Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Job Data

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:37 PM
Original message
The Job Data
Is it mostly Christmas employment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good Question
The numbers are supposed to be seasonally adjusted, however, apparently they changed their methodoloy in how they do this. The articles I've read make no mention that the numbers are seasonally adjusted nor can I find any reference to the methodolgy.

It wouldn't surprise if they claim the numbers are seasonally adjusted and yet don't do it properly anymore.

I would love to hear from some of our resident economic experts on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. My uneducated guess is... yup!
And mostly part-time crap jobs at that.

To everything (spin, spin, spin), there is a season (spin, spin, spin)....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well
I think the numbers in Januarry or Februray will give a better indication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Good point Carlos...
These could all be temporary seasonal jobs and we will know in January or February...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Anyone know what the figures were for last October?
That could give us a hint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GainesT1958 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Keep in mind that the economy...
Edited on Fri Nov-07-03 01:53 PM by GainesT1958
STILL lost 24,000 jobs last month, and let's wait for the "adjustments" that will come in later. I've read where many investment gurus say it's going to be next to impossible for the economy to sustain that kind of growth through next year. I've also read some leading economists note that, even if this kind of employment net growth WERE maintained through January 2005(the end of Dub's term and, hopefully, his misAdministration), that Dub will still have a net job loss of around 1 million--the first president to have a net job loss in four years since Herbert Hoover.

There's still a LONG way to go before we have a REAL recovery--and real net job gains. And because of that, the econmy's still going to be OUR issue next year.

B-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doppledang Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. O God, the Humanity!
Geez, it's like watching a train wreck. :o

Productivity always precedes GDP growth; GDP precedes employment growth by 18 months.

We've seen the productivity grow at the fastest rate in 50 years. The GDP is taking off. The positive, but weak data we're seeing is from the sputtering GDP growth we've seen in 2002. 2003 will see strong job growth. It is a certainty; the necessary prerequisites have already passed. Greenspan has no desire to set up expectations Bush can't meet.

The unemployment rate in November, 2004 will be no higher than 5.2, which will be lower than it was in 1996 (5.4%), 1984 (7.2%), or 1972 (5.3%). That's anticipating modest growth (4% GDP). Based on what we've seen come out about the last six months, we could see 7% GDP growth, and an unemployment rate in the mid-4's!

In 1992, Clinton won amidst healthy economic growth, as the U.S was coming out of a recession. The key factor is that the American public didn't *feel* better yet, since wage growth and employment lag. The media's serious underestimates of the GDP, and the Democratic Party's insistence that the growth was a lie helped Clinton win the election. But those tactics won't work in 2004, because the economy is already at the same point it was in 1993 or 1994, not 1991. By 2004, the economy will look like it did in 1995, at least.

The exact last thing the Democrats want to do is send any of these three messages:
1. The cyclic swings in the economy are the responsibility of the President. (The economy WILL be in an upswing.)
2. The Democrats would undo what has (in the minds of many swing voters) made the economy work.
3. The Democrats are hoping for economic catastrophe for partisan political purposes.

In 1984, the Democrats' message was that the middle class wasn't benefitting from the Reagen-era boom. It didn't sell in 1984, because Mondale also promised to raise taxes. But by 1986, the message sank in and the Democrats won big.

The playbook:
1. Protect American workers from overseas outsourcing and the importation of slave labor.
2. Fight for increases in the minimum wage and benefits as an issue of fairness.
3. Promote tax fairness, not tax hikes. (GDP growth does reduce the deficit).
4. Fight wasteful spending
5. Avoid votes which will harm moderates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lysergik Donating Member (340 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's most likely due to peoples benefits expiring or just giving up..
..since those people aren't showing up as receiving benefits now, they must have found work, right? Wrong.

These numbers are bullshit and can be spun anyway you like. Shrub is trying to make it look like he's doing something besides running the US into the ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinontheedge Donating Member (232 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. The numbers are already seasonally adjusted.
Let's assume that the economy is really, actually, factually starting to grow again. I think it has more to do with the normal business cycle than anything Bush did, but he'll get credit nonetheless. I think it is very, very, very important that the democrats have something to run on besides the economy and Iraq. Both could improve dramatically before election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Do You Have a Link Regarding the Seasonal Adjustment?
I'd be interested in seeing it. None of the articles I've read on the data mention this and I can't find the methodology anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. I posted the link in one of today's threads - but it is on the DOL site
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I saw the DOL report
but I can't find their methodology for seasonal adjustments...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. When Reagan was Prez
they changed the employment data to include military where they had always been a separate category. At the beginning, it was mentioned that methodology had changed, but then the numbers were reported and compared to previous rates with no explanation except that the employment numbers were higher than ever before.


Cooked books. These people are masters of deception and a thorough examination of jobs numbers would be in order before accepting this "miracle."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doppledang Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Sorry, nope
Actually, when they compared to old data, they adjuested the old date after the fact, making comparing new data vs. old data valid. The inclusion of the military, therefore, had no effect until the military payroll was drastically decreased in 1990-1991.

Anticipate what will happen. Bush escaped much of the blame for the recession precisely because he predicted it. Democrats can share the credit only if they predict it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Nope - DOL said no adjustments for new seasonal factors would be made to
old data.

Claimed this was standard procedure.

Treasury always goes back and adjusts the whole series.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. The job data is mostly Christmas inducement-
Edited on Fri Nov-07-03 02:14 PM by Beaker
You can't turn on a tv or radio today without someone gleefully shouting about how the wonderful economy is adding more jobs, and all signs point to a booming economy just around the next corner-

Just like The Junta helped to talk down the economy in order to get elected, they're desperately trying to talk it back up(for exactly the same reason).

If they get their media minions and mavens to spread good news cheer, the masses will pry open their wallets and spend spend spend on oodles and oodles of STUFF(made in china) this Xmas shopping season- after all we're on the road to recovery, and I'm bound to have a good job by the time the bills come due to pay for all this stuff, and after all we deserve to treat ourselves to nice things, right?

right?

and the scary thing is-

it just might work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nadienne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. I don't know about that...
The money that spenders spend, for the most part, goes to the greedy corporate head-honchos. I don't think that will change. Each time the economy "improved" ... well ... I haven't seen any raises from it. My bills are still going up and up and up, and I continue to have added job responsibilities as my boss decides to "save money" by having the office staff do what he would have had an outside company do...

No, it's just a bunch of smoke. They're hoping for mass hallucination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoneStarLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
12. You Just Have To Know What Statements Translate Into
What I love most is that all the talking points ignore one bare-bones fact:

We are still not adding enough jobs to the economy to break-even much less do anything substantial to staunch unemployment.

Instead of "we're gaining 120,000 jobs a month and everything is poised for explosive growth!" you should hear "we're still 100,000 jobs under the break-even point and we've leveraged ourselves so deep in debt just to get to this point that we're in deep shit."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. yeah
but the media won't report that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. seasonal part time....these thugs are grasping at straws...
gin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-07-03 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
21. There are tons of "help wanted" signs where I live for crummy
part-time jobs with no benefits. I even saw one for management positions that did not mention benefits (health care).

I live in Western Washington state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC