Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
248,000 New Jobs In May  
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1251 times:

Democrats are probably really hoping that Pres. Clinton was wrong and it's NOT "the economy stupid".

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. job growth remained strong in May, a government report showed Friday, as the number of jobs added came in above Wall Street expectations.

The Labor Department report showed 248,000 new jobs in May, compared with the revised 346,000 increase reported in April. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast the May report would show a 225,000-job gain.

The April job gain was revised up from a previous reading of 288,000 new jobs. The March jobs gain was also revised higher to 353,000 from a previous reading of 337,000 additional jobs. That puts the three-month job increase at 947,000, the best gain since 1.03 million jobs were added during the same three months of 2000.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/04/news/economy/jobless_may/index.htm?cnn=yes

###

Even more jobs were created in March and April than previously reported!

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineQIguy24 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

That is really great for the US. Let's just hope the rest of the world will follow and there will be created many jobs over here as well. Big grin

User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1240 times:

Don't worry, the Liberal media will underreport this story, along with everything else positive that this administration does.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1236 times:

Actually the "liberal" media has this on the front page.

Check www.nyt.com. Or pay a dollar and buy the New York Times.

What you have failed to notice is that while this is good news, it is nothing to wave your pom poms about. The unemployment rate has stayed constant over the past few months. Job generation at this point only allows us to run in place given the losses over the past year and the unexpected lower job generation this past winter.

The issue here isn't the media. Most media types (lib or con) are relatively well-off, with investments in the stock market, and will benefit from a rebounding economy. The issue here is that there is a general malaise in the population at large. You can tell folks that the economy is improving, but few are buying that news, even if statistics bear witness to the fact. Perhaps, time will tell, but only if job growth stays on the up and up.


User currently offlineVSLover From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1897 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

248k jobs in may? thats wonderful news!


of course, in total, the country has a net loss of approx 1.4 million since bush took office. so while may number are good news indeed, there is still quite a stretch to go.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1216 times:

VSLover,

Why is it that liberals count 100% of the job losses that occured from the day GWB took office against him while simultaneously giving Clinton credit for the jobs created from the date of his election in Nov. 2002?



User currently offlineVSLover From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1897 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

i'm sorry, i dont see where in my post i say anything specific about the job losses relating directly to bush.

i simply use the change in office as a marker. nothing more nothing less.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1206 times:

"Why is it that liberals count 100% of the job losses that occured from the day GWB took office against him while simultaneously giving Clinton credit for the jobs created from the date of his election in Nov. 2002?"

The same reason that conservatives count the number of job losses under Carter from the day he took office, and the number of job gains under Reagan from the first day he took office, etc. You need a measure for both economic and political reasons.

Its called politics. Liberal or conservative. You either get ready to face the music, or bow out. The beleagured Joan of Arc routine fails the laugh test every time. For cons or libs. So, spare us the maudlin sentimentality.

Plus, remember that Clinton had 8 years in office. Enough to render an analysis if Executive branch decisions had an impact on the economy.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1205 times:

Jay,

You seem to agree with me.

Carter - from inauguration to inauguration
Reagan - from inauguration to inauguration
Bush I - from inauguration to election
Clinton - from election to inauguration
Bush II - from inauguration to _________?

I'm not looking for any sympathy. I just want one measure that applies to both liberals and conservatives. In your response, you illustrated that this isn't the case.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

"Carter - from inauguration to inauguration
Reagan - from inauguration to inauguration
Bush I - from inauguration to election
Clinton - from election to inauguration
Bush II - from inauguration to _________"

Where are you getting this from?
What is the basis of these statistics? Which organization in its official capacity delivers these stats? The DNC? The GOP? If either/or, there pronouncements are irrelevant.

Furthermore, there were some job losses under Clinton post-election 2000 (something that Conservatives love to chatter about) So, Dubya's gettin a big boost there ! So, in either case, you're just digging the grave for your own argument --- whatever confused state it may be in.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1193 times:

Jay,

I'm getting this from what you said.

The same reason that conservatives count the number of job losses under Carter from the day he took office, and the number of job gains under Reagan from the first day he took office, etc.

You made the statement, now you're running away from it.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1188 times:

"You made the statement, now you're running away from it."

