Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Jobs report for March is in and it looks good for Bush

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Jobs report for March is in and it looks good for Bush
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the wire services:

quote:
March job growth strongest in four years
From wire reports
WASHINGTON — Businesses added jobs last month at the fastest pace in nearly four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after a grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather, a government report said Friday.
The report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President Bush as the jobs market — a hot political issue in the presidential campaign — finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise economists expected.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7% from the two-year low 5.6% recorded in January and February. That occurred because more job seekers were looking for work last month, but were unsuccessful.

Revisions to payrolls showed a stronger jobs market than previously thought. Companies added 205,000 jobs in January and February, instead of the 118,000 reported last month.

After the report was released, at 8:30 ET, stock futures jumped. Contracts on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index rose 9.20 ; Dow futures were up 96 points and Nasdaq futures up 23. Conversely, U.S. Treasury prices collapsed because the strong payrolls report raised the spectre of inflation and an early rate hike from the Fed. (Related: Market reaction.)

The upward revisions to January and February numbers helped contribute to the positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the Federal Reserve may be closer to raising its target for short-term interest rates from the current 1958 low of 1%.

The March rise in payrolls reflects the resolution of a labor dispute at grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000 increase in retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.

Economists had said the return of those workers would boost payrolls, but the impact was hard to gauge because it was unclear how many temporary replacement workers were being let go.

The report showed job gains were widespread.

For the first time in 44 months, the nation's factories did not shed jobs. But they weren't hiring either. March figures show zero gains and losses for industries hammered by the economic downturn that began three years ago. The only sector losing jobs last month was information services, where companies cut about 1,000 jobs.


Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yossarian5555555
Member
Member # 1639

 - posted      Profile for Yossarian5555555     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be to bad if this helps Bush get re-elected, but it would still be better if the economy recovered and we are still stuck with Bush then if we got Kerry but the economy tanked. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 79 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The economy has recovered for the most part but jobs are always the last piece of that recovery. The final piece of the puzzle is finally starting to come in. The fun question to ask now, will it continue? If the economy can add 257,000 jobs per month between now and the end of October, the claim of this being an adminstration with a net job loss will be silenced. In a healthy economy such as we have now, 257,000/month average is not inconcievable.

The left can point to the 0.1 increase in unemployment but this is not such a bad thing. It means people are re-engaging in the economy as they see things improving. Those income tax refunds are about to roll back into the economy too - looks like it's going to be a very good few months for America. That is unless OPEC manages to poison the well ...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe that is the "leader" Kerry was talking to? [Smile]

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I heard Walter E. Williams today on the radio talk about the economy. He mentioned that the jobs market is in constant flux - and that 2 to 2.5 million jobs are lost as the same amount of new jobs are formed every month. He said of these coupla million new jobs more than 50% of them are above the average salary - making them more than just hamburger-flipper-type jobs. Of these millions of new jobs formed every month, how would any incentive work to reward companies for hiring? Those 308,000 new jobs are over and beyond the normal 2-2.5 million that are newly hired. How does the Kerry incentive plan work to decide who to reward?
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm all for good news in the job market. Much as I'm not a Bush supporter, I don't want his economic policies to fail, since everyone else has to suffer if they do. There remain some scary issues in the current economy, but hopefully we'll make it to the upswing in the job curve before a consumer credit crash occurs, or the housing bubble crashes.

Fingers are crossed...

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tincan Sailor
Member
Member # 1664

 - posted      Profile for Tincan Sailor   Email Tincan Sailor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we created 5 million jobs next month, Sen. Kerry would still stand in front of closed factories and talk about how Bush is driving "real, working men and women's jobs away." He'll point out that many of the new jobs have reduced benefits, especially medical. He'll find numbers to say most of those jobs are part time, transitory, or otherwise "not real." Then he'll accuse Bush of lying by "sexing up DoL stats."

That's politics. He will never, ever, ever say that the President is succeeding with a major campaign issue. At best, he'll just stop talking about it. To be fair, Bush would do the same. Thank God for the Internet, and the ability to check our own facts - if only every voter was so dilligent.

Good for you, Yosarrian and Jedilaw, for not being partisan enough to hope the economy suffers long enough to "win." I hear that sentiment a lot from some hard core hippies here in Seattle, and am horrified by it.

Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the flip side, I've heard people hoping that we have another terrorist attack in october or november so bush will win :-/ Both sides have their assholes. I've heard both sides do "I hope X bad thing happens so Y good candidate wins" and it really disheartens me.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have not heard any one say that they hoped that there would be another attack. I also hope that anyone who said that and truly meant it would have something truly horrible happen to them.

I have heard people comment that if another attack happened it would probably help Bush. For the most part I agree.

On the othe side, I have not heard any one say that they hope that there is no job recovery so that it will hurt Bush.

Of course I only pal around with liberals, besides my wife, at OrneryCon. [Smile]

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tincan Sailor
Member
Member # 1664

 - posted      Profile for Tincan Sailor   Email Tincan Sailor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've heard both, usually followed with a weak, "not that I WANT that to happen," caveat.

