Job growth up, unemployment drops even more!

[STING2]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20040507/bs_nm/economy_dc


Robust April Jobs Data Spur Rate Fears

By Glenn Somerville

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment swelled for a second straight month in April with American employers adding 288,000 more jobs to payrolls for the strongest two-month gain in four years, the Labor Department (news - web sites) said on Friday."

"The national unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in April from 5.7 percent in March."


"Analysts said the employment report showed the pace of U.S. economic activity has kicked into a higher gear that promises continued gains in hiring."


"If so, it may take some sting from charges by prospective Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) that President Bush (news - web sites) has presided over such huge job losses that he should be replaced in presidential voting in November."


"In the first four months of this year, 867,000 jobs were created -- a striking contrast to the comparable four months in 2003 when 195,000 jobs were scrubbed from payrolls."

 

[melon]

Again, I'd love to see what kind of jobs were created. Construction jobs? Because, by the end of summer into winter, they'll all be unemployed again, and, come spring, they'll be "re-hired." That is, after all, the nature of this profession, particularly in the north.

That's what I hate about these figures. They never tell you the quality, but always the quantity.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you think that jobs created are any different at any other time Melon?

My thoughts are that some are seasonal and some ride a longer wave, but are jobs EVER completely created foreveer?

 

[deep]

Hi Sting,


Here is one more quote from the article you posted.


"Bush remains on track to be the first president since the Great Depression to have a net loss of jobs at the end of his term but April's gains cut that tally to about 1.5 million and it may shrink further in coming months. "

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

This week NBC News made two points:

1. High school students seeking jobs this summer may have the toughest time since WWII due to competition with recent college grads and other more qualified applicants. (Local news)

2. Though unemployment rate is decreasing, the job search is stilll tighter because it is tough to find the right fit between company hire and job applicant. There are cases where a number of people must go back to technical or continuing ed school for manufacturing jobs, and other cases where even middle-aged chemical engineers have tough time finding employment. (NBC Nightly News Friday 5/7/04)

 

[melon]

Do you think that jobs created are any different at any other time Melon?

The difference is that this is an annual event. Thus, no new jobs are really being created; they're just rehiring people who are annually fired.

Melon

 

[najeena]

...and remember, flipping hamburgers is actually a manufacturing job.

 

[STING2]

For a little perspective lets compare the current 5.6% unemployment rate to the annual unemployment rates of the past 30 years, broken into four year segments by presidential administrations.



Nixon/Ford

1973 4.9%
1974 5.6%
1975 8.5%
1976 7.7%

Carter

1977 7.1%
1978 6.1%
1979 5.8%
1980 7.1%

Reagan

1981 7.6%
1982 9.7%
1983 9.6%
1984 7.5%

Reagan

1985 7.2%
1986 7.0%
1987 6.2%
1988 5.5%

Bush

1989 5.3%
1990 5.5%
1991 6.7%
1992 7.4%

Clinton

1993 6.9%
1994 6.1%
1995 5.6%
1996 5.4%

Clinton

1997 5.0%
1998 4.5%
1999 4.3%
2000 4.0%

Bush II

2001 4.8%
2002 5.9%
2003 6.2%
April 2004 5.6%



The average unemployment rate over the past 30 years in the United States has been 6.4%. Over the last 30 years, unemployment rate has only been below 5.4% in 6 different years.

Bill Clinton won re-election with 5.4% unemployment in 1996.

The Current unemployment rate is 5.6% and economist project this unemployment rate to drop to 5.2% towards the end of this year.

 

[STING2]

The difference is that this is an annual event. Thus, no new jobs are really being created; they're just rehiring people who are annually fired.

Melon

Well thats not the case here. For example, Unemployment was increasing at this time last year and peaked in August of 2003 at 6.4%. Unemployment is now down to 5.6%. So the idea that this is simply the result of temporary hiring for construction jobs for the summer is simply not true.


I don't have a break down of the Quality of the jobs but I do know where the USA currently stands among other nations in regards to Standard Of Living.

According to the United Nations Human Development Index which measures Standard of Living in all countries around the world, the USA currently ranks 7th in the world as of last Summers 2003 report. Here are the countries that ranked in the top 20 on standard of living.

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Netherlands
6. Belgium
7. United States
8. Canada
9. Japan
10. Switzerland
11. Denmark
12. Ireland
13. United Kingdom
14. Finland
15. Luxembourg
16. Austria
17. France
18. Germany
19. Spain
20. New Zealand

 

[STING2]

Hi Sting,


Here is one more quote from the article you posted.


