Psst! about those recent jobs figures

Posted by: sean

Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/09/04 06:47 PM

i am watching tucker carlson on his PBS show (1st time, i promise) . . . he just pointed out that almost 1/2 of the jobs that were reported yesterday or the day before were gov't jobs. that's hilarious. a conservative trying to brag about creating jobs and really just creating a bigger gov't to do so. that's too funny.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: Michael

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/09/04 06:55 PM

All I want to know is how to get one of the public sector hack jobs. <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/09/04 07:02 PM

I wish someone would explain to me the whole unemployment figure schtick. I've heard that in order to keep up with new people entering the job market, the economy has to produce 135,000 or so jobs per month. And yet even though the latest figures show that fewer than 96,000 jobs were created, the unemployment rate stayed at 5.4%. Does that mean that 39,000 or so people dropped off the unemployment rolls because they'd been on unemployment for too long, so it's a wash in the percentages but not in reality?<br><br>
Posted by: MikeSellers

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/09/04 09:06 PM

I also wonder how they count the created jobs. If one person takes on two jobs to fill one lost job, does that count as a 1 or 2 new jobs? If the latter, then they need to rewrite the rules to base it on the number of people who enter the workforce. <br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/10/04 10:53 AM

Yeah your right. The numbers will never be accurate. There are going to be people who have 2 jobs to equal a full time job (and still not have health care coverage). Of course they don't take into account all the temps that are out there that working for a quarter but not working after that. It almost seems like there's no such thing as a stable "job" anymore.<br><br>
Posted by: alAnonymous

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/10/04 11:58 AM

The figures ARE manipulated. They tout the job loss figs but they don't account for the jobs that drop off the books because people start their own businesses. So if somebody "loses" a job because they go into business for themselves, the books only show the loss of that job.<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/10/04 12:23 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>because they go into business for themselves, the books only show the loss of that job<p><hr></blockquote><p>Are you sure about that? If people are running their self-run businesses by the book, they are supposed to file quarterly estimated self-employment taxes. That should put them "back on the books" as technically employed because they are paying the FICA and other taxes.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/10/04 12:56 PM

Unless the small buisness is in logging, of course, in which case you don't even need to know you're involved in it <br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/10/04 01:36 PM

Oh, that witty president of ours has an intellectual retort for everything!<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: drjohn

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/10/04 04:28 PM

Here's a primer. It's still a bit of guesswork though. <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/10/04 05:38 PM

I'll have to look at that site carefully when I'm more awake than I am now. Thanks for the link.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Psst! about those recent jobs figures - 10/12/04 07:44 PM

Just found this in an editorial at the NY Times and thought it was interesting: [color:blue]The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.</font color=blue><br><br>The writer is Paul Krugman--a raging liberal wanker, of course.<br><br>Evidence of the liberalism: [color:blue]By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.<br><br>Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.<br><br>Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.</font color=blue><br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 10/12/04 10:47 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>