Some of the more militant protesters share a similar view that they WANT the US to fail in Iraq, because then they can be proven "right."

Fortunately, those people are in a tiny minority. And karma catches up with them by so turning off moderates who might otherwise have been interested in their position. To be honest, I think that's going to happen to Kerry due to his economic nay-saying - NOT that I've ever heard him say he doesn't want jobs. (Although I never have heard him say with any sincerity that he truly hopes Bush's policies succeed.)

[ April 02, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Tincan Sailor ]

Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tincan Sailor
Member
Member # 1664

 - posted      Profile for Tincan Sailor   Email Tincan Sailor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow - usually my predictions don't come true quite so quickly:

Kerry poo-poos job growth

Note that Kerry fails to mention that the job growth has been steady and significant for SEVEN months, not one, and that the largest and fastest growth has been in the manufacturing sector. In fact, he implies that the opposite is true.

Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part of that is the reclassification of many low paying service jobs as manufacturing.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tincan Sailor
Member
Member # 1664

 - posted      Profile for Tincan Sailor   Email Tincan Sailor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you know how much? And even granting that, it's pretty hard to classify this as anything but gret news for the USA.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ray Bingham
Member
Member # 1456

 - posted      Profile for Ray Bingham   Email Ray Bingham   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I heard an interesting, entirely empirical point of evidence on the radio on the way to work. A guy called in, he owned a "detail" service company, I think for fancy cars. He was doing great until 9-11, then his business entirely evaporated. People weren't looking to get classic cars in the face of oblivion, and this downturn lasted for nearly a year and a half. He says that his business has started to pick up, to the point now where he's starting to debate whether to hire employees, and he's booked for three weeks solid.

I guess it goes to show that people are starting to be stupid with money again... [Razz]

He made an interesting comment about hiring too, he said that the thing that sucked most about having employees was having to let them go, because he hired people he liked, and to tell them that there was absolutely no business was gutwrenching, and so he had put off hiring for quite a while, but now he's warming up to the idea again.

I have to wonder if a lot of businesses aren't going through the same sort of thing. They don't want to hire quite yet, because they're paranoid about another downturn that would cause them to have to let more people go...

(and as a political aside, I don't see how in the world Bush or Kerry could claim they could "alleviate" those types of fears... the fear of an economic downturn really needs to just wring itself out... imo.)

--Ray

Posts: 589 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Note that Kerry fails to mention that the job growth has been steady and significant for SEVEN months, not one, and that the largest and fastest growth has been in the manufacturing sector
Two points: First, the labor force generally grows by 150,000 a month. As such, many economists estimate that we need growth in excess of 200,000 jobs per month, consistently, in order to make up for the current job deficit.

Second, on March 8, Bush himself said "We've added more than 350,000 new jobs over the last six months. The tax relief we passed is working." Now, 350,000 is a great figure...for one month. For six months, at an average of less than 60,000 per months, its pretty abysmal.

So, if the President puts his own naumber at 350,000 for the six months prior to March, how can we say we've had steady and significant growth for seven months? Averaging below 60,000 per month doesn't even amount to HALF of the number needed just to keep pace with work force expansion.

Last month's numbers look great, fantastic even. Bravo. They don't do two things, though: 1) change the fact that job growth the prior six months, by Bush's own reckoning, was horrible; or 2) conclusively prove that we are at the beginning of a job expansion.

I certainly hope we're at the beginning of such a growth phase. With nothing more than this month to work with, however, I'd have to say the jury is still out.

[ April 02, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: jedilaw ]

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Manufacturing jobs stayed even. The increase in hiring was in the service and retail sectors.

To be honest, I am surprised that manufacturing jobs held steady, because the overall long-range trend has to be downward for all manufacturing jobs, as America transforms from a manufacturing-based economy to a service, retail, and information technology based economy. Additionally, that holding steady in manufacturing jobs was despite all the "jobs being shipped overseas" by outsourcing. Quite a remarkable feat.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tincan Sailor
Member
Member # 1664

 - posted      Profile for Tincan Sailor   Email Tincan Sailor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Take a look inside the horse's mouth:

DoL Labor Stats since 1994

Now, I may not be a fancy city lawyer, but this looks like a pretty significant net gain for Bush and actually a net LOSS during the Clinton years.

Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hate to say it, Tincan, but I am a fancy city lawyer, and I think you're reading that chart wrong. The chart doesn't show overall numbers of jobs; it shows net change per month. So we see job gains for most of '94-'01, and net job losses from early '01 to mid-'03.

On the other hand, the curve also shows trends. Note that the downward trend started in early 2000, long before Bush took office. Conversely, an upward trend started over a year ago. If Kerry actually manages to get elected, look for him to try to take credit for all the gains. Then the next Republican president will get blamed for the job losses caused by the Kerry tax increases. That's politics.

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crush T. Velour
Member
Member # 1583

 - posted      Profile for Crush T. Velour   Email Crush T. Velour   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Two points: First, the labor force generally grows by 150,000 a month. As such, many economists estimate that we need growth in excess of 200,000 jobs per month, consistently, in order to make up for the current job deficit.