What the hell are you talking about?
I said it was politics. Which liberals are stating that Clinton's job gains were measured from the day he was elected? Which official organization?

Do you not see the stupidity of your assertion? If these very liberals (whoever they are, stupid as they may also be) are counting Dubya's job losses from the day he took office, then they are indirectly benefitting his record in office. There were overall job losses (albeit a small number) between November 2000 and January 2001. And, also, unless you were high between Nov 2000 and Jan 2001, remember that the "results" of the election were in serious contention for a very long period of time. The 2000 elections were a bizarre, special case for ALL Americans.

Get with the program. Its 11:30 AM; time for you to have had your coffee.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

Jay,

In typical lawyer fashion, you're now changing your song. You admit that we're using a different yard stick, yet then say its not relevant.

The argument that the minimal job losses between election and inauguration need to be discounted is ridiculous because the job losses in this period clearly indicate that a recession was well underway before GWB took office. As you know, or should know, the economy doesn't corner on a dime. Macroeconomic policy takes months or even years to implement.

Compound that with the events of Sept 11 and the burst of the internet bubble and to blame GWB for these job losses is absurd. In fact, it was his aggressive advocacy of interest rate cuts and tax relief that helped us come out of the recession as quickly as we did.

You can keep trying to run away from your word but they're there in black and white for anyone to see.


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Well four of those were where I work at, unfortunately, nobody has filled them yet. They see the hours they have to work at a set salary, and do the mental math to determine that they're getting screwed salary wise, and turn down the job offer. Things are so bad at one of our locations in our division that one of our bosses and the boss of the other location in town have had to go up to our location in another city and help out because two supervisors there quit. You know things at a job have to be rough when people quit even in a rough job market.

[Edited 2004-06-04 23:03:17]

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1161 times:

"The argument that the minimal job losses between election and inauguration need to be discounted is ridiculous because the job losses in this period clearly indicate that a recession was well underway before GWB took office."?

Do you have a brain? Can you read?
I was saying just that -- there was a job loss between election day and inaugural in the 2000 elections.

Jesus. Discussing anything with you is like talking to a cicada.

"In fact, it was his aggressive advocacy of interest rate cuts and tax relief that helped us come out of the recession as quickly as we did."

LOL. Yes,of course. And Cher really is a blond. Believe whatever you want to.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Jay,

What you aren't saying is that those job losses between election and inauguration indicate that the recession was well underway before GWB took office. You want to blame all the job losses that have occured from inauguration to today on his policies - something that just doesn't factor into account the way an economy works.

As for your comment on Cher being blond, you're just perpetuating a stereotype that gay guys love Cher.

Finally, if you think that the receipt for improving the economy was higher taxes and higher interest rates - all I can say is that I hope that your liberal friends run a campaign saying exactly that. Higher Taxes, Higher Interest Rates for ALL.

That will guarantee us 4 more years of GWB.

And with that, I'm off to happy hour! Good evening all.

[Edited 2004-06-04 23:26:29]

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

"What you aren't saying is that those job losses between election and inauguration indicate that the recession was well underway before GWB took office. You want to blame all the job losses that have occured from inauguration to today on his policies - something that just doesn't factor into account the way an economy works."

No, thats what you want me to say.

And as far as yardsticks go, it was inauguration to inauguration. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, etc etc. Yardsticks that have judged all Presidents. Simplistic, but just one mode of analysi.

What you want is for Clinton - and who knows? --- Perhaps, Carter, Johnson and Kennedy too -- to take the flak for ALL job losses under Bush's watch. As far as your beloved Bush is concerned, no standards or yardsticks apply. Sorry, no can do. Even Bush's own ex-cabinet members have indicated that the man is a dunce when it comes to economic and financial matters.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. In doing so, you just show yourself to be a duplicitous liar and dig your own intellectual (or lack of intelllect) grave.


User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

Someone will always find something to bitch about...just a couple of months ago some members on here were going rabid that we had lost 3-4 million jobs on GB's watch, and some even claimed they had gone overseas...now it is only 1.4?

Sounds like an economic turn around to me kiddos.



Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineDrgreen757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1139 times:

And how many of these jobs will be minimum wage?