"Bush remains on track to be the first president since the Great Depression to have a net loss of jobs at the end of his term but April's gains cut that tally to about 1.5 million and it may shrink further in coming months. "

Here is some math for you. 6 months till election time. Last month about 300,000 jobs were created. If this rate of job creation remains the same for the next 6 months, that tally will turn into a plus rather than a negative.

Can you name an incumbent President that lost an election when the unemployment rate was 5.5% or less?

 

[Salome]

If

I am a big fan of maths that include "if"

 

[Popmartijn]

Nixon/Ford

1973 4.9%
1974 5.6%
1975 8.5%
1976 7.7%

Carter

1977 7.1%
1978 6.1%
1979 5.8%
1980 7.1%

Reagan

1981 7.6%
1982 9.7%
1983 9.6%
1984 7.5%

Reagan

1985 7.2%
1986 7.0%
1987 6.2%
1988 5.5%

Bush

1989 5.3%
1990 5.5%
1991 6.7%
1992 7.4%

Clinton

1993 6.9%
1994 6.1%
1995 5.6%
1996 5.4%

Clinton

1997 5.0%
1998 4.5%
1999 4.3%
2000 4.0%

Bush II

2001 4.8%
2002 5.9%
2003 6.2%
April 2004 5.6%

The great thing about these numbers is that you can interpret them any way you want them. For instance, while Sting says that the average unemployment rate was 6.4% over the past 30 years, the current 5.6% is an increase of 1.6 percentage points compared with the 4.0% of the last year of the Clinton administration. And while it is true that Clinton won the re-election while he had an unemployment rate of 5.4%, that was a improvement of 1.5 percentage points of his first year as president (and even 2 percentage points compared to the last year of Bush I).
Oh, and the numbers also show that when there isn't a decrease in the unemployment rate, the president is out.
Looking over the numbers, we see that there's only one term for Bush I and now we have Bush II. And in the last 30 years, there was not a two-term administration following a two-term administration.

These are just some of the things you can get out of numbers.



Marty

 

[STING2]

The great thing about these numbers is that you can interpret them any way you want them. For instance, while Sting says that the average unemployment rate was 6.4% over the past 30 years, the current 5.6% is an increase of 1.6 percentage points compared with the 4.0% of the last year of the Clinton administration. And while it is true that Clinton won the re-election while he had an unemployment rate of 5.4%, that was a improvement of 1.5 percentage points of his first year as president (and even 2 percentage points compared to the last year of Bush I).
Oh, and the numbers also show that when there isn't a decrease in the unemployment rate, the president is out.
Looking over the numbers, we see that there's only one term for Bush I and now we have Bush II. And in the last 30 years, there was not a two-term administration following a two-term administration.

These are just some of the things you can get out of numbers.



Marty

#1 The one year that Clinton had a 4% unemployment rate is a record and unlikely to be repeated any time soon. That year, US firms were paying students from Europe to come over and work because they couldn't find any workers. The current 5.6% unemployment is much closer to a good maintainable unemployment level than the 4% level .

#2 Unemployment under the Bush II administration peaked at 6.4% last summer and already the Bush administration has brought this unemployment down by almost a full percentage point. So, the unemployment rate is decreasing.


#3 The fact that there was only one Bush I term and currently on one Bush II term as well as the fact that there has not been a complete two term president followed by another two term president are interesting but irrelevant to predicting the 2004 election.


The strongest point to be made about these statistics is how rare it is to have an unemployment rate of 5.6% much less 5.2% which economist predict it will be around election time.

Who ever is President for the next 4 years is not going to have an unemployment rate similar to what Clinton had in his second administration. A 4.7% or 4.8% unemployment rate average for the next 4 years is most likely and the current rate is already within a single percentage of that and dropping. Who ever takes over the office on January 20, 2005 will be far more interested in maintaining the unemployment level than reducing it because it is unlikely such and unemployment rate could be reduced anymore and then sustained over a good period of time.

If the current economic performance keeps up, John Kerry will have no arguement to make when it comes to jobs this fall.

 

[Klaus]

5.6% unemployment is a good rate. The only thing that's questionalble is the trend.
If it continues to go down (5.something) it seems like the unemployment rate is ok.
It's not as excelent like in the clinton times but it's no desaster.

 

[Salome]

why compare figures from different periods without any info on what the main reasons of the influxes are?

we do not know what kind of jobs were created/got axed
we do not know the role of the government in this
if the governemnt did play any role in it we don't know the long term consequences

the info this does give has about 0% to do with politics
so if Kerry was planning on attacking Bush on these numbers instead of attacking him on his policies it would make no sense
as much sense as it would make for Bush to claim that he must be a pretty good president because some economic figures do not look piss poor

 

[cydewaze]

You can make numbers say almost anything you want them to say. It's all selective interpretation.

