[IceBreaker]

By Matt Margolis at 09:58 AM



This morning the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a report the March employment situation. Things continue to look good for country.


Highlights of the report:

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 110,000 in March (the 22nd consecutive month of payroll job gains).

The unemployment rate fell to 5.2%, from 5.4% in February.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% in March and 2.6% on a year-over-year-basis.



Those darn Bush tax cuts...

(quoted from Blogsforbush)



How is this reported by the left wing?

go to CNN.com..... "JOB GROWTH DISASPPOINTS!!!!!"
OH MY LORD, IT IS ALL OVER.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/01/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

[TETENAL]

We have 12.5% here in Germany - down from 12.6% last month.

[von Wrangell]

Just out of curiosity. How is the rate calculated in the US?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Just out of curiosity. How is the rate calculated in the US?

You don't have google on your internet?

Here you go.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You don't have google on your internet?

Here you go.

Hmmm . . . you're right, the state of Montana Department of Labor and Industry DOES perform unemployment calculations for the US government.

Google can be your friend too, Kilbey.

Check out the answers to von Wrangell's question here. It's from the Bureau of Labor Statistic's website. You know, the agency that issued today's press release.

[saddino]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
How is this reported by the left wing?

go to CNN.com..... "JOB GROWTH DISASPPOINTS!!!!!"

How is this reported by the right wing?

go to FoxNews.com..... "March Payroll Growth Much Lower Than Expected"

and continues:

From FoxNews.com:
U.S. employers created only 110,000 new jobs in March, the smallest gain in eight months and barely half the 220,000 that Wall Street economists had forecast, as manufacturers and retailers shed workers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152172,00.html


Clearly, positive job growth is better than a loss, but when the results are half of what were expected - and the weakest job growth in 8 months - I think it's fair reporting to call it "disappointing." Both CNN and FoxNews seem to report this fairly (and both go on to mention the welcome drop in unemployment). I think most economists do credit Bush's tax cuts with a short-term propping up the econonmy out of the recession, but the "concern" (hence "disappoints") is with the length of the expansion (steady job growth would be a healthy sign of a recovering economy).

IMHO, the reporting of this story isn't a very solid example of "liberal bias" or the imagined "Bush bashing" conspiracy of the MSM. Blogs for Bush can do better than this.

[Athens]

nm

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Hmmm . . . you're right, the state of Montana Department of Labor and Industry DOES perform unemployment calculations for the US government.

Google can be your friend too, Kilbey.

Check out the answers to von Wrangell's question here. It's from the Bureau of Labor Statistic's website. You know, the agency that issued today's press release.

From the Montana website:

The national unemployment rate is computed solely from the Current Population Survey (CPS) of 60,000 households conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Residents of selected households are interviewed about their work experience. From these responses, the Bureau of Labor Statistics then estimates the size of the labor force and the number of people who are jobless.

I was simply using one of the top responses from google.com.

Call me lazy, but I am not lazier than von Wrangell.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
From the Montana website:


I was simply using one of the top responses from google.com.

Call me lazy, but I am not lazier than von Wrangell.

You and von Wrangell are both equally lazy, one no more so than the other.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
You and von Wrangell are both equally lazy, one no more so than the other.

Whatevah... [/CARTMAN]

Admit you're wrong. I dare ya.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Whatevah... [/CARTMAN]

Admit you're wrong. I dare ya.

What exactly would you like me to admit to being wrong about?

You posted information about how the umeployment rate is figured and I castigated you for not posting a more accurate set of references from the agency that actually produces the data in question.

If you want to be right, tell me what it is you want to be right about and I will agree to it. Internet debating for me has never been about being right or wrong. So tell me how you want me to assent to being right and I will say so.

[Dimethyltrypt]

Ah, Kill Joys.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
What exactly would you like me to admit to being wrong about?

I want you to admit to being wrong about jumping all over my post and inferring that it was inaccurate.

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
You posted information about how the umeployment rate is figured and I castigated you for not posting a more accurate set of references from the agency that actually produces the data in question.

No you didn't.

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
If you want to be right, tell me what it is you want to be right about and I will agree to it.

See above.

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Internet debating for me has never been about being right or wrong. So tell me how you want me to assent to being right and I will say so.

ALL debating is about right and wrong.

Let me recap for you:

von Wangell asked this question:

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Just out of curiosity. How is the rate calculated in the US?

I responded to show how quickly one could find such info.

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You don't have google on your internet?

Here you go.

You inferred the info was inaccurate.

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Hmmm . . . you're right, the state of Montana Department of Labor and Industry DOES perform unemployment calculations for the US government.

