Over 600,000 jobs created in July alone!

[A18]

According to the Labor Department household survey, over 600,000 jobs were added to the economy in July alone.

That's why unemployment fell a tenth of a percentage point to 5.5%. The 32,000 jobs figure is a load of crap because it's based on the business survey, which is historically unreliable, and won't even be seasonally adjusted until after the election.

Payroll (business) survey data is always preliminary. Past examples now show initial estimates to be off by millions of jobs. Initial estimates of job losses in 1992 were revised in 1993, 1994, and 1995 and now show net job creation. It also fails to take into account self-employment, which is surging.

How did they think employment went down a tenth of a percent with only 32,000 jobs created? There are well over 200 million people in this country!

This survey is bad news for Bush as far as the press goes, but it could very well be good news in the end. I don't know that people are going to follow the media's lead on the economy. People know about the economy because they're in it, and they know how well they're doing, and whether or not they're employed.

So 600,000 jobs created...in other words, about 600,000 potential Bush votes. I know some of you want to pretend this economy is a disaster, but the facts don't.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Household survey is
1. Much less reliable than the Establishment survey - Economists don't look at it
2. It shows many fewer jobs created so far this year than the Establishment survey

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

Philip,

I agree with you. However, I warn you that liberals on here will dodge the issue and attack you with loaded garbage because they love to talk down the economy here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You can't just pick whichever numbers you like best each month.

The more reliable Establishmnt number shows 1,267,000 jobs this year.

The less reliable Household number shows 1,179,000 jobs this year.

[Defarge]

Unemployement figures account for only people who have been out of work for a certain period of time.  Once people have been unemployed for a period longer than that amount of time, they are no longer counted as unemployed.
That is why unemployment fell this month

Self-employment is "surging?"  I doubt it.  With the vast productivity increases, self-employed workers have been unable to compete with larger coorportations, thus resulting in their elimination.  You cannot simply look at job numbers you don't like, and then say "self-employment is surging!"

[A18]

I'm not doubting that your figures are accurate, but there's just one problem. That figure has been adjusted, as happens EVERY QUARTER.

The household survey does, I believe, exclude people who are unemployed by choice. Unlike the payroll survey, it doesn't double count people who switch employers.

It's a fact that the unemployment rate is based on the household survey, which shows an increase of 600,000 jobs.

Uh, yeah. The productivity increase is killing self-employment... As early as March, the household survey has recorded a surge of 650,000 self-employed workers.

I can look at numbers I don't like and then realize they haven't even been seasonally adjusted yet. But that doesn't count, right?

Sure, preliminary stats have been off by millions of jobs, but that "don't mean nothin." Now we just have to wonder if it's 32,000 or more like 320,000.

[MarkDel]

Self-employment is "surging?"  I doubt it.  With the vast productivity increases, self-employed workers have been unable to compete with larger coorportations, thus resulting in their elimination.  You cannot simply look at job numbers you don't like, and then say "self-employment is surging!"

Defarge,

Actually, there was an increase of nearly 1 MILLION people in 2003 who called themselves self-employed for the first time, and that figure is expected to be even higher in 2004. Here's a link that isn't ecxactly a right wing organization talking about the massive increases in this category.

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2003/09/28_guest_econ.html

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

Mark,

In regards to being self-employed.

Need any help?

[MarkDel]

Mark,

In regards to being self-employed.

Need any help?

StatesRights,

Actually I don't, but I'll let you know if I ever do. In fact, I'm actually getting ready to start another new business endeavor, completely unrelated to publishing. I have decided that now that the "Re-Fi" craze is over, all of the quick buck artists will be out of the Mortgage business in the very near future. And with the Tampa area still growing rapidly, I've decided to get involved in the Mortgage Brokerage business.

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

Cool when you do that tell me. I want to get refinanced.

[MarkDel]

Cool when you do that tell me. I want to get refinanced.

Give me 3-4 more weeks for me to get set up, can you wait that long?

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

I wasn't expecting that soon! We'll see I guess.

[MarkDel]

I wasn't expecting that soon! We'll see I guess.

Yes, the plan to go in this direction has been in place for months now, I just needed to find the right situation, which I did about 2 weeks ago.

[muon2]

Self-employment is "surging?"  I doubt it.  With the vast productivity increases, self-employed workers have been unable to compete with larger coorportations, thus resulting in their elimination.  You cannot simply look at job numbers you don't like, and then say "self-employment is surging!"