I was reading some highway safety stats at work (I work for the US DOT) from back in the late 80's, when control of the Interstate speed limits was handed back over to the states. Curiously, several different groups were siting the same study, but for conflicting reasons. Safety people said roads got more dangerous, because there were more accidents, but if you look at the data, the accidents per mile driven took a nosedive, because more miles were being covered. It just depends on how you choose to interpret the data.

It's certainly not worth getting into a tizzy over. Lots of things can affect the employment numbers. Jobs being reclassified, people losing unemployment benefits, even workers who were on strike who went back to work were recently counted as "new jobs". If you try hard enough you can make the numbers say anything you want.

 

[STING2]

why compare figures from different periods without any info on what the main reasons of the influxes are?

we do not know what kind of jobs were created/got axed
we do not know the role of the government in this
if the governemnt did play any role in it we don't know the long term consequences

the info this does give has about 0% to do with politics
so if Kerry was planning on attacking Bush on these numbers instead of attacking him on his policies it would make no sense
as much sense as it would make for Bush to claim that he must be a pretty good president because some economic figures do not look piss poor

The info is very significant and is often used by economist doing comparison and contrast of different years economic performance. It definitely effects the political situation and Kerry has had to back peddle on the jobs issue over the past week because of the good economic news.

The main reason for the drop in unemployment is sustained GDP growth on average of around 5% for the last 9 months. As the economy continues to grow and business's expand, more workers are needed. The Government has played in role in that it has cut taxes and kept interest rates low.

Clinton always sited his economic figures and he definitely contributed to that outstanding economic performance, just as Bush has helped get America over recession that started at the end of the Clinton administration and has brought about sustained GDP growth and now sustained job growth.

Kerry's best attack against Bush has been the economy, and the ability to attack him on that issue is really starting to dwindle.

The Misery index, an index started back in the 1970s to caculate discontent among the population adds unemployment and inflation together.

Right now, inflation in the USA is extremely low at 1.7%. The Misery Index at the current time would be 7.3 which is very low and dropping although as the economy continues to heat up, you will probably see a slight rise in inflation.

 

[STING2]

You can make numbers say almost anything you want them to say. It's all selective interpretation.

I was reading some highway safety stats at work (I work for the US DOT) from back in the late 80's, when control of the Interstate speed limits was handed back over to the states. Curiously, several different groups were siting the same study, but for conflicting reasons. Safety people said roads got more dangerous, because there were more accidents, but if you look at the data, the accidents per mile driven took a nosedive, because more miles were being covered. It just depends on how you choose to interpret the data.

It's certainly not worth getting into a tizzy over. Lots of things can affect the employment numbers. Jobs being reclassified, people losing unemployment benefits, even workers who were on strike who went back to work were recently counted as "new jobs". If you try hard enough you can make the numbers say anything you want.

The Unemployment statistics sited here are used all the time by professional economist and are the best single accurate measure of the jobs situation.

The unemployment figures presented here are not seen as insignificant by professional economist and both political parties. They are an accurate measure of the current condition of the US economy which continues to grow rapidly, which is helping to reduce unemployment. The other factors involved in employment always exist are not the primary things that swing unemployment up or down. For example, those no longer collecting any unemployment compensation and not included in unemployment figures would only raise the unemployment figure by .4%. They are classified as longterm unemployment which has been measured for countries worldwide by the United Nations. Longterm unemployment has always been there, good times and bad and it has always been a small fraction of what the unemployment figure is at any given time.

The current numbers are indeed good for Bush and economist expect these numbers to get even better as the election gets closer.

 

[Salome]

The info is very significant and is often used by economist doing comparison and contrast of different years economic performance. It definitely effects the political situation and Kerry has had to back peddle on the jobs issue over the past week because of the good economic news.

I am well aware how economists use these numbers
because the importance of unemployment figures on the economy is a major one it makes sense for them to do so

the numbers still don't show you nor these economists anything about the role of the government in this though
no matter whether Clinton, Bush, Kerry or Bert & Ernie want to make me believe otherwise

 

[Scarletwine]

Monday's Poll numbers still show the American people's perception of the economy as shit.

As long as that is the case it doesn't matter. I also saw a breakdown of the new jobs on CSPAN and most are seasonal and worse the remaining majority are part-time.

 

[IWasBored]

regarding seasonal, part-time, shitty "assosicate manager" of walmart jobs:

which has to do with the types of jobs that started going away during the reagan years, and this is the stuff they're replaced with when whatever administration is in office tries to 'create' more jobs.

 

[verte76]

I think it is really early to talk about polls that mean something. We haven't even had the conventions, hell, Kerry hasn't picked his running mate. Most voters have never heard him make a speech. The press keeps forgetting that the election isn't until November. I'm just afraid the electorate is going to get fried by an eight-month campaign. It's too much politics. I wish like hell we still chose the candidates at the conventions, that's what I wish more than anything else.