Save the grey ghosts.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1136 times:

Under Bush's presidency, the unemployment rate has shot up from 4.2 percent in 2001 to 5.6 percent now, a 33 percent increase, and above the five percent rate that many economists consider to be the natural jobless rate.

Between January 2001 and January 2004, the nation lost 3.4 million jobs; the number of unemployed was over 8 million.

Call up your favorite Labor STatistics bureau for information.


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

And how many of these jobs will be minimum wage?

Not many... average hourly wages continue to rise steadily:

Apr. 2003: $15.25
Dec. 2003: $15.45
Jan. 2004: $15.49
Feb. 2004: $15.52
Mar. 2004: $15.54
Apr. 2004: $15.59
May 2004: $15.64

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1127 times:

Under Bush's presidency, the unemployment rate has shot up from 4.2 percent in 2001 to 5.6 percent now, a 33 percent increase, and above the five percent rate that many economists consider to be the natural jobless rate.


Not too bad an outcome from the biggest financial bubble in US history.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

We´ve got it in Germany as well (proportional to our smaller population). Happens every year. Itis just a seasonal uplift, mostly builders, who got laid off during the winter months get rehired (the bosses don´t want to pay them during the season the weather is too bad for many construction jobs), and seasonal workers in the tourist industry, as well as seasonal workers in farming. In late autumn they´ll get laid off again.

Jan


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1108 times:

Itis just a seasonal uplift, mostly builders, who got laid off during the winter months get rehired

Most US employment data released by the BLS, including the unemployment rate and job gains, are seasonally adjusted to compensate for these types of swings. You can compared seasonally adjusted and non-adjusted employment data at http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1102 times:

Happens every year. Itis just a seasonal uplift, mostly builders, who got laid off during the winter months get rehired (the bosses don´t want to pay them during the season the weather is too bad for many construction jobs), and seasonal workers in the tourist industry, as well as seasonal workers in farming. In late autumn they´ll get laid off again

True a lot of season work occurs in the summer but seasonal shifts in unemployment don't have every month for nine months straight. The last month the US lost jobs was in August of last year.

From the BLS increase in jobs.

2003
Sept 67,000
Oct 88,000
Nov 83,000
Dec 8,000

2004
Jan 159,000
Feb 83,000
Mar 353,000
April 346,000(prelim.)
May 248,000(prelim.)

I can only wonder how many more people would be working they weren't under the impression the economy was getting worse, as fostered by the liberal media in this country. Economic growth, job growth and spending are all about perception of the current situation and how people and businesses react to it. If they think it will get worse the hold back and the economy recedes, they think the economy is good, they spend and it grows.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Bruno : Great news!I still ain't voting for Bush. I helped put the bastard in the White House becasue I didn't like Gore, I'll do everything I can to get that
26 Post contains links N6376m : Jay, the same Bureau of Labor Statistic figures show the unemployment rate rising from 3.9% to 4.2% in the months between October 2000 and inauguratio
27 Jaysit : "You're the one being intellectually dishonest, selectively citing statistics to create a false picture, ignoring economic reality and in your typical
28 Goingboeing : Gosh..in my paper (Kansas City Star), todays front page of the business section had "248,000 jobs created" in big bold letters on the right side of th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Gap Year Jobs In Australia/new Zealand posted Mon Nov 20 2006 14:02:39 by Brettbrett21
A Trump Tower In New Orleans? It May Happen. posted Fri Aug 12 2005 18:29:13 by MSYtristar
Non-Farm Jobs In The US Increased 57,000 posted Sat Oct 4 2003 06:17:34 by L-188
100,000 New Troops To Go In To Iraq posted Fri Mar 28 2003 00:56:54 by Marcus
Butch Davis Finds New Home In The ACC? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 01:01:26 by USAFHummer
Possible New Job In India, Questions posted Tue Oct 24 2006 11:14:10 by MD11Engineer
A New Twist In Corporate Sports Sponsorship posted Wed Oct 11 2006 15:41:21 by PROSA
Hitler's Cross - New Restaurant In Bombay! posted Tue Aug 22 2006 02:02:25 by Comorin
Jobs In Dubai posted Wed Jun 21 2006 08:03:36 by 'Longreach'
How Many Middle Class Jobs In US Going Away? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 04:28:51 by Kdtwflyer