U.S. employers showed a net gain of 337,000 jobs.

... and Alex' retort will be?

he'd say we all gonna die! and take Canada with us
;-)))

Colin, have you hired anyone lately? LOL

Yes, we have but not enough to account for 337,000! ;-)

It's Bush's fault!!

They snuck in the pre-draft numbers. 337,000 more soldiers. :-P

They snuck in the pre-draft numbers. 337,000 more soldiers. :-P [/b][/quote]
We need more soldiers. I think this is another spor Bush is wrong. We need to expand out military - especially special forces, and since it takes so long to train them we should get started ASAP!

short-sighted effect of policies implemented by the gov't to boost the economy before the election. seriously, job #s always go up before elections, people with jobs tend to vote more favorably. in the long run, the policies are not whats best for the economy.

Biggy,
well put and axiom. I wonder how some don't see it for what it is.

Which policies created a net 337,000 jobs in October?

Which policies created a net 337,000 jobs in October? [/b][/quote]
tax cuts,
technology purchases insentives,
hurricanes in Florida

tax cuts,
technology purchases insentives,
hurricanes in Florida [/b][/quote]


2 of the 3 are possitive things!

2 of the 3 are possitive things! [/b][/quote]
Mike,
tax cuts are positive things if they don't create defecits.

therefore the whole thing is a draw
;-)))

There are 2 ways tom PAY for those deficits:
1) by printing money and causing inflation-
we all lose
2) by selling bonds and making your and my children pay for OUR debts.

I can live with 2nd,
the first is not that good
;-)))

Or .. gasp! ... Spend less. I can find a few hundred billion no problem.

Or .. gasp! ... Spend less. I can find a few hundred billion no problem. [/b][/quote]
Spend less where?
In Iraq? In Afganistan? where would YOU spend less, Colin?

Bush have been hoping for economic growth to cut the deficits, however he might change that next year, when his 2006 budget will be presented to Congress.

Spend less where?
In Iraq? In Afganistan? where would YOU spend less, Colin? [/b][/quote]
I'd cut military spending. I believe in having the strongest military in the world. Since we spend what the next ten countries do in sum, I feel pretty confident we could knock $50-$100 billion off the military budget and still be #1 by far - at least a factor of 10 still.

I'd cut a good $50 billion out of health and human services and permit countries such as Canada and Mexico to sell their cheaper drugs here in the US. There's a lot of stuff in health and human services that is ridiculous if you ask me. Government programs to "support healthy marriages", for example? I mean, that's more than $100 million for that one item. I don't think it should be the role of government to save and promote healthy marriages,

What I said is nothing. Buff will tell you how to cut out 80%!

Sweeeet! ;-)))

Colin for Prez! ;-))

I'd cut military spending. I believe in having the strongest military in the world. Since we spend what the next ten countries do in sum, I feel pretty confident we could knock $50-$100 billion off the military budget and still be #1 by far - at least a factor of 10 still.

I'd cut a good $50 billion out of health and human services and permit countries such as Canada and Mexico to sell their cheaper drugs here in the US. There's a lot of stuff in health and human services that is ridiculous if you ask me. Government programs to "support healthy marriages", for example? I mean, that's more than $100 million for that one item. I don't think it should be the role of government to save and promote healthy marriages, [/b][/quote]
cut military spending? - no chance, if anything there will just be increases with the mess over there in iraq thanks to GWB. no way to cut spending in the middle of a "war on terrorism".

allow drugs from Canada and Mexico - "I just want to make sure its safe" - thats bullshit, he banned it cause somewhere down the line he has big contributors in the large medical companies and lobbyists. there will be no canadian drug imports under bush.

i may be democrat, but i would vote for a republican president if they were good - bush just stinks, worst than kerry, much worst.

of the 337,000, how many of them were housekeepers from Latin America that normally wouldn't been counted? I'll have to refresh my memory on how that went...something about allowing immigrants that have gotten those jobs to stay here....

The true indicator of deficits, is to compaire then to GNP. As long as ratio stays the same we are in good shape.

I think Bush needs to stop spending like a Democrat.

The guy has bankrupted how many companies? How did he do with the Texas Rangers.. he can't even balance a checkbook, let alone the economy.

In the beginning of his presidency when he proposed the tax cuts, Greenspan was strongly against it and stated it would hurt the economy in the long run.. he promptly told Greenspan to go "fuck off", and did it anyways..

sorta sounds like what he did to the world with Iraq :)

Right, I said what *I* would do. ;-)

In that respect the total debt has gone up a bit about to what it was in the mid 1990s. It's still average for a G7 country. Look at Italy and Japan. Now THOSE are some high debts!

