different than I think I am seeing.
The 100,000 to 125,000 is bandied about on sites all over the place, such as this one:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124003086. I have read those figures in so many places, and looked it up once to prove it to myself, don't remember where. So I just use 100,000 as the most conservative figure I have found. It is probably higher, just based on how many people are aging upwards, but 100K is good enough for this.
To get the employment data start at:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htmFor Total Nonfarm - Select box for Seasonally Adjusted
at bottom of table select "Retrieve"
on next page select More Formatting Options
Deselect Original Data Value
Select 1 month net change
On right side change From year to 1980 (or whatever)
Select "Retrieve Data" at bottom.
That's total nonfarm employment as it goes up and
down each month.
Select the .xls printed next to Download, save it,
and pull it up in Excel. Average each of the lines.
Clintion was '93 through 2000, W was 2001 through 2008.
What got me really looking at all this was a post at:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/mish-unemployment-projections-through.htmlI really don't like most of his politics. I think he doesn't think through his anti-union views and conservative nonsense, but separating the economics from the politics I think his data is useful.
Does that help?