Google can be your friend too, Kilbey.

Check out the answers to von Wrangell's question here. It's from the Bureau of Labor Statistic's website. You know, the agency that issued today's press release.

I responded that the site I linked to had correct info.

Originally posted by Kilbey:
From the Montana website:

The national unemployment rate is computed solely from the Current Population Survey (CPS) of 60,000 households conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Residents of selected households are interviewed about their work experience. From these responses, the Bureau of Labor Statistics then estimates the size of the labor force and the number of people who are jobless.

I was simply using one of the top responses from google.com.

Call me lazy, but I am not lazier than von Wrangell.

You called me lazy.

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
You and von Wrangell are both equally lazy, one no more so than the other.

I called you to the carpet to admit you were wrong. I think this post thoroughly sets that record straight.

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Whatevah... [/CARTMAN]

Admit you're wrong. I dare ya.

And now here we are...

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Dimethyltrypt:
Ah, Kill Joys.

Stalker.

TAKE YOUR MEDICINE!!!

[roberto blanco]

Who is counted as employed?

For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work...

in other words, disregarding all slave labour and temp jobs, the unemployment rate is about 20%...

[OldManMac]

The "official" numbers are nothing more than a feel-good smoke screen. The real numbers would frighten too many, so they're not used.

[budster101]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The "official" numbers are nothing more than a feel-good smoke screen. The real numbers would frighten too many, so they're not used.

Give us some real numbers. (Source too)

[OldManMac]

A better explanation of unemployment number calculation. One of the interesting statistics used qualifies one as employed when he is only working one hour per week. Those who are no longer on unemployment benefits, but still not working full-time (myself included), are also not included in the unemployment numbers. The unemployment figures also do not include the vast numbers of inner city poor youth, whom we have conveniently forgotten about (and whom we certainly don't want to include in any case, as the numbers would indeed be drastically higher, and that would remind us of our failures to include all Americans in the quest for that magical piece of the pie).

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...din030804.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...28/ai_n6157854

The current method of determining unemployment is misleading at best.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I want you to admit to being wrong about jumping all over my post and inferring that it was inaccurate.

I "admit to being wrong about jumping all over [your] post and inferring that it was inaccurate".

There you go. Cheers!

[bubblewrap]

We're all working at Wal-Mart now supporting the Chinese. The new world consumer. Soo too they will become drones of Carl Tramalaw.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
I "admit to being wrong about jumping all over [your] post and inferring that it was inaccurate".

There you go. Cheers!

Thank you.

[SVass]

Highlights of the report:

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 110,000 in March (the 22nd consecutive month of payroll job gains).

The unemployment rate fell to 5.2%, from 5.4% in February.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% in March and 2.6% on a year-over-year-basis.

The unemployment rate was 3.5% when Bush took office.
Total employment has fallen since Bush took office.
Average CEO pay has increased 12% in past year. Sunday's (today) NYTimes.
The unemployment "rate" is smaller than it should be because they don't count people who can't find work and they do count part time workers.
sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SVass:
The unemployment rate was 3.5% when Bush took office.

No, actually it was 4% -- follow the BLS site link below. It stayed at about that rate for Bush's first year, then the recession that was beginning in Clinton's last year bit and the rate increased. It peaked in June 2003 at 6.3%. It has been coming back down ever since then.

You really should compare like with like. At the same time in Clinton's second term unemployment was exactly the same level that it is now in Bush's second term -- 5.2%. Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics site Unemployment under Clinton first dipped below 5.3% in August, 1996 -- almost 4 years into his first term.

I don't recall anyone -- least of all on the left -- complaining then that unemployment was high, dismissing those rates or otherwise spinning the numbers (the methodology for which has not changed). Indeed, I recall Clinton running on his strong economy, and how unemployment was at the lowest level in 25 years. It was an economically feel good moment for the nation, and rightly so.

If 5.2% was a low level when Clinton was president (which it certainly was), it's a low level now. Only liberal spin prevents people from admitting it.

[budster101]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, actually it was 4% -- follow the BLS site link below. It stayed at about that rate for Bush's first year, then the recession that was beginning in Clinton's last year bit and the rate increased. It peaked in June 2003 at 6.3%. It has been coming back down ever since then.

You really should compare like with like. At the same time in Clinton's second term unemployment was exactly the same level that it is now in Bush's second term -- 5.2%. Link to Bureau of Labor Statistics site Unemployment under Clinton first dipped below 5.3% in August, 1996 -- almost 4 years into his first term.