I think you're mischaracterizing Greenspan's position. He said he supported the tax cuts so long as there were budget cuts.

New Jobs:

I read that a large part of the added "new jobs" came as a result of the clean-up efforts in the Atlantic SE from hurricane damage and seasonal holiday employment, not new full-time permanent business or service sector opportunities.

FYI: I heard on NPR that fiber-glass mines in N/S Dakota and Minnesota are going to re-open in January. The fiber glass mining company, Natural Fiber Mines, said they would add 4000 new jobs in 3 states over the next year....also that in 1Q 2005, textile companies in Southern US will begin manufacturing foma, wumpeters and grand faloons.

I'm very excited by the possibilities. We need to bring back skilled labor to the US, these efforts should be a good start. :salute:

i thought fiber-glass was manufactured not mined

i hired a dozen Columbian maids last month to service my cock
.. err i mean to boost the employment #s

i hired a dozen Columbian maids last month to service my cock
.. err i mean to boost the employment #s [/b][/quote]
that's what I'm talking about
the private sector creating jobs!
:salute:

In related news, President Bush has directed the National Weather Service to actively seek out ways to foster hurricane production...

"That leaves, what, only a few million more to catch up to make it up to the levels of 1999?"

Alex :bwave:

Soon 100% of Americans will be unemployed, and thus we can draft them into the military so Bush can take over the rest of the world!!

coincidently, how man more mcdonalds were opened in walmarts:)

"That leaves, what, only a few million more to catch up to make it up to the levels of 1999?"

Alex :bwave: [/b][/quote]
That's a myth. There are 14 million more people employed in 2004 than in 1999.

"That leaves, what, only a few million more to catch up to make it up to the levels of 1999?"

Alex :bwave: [/b][/quote]
I was expecting something along lines of "the only way is up... from the bottom of the barrel" :awinky:

Colin, I think you are a victim of creative accounting. The job loss numbers have been well documented, researched, and even admitted to by the whitehouse. Millions more people have lost jobs than "got" jobs in the last 4 years.

If the empoyment numbers net show more people working, then the government is lying to itself somewhere along the line, or one report counts part time / self empyment and the other doesn't.

Alex

My bad. There has been a GAIN of 6.6 million jobs, not 14 million since 1999. Nothing is needed but subtraction.

There were 125462 (000s) people on the nonfarm payroll in January, 1999.
SOURCE: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaeu.txt

There were 132,017 (000s) people on nonfarm payrolls in October, 2004.
SOURCE: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm

This gives a net change of 132,017,000 - 125,462,000 = 6.555 million

---

I didn't realize at first you were choosing 1999 to try and show some job loss under Bush (I forgot you're obsessed). I thought you were just using a 5 year period. Bush took office in January of 2001 (not 1999 or 2000). In that case you can use 130433 for January of 2001 and there are 1.6 million more people working in the US than then. Now, what kind of creative accounting does one have to perform to turn that into a loss? I know the answer. ;-)

Colin, then explain: Why do the monthly numbers for the last 4 years reflect huge job losses, not gains?

Are they measuring two different things?

Alex

It depends on which monthly numbers you look at.

The answer to your question is that there are two different surveys. You can find analysts/economists/pundits/partisans who will argue that one or the other is the better one to use. One survey is a household survey (the survey used for unemployment statistics) and the other is a payroll survey. The payroll survey shows a loss of jobs and the household survey shows a again. Both surveys are conducted by the US Department of Labor.

The major differences are:

1. The payroll survey is larger and on that basis should be less prone to fluctuation errors

2. The payroll survey does not include self-employment data and also under-reports employment by new companies.

3. The payroll survey can double count jobs when employees switch jobs leading to overcounting in some periods and under in others.

Where does the truth lie? Probably somewhere in between, I would guess. The household survey shows an increase of 800,000 self-employed the past 4 years. This isn't enough to offset the 2 million or so "jobs lost" from the payroll survey. On the other hand, even without the self-employment numbers the household survey shows an increase of nearly one million jobs for the period. The unemployment rate has risen and so even though the household survey shows a gain in jobs with or without the self-employed, job gains have not kept pace with population. And once again, the other side, the unemployment rate is still lower than the historical average making this an average to above average time for the US employment picture.

I think the Gov't does not count "self-employed" to be listed as new jobs. There are more people doing things on their own then ever before. The days of big companies producing thousands of jobs is coming to an end. Modern technology allows a single mom and pop shop to be competative on many levels in the digital world.

The household survey does. The payroll survey does not.