2004 Democratic Primary

[opebo]

Speaking of statistics that may effect the election - check out the unemployement rate by state and its change over the year:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstch.htm

I think this has a strong effect on certain swing states, though all states may be so improved by November it won't matter.

[opebo]

thanks jravnsbo,
I like bls.gov a lot.  Today it was announced that the unemployment rate nationally was down .2 percent to 5.7%, but job growth was supposedly weak.  I am pretty suspicious right now of the job growth number as the household survey seems more accurate.

[opebo]

Hey jmfcst,

Care to hazard a prediction of 4Q growth?  I'm guessing 6.2%.  That's just off the top of my head.

[opebo]

The BLS just came out with the latest state-by-state unemployment statistics.  Over-the-month change:

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstcm.htm

[opebo]

Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.

[opebo]

Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.

WHy AR? I mean, why would you be worried about it?

Oh.. AR is Arkansas isn't it?  Yeah I guess you're right - I don't see it as in any doubt, but a lot of democrats on the forum seem to think so.  It had fairly high unemployment so its nice to see it coming down.  I also like the look of PA's numbers, as well as WV.  I don't really care about the unemployment level in solid states - like say the Carolinas or Alaska.  Its high there but won't make any difference.

[opebo]

Hey jmfcst,

Care to hazard a prediction of 4Q growth?  I'm guessing 6.2%.  That's just off the top of my head.

I'd say 5.5% +/-1.5%

Hey, jmfcst, hats off to you - 4%, just at the lower end of your range.  Turns out my 6.2% was way too optimistic.

[opebo]

Turns out my 6.2% was way too optimistic.

Uhhh.... yeah. You could say that.

Hey it was off the top of my head.  I think there's a noticable tendency for very high growth quarters to be followed by much lower.. and then it bounces up again a quarter later.  You don't often see two exceedingly high ones in a row.

[opebo]

you have to have unemployment and it at its lowest levels is usually around 3.9-4%.  You NEED a pool of workers to be able to expand business.

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.

True I suppose, but at levels below 4 or 5 % I suspect that 'unemployement' is entirely voluntary.  In that it is 1) union/blue collar types enjoying maxing out their unemployment benefits before returning to work, knowing very well a job will be there when they want one.  This is especially common in construction.  and 2) people who are enjoying a few months off collecting unemployment while waiting for another well paid job to come along rather than taking something poorly paid (such jobs are always redily available) to make do.

[opebo]

Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

No, probably bad for those who have lost their jobs...people who own their own homes are most likely even Republicans already, or idelogical Democrats.

Actually so many Americans own their own home - nearly 70% - that some must be Democrats.  In fact I'd say that very few non-home-owners even vote.

[opebo]

Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

I don't believe in trickle down economics. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. 1000 new jobs is not a recovery, not in this universe.

What, you think there's a fixed amount of goods and wealth?  A zero-sum game?  How do you explain things like a rising standard of living coupled with rising population?  GDP must be going up somewhere - WE'RE MAKING THE PIE HIGHER!

[opebo]

Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

I don't believe in trickle down economics. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. 1000 new jobs is not a recovery, not in this universe.

What, you think there's a fixed amount of goods and wealth?  A zero-sum game?  How do you explain things like a rising standard of living coupled with rising population?  GDP must be going up somewhere - WE'RE MAKING THE PIE HIGHER!

Then why is it so hard for so many to get a job?
Many qualified people get layed off and can't find work.
That is the reality that I have seen personally. My company has been forced to lay off workers and they have not been replaced.
If the economy is doing so well why aren't new jobs being created?
1000 new jobs is not a recovery.
That's a no brainer.

Because of the impressive increase in productivity.

[opebo]

And what about all these jobs going overseas?

That is a lesser factor than productivity growth, but it also helps increase profits.

[opebo]

Here's one connection that worries me - the more likely a Democrat victory seems, the worse the stock market will get.  Which will not reflect well on Bush or on the state of the economy, making Democrat victory more likely.  Sort of a downward spiral. Wall Street fears losing Bush.

[opebo]

Bingo. The only way to add more value to the company then the 3rd-world workers offer is to be willing to work for very low wages, often below the U.S. minimum wage even. That's not fair to expect people to take a huge cut in their standard of living just to be able to maintain their jobs.

The reason that we are such a great nation is because of the great wealth of the poor and middle class relative to other countries, not the great wealth of the rich.

It's unpatriotic for corporations to move their factories overseas and show no loyalty whatsoever to American workers. How can they expect any loyalty from us as US consumers if they show us no loyalty in return?

Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

[opebo]

All you are doing is expressing economic *theory*, opinions and
ideology. Economic theory is just that: *theory*.

How about dealing with the facts: HIGH unemployment and HIGH deficits.
The theories and opinions you are expressing are meaningless unless
you look at the facts. Record job losses and record deficits. Bush
has had a Republican House for the last three years, so you can't blame
the realities on the Democrats.

Compare the Clinton years of more jobs and a balanced budget.