I don't recall anyone -- least of all on the left -- complaining then that unemployment was high, dismissing those rates or otherwise spinning the numbers (the methodology for which has not changed). Indeed, I recall Clinton running on his strong economy, and how unemployment was at the lowest level in 25 years. It was an economically feel good moment for the nation, and rightly so.

If 5.2% was a low level when Clinton was president (which it certainly was), it's a low level now. Only liberal spin prevents people from admitting it.

Wouldn't that bring into question, liberal ethics?

:

[SVass]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, actually it was 4% -- follow the BLS site link below. It stayed at about that rate for Bush's first year, then the recession that was beginning in Clinton's last year bit and the rate increased. It peaked in June 2003 at 6.3%. It has been coming back down ever since then.

I don't recall anyone -- least of all on the left -- complaining then that unemployment was high, dismissing those rates or otherwise spinning the numbers (the methodology for which has not changed). Indeed, I recall Clinton running on his strong economy, and how unemployment was at the lowest level in 25 years. It was an economically feel good moment for the nation, and rightly so.

If 5.2% was a low level when Clinton was president (which it certainly was), it's a low level now. Only liberal spin prevents people from admitting it.

I went to your link (BLS) and called up the unemployment data from 1990 to 2004. It reached a high of 7.5% in 1992 and a low of 4% in 2000 before climbing through 4.7% (end of 2001) to 6% in 2003. Your convenient memory apparently does not allow you to remember that Democrats have ALWAYS complained that the survey did not count those who have given up searching for work. This is not "liberal" vs "conservative"-typical labels. This is democrat vs republican or if you prefer, progressive vs reactionary. sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SVass:
I went to your link (BLS) and called up the unemployment data from 1990 to 2004. It reached a high of 7.5% in 1992 and a low of 4% in 2000 before climbing through 4.7% (end of 2001) to 6% in 2003. Your convenient memory apparently does not allow you to remember that Democrats have ALWAYS complained that the survey did not count those who have given up searching for work. This is not "liberal" vs "conservative"-typical labels. This is democrat vs republican or if you prefer, progressive vs reactionary. sam

It doesn't matter whether Democrats have ALWAYS complained about the methodology. You made a comparative statement using the unemployment statistics. You can't tout the unemployment statistics at the end of Clinton's term (while understating them by half a percentage point) and then turn around and attack the statistics when Republicans are in office. The statistics are consistent, it's you who are inconsistent.

The unemployment statistics are a like-with-like comparison. Whatever the methodology is, it hasn't changed in the years we are talking about. However you think they are understated today, they were no more or less understated when Clinton was in office. Therefore they are a valid trend comparison.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, the unemployment rate as consistently measured is the same today in the March after the 2004 election as it was in March 1997 after the 1996 election. The unemployment rate is the same today as when Clinton was riding high. The only difference is the spin from Democrats.

[budster101]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It doesn't matter whether Democrats have ALWAYS complained about the methodology. You made a comparative statement using the unemployment statistics. You can't tout the unemployment statistics at the end of Clinton's term (while understating them by half a percentage point) and then turn around and attack the statistics when Republicans are in office. The statustics are consistent, it's you who are inconsistent.

The unemployment statistics are a like-with-like comparison. Whatever the methodology is, it hasn't changed in the years we are talking about. However you think they are understated today, they were no more understated when Clinton was in office. Therefore they are a valid trend comparison.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, the unemployment rate as consistently measured is the same today in the March after the 2004 election as it was in March 1997 after the 1996 election. The unemployment rate is the same today as when Clinton was riding high. The only difference is the spin from Democrats.

I think I said it better:

[SVass]

Any competent economist will tell you that unemployment is reaching a minimum when real wages rise, not when some government survey gives you some number. Real wages are currently stagnant (as was typical during recent Republican administrations) and not rising as was true during the Clinton era. Republicans also tend to give all credit and rewards to the "king" during the good times and all blame to the previous rascal. So now we have a "borrow, steal and spend" group in power instead of a "tax and spend". Their mathematics consist of using a 1.9% economic growth rate to claim social security will go bankrupt and a 4% growth rate to show that their private investment plan will save us during the same years. So, when real wages RISE, I will concede that unemployment is truly decreasing. All of the rest is puffery. sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SVass:
Any competent economist will tell you that unemployment is reaching a minimum when real wages rise, not when some government survey gives you some number. Real wages are currently stagnant (as was typical during recent Republican administrations) and not rising as was true during the Clinton era. Republicans also tend to give all credit and rewards to the "king" during the good times and all blame to the previous rascal. So now we have a "borrow, steal and spend" group in power instead of a "tax and spend". Their mathematics consist of using a 1.9% economic growth rate to claim social security will go bankrupt and a 4% growth rate to show that their private investment plan will save us during the same years. So, when real wages RISE, I will concede that unemployment is truly decreasing. All of the rest is puffery. sam

The BLS measures unemployment directly. They do it when Democrats are in office, they do it when Republicans are in office. The numbers are objective, and non-partisan. The methodology hasn't changed, so they are a good comparator.

