John Kerry needs to push the TRUTH about the jobs numbers.

Most of these "new Jobs" are temporary and part-time jobs WITHOUT benifits. The Mid-West is still suffering from a decline in manufacturing. Also, outsourcing is still a problem regardless of what the Cable "News" Whores say.

Please Discuss!

Ok.

35,000 of those jobs were "temporary" according to the report. There is no direct reporting of how many were part-time that I can find, but the figure for "took a part-time job even though I wanted full-time because it was all I could find" went up 17,000.

Which "truth" should Kerry be pushing? I really rather he NOT go repeating incorrect assumptions that are so easily debunked.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have to agree....it's like the communist party anymore...
we can all have the same pay scale, part time, minimum wage, no benefits. Burger flippers doing service work for other burger flippers.

Those are the "new jobs" being created and they are pulling down
any of the professional salaries. I see engineering contract rates
so low I could make more being a tech at a hospital. That's incredible
to see advanced R&D skills being priced below tech support.

all the good jobs are being replaced by part-time burger flipping jobs?

And the number of people who "dropped off the count" (meaning in this case that they dropped out of the labor pool) was something like 115,000.

Or do you just thrive on insult?


The claim was that the report showed that "(m)ost of these "new Jobs" are temporary and part-time jobs WITHOUT benifits". There's no evidence for that - and urging Kerry to make the claim is just setting him up for a fall. I wonder which side would like to see that happen? Hmmm?

Sent out another thirty resume last week. To date, on those resumes and others, Nada, Zilch, Zero responses.

If you got a nickle for every time.... well.. you know the rest.

The fact that you haven't found a job is not "evidence" that what jobs there are (obviously not in TX) are merely PT & Temp. That was the point of debate.

I do take it as encouraging that this was the first month with a substantial drop specifically in long-term unemployment.

I did a quick monster.com search and turned up for you that the Air Force reserves were hiring pilots in your area. Of course, you need to be under 30 (or have a father in the CIA).

Don't give up. If nothing else.... you would screw up the numbers.

count on it...

His photo ops have been with companies that have hired 2 workers and 12 workers.

Sorry.

If there were a major turn around, somebody would be hiring like mad. Remember they've been telling us employment is up for quite some time. Given the time that they've been telling us this... hiring would have moved past the small business's where hiring usually starts during the downturn and have made it to the Fortune 500.

Oh... and by the way... there are no major economists who are saying "Gee, I was wrong in my predictions". They're all pretty much hanging around a 0.5 - 1% uptick in employment. That's all.

If everything's so good, there'd be a photo op.

is that this IS what they've been predicting.

And the consensus right now is for job growth in the 200-250k/month range for the rest of the year. That would be substantially over ".5-1%".

It does not take job losses off the table, since growth during this Bush Boom that started 11/01 has been poor - and 250,000 per month new jobs to the end of the year will not change that.

But it was a much better report than I expected.

The only problem was I could not find the continuation of the part time/temp number that was 2.4 million, then 2.7 million, and today what number?

Based on what is shown - the report suggests a FED rate increase by July.

But I don't understand why I can't get the temp/part-time number corresponding to 2.7 million last month.

Have we revised presentation yet again!????

But if it keeps up like this it will. Not completely, just as the slam-dunk issue people thought it would be.

Here's a link to the report you're looking for.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t05.htm

I think it was 4.4Million to 4.7 Million, but remember that the number doesn't mean what some have used it for. Obviously, there aren't just 4.7 Million PT jobs out there (I bet WalMart had that many - only a slight exaggeration).

If we insist on using it this way... this month, the number fell about 160,000. So by that measurement, there were actually about 445k new FT jobs (160k of which replace PT jobs). This of course, is ridiculous. The closes number to look at to measure what you want (and it's still inadequate for the task) is the "PT because it's all I could find" number, which has gone up about 59,000 over the last three months.

reasons seems unreasonable.