Unemployment is not very high at all - only 5.7%.

[opebo]

All I am asking is that the Republicans do what I do. I pay my debts. The Republicans should be paying off the debt, not increasing it.

No, you're asking for something, success, for which you are unwilling to pay the price.

And FYI, I am a Republican and I pay more taxes than the vast majority of Democrats.  The national debt transcends parties, it is owed by all of us, but it will be paid by the most productive of society.

You also act like you have no clue of history.  During WWII this country ran deficits equal to 30% of GDP, dwarfing the 4-5% we're now running by fighting the War on Terror and trying to stimulate the economy.

Yes, I will pay my taxes.  I always have.  And along with paying taxes, I will continue to search out opportunities while constantly retooling my skills.  I work 60-70 hours a week on the job and another 10 hours a week improving my skills through self study.  

I don't wait around hoping for a change in administrations, I work for my living.

One thing's for sure, if any taxpayers ever 'pay off' these deficits the Dems are so worried about, they'll be the so-called rich along with the uppermost upper-middle-class.  High earners pay the great majority of the taxes.

[opebo]

jmf vs. JNB: Early Conclusions at end of Jan04...

Unemployment:

JNB's Unemployment prediction of 5.8-6.3% for 2004 is slightly above the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

jmf's Unemployment prediction of 5.3-5.7% for Oct04 is in agreement with the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

---

Job Growth:

JNB's Job Growth prediction, while slightly lower than the  reported actual numbers, is matching well with the Establishment report.

jmf's Job Growth prediction is matching well with the Household survey.

---

GNP Growth:

JNB's 2004 2.0% GNP prediction covering 2004Q1-2004Q4 cannot yet be elavuated.  2004Q1 numbers will be out at the end of April.

jmf's GNP prediction covering 2003Q4-2004Q3 of >4% growth is roughly in line with the 4.0% reported for 2003Q4.  The Q4 number will be revised at the end of Feb and again at the end of March.

---

it's still early in the race, so stay tuned

There's no way unemployement will be *higher* on election day than now.  I'm sure it will be lower, its just impossible to know if it will be low enough to ensure Bush's re-election.   I would agree with jmf's analysis more than JNB, though I suspect than even a 5.3% rate in Oct. will overstate the real rate.  Anyway  unemployement really only matters in certain swing states - OH most of all, and perhaps PA and WV.  Michigan too but I've already written that off.  My state (MO) is already in good shape economically and will vote Bush.  If there's a lot of unemployment somewhere like CA or NY, AK or SC, it really won't effect the outcome there.

[opebo]

112,000 jobs added in Jan.  according to one measure.  Unemployment 5.6%.  Really it all sounds pretty much fine to me, though I suppose we'll be needing a lot more to ensure Bush's re-election.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20040206/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_32

[opebo]

Here's an interesting map of unemployment rates by county - http://www.bls.gov/lau/maps/twmcort.gif

But of course its the states that matter..

[opebo]

  Sadly for me bringing up facts, I am derrided as a "gloom & doomer". The line of though that jmc advocates, saying that those economically dislocated must adapt or be left behind is very simplistic, and politically unworkable. If the GOP alienated all voters except for those who held the views of former Rep. Dick Armey, it would be a very tiny minority indeed.

  One question the Neo-Cons have to ask themselves, why is Bush behind Kerry in the polls at this point? Why despite a imporving economy?

Because what makes economic sense is not popular - most voters want something for nothing, in otherwords want their vote bought.  This is essentially the whole strategy and reason for the Democratic Party - buy the votes of the working class with the money of the rich.
Democracy and Capitalism are somewhat at odds.  Between the two I definitely prefer the latter.

[opebo]

Interesting detail - 22 states have increased employment since Bush took office.  The biggest increases were in - Florida  (219,900), Nevada (77,900), Arizona (74,100), and Virginia (57,600).  Which suggests all four should go Bush.

Got this from national review, but they got it from bls.gov
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/kaza200404080826.asp

[opebo]

Interesting detail - 22 states have increased employment since Bush took office.  The biggest increases were in - Florida  (219,900), Nevada (77,900), Arizona (74,100), and Virginia (57,600).  Which suggests all four should go Bush.

Interesting.  That does give him an advantage if he spins it right.

Also, what are the highest in terms of percentage of population?  Gaining 100,000 jobs in North Dakota is more significant than 120k in California.

I don't know - you'ld have to sift through bls.gov in a pretty time-consuming way.  But I do think that the employment figures generally confirm the idea that Bush's fate will come down to primarily Ohio, and secondarily Pennsylvania/West Virginia.

[opebo]

Also, how many new people entered th job market in the time since Bush took office.  Even if not a single job was lost, the unemployment rate would still grow if no new jobs were created.

We were talking about theincrease in the total number of people working - the increase in Employment.

[opebo]

This number is fantastic.  This and last month's huge increase make me think Bush has nowhere to go but up.  The other side has no economic issue to run on, just bashing american soldiers for pranking terrorist prisoners.