Slashdot Mirror
Last Pre-Election Jobs Report Released
September's jobs report notes a gain of 96,000 jobs, and a downward revision for August from 144,000 to 128,000. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.4% (about even to Nixon's and Clinton's when they were reelected), while another 236,000 jobs were added in a periodic revision to the total, leaving Bush at a deficit of 585,000 jobs from where he started. If he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term, he will net positive job growth. The effects of the recent hurricanes were not possible to determine at this point, the report said. This will surely be featured prominently in tonight's second Presidential debate (starting at 9 p.m. Eastern).
The rest of us with jobs will just decide our canidate based upon other issues.
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
...all those unemployed folks are making up for it by selling beanie babies on eBay! Problem solved.
/hey, Cheney said it, not me
...they said that the difference in what was expected and what the numbers actually are, could be attributed to the hurricanes in florida.
though i expect construction jobs to really pick up there in the next few months.
always mosh clockwise
Economists have predicted the economy will continue to get better despite who is elected.
The entire economy problem can be traced back to the Dot-Coms. There is no 'quick fix' after a bubble bursts. If you don't have an economics degree, don't start spouting crap.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
While 585,000 / 4 = ~150,000 that isn't the entire story. The economy needs to have about 150K jobs created per month just to keep up with population growth and the number of new people entering the job market(s). If Bush only averages 150,000 / month for the rest of the year he'll still end his first (and hopefully only) term with a net loss of over 1/2 million jobs. That would (will) make him the first President in 70 years to end a term with less jobs than when he started.
To reduce his .5 million jobs deficit Bush needs to have closer to 300,000 jobs created in each of the next four months. That's a number he hasn't been able to achieve at any point of the last 3.66 years. I doubt he can do it now, as his plan for the economy was never anything that sitmulated job growth.
Uh, no. Since you need about 150,000 jobs added each month just to keep up with a growing population, if he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term he will merely tread water. At this point, there is absolutely no chance that Bush can avoid being the first president since Hoover in the Great Depression to have had fewer jobs at the end of his term than when he began. With a growing population, that ain't easy to do. Just keep up with the population growth and you will wind up with more jobs at the end of four years. Which is why through recession after recession over the last seventy years no other president has managed to pull off such a shoddy record on job growth.
Naturally whatever the number is, it gets trumpeted by the incumbent. "96,000 new jobs were added last month! That shows my economic policies are working!" Garbage. It shows that the job market is going backward, not even keeping up with equilibrium.
I know, realistically they just are. People expect the President to "handle the economy".
But it's stupid. The President has no control over the unemployment rate. All he can do is ask Congress to lower taxes or let them raise taxes. Maybe he can give a speech.
The rest is cyclical. From where I'm sitting the economy is doing fine, even though the government still takes too much money out of it.
If I lost my job, I wouldn't blame the President, I'd blame the bum in the mirror.
sigs, as if you care.
I'm leaning toward voting Bush, but I have heard Kerry and others attack Bush for "mismanaging the economy". It seems to me that none of this is really Bush's fault, the tech bubble was bound to colapse and actually began to fall apart in April 2000 when the Nasdaq tanked. And also that 9/11 thing.
Bush's deficit spending on defense has created jobs (at the expense of accumulated debt of course). But I'm surious to hear what you anti-Bush people think. Specifically, what has Bush done to mismanage the economy??
If I lost my job I'd blame the president. Who's fault is it that the barrel shot up to 52$?
The Chinese. They're buying more of it than ever before.
Petrol prices aside, he's also lowering taxes the wrong way.
It makes a lot more sense if you look at it as percentages of income, not as raw dollars. For instance, if I make $200,000 a year and get a $2000 tax rebate, that's only 1%. If you make $5,000 and get a $200 tax rebate, that's 4%. Suddenly it doesn't look like the rich are getting all the money back, does it?
Of course, some real numbers are worth taking a look at. Bush only cut the Federal Income tax, which is the only part we're concerning ourselves for the purposes of this discussion. Did you know that the top 1% of the country makes 17.53% of the money in the country, but pays 33.89% of the Federal Income tax? (Note: To be in the top 1%, you must make more than $293,000 or so.) The top 50% of the country makes 86.19% of the money, but pays 96.03% of the Federal Income taxes. What are the bottom 50% of the population doing, if they're not reporting their income and paying tax on it?
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Something nags me throughout this whole discussion: Of what effect does the economy, the president, and any other external factor have on whether or not you have a job?
There are two ways to view the world: I am a captain of my fate, or I am a robot with its fate predetermined by people I don't even know (God, the President, or some secret Jewish conspiracy).
