Over 300,000 new jobs for March

Let's not argue.

Here's the table from Bureau of Labor Statistics. 94 to present.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hmmm, an average in the middle, interesting...


Just a friendly ribbing

 

Not sure I get the ribbing but to clarify, what I was saying is what the graph shows. That while the average unemployment during both Clinton and Bush may be the same, that is because Clinton inherited 8% and left with 4% and over all that time, it may have averaged 6%. Bush inherited 4% and quickly got up over 6% and then hung around there long enough to have a 6% average as well.

But Tifosis "nazis in the streets of london" 69's claim was that Bush's numbers are better than at "any point" in the Clinton era and that's obviously false. It just makes me wonder how much people's political beliefs would change if they actually understood what the news reports were saying and had the facts before forming their opinions.

 

Go here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab4.htm
Check all the boxes on the right (Seasonally adjusted)
Hit Retrieve data

On the next page, check the box next to: include graphs NEW!
Hit Go!

Compare all categories

 

Those great years of growth started with a Republican (job creation, stock market, economic turn around, all thanks to those nice policies of Bush 1 and started during his term) and ended with a democrat (recession began during the last six months of Clinton's term). But as I said in a different thread, it doesn't mean jack or **** because no President is responsible for the economy that occurs while he's in office because he can't do a damned thing to make it better or worse.

 

Oddly though, tifosi69 has disappeared from this discussion...hmmm....I guess the "fabricated figures" from BLS may have quieted him for the moment.

And, as you say, there are so many things affecting employment rates that there's very little one President can do to change it.

He doesn't control monetary policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, or the perception that the rest of the world has about the state of our nation and it's economic viability vs. the rest of the world. He can't inspire confidence, or instill fear in the minds of others, can he?

Well, maybe he has just a little influence on employment rates, since his appointments has some influence on all of the above too, right?

this, BTW, applies for both democrats and republicans, most of whom show a remarkable lack of leadership anymore. Oh, and sending troops to Iraq and Afganistan is not necessarily a show of leadership, either. It is a decisive act, but I'm not sure all decisive acts are the same as leadership.

 

45,000 of the new jobs was cited as being the cal grocery workers going back to work. so the number of jobs is pretty good...just not quite as good as described. neds to be a foot note of sorts heh?

 

I didn't notice anyone wanting footnotes in the unemployment figures while they were out of work because of the strike?

Also, the local Vons looked to be at about 50% employment with the scabs working there, so any increase from the workers coming back on is also affected by the decrease from the scabs loosing their jobs right?

 

another interesting article with some #s

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116527,00.html

 

Tifosi is always complaining about democratic "spin", but he spins more than anyone I have ever seen.

A couple of observations:

-It's very convenient to ignore the trends and point to the average. You can always skew any statistic to say anything you want. Tifosi's point is completely irrelevant in this regard, because it's obvious from the graph that during his term, unemployment was steadily and solidly decreasing. Under Bush's term, it rose rapidly, then tapered off at a level that is much higher than it was during the latter part of Clintons term. Look at the graph Tifosi and tell me Bush is doing as good a job in terms of unemployment as Clinton is. Your argument is borderline moronic. The same logic could be applied to a president who takes a huge national debt, reduces it to nothing, then another president comes along and bumps it up again. What a devious attempt to skew the discussion by claiming the average is important. No, it's not, what both DID was important. What Clinton did was took high unemployment and wittled it down to very low. Bush took it from low to high. Thats all there is to it, and all your twisting of the facts won't change that.

-Job growth is not all equal. Adding a whole lot of government jobs and service jobs, while losing skilled jobs is NOT a good thing. It appeas Slim is right on - some industries gained jobs, but others must have lost equal numbers, because it must (by definition) balance out to about zero when you add in the governments job growth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the growth comes from pure government job addition, then the civil sector must net out to zero growth. And the "dumbing down" of our jobs IS a cause for concern. Our government should foster a rising skill level, rising pay, and better jobs. Adding lots of retail, food service and other such jobs at the expense of things like high-tech is NOT a good thing.


Now a couple of other things. Bush has no problem with a weak dollar. I think that is a bad thing. Bush has no problem with massive outsourcing of high-tech jobs. I think that too is a bad thing. Bush has no problem with a large national debt that is spiraling out of control. I think that is a bad thing too. The repubs are *supposed* to be about conservatism, fiscal responsibility, less government, more personal responsibility, and more personal freedom.

What we have is all sorts of weird liberal thinking from Bush (such as "let's give amnesty to all the illegals!"), a massive and growing national debt, more government, less freedom (Patriot Act) and a whole bunch of other **** going on around the world that is doing us no good at all.

I am much more in line with Republican ideals than Democratic ideals, but I don't see how anyone can think Bush is actually doing a good job.

And I really don't get the Clinton animosity. People still whine about Lewinsky! Who cares! The guy was a good president, deal with it! The numbers don't lie. I think people were upset that he won, and predicted his failure, and his enormous popularity and the good job done just made these rabid republicans so angry that I see them STILL complaining about the guy almost 4 YEARS after he is out of office! I bet in 10 or 20 more years these guys will STILL whine about Clinton all day long.

I don't like Kerry much either, but I very much see this as a lesser-of-two-evils thing. And thats too bad. Wanna know my honest opinion? I wish Clinton could be re-elected. And that's the truth.

 

Mike, there is no spin here as this is a "No Spin Zone"

Always wanted to use that.

It is funny that people think of liberilizing immigration as a liberal idea, and the fact that most immigrants vote for democrats, when in reality republicans have helped the immigrants most with the farmers amnesty of the mid 80s that made most south east asians immigrants, and if Bush's plan goes through, more illegal immigrants will be legal.

I don't care either way, as I just vote down the party line, but it is interesting to note.

 

To add to Slim's comments, I was looking at hard data on the labor site that showed a small decline in # of jobs, hours worked, and average salary over the past month. Considering that half of the new jobs were 'estimated,' there's no evidence that they were actually created. Remember that the report is preliminary with a +- ~300,000 variance at a 90% confidence level. Not looking good yet.