will raise borrowing costs.

The dollar weakened and U.S. equity futures dropped, pointing to a poor stock market opening.

"This is a terribly disappointing report," said Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania. "The economy clearly needs to see better job growth to support consumer spending."

Over the last three months, employment has risen an average of just 42,000 per month, down from the 79,000 average of the prior three months. It is also far short of the 150,000 or so jobs needed each month just to keep pace with growth in the labor force.

Employment in construction tumbled by 24,000 in February, while the factory sector shed 3,000 workers, the 43rd consecutive monthly drop. The service sector also proved surprisingly weak, creating only 46,000 new positions.

Democrats have hit Bush hard for presiding over the weakest period of jobs creation for any president since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression.

The Bush administration released a forecast early last month that looked for average job growth of about 300,000 jobs a month this year -- well above most private forecasts. But with each disappointing jobs report, that projection looks increasingly pie-in-the-sky.

To a great degree, businesses have found a way to boost output without taking on new workers.

"At this time in the cycle, businesses are extremely cautious about hiring, and they are extremely focused on productivity gains," said Kurt Karl, chief economist at Swiss Re in New York.

But many economists think these productivity gains will soon give way to more hiring, although expectations for bigger labor-market gains have been repeatedly dashed.

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said last month there were "encouraging signs of late that the labor market is improving."

"In all likelihood, employment will begin to increase more quickly before long as output continues to expand," he said.

Economists say the Fed needs to see more robust jobs creation before feeling comfortable with bumping up overnight interest rates from their current 1958 low of 1 percent -- a level Fed officials have warned cannot be maintained forever.

"As the patient begins to recover ... there is a need to recalibrate the dosage or to stop prescribing it entirely to avoid potential side effects," Atlanta Fed President Jack Guynn said on Thursday, referring to the central bank's policy stance.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

U.S. Firms Add 308K New Jobs in March

By Leigh Strope
AP Labor Writer
Friday, April 2, 2004; 8:51 AM

The nation's unemployment rate bumped up to 5.7 percent in March while companies added 308,000 new jobs -- the most in four years, providing long-awaited evidence that the weak jobs market may be gaining steam.

The Labor Department report released Friday showed widespread hiring in industries across the economy at a time when President Bush's re-election campaign, counting heavily on a pickup in hiring, jumped into high gear.

For the first time in 44 months, the nation's factories did not shed jobs. But they weren't hiring either. March's figures show zero gains and losses for industries hammered by the economic downturn that began three years ago. The only sector losing jobs last month was information services, where companies cut about 1,000 jobs.

Revisions to payrolls showed a stronger jobs market than previously thought. Companies added 205,000 jobs in January and February, instead of the 118,000 reported last month.

The civilian unemployment rate, however, ticked up 0.1 percentage point from 5.6 percent in February. That occurred because more job seekers renewed their searches last month, but were unsuccessful.

The health of the nation's economy, especially the job climate, is a major issue in this year's presidential race. The economy has lost almost 2 million jobs since Bush took office in January 2001.

The economy rebounded strongly after the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks. But job creation didn't follow, and hiring remained at a standstill. That appears to be changing. Businesses have added to their payrolls -- however slightly -- for seven straight months.

But for out-of-work Americans, the economic rebound has been frustratingly slow. In March, there were 8.35 million people unemployed, compared with 8.17 million the previous month. The average duration of unemployment has been more than 20 weeks, a 20-year high.

Jobless workers are increasingly accepting part-time work. The number of people who worked part time for economic reasons rose to 4.7 million in March, up from 4.4 million the previous month.

[Rspaight]

Up by 288,000 in April:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Less than half what was expected in June (anaylsts were expecting 250K, got 112K). It's generally accepted that an increase of 140K is needed just to keep pace with population growth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jul2.html

Ryan

[Rspaight]

A paltry 32K in July, and June revised down to 78K.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Ryan

[Patrick M]

From the New Mexico rally, 8/26:

Because we acted, our economy since last summer has grown at a rate as fast as any in nearly 20 years. Since last August, we've added about 1.5 million new jobs.