I know which philosophy I adhere to. That's why when the dot com bubble burst, and I found myself on the streets with a new child and without cash, I went to find a job and eventually found a well-paying one, albeit not in the industry. Now I am back working at a major dot com and I am enjoying life.
I can't imagine what drives people to make themselves slaves to someone else's will. How does the president create or destroy job? Has he ever interviewed for you? Has he hired you? Does he write secret messages to your potential employer "Hey, don't hire this guy. We don't want the economy to grow right now." Of course not.
And the economy dictating your lifestyle? That's silly. I think of the economy as the weather. Sure, I won't sow wheat in the fall, but then again, I wouldn't sow in the summer either. The economy has its cycles, and rather than wake up every morning and look out the window to see which way the economic winds are blowing, how about you learn a bit on the subject and figure out which way the winds will blow tomorrow so you are ready for it? It really isn't that complicated of a subject. All you need to understand is what Adam Smith wrote down in the "Wealth of Nations" and then how to identify the conditions he described in today's environment.
I totally support Bush. But if Kerry gets elected, or even Nader, or even Stalin for instance, it won't effect my fate. I am a captain of my fate. I don't let others dictate which way I go.
I think that is a major difference between Bush and Kerry supporters. I am hiring Bush for a job. He is going to go take care of the terrorist problem so that I don't have to worry about that so much. Kerry supporters are looking to Kerry as a savior. Kerry is supposed to correct all of life's ills and prescribes a panacea to the old, sick, young, and uneducated. They want to put Kerry in charge, but I want to hire Bush to do a job. That's a big difference in perspective.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
But I asked what the President could do, not the government as a whole.
You're right, this situation is not just the president's fault.
Responsibility lies with the Republican-controlled Congress, the Republican-controlled Senate, and the president.
Remember to vote against all three.
If bush doesn't deserve to be bashed, why did you predict it yourself?
It's not really a prediction at this point...nearly any newspaper you pick up, or any Democrat you listen to, openly blames Bush for the economy and job loss. It's partisan rhetoric, since there's very little effect presidential actions have on the economy until at least half way through their term. Their economic policies and budgets don't go into affect until almost a year after they're elected.
That being said, this is the 13th consecutive month of net job gain.
--trb
Only healthy people can find health insurance. If you already have prior medical conditions, you don't get insurance.
The people who need health insurance cannot get health insurance.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
But lets say that two burger flipper get married lets even say they only work 36 huors a week so they dont count as full time hires.
The lowest Minimum wage in the nation is 5.15 (http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/minimumwage/ staterates.cfm)
That couple makes 19 thousand a year which is above the poverty line so good for them. In some states the minimum wage is much higher (CT, OR, CA) are all around 7$ an hour in those states they make 25K a year, almost the poverty level for a family of four.
So does this person go home and make something happen or do they piss and moan about the crappy job they have?
> "when Clinton was reelected" in 1996: jobs were falling off the trees
Not quite.
Actually I was doing quite a bit of hiring in 1996 and jobs were not falling off trees. In silicon valley I could find a LOT of VERY qualified applicants in 1996.
It didn't get difficult until 98 or so. And then the CISCO's etc. of the world were snatching up anyone who even knew how to do simple math.
From 1998 to 2000 I was seeing applicant's resumes who had no business doing anything but retail. And then I'm not sure if they could have cut retail.
I remember when Carter was up for re-election in 80. In that situation the prime interest rate was 21 percent, people were waiting in lines for two hours to buy three gallons of gas, and unemployment wasn't good at all. Now that was a miserable time and people were really suffering.
So, things change, as they always will.
> where the labor, environment and pay conditions are already in the cesspool
So, if that's the case, then why are home prices still rising? Where is that money coming from? I don't think all those bankers out there are accepting bouncing checks for all those mortgages. Nor are they accepting that proverbial cash that grows on trees.
The money is coming from somewhere. Perhaps the unemployment numbers have some truth to them?
Perhaps those that don't have a job are just too lazy to go out and get one?
Caution: Contents under pressure
My point was that the 5.4% of today is not nearly as accurate as the 6.7% back in '96.
What, did the laws of statistics change during that time? If you're claiming that the margins of errors are different, please produce those margins of error!
Every last one of them felt the job market today is terrible.
In the mid-90's we were on the rising slopes of a bubble. In comparison the job market today *IS* terrible. Likewise, a body temperature of 98.6 seems like a hyperthermia if you compare it to the fever you had eight years ago. In reality though, today's economy isn't bad. It's not going gangbusters and people aren't speculating their life savings on tulip bulbs, but it still ain't bad.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!