As long as we're putting things in perspective:

The average unemployment during the 80s Boom Years was 7.3%

The average unemployment during the 90s was 5.8% which was precisely the unemployment in 1996 at this time of the year when President Clinton was running for re-election.

Now the unemployment is 5.6-5.7% depending on who you ask. Which mean's the current unemployment rate is now less than the average unemployment for Clinton's total tenure.

What people forget is that 1999 was the height of an economic BUBBLE as companies vastly increased their inventory in advance of Y2K because there was supposed to be an impending disaster -- companies upgrading their software, etc. etc. etc. This led to a cascade of events which included people spending 100s of millions of dollars for stock in WEBSITES like I-Village.

One of the "inventories" that companies over-stocked was EMPLOYEES -- which led to something like an 3.5% unemployment rate at it's height. That was simply not sustainable, and unfortunately, we won't be going back to that in my lifetime.

It was nice working in the IT industry and knowing I could quit my job and have another one paying just as well in a week -- and paying verrry well. But I wouldn't do that because my company at the time treated me like a potentate. At the company I worked at then, a lot of people never wore shoes the whole time I was there. People brought their dogs to meetings. The company bought our lunches 2 days a week and people actually got to the point where they b*tch*d about the selection.

Those days aren't coming back but 5.6% unemployment is a very sweet economy.

[ April 03, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Crush T. Velour ]

Posts: 192 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tincan Sailor
Member
Member # 1664

 - posted      Profile for Tincan Sailor   Email Tincan Sailor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right, Van. My bust. Either way, it's still bueno. And thanks for pointing out the job losses under Clinton.

Jedilaw, Bush had last month's numbers, and those have been revised upwards. The number now is closer to .78 million in 7 months. That's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and not too far below your standard growth threshold. And all signs point to it to continue a sharp slope upwards.

I'm looking forward to next month's numbers.

Posts: 43 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I said, while I do not wish Bush well, politically, I do wish the economy well, regardless of whether it allows him to get elected for the first time. And, yeah, the down slope in this whole deal started in March of 2000. Silicon Valley was melting down in 2001 regardless of Bush v Dole: Y2k inflated things, numbers post y2k couldn't sustain, we crashed. Not Bush's fault. If he winds up not having a net job loss, bully for him, he joins every other post-Hoover president.

We'll see...

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crush T. Velour
Member
Member # 1583

 - posted      Profile for Crush T. Velour   Email Crush T. Velour   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If he winds up not having a net job loss, bully for him, he joins every other post-Hoover president.
Ho! Ho! Ho! It IS setting the bar high (not necessarily impossibly so) to come off a crash and short recession and an unavoidable shrinkage from 3.5%!!! UE to an impressive but reasonable 5.7% AND come up with positive job growth. If Bush ends up with a net job gain, after entering office with an economy at end of the beginning of the biggest crash since 1929 followed up with a body slam called 9-11 ~ the biggest foreign attack on American soil (with the concomitant concern that more were to follow) and a ground war...Bush would deserve more than a shoulder shrug.

He would deserve a second term based on that alone.

Remember it took FDR 10 years to get us back on track after the last major crash. And the only reason you say "post-Hoover" and not "post-FDR" is a little thing called WWII.

I don't think, whatever happens at this point, the economy is going to factor at all in anyone's vote against Bush. Jedi seems to already be factoring it out of his reasons for voting against him.

Posts: 192 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember it took FDR 10 years to get us back on track after the last major crash. And the only reason you say "post-Hoover" and not "post-FDR" is a little thing called WWII.
And the Great Depression didn't end with WWII either; it just switched from a lack of jobs to a lack of goods. It was only with the return of the G.I.s after WWII with bank accounts full of saved wages and factories switching from military to consumer products that the GD really ended.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ben5
Member
Member # 1488

 - posted      Profile for ben5     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some of the more militant protesters share a similar view that they want the US to fail in Iraq, so they can be proven "right"
Where did you here that?! People who are protesting war do not hope that people die! People protested the war because they didn't carnage and anarchy in Iraq!
Posts: 138 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In regard to carnage and anarchy in Iraq:

(1) Who is causing it? -- Terrorists like Al Qaeda.

(2) Why are they causing it? -- To dishearten Americans from supporting the continued effort to establish a moderate, democractic government in Iraq.

(3) Why did some terrorists go to the length of torturing and mutilating 4 construction workers recently? -- To intimidate Americans and appeal to those Americans who are prone to calling it immoral to sacrifice for the good of others.

So, should we give in to the terrorists and give them what they want? Would that be the moral thing to do?

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
at end of the beginning of the biggest crash since 1929
Stock-market wise, perhaps. Recession-wise, no. The 1991 recession was worse in several respects. As for FDR, looking strictly at job loss figures, he had a net job gain at the end of his first term (1936), even though the depression was still in full swing. I discussed this in this thread from earlier in the year. I linked to this chart for job loss figures.
Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1