[Rspaight]

A mediocre 144,000 added in August -- just enough to keep pace with the increase in job-seekers. The total workforce is now 1.7 million short of Bush's projection from February.

Of course, the Bush-friendly media is reporting this as a "jobs surge" that will help Bush's campaign.

Ryan

[lukpac]

September 6, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
An Economy That Turns American Values Upside Down
By BOB HERBERT

The Labor Department reported last week that 144,000 payroll jobs were created in August. Let's put that in perspective.

The number was below market forecasts. It was also below the number of jobs needed to accommodate the growth in the employment-aged population. In short, this was not good news. It's only by the diminished job-creation standards that have prevailed since the last recession that any positive spin could be put on last month's performance.

As the Economic Policy Institute tells us, in a book-length report it is releasing today: "The United States has been tracking employment statistics since 1939, and never in history has it taken this long to regain the jobs lost over a downturn."

In "The State of Working America 2004/2005," the institute shows in tremendous detail how those lost jobs and other disappointing aspects of the recovery are taking a severe economic toll on working families.

According to the institute:

"After almost three years of recovery, our job market is still too weak to broadly distribute the benefits of the growing economy. Unemployment is essentially unchanged, job growth has stalled, and real wages have started to fall behind inflation. Today's picture is a stark contrast to the full employment period before the recession, when the tight labor market ensured that the benefits of growth were broadly shared.

"Prolonged weakness in the labor market has left the nation with over a million fewer jobs than when the recession began. This is a worse position, in terms of recouping lost jobs, than any business cycle since the 1930's."

What is happening is nothing less than a deterioration in the standard of living in the United States. Despite the statistical growth in the economy, the continued slack in the labor market has resulted in declining real wages for anxious American workers and a marked deterioration in job quality.

From 2000 through 2003 the median household income fell by $1,500 (in 2003 dollars) - a significant 3.4 percent decrease. That information becomes startling when you consider that during the same period there was a strong 12 percent increase in productivity among U.S. workers. Economists will tell you that productivity increases go hand-in-hand with increases in the standard of living. But not this time. Here we have a 3.4 percent loss in real income juxtaposed with a big jump in productivity.

"So the economic pie is growing gangbusters and the typical household is falling behind," said Jared Bernstein, the institute's senior economist and a co-author of the new book.

This is the part of the story that spotlights the unfairness at the heart of the current economic setup in the U.S. While workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, they have not participated in the benefits of their own increased productivity. That doesn't sound very much like the American way.

According to the institute, "Between 1947 and 1973 productivity and real median family income both grew 104 percent, a golden age of growth for both variables." That parallel relationship began to break down in the 1970's, but it is only recently that it fell apart altogether, leaving us with the following evidence of unrestrained inequity:

"In the 2000-03 period income shifted extremely rapidly and extensively from labor compensation to capital income (profits and interest)," so that the "benefits of faster productivity growth" went overwhelmingly to capital.

American workers are in an increasingly defensive position. In a tight labor market, when jobs are plentiful, workers have leverage and can demand increased wages and benefits. But today's workers have lost power in many different ways - through the slack labor market, government policies that favor corporate interests, the weakening of unions, the growth of lower-paying service industries, global trade, capital mobility, the declining real value of the minimum wage, immigration and so on.

The end result of all this is a portrait of American families struggling just to hang on, rather than to get ahead. The benefits of productivity gains and economic growth are flowing to profits, not worker compensation. The fat cats are getting fatter, while workers, at least for the time being, are watching the curtain come down on the heralded American dream.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[lukpac]

Bush policies give workers an unhappy Labor Day
Posted: Sept. 4, 2004

Gregory Stanford

The plight of working stiffs has worsened under President Bush - a fact lost in the sound and the fury of the Republican National Convention.

Jobs are down. Wages are almost flat. Jitters over health insurance are up. And the Bush people have weakened the right to overtime for some workers. All in all, Labor Day finds little reason for cheer.

Oh, yes, the monthly federal jobs report came out Friday with a bit of good news: Jobs rose by 144,000 in August. What's more, federal labor statisticians pushed upward the tepid numbers for the previous two months.