Drastic revisions to old numbers usually means the old numbers - and thereby implies the current numbers - are very loose breakouts of larger "total" numbers - with categories that have loose definitions.

I suspect there is an arbitrary add on (done by a very valid "estimate"???) for self-employed not yet reporting - a GOP theory OF "EMPLOYMENT" that gets reported "late" in the recovery per the GOP - causing much of the employment gain. We will see if it is a con or perhaps a truth - the test will be if interest rates are upped by the FED in June. If not the con game is a given.

Still the maim stream press will buy in so the election will only have a muted "jobs loss" component.

Are these revised numbers? I didn't see that.

a drop of 150000 in temp for econ reasons seems unreasonable.

The number has bounced up and down a couple hundred thousand a month quite regularly.

But a drop of 150k in that figure is quite normal. Remember... it is NOT a measure of how many PT employees would like FT work. Nor is it a measure of how many PT jobs were added last month. It's mostly (but not entirely) measuring how many full time workers were paid less than 32 hours/week at some point last month. Perhaps due to weather or just a couple unpaid leave days or a holiday or two. The "economic reasons" number is more valid as a measurement of people who had less work than they wanted because the employer had fewer contracts to fill... and could be used that way to say "employers still don't have enough work to keep everyone busy... how could they hire anyone new??", but I don't know how "good" or "bad" the number is by itself. The non-ag "could only find PT work" is essentially unchanged this year.


I suspect there is an arbitrary add on (done by a very valid "estimate"???) for self-employed not yet reporting - a GOP theory OF "EMPLOYMENT" that gets reported "late" in the recovery per the GOP - causing much of the employment gain. We will see if it is a con or perhaps a truth - the test will be if interest rates are upped by the FED in June. If not the con game is a given.

I don't know about the "GOP" theory, but it's pretty well accepted that this is one of the weaknesses of the establishment survey. The household survey is handicapped as a measure of total employment because it makes assumptions about how many people are in the workforce to begin with and then revises that number periodically. The establishment survey is hampered by only surveying companies that have been around for awhile. It thus misses people who have started their own businesses or have been hired by new firms. Some people (I guess the GOP) say that these are where the jobs are in the early parts of a recovery. That makes some sense. The survey tries to account for this with a wiggle/fudge number based on previous periods' similar numbers. The "problem" is that the numbers are understated in a growing economy since the "wiggle" compensation figure is based on less active market periods. (This is why - despite what the Prof might say - economic numbers tend to be revised up wards in growing economies and downward in shrinking economies).

The establishment survey is also somewhat hampered by over-counting the number of jobs because of "churn". If I leave my job today and get a new one two weeks from now... there will be two "establishments" that show me as employed during the survey period.

that had 4.4 and 4.7 as the numbers - with no extra digits - and which was what I was looking for.

I agree a bounce of a couple hundred thousand a month is not unusual - but I do not believe this bounce. The logic of why a bounce - weather, a couple unpaid leave days requested by employer, less work because the employer had fewer contracts to fill - all are reasonable.

And Granted the number "is" a survey pick up that is per the instructions the result of an answer to a simple "Were you paid for less than 32 hours/week at some point last month? question with the follow on "Would you have wanted more than the hours you worked" - or at least in theory.

However, I recall being told in less ethical times by less ethical folks that they had to adjust survey results for aberrations in the data - and the boss gave out the adjustments. I just suspect that something like that could be happening here - or not.

Again - if job growth is real, the there can be no reason to not raise FED rates a quarter of one percent at the next meeting. If the FED does not believe, and does not raise rates, then I grant myself the right to also not believe!

I agree that the econ folks do indeed have many papers out that say the establishment survey is hampered by only surveying companies that have been around for awhile - the current months new personal businesses and those folks hired by them is missed - and this is fixed with a fudge number that tracks to previous periods reports (and their fudge number). I have never seen the fudge number procedure validated (yes there are usually later surveys that try - and not that the result is "wrong" - I have just not seen a "validation"). When there is a fudge number I suspect the results unless the credibility of the fellow handing out the results is quite high. I do not know the fellow - but I do know the recent drop in estimated total employed does not computed with the published job growth.

