Request for Help, A phony Jobs Debate

[indie_voter]

Any salient rebuttals you could throw my way? ;^)

Thanks in advance:

We are having a ferocious jobs debate, most of it fraudulent. If presidents could easily create jobs, the unemployment rate would rarely exceed 3.5 percent. But all they can usually do is influence the economy through taxes, spending and regulatory decisions -- and hope that job growth follows. In our market system, private employers play the pivotal role. They will add jobs only if: (a) demand justifies new workers; (b) labor costs aren't at unprofitable levels; and (c) they think healthy economic conditions will last. Electing a president based on job creation makes as much sense as selecting a doctor based on palm reading.

.....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3560-2004Feb24.html

[papau]

1. President's policies affect employer capital investment decisions -

the hurdle rate of return for an investment that will hire more folks is that the investment return more than just putting the money in the bank.

In my board room life we always started with the 10 year bond rate - and tried to add something for risk!

The product obviously had to be seen as having a market - so that part of the discussion is a diversion from the Presidents affect on ready to go investments.

A deficit with no plan to reduce - as in Bush - means the models we use to project a 10 year rate 10 years from now yield a higher rate that must be made by the investment.

Fewer projects meet the higher hurdle, and fewer people are employed.

Add to that the non-enforcement of IRS Code 482 - where youy ability to move US taxes way down if you outsource overseas is stopped - and with the Bush GO overseas and pay less tax gift to his friends the rich - we lose even more jobs.

There is always outsourcing because for some jobs the economics demand it.

But under Bush the flood is occuring because he is rewarding it!

[mdmc]

2. Rebuttal: A new face for America

Sometimes, when things get mired, a fresh perspective can make all the difference.
9-11-01 changed America. But instead of uniting the world against terrorism, we invaded Iraq and allowed Pakistan to spread nuclear secrets to our enemies.
We need health care and education and security.
A new President, with a fresh, strong popular vote mandate, can help pull this country out of recession

[many a good man]

3. Not fraudulent at all

Government wields enormous policy to influence the economy. The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 mandates that policy be directed toward the goal of reducing unemployment and underemployment. Handling of the economy should be one of the main determinants in judging a president.

Economic policies can be rationally analyzed to judge their impact on the economy. If they don't contribute to creating a more sound economy that is capable of generating enough jobs for the people then the policies and policy makers need to be changed.

I would pick a doctor based on how good his advice is and whether it is helping me. There are many factors that effect my health that are outside my doctor's control that may contribute to my bad health. I must judge whether my bad health is due to those outside factors or whether the doctor is giving me bad advice...

[indie_voter]

4. Thanks folks!!

[JPZenger]

5. Behind the Jobs Numbers

The following are excerpts from an article written on September 2, 2003 by New York financial reporter John Crudele.

"JOBS: LIARS, DAMN LIARS & STATISTICS

* The way the unemployment rate is calculated was changed back in January, when it suddenly fell to 5.7 percent from 6.0 percent in December. That decline didn't reflect any improvement in the job market, just a change in the way the government takes its count.

* The government says it gets its new job count by surveying 300,000 businesses. But the participants are not selected randomly or scientifically. And there is no way of knowing how many of these companies reply truthfully to the government's request.

* Until this year the Labor Department arbitrarily added large numbers of jobs each month to its count for companies it assumed (but couldn't prove) forgot to respond to its survey or couldn't be reached.

Some months these "bias factor" additions - as they were called - would add up to 150,000 jobs. The bias factor never reduced the number of jobs, because the government never assumed companies that had forgotten to reply might have gone out of business and laid everyone off.

The government recently changed how it comes up with this bias factor but it still adds jobs to the count more often than it takes them away. In fact, only once this year did its bias factor take away jobs.

* According to the government survey of companies, there have been 2,690,000 jobs lost since the peak in employment in February 2001. That was the first full month of the Bush administration.

* When the government surveyed companies in July, it found a drop of 44,000 jobs. But when it asked people in their homes if they had worked at least one hour in the previous month, job losses increased to 260,000.

* The unemployment rate for people at least 25 years old with at least an undergraduate degree from college is now 3.1 percent. It was 1.6 percent when Bush took office. The 3.1 percent is the highest since 1993, when the last recession was ending.

* The average length of unemployment is now 19.8 weeks. It was 12.8 weeks in February 2001. The current level is the highest since it reached 20.4 weeks in January 1984.

* The number of people unemployed for at least 27 weeks is 1,959,000. Back in January the number hit 2,036,000 - the worst since 1993. As comparison: Back in February 2000 the number of people unemployed for 27 or more weeks was just 708,000."