Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Added 262,000 jobs and the unemployment rate goes UP
Published on March 4, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics
The employment numbers today were a step forward by producing 262,000 new jobs. Not only is that more than were expected, but it is more than economists claim are necessary to keep pace with population growth. To keep pace with our growing work force, our economy needs to produce about 125,000 new jobs each month. Thus, last month we produced more than double that amount. Most would believe that would result in a reduction of the nation's unemployment rate when in fact the unemployment rate increased from 5.2 to 5.4%.

We have seen months in the past when almost no jobs were created and the unemployment rate went down. Thus it is clear, t he unemployment rate statistic is not giving us a clear picture of job condition in our country. What we should be doing is producing monthly , the number of Americans who do not have jobs that pay a living wage. It should include all people who need a living wage job that do not have such a job and compare that statistic month-to-month see how well we are doing in creating meaningful jobs for our growing population.

Comments
on Mar 04, 2005
I somehow doubt you had a problem with the eway the unemployemnt rate was handled back when Clinton was in the white house..
on Mar 04, 2005
We did not have the unemployment problem we have had since 2000. Job creation during the 1990's were much greater then since 2000. The issue was that the unemployment rate does not show a clear picture and we should look for a mesure that does show a better picture. Everything is defensive with you.
on Mar 04, 2005
We did not have the unemployment problem we have had since 2000. Job creation during the 1990's were much greater then since 2000. The issue was that the unemployment rate does not show a clear picture and we should look for a mesure that does show a better picture. Everything is defensive with you


That's because everything from you is offensive so it automatically puts everyone on the defensive.
on Mar 04, 2005
When the statistics don't back your stance, attack the statistics... high school debate class 101. I can just imagine what the response would have been if Republicans had tried to mandate this kind of analysis during a Democratic administration.

I don't care how biased you are, no one can avoid seeing this for what it is...
on Mar 04, 2005
It has nothinmg to do with backing anyone. The unemployment rate had demonstrated that it is inconsistant and why would we not seek a tool that more clearly shows what is going on with something as basic as JOBS? This has nothing to do weith Republicans or Democrats.
you are paranoid!
on Mar 04, 2005
Pfft. As has been said, Democrats never scream for a more "accurate" view of unemployment when Democrats are in office. You can't on the one hand say that the numbers are misleading when they go down for Bush, but accept them when they are low for a Democratic President.

You know that the unemployment and "job creation" statistics don't count those who have been out of work for an extended period, and it most certainly doesn't count educated and skilled laborers that settle for low-paying or part-time jobs just to survive.

So, when you and other Democrats laud Clinton's "job creation" or low unemployment rate, you overlook the exact same hidden criterea that you are now using to discredit improvements in the current economy.
on Mar 04, 2005
#2 by COL Gene
Friday, March 04, 2005


We did not have the unemployment problem we have had since 2000. Job creation during the 1990's were much greater then since 2000. The issue was that the unemployment rate does not show a clear picture and we should look for a mesure that does show a better picture. Everything is defensive with you.


this is true but the bill did not have 9/11 to contend with nor the beginnings of a recession that started at the very end of bills watch.... be carefull with responses to this as I voted for bill, 2 times.
on Mar 05, 2005
You know that the unemployment and "job creation" statistics don't count those who have been out of work for an extended period, and it most certainly doesn't count educated and skilled laborers that settle for low-paying or part-time jobs just to survive.


I know the feeling...
on Mar 05, 2005
Mark this date in red on all calendars, for it is a day to remember!!!

On this date, March 4, 2005, ParaTed2k and Col Gene have finally found a tiny oasis of common ground in a huge desert of (what was hitherto thought of as) abject disgreement!!! ;~D

I, for one, did not see even a modicum of your normally annoying droll of "Bash Bush" in this article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I saw was a call to revamp the methods by which our nation's employment statistics are figured.

You are right. Our unemployment statistics have never really given us a clear picture of the employment status, because it's never really looked at "employment" in the first place.

When I was a wildland fire fighter, many of the people I worked with were part of what would be considered "unemployed". Why? Because they made enough money for the whole year during the fire season. They weren't "gainfully" employed long enough for current (or even back in the 90's) statistic gathering methods to count.

So, with that example to back me up, I do agree that they need to be revamped!!!

Wow, whoda thunk this day would have ever happened!! ;~D
on Mar 05, 2005
ParaTedsK

My God. We agree 100%. How do we get the BLS to change their policies?
on Mar 07, 2005
I really don't think compiling employment statistics should be all that difficult. I mean, once a year we all file our taxes, right? Included in the jumble of paperwork are documents supporting our income and deduction claims. After we're done sifting through it all, we've painted a pretty accurate picture of our year in employment.

Course that would take all the fun out of it since conducting...

a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.


...adds so much fun and adventure to a young bureaucrats' lives, if not an accurate and "clear job picture". ;~D

Link