I agree economic numbers tend to be revised upwards in growing economies and downward in shrinking economies, but I note we all in 2000 - a growing period - expected a GDP revision down of 1% or so in 2001 to reflect the corporate earnings data from different sources not tracking together.

The "churn" is another fudge that sounds reasonable - many jobs will have many folks taking new jobs and leaving old and getting counted twice - while poor Bush has had few periods of excess jobs - despited a boom that began 11/2001 - and is denied this double count. To say that that this has not been validated is to say the obvious - a lot of econ is actually group psy with guesses!

As I said, I suspect there is an arbitrary add on (done by a very valid "estimate"???) for self-employed not yet reporting - a GOP theory OF "EMPLOYMENT" that gets reported "late" in the recovery per the GOP - causing much of the employment gain. We will see if it is a con or perhaps a truth - the test will be if interest rates are upped by the FED in June. If not, in my world, the con game is a given.

So I'll just pick a couple I have issues with.

but I note we all in 2000 - a growing period - expected a GDP revision down of 1% or so in 2001 to reflect the corporate earnings data from different sources not tracking together.

2000 was not (for this conversation) a "growing period". Lots of things had already started down the curve. Look at almost any economic chart (& of course the markets).


Again - if job growth is real, the there can be no reason to not raise FED rates a quarter of one percent at the next meeting. If the FED does not believe, and does not raise rates, then I grant myself the right to also not believe!

I think they still have some wiggle room. Just look at what some here are predicting for right after greenman is "forced to raise rates". Job growth will disappear, GDP growth will plummet, corporate profits will dry up.

Since these are the kinds of things that are the opposite of "overheated economies" that cause rampant inflation ... I'd say he has lots of reasons NOT to jack things up until that isn't a danger yet... or until after the election - whichever comes first.

sigh ..


Just for the record - the year 2000 numbers I've seen - outside manufacturing - and of course the markets - were solid as to growth.

Even year 2000 capital investment was not bad - until Dec when we knew Bush was to enter the oval office and everyone jumped up the hurdle rate for new projects causing a slow down (albeit small) in approvals - at least that is my information, and therefore my story - and I am sticking to it!

:toast:

As to interest rates should not be raised so as to save the recovery that started 11/2001 - sigh - yes that is heard on the street and at DU - but the history of proper FED work is rising rates do not destroy the market - at least not all the time - (granted like with every economic theory - including my own hurdle rate changes from deficit affecting capital investment idea that while pretty solid as an idea I must admit the extent - whether I am correct as to it being a major item - is unproveable as we do not get to redo a period with only one fact change - indeed we do not get a second experiment - ever!)


But for the record - S&P gain ignoring div occurred in following periods with gain shown below despite basis point change noted:

2/24/78 to 11/13/80............60.5%...........666 basis points
8/26/82 to 10/6/83.............42.5%...........142 "
10/30/86 to 8/21/87............36.8.............93 "
10/29/87 to 3/23/89............16.3%............401 "
10/1/92 to 2/2/95..............18.1.............324 "
10/8/98 to 8/24/00.............51.8.............231 "

Indeed in the 12 months following a rate hike since 1954, the markets average response was a 9% gain!

So results for periods like 10/93 to 11/94 when 10 yr treas bonds rose from 5.4% to 7.9%, killing growth in the S&P - are not always the best forecasters for the result of a rate hike.

And I am back again to the job growth numbers being a con job if I do not see Greenspan raise rates at the next meeting!

But on to tomorrow - time for a nap!

:toast:

:-)

basically already priced in a 25 basis point increase?

year - and inflation, given the weak dollar , will be growing, so it will end up near 4%

eom