2004 Democratic Primary

[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.

[NHPolitico]

Turns out my 6.2% was way too optimistic.

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

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

AR is at least pretty unlikely to go Dem, it COULD, but it wouldn't be my first worry, especially not if the Dem nominee is a northeastern liberal, like Kerry.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

The first ("Advanced") GDP report has an error range of +/- 1%, so let's hope this number is revised upward and not downward.

4% is not good considering the momentum the economy had coming out of the 3rd quarter.  December must have been bad.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

5.7% unemployment is 5.7% Too High.

I don't know how to respond to such a comment.  Maybe it would help if I pointed out to you that in 2000 anyone with an IQ over 75 could have gotten a job and the unemployment rate was still 4.0%.

Some people are simply unemployable.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<There are many intelligent people who can't find jobs.>>

OK, then hopefully they will match their intelligence with the wisdom to retool their skills in order to make themselves more employable in today’s maketplace.

--

<<you are missing the main point which is that we are in, and have been in, a recession since Bush took office.>>

1)Your definition of “recession” is unconventional.
2)The recession started in 2000Q4, BEFORE Bush took office.

--

 <<If you look at the facts you see that the number of jobs Bush has lost is the worst in decades. Compare this to the successes of the Clinton administration.>>

Clinton NEVER had to deal with a recession.  The economy was expanding 20 months before Clinton took office and was in recession when he left office.  But I don’t blame Clinton for the recession that started in 2000Q4, it’s simply due to what is know as the “Business Cycle”.

---.

<<Also, under Clinton, the beginning of fiscal responsibility began>>

You mean when the GOP swept the Congress in 1994.  And the surplus was do in part to all the capital gains the Fed was raking in during the stock market boom.  

Clinton and the GOP congress did seem to make a good team for the economy by hardly being able to pass anything through Congress.

[jravnsbo]

let me ask you this, when did Clinton introduce a balanced budget?  in 1993, 1994, NOPE.  HE never did untilt he GOP took over and said WHOA! Rep John Kasich wrote the balanced budget, it is widely known but Clinton gets the credit.

5.7% unemployment is 5.7% Too High.

I don't know how to respond to such a comment.  Maybe it would help if I pointed out to you that in 2000 anyone with an IQ over 75 could have gotten a job and the unemployment rate was still 4.0%.

Some people are simply unemployable.

There are many intelligent people who can't find jobs. There is a real serious problem here and I think that while you have a point, you are missing the main point which is that we are in, and have been in, a recession since Bush took office. If you look at the facts you see that the number of jobs Bush has lost is the worst in decades. Compare this to the successes of the Clinton administration.

Also, under Clinton, the beginning of fiscal responsibility began, in terms of dealing with the deficit and the national debt. Bush has exacerbated this problem by creating huge deficits as far as the eye can see. It is no wonder that the economy is in such dire straits.

[Gustaf]

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.

[jravnsbo]

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.

[Platypus]

I don't really like geographical names all that much; especially when they involve one town out of twenty.

Upper Mississippi is OK< though

I think IL 17 should be called Riverside; it stretches right along the Mississippi.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, I think that's what I was saying...

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.

[Canadian observer]

Latest Ipsos-Reid poll:

LPC 48%
CPC 19%
NDP 16%
BQ   10%
Grn   04%

And Ipsos-Reid has a right wing bias...

The NDP could catch the progressive conservatives?

I will believe it when I see it in May ...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think they will (the CPC has Alberta...)

BTW Ralph Klein has done it again.
He seems to have said that Health Care is not sustainable (translation: he want's it privatised).
Not exactly news, but that man is an embarrassment.
He's already helped to re-elect the NDP in Saskatchwan (!)...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Upper Mississippi does have a nice ring to it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Canadians always vote tactical... that's why Canadian elections can be so hard to predict and throw up so many upsets (eg. Dingwall going down in 1997)

National numbers are not any use for working out how well the BQ will do, most of the numbers from Quebec show them in serious trouble though.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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.

Well, there's also people who don't get jobs.

[© tweed]

Realpolitik--you fogot to include my birthplace of Coney Island in your district titles.  Please do so, it hurts me not to see it

Which district is Coney Island in?

I believe in Brooklyn-quuens-Manhattan on your names.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That would be the 12th district?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Full Employment is a good thing, but zero unemployment is not.

[Gustaf]

Full Employment is a good thing, but zero unemployment is not.

Then I suppose you're not defining full employment as zero unemployment, huh?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%

[Gustaf]

If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%

I think we're all making the same point. There will always be a small group of people without a job, at any given time, and trying to force the unemploymentlevel below that point is only counterproductive.