The final pre-election Jobs report - and a new spin?

[The Vorlon]

In addition to the September Jobs report to be released Friday (WSJ estimate is 145,000 - depressed +/- 50,000 or so by the Florida Huricanes) an additional wrinkle is that one years worth of payroll data is also beiong revised by the BLs.

According to the WSJ, there will be an upward revision of something from 288,000 to 384,000 in addition to the new September jobs..

This would give Bush a "number" for this years Job creation to proclaim that would be +/- 400-500K higher.

In reality, this is not a story, in the sense that no 'real" jobs are created - folks who got an underreported job in Dec 2003 still got the job, etc...  But it certainly may have a political impact...


The jobs debate heats up this week, with the White House expecting that revised payroll data to be released Friday will put a shine on President Bush's record of helping the economy create new jobs.

Friday's data will be the last released before the Nov. 2 election. While markets will focus on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' jobs report for September, politicians might pay more attention to revised data for the period from March 2003 through March 2004.

A memo from the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimates that the payroll employment figure for that period could be revised upward by 288,000, and conceivably by as much as 384,000. [/i]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109693799501436155,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature

[A18]

I forgot all about this! Thanks for posting it!

[12th Doctor]

Vorlon, the graph, please. 

[Pollwatch99]

In addition to the September Jobs report to be released Friday (WSJ estimate is 145,000 - depressed +/- 50,000 or so by the Florida Huricanes) an additional wrinkle is that one years worth of payroll data is also beiong revised by the BLs.

According to the WSJ, there will be an upward revision of something from 288,000 to 384,000 in addition to the new September jobs..

This would give Bush a "number" for this years Job creation to proclaim that would be +/- 400-500K higher.

In reality, this is not a story, in the sense that no 'real" jobs are created - folks who got an underreported job in Dec 2003 still got the job, etc...  But it certainly may have a political impact...


The jobs debate heats up this week, with the White House expecting that revised payroll data to be released Friday will put a shine on President Bush's record of helping the economy create new jobs.

Friday's data will be the last released before the Nov. 2 election. While markets will focus on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' jobs report for September, politicians might pay more attention to revised data for the period from March 2003 through March 2004.

A memo from the president's Council of Economic Advisers estimates that the payroll employment figure for that period could be revised upward by 288,000, and conceivably by as much as 384,000. [/i]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB109693799501436155,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature

If that happens, I think it is great particularly the night of the debate. However, the truth is the Commission that set the dates should not have picked a day where major economic data was released particularly unemployment since it's an issue in campaign.  Hope the numbers are strong, otherwise it's a boom-a-rang

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

What are people making, is it still $9,000 less than the jobs we lost? 

[A18]

That's a highly questionable and likely bogus number that no one's accepted against the DNC.

It's obvious that the economy is roaring, and I expect by 2010 we'll be doing better than the 90s. Of course, Kerry's election could slow it down a lot, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[Pollwatch99]

What are people making, is it still $9,000 less than the jobs we lost? 

When slick Willie was running in 1996, 5.4% unemployment was a booming economy.  I'm sure all these people when they got jobs got a hefty raise, sign-on bonus, and a four year guaranteed employment contract.

Give me a break, throughout our history the unemployed when they find jobs usually make less. 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The strenght of the economy can't just be measured by unemployment.  A lot of people who are employed are underemployed...they are working below a decent living wage, have no job security, no pension, and no health benefits. 

Has anyone done an evaluation of the GINI coefficient of our current economy compared to four years ago?....that would definitely be interesting to see.

And then of course there is that old favorite of conservatives, the stock market.  How is that going for you guys?

[A18]

Four years ago there hadn't been a recession yet (well, actually it was just starting).

[AuH2O]

The underemployed thing is basically a lie.

The numbers also miss self-employed people.

[Pollwatch99]

The strenght of the economy can't just be measured by unemployment.  A lot of people who are employed are underemployed...they are working below a decent living wage, have no job security, no pension, and no health benefits. 

Has anyone done an evaluation of the GINI coefficient of our current economy compared to four years ago?....that would definitely be interesting to see.

And then of course there is that old favorite of conservatives, the stock market.  How is that going for you guys?

It is Kerry who harps on employment rate/jobs. Pass the GINI coefficient of the current economy argument to Kerry for the next debate.

Now you are correct about the underemployed, job security and no benefits.  Now what does that have to do with the President of the US and what public policies does Kerry espouse to fix it?  Raise taxes on income above 200K.  That will also impact small business employers( yes, subchapter S corps are taxed at personal rate).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The underemployed thing is basically a lie.

The numbers also miss self-employed people.

The numbers have always missed self-employed people, right?  They also have always missed people who are unemployed but who have given up looking for work.  I'm not sure if either of these numbers is higher now than at other points in history.

Do you deny that the average wages and benefits among the middle and working classes have declined in the last four years?

[A18]

Self-employment is being a bigger part of our economy. And I see that as a good thing.

[AuH2O]

There are 2 major employment figures; Democrats always cite the one without self-employed people (because of course its a lower number).

The better number shows substantial job growth in the last year and a half, as well as a net gain under Bush (ahead of population growth).

Wages have moved based on a variety of factors, but

a) no, I don't think they've gone down if you make relevant comparisons

b) the hardest hit segments in recent memory are airline pilots and doctors (aside from a few specialties), both of which of course are upper middle/upper class professions

In any case, there is no reason on Earth Bush should lose to Kerry on economic issues. It's just laughable to think a tax-raising, anti-reform, pro-regulation, pro- and anti-trader could cite his domestic platform as a reason to support him. Seriously, anyone that says raising taxes will help the economy is one of two things:

1) an idiot

2) a liar

I tend to consider Kerry (2).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

[A18]

If "cough cough" is to be believed, then they could very easily show up 1% unemployment.

Household survey shows net gains. Recession inherited.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If "cough cough" is to be believed, then they could very easily show up 1% unemployment.

Household survey shows net gains. Recession inherited.

Unemployment figures don't count a lot of unemployed people

The official unemployment figures were 5% or so when Bush took office (admittedly the true values were probably a bit higher)
The labor pool needs to increase by 150,000 jobs per month.
Bush lost 900,000 jobs in those 44 months. We're 9 million jobs off from where we need to be.  That's about 6% of jobs

5%+6%=11%

Ouch

[A18]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.

[ATFFL]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.

The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

[A18]

Some say it started in March. Others say October.

It doesn't actually matter, because no Bush economic policy had gone into effect and anyone who watched the news knew we weren't in good shape heading into the election and beyond.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.

The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some say it started in March. Others say October.

It doesn't actually matter, because no Bush economic policy had gone into effect and anyone who watched the news knew we weren't in good shape heading into the election and beyond.

Those 22.7 million Clinton jobs and  that $87 billion surplus were destroying America.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The government can't really do anything about private-sector unemployment.  But it can combat underemployment, which has been a bigger problem recently by doing, among other thing:

- Raising the minimum wage
- Increasing welfare and unemployment benefits
- Enacting universal healthcare

To do this, the government will need to raise taxes.  So yes, raising taxes can help the economy.

[ATFFL]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.

The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

Clinton rode the tech bubble until it burst his last year.  He had no clue what to do then, but did not care either since he was going out.

You want a good economy all around?  Get a moderate President and a conservative congress.  You want one with potential explosive growth but with plenty of pitfalls along the way?  All conservative.  You want to ruin your economy, possibly for a very, very long time?  All liberal.