Defarge,

Actually, there was an increase of nearly 1 MILLION people in 2003 who called themselves self-employed for the first time, and that figure is expected to be even higher in 2004. Here's a link that isn't ecxactly a right wing organization talking about the massive increases in this category.

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2003/09/28_guest_econ.html

Let me include some anectodal evidence as well. My wife is self employed and would be counted as unemployed for most of the previous three years. This year has been almost as good as the some of the late 90's. She's active in her professional organization, and things are picking up for others as well.

One reason in her profession is that as companies star to expand, they first pick up free lance workers for projects. This keeps labor and especially benefit costs down. If a particalr project becomes permanent, the firm will feel more confident in hiring a full-time employee. iterestingly, even after this occurs, free lancers do well, as long as the business is expanding.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Self-employment is "surging?"  I doubt it.  With the vast productivity increases, self-employed workers have been unable to compete with larger coorportations, thus resulting in their elimination.  You cannot simply look at job numbers you don't like, and then say "self-employment is surging!"

Defarge,

Actually, there was an increase of nearly 1 MILLION people in 2003 who called themselves self-employed for the first time, and that figure is expected to be even higher in 2004. Here's a link that isn't ecxactly a right wing organization talking about the massive increases in this category.

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2003/09/28_guest_econ.html

Let me include some anectodal evidence as well. My wife is self employed and would be counted as unemployed for most of the previous three years. This year has been almost as good as the some of the late 90's. She's active in her professional organization, and things are picking up for others as well.

One reason in her profession is that as companies star to expand, they first pick up free lance workers for projects. This keeps labor and especially benefit costs down. If a particalr project becomes permanent, the firm will feel more confident in hiring a full-time employee. iterestingly, even after this occurs, free lancers do well, as long as the business is expanding.

Is she trying to find a job? If not, she's not counted as unemployed.

[opebo]

Neither the household survey or the establishment survey matters directly.  Only voters perceptions matter.  And none of the three are accurate.

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

Neither the household survey or the establishment survey matters directly.  Only voters perceptions matter.  And none of the three are accurate.

Exactly.

[johngalt1234]

I posted this in the other forum

we are creating jobs alright but all overseas...


Some time ago, we decoupled Gold from the dollar. It seemed to be the best thing to do. A shortage of liquidity was the reason for the crash of 1929 the reasoning went.  We still remember the crash of 1987 and the bear market in 2000 which might reassert itself in the coming months.

The crashes havent gone away and neither have the recessions. What we are happily choking on is the ability to print dollars without any relation to anything.  

The dollar has declined 20% or more in value in the last three years vs the Euro. Do you think our surfiet of Dollars has anything to do with it. We have a 500 billion dollar a year trade deficit. We have this paper dollar buying Goods and is used as a defacto global trading medium. Countries hoard dollars as most of the world trade is conducted in Dollars.

With the dollar dropping 20% vs the major currencies it might cause other nations to pick a more stable currency, which at the moment seems the euro.  The Dollar is artificially supported by the buyers of our Government debt, (they are the countries with a trade surplus China and Japan). Could this entire situation unravel?

In every recent testimony before congress and the Senate Alan Greenspan he has warned of the high level of deficit financing.

You may ask, what has this got to do with the elections in November. To which I will state that a vote for either Democrats or Republicans will maintain the status quo.  I have heard arguments that it has been that way for the last 50 years, what difference does it make now. Economic disaster of any great magnitude take time to develop. When laws of economics are flouted consistently, corrective measures occur. This disaster which is looming is going to be worse than 1929. At least in 1929 we had Gold as our harbor of wealth, now we will have nothing just some empty pols promise who has cashed in and will be vacationing in the Swiss Alps, while John Q public wonders what happened.

If you need to take evasive action, it is not after the disaster occurs but rather in the times of action that are presented to you like the elections this year. The earlier we start to treat the disease the better the chances of it not being as painful.

The writing is there on the wall...

People start to seriously start looking at Libertarian candidate Badnarik who is our best hope of getting us out of this mess.
 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I posted this in the other forum

we are creating jobs alright but all overseas...


Some time ago, we decoupled Gold from the dollar. It seemed to be the best thing to do. A shortage of liquidity was the reason for the crash of 1929 the reasoning went.  We still remember the crash of 1987 and the bear market in 2000 which might reassert itself in the coming months.

The crashes havent gone away and neither have the recessions. What we are happily choking on is the ability to print dollars without any relation to anything.  