Your personal spin cycle won't get you out of this one. The numbers are what they are. And what they are was judged to be good when a Democrat was in the White House. The same numbers don't magically morph from good to bad just because the president has an "R" after his name.

[SVass]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


The BLS measures unemployment directly. They do it when Democrats are in office, they do it when Republicans are in office. The numbers are objective, and non-partisan. The methodology hasn't changed, so they are a good comparator.

Your personal spin cycle won't get you out of this one. The numbers are what they are. And what they are was judged to be good when a Democrat was in the White House. The same numbers don't magically morph from good to bad just because the president has an "R" after his name.

I agree 100%. The numbers demonstrate that real wages stagnate or decrease when the Republicans are in office and increase when the Democrats are in. The BLS unemployment data are based on a survey and demonstrate that surveys report answers to questions. You have to note that only spin meisters of all stripes pick one number out of a group and brag about it. The one "unemployment rate" has to be looked at with its accompanying numbers, not separately. Another irrelevant number for you, Crime rate reduction started when abortions became legal. There is a 100% correlation. sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SVass:
I agree 100%. The numbers demonstrate that real wages stagnate or decrease when the Republicans are in office and increase when the Democrats are in. The BLS unemployment data are based on a survey and demonstrate that surveys report answers to questions. You have to note that only spin meisters of all stripes pick one number out of a group and brag about it. The one "unemployment rate" has to be looked at with its accompanying numbers, not separately. Another irrelevant number for you, Crime rate reduction started when abortions became legal. There is a 100% correlation. sam

Getting pretty desperate, aren't you.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SVass:
There is a 100% correlation.

And as we all know, that implies causation.

Get a grip.

[SVass]

I feel sorry for you as during the Clinton era, we bragged of three numbers together, twenty million new jobs, increasing real wages, and falling unemployment. Now you get to harp on one number as you had zero new jobs, stagnant real wages, and your pride and joy number flat unemployment over four years. You accept a 5% foreign subsidy (health care is 5% of the cost of an american made car) and a 5% US penalty (our excess executive pay is about 5% of the cost of american products as our overhead is 21% to 16% for Japan) and I haven't mentioned our bribable Congress. (See Mark Twain for a discussion of the latter.) Actually from today's economic news, I see that Standard Oil is getting back together after a century. What is next? Where was Teapot Dome? sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SVass:
I feel sorry for you as during the Clinton era, we bragged of three numbers together, twenty million new jobs, increasing real wages, and falling unemployment.

Actually, I was pretty happy about the economy during the latter Clinton years. Unlike you I didn't feel the need to make up bad news where it didn't exist.

[Krusty]

The dropping unemployment rate certainly isn't bad news and job growth seems to have steadily turned around since the beginning of 2004.

However, the "other" employment statistic does paint a slightly less rosy picture --- the share of working age people either working or actively seeking a job at the end of March was 65.8% -- the lowest rate in 17 years and holding steady for the last 3 months. In other words, it does appear that the unemployment rate's drop is due, at least in part, to people simply dropping out of the workforce. bls.gov confirms this by showing 170k more working-age people listed as "Not in labor force" in March than in Februrary. The quarterly statistics show 700,000 fewer working-age people in the labor force in Q1 2005 than in Q4 2004.

So which are we really ? 110k jobs "up" for March or 60k down (110k jobs - 170k who dropped out of labor pool)? The answer is a little ambiguous since we don't really know how many of the 170k dropped out by choice vs. gave up.

originally posted by sVass
during the Clinton era, we bragged of three numbers together, twenty million new jobs, increasing real wages, and falling unemployment

.. don't forget the absolutely stunning 56% drop in the welfare rolls from 1993 - 2000 (even as the population increased. As a percentage of total pop is was a >60% drop to levels not seen since the 1960s) link ... from nearly 5 million families to 2.2 million. Thats 2.8 million entire families that basically went from net recipients to net contributors to the tax base (budget surplus, anyone ? ).

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SVass:
I feel sorry for you as during the Clinton era, we bragged of three numbers together, twenty million new jobs, increasing real wages, and falling unemployment.

