32,000 jobs in July not 240,000.was the fed wrong?

[nomorelies]

The Labor Department said the economy added 32,000 jobs in July, compared with the 240,000 median forecast of 74 economists. Some 112,000 jobs were added in June, compared with expectations for the economy to have created 250,000.

The unemployment rate was 5.5 percent, compared with estimates for it to remain at 5.6 percent for a fourth consecutive month.

Has there's been misplaced optimism in the strength of this economy?
Does this makes the last Fed rate increase look inappropriate?
Is the market postioned for higher rates not lower?

Most alarming is that GOVERNMENT DEBT HAS INCREASED DUE TO THE HIKE IN INTEREST RATES.

[Friar]

This is the worst possible news for Bush that could came out.

I guess he will have to change the "we turned the corner" speech.

Noone can spin these numbers. Noone. Even Rove can't.

The August numbers won't be released till the RNC is over. I can't wait for all the "economy is strong" speeches at the RNC. In fact I can't wait to see what Bush has to say about these numbers.

This could easily add 1 or 2 points to Kerry numbers. some battleground states will turn into Kerry's column and some Bush states will go to the battleground column.

[nomorelies]

Could the Republicans be losing jobs. The markets are going to go mental today. I reckon the DOW will hit 9,850.
The markets will be like ok 112,00 in June 32,000 in July PANIC PANIC then see $44 a barrel that will ease consumer spending.

Bush needs to drop the oil-for-food scandal on Russias head and allow Yukos to trade.

[The Vorlon]

Strange a it sounds, the job of the Fed is to protect the currency, not the economy.

In late 1999/Early 2000 when the Feb was choking off the .com boom they were killing off inflationary fears, not "protecting" the economy.

Very bad news for workers, the economy, and politically for Bush in these numbers.

[millwx]

Strange a it sounds, the job of the Fed is to protect the currency, not the economy.

In late 1999/Early 2000 when the Feb was choking off the .com boom they were killing off inflationary fears, not "protecting" the economy.

Vorlon, missed your close bracket.  For the convenience of all, his graph is here...

[nomorelies]

If the job of the fed is to allow the FED to protect the currency then why have they allowed the dollar to become so weak compared to the British pound and euro.

[Friar]

I have a better graphic.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

So here's how the Bush economy looks:
- Continued and consistant lack of job growth
- No growth in stock markets for six months
- Huge decline in real wages that has shown little recovery
- No efforts made to halt skyrocketing costs of health care and tuition
- Record high gas prices
- Largest deficits in history

Wow, it looks like Bush's "turn the corner" message is even more of a lie than those new swiftboat ads.

[??????????]

Wow, it looks like Bush's "turn the corner" message is even more of a lie than those new swiftboat ads.

If the ad was against Bush you would be cheering it on. Get a clue and get over it. Maybe your boy isn't all he's cracked up to be. This country will deserve what it gets if that b*stard Kerry is elected.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Wow, it looks like Bush's "turn the corner" message is even more of a lie than those new swiftboat ads.

If the ad was against Bush you would be cheering it on. Get a clue and get over it. Maybe your boy isn't all he's cracked up to be. This country will deserve what it gets if that b*stard Kerry is elected.

Which ad, Turning the Corner or the swiftboat one?  I've never favored running ads with personal attacks about Bush's past, and I don't think Kerry has run any.

[mddem2004]

Wow, it looks like Bush's "turn the corner" message is even more of a lie than those new swiftboat ads.

If the ad was against Bush you would be cheering it on. Get a clue and get over it. Maybe your boy isn't all he's cracked up to be. This country will deserve what it gets if that b*stard Kerry is elected.

States......I'm surprized (NOT) at your use of such language!!! Do I detect a quiver of doubt about ole "W" in your keyboard??

[mddem2004]

So here's how the Bush economy looks:
- Continued and consistant lack of job growth
- No growth in stock markets for six months
- Huge decline in real wages that has shown little recovery
- No efforts made to halt skyrocketing costs of health care and tuition
- Record high gas prices
- Largest deficits in history

Wow, it looks like Bush's "turn the corner" message is even more of a lie than those new swiftboat ads.

Excellent sumation GovNick, bout says it all........

[Lunar]

Doesn't the economy need 150,000 a month to keep unemployment steady?

[millwx]

Doesn't the economy need 150,000 a month to keep unemployment steady?

Lunar, I don't have the precise number in front of me (well, not that there is a "precise" number, since it varies and gradually increases in the long-run), but 150K is, roughly, correct.  One can do a very simplistic, back of the envelope calculation from census data.  Using July '03 Census Bureau estimates...

There are 20.5M 20-24 year olds; ther are 12.1M 60-64 year olds.  If everyone entered and left the workforce when eligible, that would be a net 8.4M.  But that's over 5 years.  So, that's 1.68M/yr.  That's 140K/month.  Not everyone enters the work force (homemakers, disabled, etc), but not everyone leaves when eligible either.  So, 140K/mo is probably the net "available" workforce increase.  The BoLS may actually have this data, but I've not seen it on their vast web site.  So, this is a very rough estimate, but should be in the ballpark.

