July Job Reports
Find a Conversation
July Job Reports
| Fri, 08-06-2004 - 11:38am |
Guess Bush will have to depend on wedge issues and terror in his stump speeches until the next reports come out......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5621394/
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/economy/jobless_july/index.htm?cnn=yes

But it also fell 200,000+ short of expectations. This marks a trend of smaller and smaller rises.
At this pace, the next report will show many more lost. That report will come out on the last day of the GOP convention.
Now, while i wish nothing BUT THE VERY WORST FOR THOSE SLIME THROWING RECORD DUCKING Incumbants, I do not wish to see declining employment in the country.
The economy isn't going to benefit Bush one bit. Despite things looking good for a few months, the public's confidence in his ability to handle the economy is very low.
This goes along with the overall bad impression the press is leaving on Bush, he's getting much the same treatment as Gore got in 2000.
Another benefit of running your mouths instead of the country i guess.
But hey, you reap what you sew.
He said that there are several different numbers that the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) looks at. One is the payroll numbers which they gather from approx. 400,000 companies, the second was the household employment number which is gathered from about 90,000 homes across the country, and there was a third that escapes me.
Bottom line was that the census was a good month should show a nett gain of 320,000 or more (this was a combined formula which he described on air, which I dont quite remember) and the adjusted number for July was 445,000 (Kudlow said something about 630,000 less 180,000 for something...)
I wish I had a tape recorder because it was pretty interesting, and gave me some more insight to why the new jobs report was not too good, but the unemployment fell from 5.6% to 5.5%.
People working from home or self employed..
I guess this figure has been on the severe increase since the dot.com bust in 1999 - 2000.
I believe the unemployment rate of 5.5% doesn't take into account the number of people who are no longer eligible for unemployment and those that have just given up finding a job. So sometimes a decrease in the rate really isn't good news.
The brief article also makes the point that the amount of jobs added didn't really seem to have much effect on whether the candidate was re-elected. For instance, Carter is fourth overall (10.5 million jobs added), but was still voted out in favor of Reagan, who added half that amount in his first term (5.2 million). And yet Carter is associated with "malaise" and Reagan is the sunshine cowboy. Weird.
Here's the link, then go to where it says "multimedia" on the right, "Chart: Jobs Added or Lost During Each Term"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/weekinreview/08MCCL.html
Or for those with no Times subscription:
Bill Clinton (1993-96) +11.6 million jobs
Bill Clinton (1997-00) +11.4
Ronald Reagan (1985-88) +10.8
Jimmy Carter (1977-80) +10.5
Lyndon B. Johnson (1965-68) +9.8
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941-44) +7.7
Richard M. Nixon (1969-72) +6.0
John F. Kennedy / Johnson (1961-64) +5.7
Roosevelt (1933-36) +5.5
Nixon / Gerald R. Ford (1973-76) +5.2
Reagan (1981-84) +5.2
Harry S. Truman (1949-48) +3.3
Roosevelt (1937-40) +3.3
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-56) +2.8
George H. W. Bush (1989-92) +2.5
Eisenhower (1957-60) +0.8
George W. Bush (2000 - 04) (-1.2)
Herbert Hoover (1929-32) (-6.4)