Right up until that little downturn during his last year, that is.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Krusty:
So which are we really ? 110k jobs "up" for March or 60k down (110k jobs - 170k who dropped out of labor pool)? The answer is a little ambiguous since we don't really know how many of the 170k dropped out by choice vs. gave up.

There is a third choice, which the traditional methodology has a hard time capturing in the statistics: went self employed. Sole proprietorships and independent contractors do not have tax ID numbers. So from a BLS perspective, they are identical to someone not working at all.

However, the same problems in the statistics have always existed since the methodology has not changed. The left did not run around trying to talk down the numbers and find flaws when it was their guy in the White House. It is therefore disingenuous to do so now.

The weaving and dodging and desperate attempts at spin is what happens when you paint yourself into a corner and refuse to see anything good. You start seeing good news as bad because you think it helps "the other side." But there is no "other side" here because this is good news for America. Liberals need to come in from the cold and remember that good news for their country is good news for them too.

Oh, and Krusty: I'm quite happy to let Clinton take credit for signing welfare reform. I think that was an important part of his legacy and it has cut the welfare rolls. But don't forget that it wasn't his idea. It was the idea of the Republican Congress elected in 1994.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, I was pretty happy about the economy during the latter Clinton years. Unlike you I didn't feel the need to make up bad news where it didn't exist.

Me either.

But then again, that really had little to do with anything Clinton did.

[f1000]

Originally posted by SVass:
I feel sorry for you as during the Clinton era, we bragged of three numbers together, twenty million new jobs, increasing real wages, and falling unemployment.

Actually, Bush can brag about GDP growth as well. We added another Switzerland to our economy last year.

EDIT: Make that almost 3/4 of a Russia.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Krusty:
.. don't forget the absolutely stunning 56% drop in the welfare rolls from 1993 - 2000 (even as the population increased. As a percentage of total pop is was a >60% drop to levels not seen since the 1960s) link ... from nearly 5 million families to 2.2 million. Thats 2.8 million entire families that basically went from net recipients to net contributors to the tax base (budget surplus, anyone ? ).

How much of this was due to Clinton? The way I remember it, Clinton basically had the good fortune of presiding over a technological revolution that was decades in the making. Remember the catcalls when Gore tried to take some credit for the Internet?

To be fair, I'm not sure how much of our current economic recovery is due to Bush, either. The U.S. economy is the largest in the world and it's also self-correcting. It would take an awfully large perturbation to cause it to falter...the kind of perturbation that usually results in hemoclysms in the rest of the world.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by f1000:
How much of this was due to Clinton? The way I remember it, Clinton basically had the good fortune of presiding over a technological revolution that was decades in the making. Remember the catcalls when Gore tried to take some credit for the Internet?

Exactly

To be fair, I'm not sure how much of our current economic recovery is due to Bush, either. The U.S. economy is the largest in the world and it's also self-correcting. It would take an awfully large perturbation to cause it to falter...the kind of perturbation that usually results in hemoclysms in the rest of the world.

It really has nothing to do with Bush. Not enough to matter.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by f1000:
How much of this was due to Clinton? The way I remember it, Clinton basically had the good fortune of presiding over a technological revolution that was decades in the making. Remember the catcalls when Gore tried to take some credit for the Internet?

I'm generally in agreement with the notion that there are some occurrences that Presidents just get to "ride out" to their benefit or detriment (oil prices, technology etc. ... those low oil prices really helped Clinton's economy out though he had little to do with it).

However, he did sign the welfare reform bill that forcibly kicked able bodied people of the welfare rolls after 2 years. Could have been a catastrophe if the economy wasn't heated up and headed in the right direction but, if anything, the Welfare numbers are more attributable to his direct action than most other parts of the growth in the 90s. The year after the bill was enacted saw a whopping drop of 24% in a single year.

[SVass]

Originally posted by f1000:
How much of this was due to Clinton? The way I remember it, Clinton basically had the good fortune of presiding over a technological revolution that was decades in the making. Remember the catcalls when Gore tried to take some credit for the Internet?

To be fair, I'm not sure how much of our current economic recovery is due to Bush, either. The U.S. economy is the largest in the world and it's also self-correcting. It would take an awfully large perturbation to cause it to falter...the kind of perturbation that usually results in hemoclysms in the rest of the world.

To be equally fair, the computer revolution was funded by the (Defense) Advanced Research Agency, ARPA, -remember ARPA NET- and our brilliant new leader is now quashing their funding for basic research and shifting it all to specific weapons treating it as another source for looting. This will ensure that no new revolution can occur. sam