[Lunar]

And the unemployment numbers aren't usually affected because there are groups entering the workforce in big clumps (like at the end of the college year).

Vorlon, could you post that 1.1 million jobs graph that you used to predict the election?  I'm interested how close it has become.

[millwx]

And the unemployment numbers aren't usually affected because there are groups entering the workforce in big clumps (like at the end of the college year).

It's also an entirely different "poll", and questioning can matter (i.e., anyone who just throws in the towel and gives up looking is no longer "unemployed").  The unemployment didn't go down (much) during the all-too-brief job boom early this year, and it's not going back up now (yet?).

BTW, Vorlon posted that image on another thread.  Unfortunately, I forget which one.  Bush is below the curve now.  Only barely, but he will need a serious turnaround in the next two months in order to get back on track.

[classical liberal]

And the unemployment numbers aren't usually affected because there are groups entering the workforce in big clumps (like at the end of the college year).

Vorlon, could you post that 1.1 million jobs graph that you used to predict the election?  I'm interested how close it has become.

He already posted it.

[mddem2004]

Bush on the campaign trail today after the release of the July jobs report:

"Today's employment report shows our economy is continuing to move forward,"

"We're in a changing economy and we've got more to do,"

"I'm running because I understand how to take a strong economy to make it stronger. I say we have a strong economy, and it's getting stronger,"

"You proved that we're moving America forward and we're not turning back,"

On his way to the picnic, Bush's motorcade passed opposing groups of demonstrators on the way to the picnic, one group shouting "Four more years!" the other shouting, "Three more months!"

[Shira]

Strange a it sounds, the job of the Fed is to protect the currency, not the economy.

In late 1999/Early 2000 when the Feb was choking off the .com boom they were killing off inflationary fears, not "protecting" the economy.

Very bad news for workers, the economy, and politically for Bush in these numbers.

It deviates "a little bit" from your prediction

[swarch]

If the job of the fed is to allow the FED to protect the currency then why have they allowed the dollar to become so weak compared to the British pound and euro.

Since 1913, when the Fed was created, the dollar has lost about 99% of its value. Whatever its advertised purpose, its de facto purpose is to bail out profligate politicians by printing money to cover budget deficits. This is what destroys the dollar's value.

To support the dollar, the Fed would have to raise interest rates. The UK recently raised its rate to 4.75%, I believe. Could you imagine what would happen to the "recovery" if the Fed did this?

When you opened this thread, you were concerned that the debt increased because of the Fed's recent interest rate increase. If you think it's bad now, wait until rates go to 6% in a few years. It's going to get ugly, not only because of what will happen with the debt, but because of what will happen to all those adjustable rate mortgages.

[classical liberal]

The people who got adjustable long term loans when we were clearly at the lowest interest rates that could be in teh forseeable future deserve to pay more for their stupidity.

[opebo]

I think the vast majority of people have locked in fixed rate mortgages.  

[The Duke]

Silly post-industrialists.

Don't you know that in the information economy payroll jobs will not be as prominent as they once were?  Why the profligate use of payroll statistics when more accurate numbers like the "Household" survey are available?

The houshold and payroll surveys have consistently shown a disparity between them of between 2 and 3 million jobs.  The Household survey shows job gains, the payroll survey shows job losses.  Well, which is more accurate?

The household survey is more accurate for our purposes.  That survey measures not only employment at large firms and in government, but also the self employed and small businesses.  My dad, for example, is self employed, and is not measured by the payroll survey.  He is howeer measured by the household survey.  In short, the household survey is a measure of the economy, the payroll survey is a measure of one part of the economy.

This is why unemployment rates are calculated by the household survey.  The self-employed are not unemployed, but only the household survey measures them.

The household vs. payroll survey contrast also explains why unemployment is falling even as payroll jobs continue to slump.  The typical leftist explaination is that workers are discouraged and not seeking employment, or they are cut off from their unemploiyment benefits.  Unfortunately, this is not how unemployment is calculated and more than it is calculated by payroll surveys.  Only the household survey accurately measures actual job gains, and it shows Bush in the black, not the red.

[millwx]

Don't you know that in the information economy payroll jobs will not be as prominent as they once were?  Why the profligate use of payroll statistics when more accurate numbers like the "Household" survey are available?

John, I just posted a link w.r.t. this.  The BLS and Greenspan disagree with you.  Sorry, I'll believe them long, long before you.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/economy/job_survey.reut/index.htm
Do all the handwaving you want.  The household survey is less reliable.  Period.

[The Duke]

Don't you know that in the information economy payroll jobs will not be as prominent as they once were?  Why the profligate use of payroll statistics when more accurate numbers like the "Household" survey are available?

John, I just posted a link w.r.t. this.  The BLS and Greenspan disagree with you.  Sorry, I'll believe them long, long before you.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/economy/job_survey.reut/index.htm
Do all the handwaving you want.  The household survey is less reliable.  Period.

If my household survey is so innacurate, why is it used to calculate the unemployment rate?