 

[STING2]

I am well aware how economists use these numbers
because the importance of unemployment figures on the economy is a major one it makes sense for them to do so

the numbers still don't show you nor these economists anything about the role of the government in this though
no matter whether Clinton, Bush, Kerry or Bert & Ernie want to make me believe otherwise

The governments role in international trade, tax's and interest rates all effect the economy. The government has cut taxes, kept interest rates low, and have not tried to prop up the low value of the dollar there by making US exports cheaper to foreigners abroad there by increasing US exports.

 

[STING2]

Monday's Poll numbers still show the American people's perception of the economy as shit.

As long as that is the case it doesn't matter. I also saw a breakdown of the new jobs on CSPAN and most are seasonal and worse the remaining majority are part-time.

Last year, these same seasonal jobs failed to bring down unemployment. In fact unemployment increased to 6.4% in August of last year.

This year though, the unemployment rate is dropping and it will continue to drop as the election gets closer.

The unemployment rate is now lower or as low as any time during Clinton's first 3 years in office.

Even John Kerry has admitted this is good news for the economy.

 

[Salome]

The governments role in international trade, tax's and interest rates all effect the economy. The government has cut taxes, kept interest rates low, and have not tried to prop up the low value of the dollar there by making US exports cheaper to foreigners abroad there by increasing US exports.

indeed they did


I've studied enough economics to know that only one thing is for sure:
if anyone really knew how to increase the economy we would all have been doing that 50 years ago

no one knows though
I've spend years studying the effects of interest rates, taxes and the likes
and all we know is that:
1. what the effects depend on the situation
and its extremely hard to predict the long term outcome
2. the economy will fluctuate no matter what

all we can do is try to decrease bad short term influences on our economy
I don't think any economist is able to look at just unemployment rates and by that make claims whether the government is doing a good job

 

[STING2]

indeed they did


I've studied enough economics to know that only one thing is for sure:
if anyone really knew how to increase the economy we would all have been doing that 50 years ago

no one knows though
I've spend years studying the effects of interest rates, taxes and the likes
and all we know is that:
1. what the effects depend on the situation
and its extremely hard to predict the long term outcome
2. the economy will fluctuate no matter what

all we can do is try to decrease bad short term influences on our economy
I don't think any economist is able to look at just unemployment rates and by that make claims whether the government is doing a good job

I've studied enough economics to know that the Government does play a role in the economic well being of the nation and that the economic numbers I have posted are relevant to the debate.

I see economist and politicians every night evaluating whether the government has been doing its job in regards to the economy. Several of my economics teachers would hold lively debates on several economic issues that effected politics.

 

[Salome]

Several of my economics teachers would hold lively debates on several economic issues that effected politics.

I never denied that economics effect politics (or at least I didn't intend to do so)

and I never denied the relevance of these figures to economists (or at least I didn't intend to do so)

my point is though - and I will stick by that - that by just showing unemployment rates there is no way to judge whether the government has or has not been doing a good job

numbers like these meet a purpose in being food for thought in an economic study or conversation
if anyone would claim they can see an absolute truth in just these numbers they would be wrong in that perception even if their conclusion would turn out to be the right one

 

[STING2]

I never denied that economics effect politics (or at least I didn't intend to do so)

and I never denied the relevance of these figures to economists (or at least I didn't intend to do so)

my point is though - and I will stick by that - that by just showing unemployment rates there is no way to judge whether the government has or has not been doing a good job

numbers like these meet a purpose in being food for thought in an economic study or conversation
if anyone would claim they can see an absolute truth in just these numbers they would be wrong in that perception even if their conclusion would turn out to be the right one

Well, If I thought these numbers by themselves were not relevant, I would not have posted them. Typically, if unemployment is at its lowest levels possible, without any other information, you can obviously see that the Government has done at the very least ok in regards to the economy. On the reverse side, if Unemployment rates are enormously high without some outside crises, its most likely that the government has done some things poorly.

Yes, there are exceptions to everything. But if one could not infer poor or good performance by the government from unemployment numbers, such numbers would not be used as much or in the same way they are used every night on political talk shows and the news.

Current unemployment rate of 5.6% is one of the lowest unemployment rates over the past 30 years and with inflation at one of its lowest levels ever, critics of the administration who claim Bush has destroyed America's economy could not be more wrong.

 

[Popmartijn]

Well, I think a projected 400 BILLION deficit isn't something to be proud of.

 

[STING2]

Well, I think a projected 400 BILLION deficit isn't something to be proud of.

The Country is at war and so running a deficit at this time is necessary.