The White House likes to cite such developments as proof that the president's tax cuts are working. Such nonsense littered the convention.

The claim is like the Milwaukee Brewers' arguing that Tuesday night's victory over Pittsburgh shows that the team's strategy for taking the pennant is on track. The team would never make such a claim, of course. That victory, you may recall, broke a 12-game losing streak.

Despite August's rosy numbers, the nation has still lost, under Bush's watch, more jobs than it gained. His term remains in danger of being the first since Herbert Hoover's with a net job loss. The current deficit: 800,000 jobs.

Against another measure, the predictions of his economic advisers, the gap is even wider. They had promised that his economic strategy would yield 4.3 million new jobs over the last 14 months. The economy fell short by a whopping 2.7 million jobs, notes the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

In Wisconsin, jobs have grown, but by a mere one-tenth of 1% since the recession's start, according to the institute - not enough to keep up with the 3.5% growth in the working-age population.

And the White House can thank big government for keeping the numbers from being even worse. The private sector has lost 1.7 million jobs since the start of the recession, in March of 2001. Growth in the public sector has offset much of that loss. Such harsh reality, of course, did not intrude on the Republican confab.

Remember, employment must keep expanding just to keep up with population increases. Slow job growth makes jobs insecure, keeps pay raises small, boosts the ranks of the poor, hurts the ability of communities of color to close the racial gap.

Another think tank has weighed in on the troubling plight of working stiffs this Labor Day. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found tepid growth in pay, but unusually large gains in corporate profits.

The center, which monitors the impact of public policies on workers and poor people, analyzed recently released federal census data. During this recovery, total wages are growing at less than 1% a year in America, whereas total profits are rising at 14% a year. In contrast, in previous recessions on average, wages grew at the rate of 5% a year and profits at the rate of 12% a year.

In other words, the recovery is indeed leading to economic gains, but for fat cats in pin stripes (OK, they may go to the gym and dress casual now, but you get the gist), not working stiffs.

This Labor Day, health insurance worries loom large. In 2003, 56% of workers who worked at least 20 hours a week for half the year had health insurance through their employers, down from 59% in 2000, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Health insurance continues to sap the economy in other ways. Employers, cognizant of the rising costs of providing these benefits, are leery of adding positions. A new employee means more health costs for the employer.

The Bush administration is committing sins of omission and commission. It won't lift a finger to raise the minimum wage, for instance. A hike would boost wages in general at the bottom of the income scale.

It changed overtime regulations to guarantee the right to extra pay for extra work to hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers who now lack such assurance at the same time it seems to have taken away that guarantee from millions of other toilers.

And its tax relief, as most experts will tell you, was skewed toward the wealthy - meaning the working stiffs didn't make up for their stagnant wages with such relief.

Yes, pointing out that workers are not faring all that well this Labor Day makes me a girlie man.

So be it.

[lukpac]

No matter...the economy is STRONG.

Posted on Mon, Sep. 06, 2004

LABOR MARKET BOUNCING BACK

By Mark J. Perry

As we celebrate their economic achievements on Labor Day, American workers can be proud that they are the most productive in the world. Workers can also be thankful that there is overwhelming evidence that the labor market has improved significantly since last Labor Day, and will likely continue to improve.

Measured by output per person, no country in the world even comes close to matching the productivity of American workers -- they will produce 30 percent of global output this year with only 5 percent of the world's labor force.

Japanese workers are only 74 percent as productive as American workers, and European workers are only 84 percent as productive.

Highest wages

The world-class productivity of American workers also means they have the highest wages, the most stable employment and the highest standard of living in the world. Because their productivity is so much lower, the income and standard of living of an average European worker is about on par with workers in America's poorest state, Mississippi. Europeans are also twice as likely to be unemployed as our workers.

And economic conditions keep getting better for the U.S. workforce.

Since Labor Day 2003, the unemployment rate has declined in all but one state, and the employment picture is so strong that three states set record-low jobless rates this year.