The dollar has declined 20% or more in value in the last three years vs the Euro. Do you think our surfiet of Dollars has anything to do with it. We have a 500 billion dollar a year trade deficit. We have this paper dollar buying Goods and is used as a defacto global trading medium. Countries hoard dollars as most of the world trade is conducted in Dollars.

With the dollar dropping 20% vs the major currencies it might cause other nations to pick a more stable currency, which at the moment seems the euro.  The Dollar is artificially supported by the buyers of our Government debt, (they are the countries with a trade surplus China and Japan). Could this entire situation unravel?

In every recent testimony before congress and the Senate Alan Greenspan he has warned of the high level of deficit financing.

You may ask, what has this got to do with the elections in November. To which I will state that a vote for either Democrats or Republicans will maintain the status quo.  I have heard arguments that it has been that way for the last 50 years, what difference does it make now. Economic disaster of any great magnitude take time to develop. When laws of economics are flouted consistently, corrective measures occur. This disaster which is looming is going to be worse than 1929. At least in 1929 we had Gold as our harbor of wealth, now we will have nothing just some empty pols promise who has cashed in and will be vacationing in the Swiss Alps, while John Q public wonders what happened.

If you need to take evasive action, it is not after the disaster occurs but rather in the times of action that are presented to you like the elections this year. The earlier we start to treat the disease the better the chances of it not being as painful.

The writing is there on the wall...

People start to seriously start looking at Libertarian candidate Badnarik who is our best hope of getting us out of this mess.
 

1. Do you really think Badnarik has any chance of winning?
2. Does he have crazy ideas, like privitizing sidewalks and roads?

Anyways, I'd say the situation is possibly the worst since the Great Depression, but I can't imagine something actually comperable to the Great Depression.  There's a big difference between worst since the Great Depression and the Great Depression.

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

On number 2 I believe he says no to that. The government is constitutionally allowed to build roads. And I agree, it was foolish for us to have ever left the gold standard.

[Gustaf]

Eh...the gold standard added to the problems, actually.

[muon2]

Self-employment is "surging?"  I doubt it.  With the vast productivity increases, self-employed workers have been unable to compete with larger coorportations, thus resulting in their elimination.  You cannot simply look at job numbers you don't like, and then say "self-employment is surging!"

Defarge,

Actually, there was an increase of nearly 1 MILLION people in 2003 who called themselves self-employed for the first time, and that figure is expected to be even higher in 2004. Here's a link that isn't ecxactly a right wing organization talking about the massive increases in this category.

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2003/09/28_guest_econ.html

Let me include some anectodal evidence as well. My wife is self employed and would be counted as unemployed for most of the previous three years. This year has been almost as good as the some of the late 90's. She's active in her professional organization, and things are picking up for others as well.

One reason in her profession is that as companies star to expand, they first pick up free lance workers for projects. This keeps labor and especially benefit costs down. If a particalr project becomes permanent, the firm will feel more confident in hiring a full-time employee. iterestingly, even after this occurs, free lancers do well, as long as the business is expanding.

Is she trying to find a job? If not, she's not counted as unemployed.

I don't know the exact form of the question they ask on the survey, but it is likely that if she was polled in 2002 she would have contributed to the unemployed count, and if she was asked today she would be employed.

Also, among her peers that were laid off in 2001-2002, many are taking advantage of the free lance market today. They clearly would have counted as unemployed then, and now count as employed by the household survey.

[johngalt1234]

It has been said that the report doesnt look at the number of people that have stopped trying to look for work.

There is also talk about the quality of jobs being added.

The stock market being forward looking is pointing to a slower growth ahead in business. We have seen a couple of days of declines which have put the indexes below benchmark numbers to indicate a rising market. Clearly, the risk here is to the downside.

When the market first declines you have a flight to quality, meaning the money flows into bonds. If the bonds start declining then you know that money is being pulled out of the American market, which does not have a very good ring to it.

[JNB]

 I think this thread shows how so called conservatives react to talking points every bit as much as they blame liberals for,  much like the expected 15 point post conventyion bounce for Kerry, those expectations source from a low level Bush campaign offical. It has become monkey see, monkey do.

  All the more reason why I will wash my hands of the GOP untill the neo-cons are ejected.

[classical liberal]

 I think this thread shows how so called conservatives react to talking points every bit as much as they blame liberals for,  much like the expected 15 point post conventyion bounce for Kerry, those expectations source from a low level Bush campaign offical. It has become monkey see, monkey do.

  All the more reason why I will wash my hands of the GOP untill the neo-cons are ejected.

I agree about one thing that you said in particular: that we should kill all the hacks and burn their cheat sheets of talking points.