Unemployed workers are also finding it easier to find jobs this year -- the median number of weeks unemployed is the lowest since 2001, and is two weeks shorter than last year. The number of discouraged workers as a percentage of the labor force is lower now than during the corresponding period of the last economic expansion.

Retail sales up

The strong labor market conditions and surging confidence have sent American workers on the biggest spending spree ever -- consumers spent more on retails sales in July than in any single other month in U.S. history. Retail sales since last Labor Day are up by 7 percent.

Record-low interest rates and the improving economy also boosted both home sales and the home-ownership rate to all-time highs in 2004.

Improvements for workers since last Labor Day have been so positive, that for the first time in the current economic expansion that officially started in November 2001, we can say that the labor market has made its long-awaited comeback.

MARK J. PERRY is an economist at the University of Michigan-Flint.

[Patrick M]

Despite August's rosy numbers, the nation has still lost, under Bush's watch, more jobs than it gained. His term remains in danger of being the first since Herbert Hoover's with a net job loss. The current deficit: 800,000 jobs.

WRONG!

The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush

Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004

The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim.

One little problem: It's not true.

Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses.

While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America’s economy has been steadily creating jobs.

At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. And though the eight-month recession “officially” ended in November, economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery.

The signs:

# The 5.6 percent unemployment rate is the lowest in two years and below the average of the 1980s (7.3 percent) and '90s (5.8 percent), and still continues to drop.

# The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000, and the number of so-called discouraged workers is less than .3 percent of the workforce, according to Paul Kersey of the Heritage Foundation.

# Consumer spending grew between 4 percent and 5 percent last year, and real hourly earnings rose 1.5 percent. Real earnings have risen over the last three years.

# Exports doubled to 19 percent in the fourth quarter, compared to less than 9 percent in the third.

# The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history.

# Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling.

# Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing.

# Productivity growth is extremely high.

Now the doomsayers are criticizing the validity of the unemployment rate, which at 5.6 percent does not fit their gloomy story.

Faulty Counting

The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all.

Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.

But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.

People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office.

As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey."

Credit Where Credit Is Due

That’s not all. When doomsayers, and media spoiling for a fight in an election year, laughed at Bush’s prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, not everyone was scoffing.

Ahmed, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others hardly batted an eye. Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels.

"I don't think it's 'Fantasyland,'" Greenspan said.

"I agree with him," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. "I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year."

Ahmed is convinced that "the revision patterns of the early-1990s recovery cycle" will be repeated. A total of 1.4 million job gains were revised upward to 2.9 million in the first 21 months after the end of the last recession, just after Bush Sr. was voted out of office.

Next: If elected, will John Kerry get credit for the jobs created under the Bush administration? And find out why so many workers are not being counted.

[Dob]

"The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000, and the number of so-called discouraged workers is less than .3 percent of the workforce, according to Paul Kersey of the Heritage Foundation."

The Heritage Foundation is a tax-exempt "front group" (one of many) created and run by conservatives. Its purpose is to aggressively push GOP rhetoric, candidates, and issues. I wouldn't trust any of their cooked and massaged numbers.

"Real earnings have risen over the last three years."

I hardly think that having earnings rise (barely) over the past three years is something to crow about.

"The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history."

No sh*t, Sherlock. Is that because the population of the US is also at an all-time high? Next you'll be telling us that we're earning more (non-inflation adjusted) dollars than ever before.

"Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling."

Hmmm...25 years. That takes us back to 1980, which was a nasty recession. I wonder how the jobless claims compare to the average of the last 10 years, which is a much more realistic time period.

"Productivity growth is extremely high."

Sure is...thanks to the tiny US wages and microscopic overseas wages paid by companies like Wal-Mart (the single most dominant company in the US) and hedonic adjustments (primarily in technology).

"Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office...In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office.

As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey."

"Something is amiss???" Please. It's commonly accepted that the true employment number lies somewhere in between the Payroll and the Household numbers (which are almost always larger), with most economists thinking that it lies closer to the Payroll number. That is why everyone reports the Payroll number.

"And find out why so many workers are not being counted."

Maybe we can also find out why so many unemployed workers aren't being counted.