HAVE WE REALLY LOST JOBS UNDER GEORGE BUSH?

[CapeFish]

HAVE WE REALLY LOST JOBS UNDER GEORGE BUSH?

 

John Kerry is responding to a slide in his poll numbers by stepping up the rhetoric against George Bush on issues economic. Kerry is saying that Bush has created "more excuses than jobs." Very clever. Kerry is now calling the last four years the "Excuse presidency."

 

Let's play with jobs numbers a bit. If you're new to Nealz Nuze, or if you aren't a listener to my show, you're going to learn a few things you didn't know before.

 

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics produces two separate jobs reports. One is called the Establishment Survey, the other is the Household Survey [pdf]. These two surveys use different methodologies in measuring the number of people working and the rate of job growth or job loss. The Establishment Survey questions a set list of established businesses every month on their employment numbers. The Household Survey questions thousands of American households to see if household members are working, not working, looking for jobs, retired, etc.

 

There is a fairly big problem with the Establishment Survey. Since the list of businesses canvassed every month for this survey is fairly static, any new businesses out there that have started in the last year or so won't be included. Let's say you have a mythical town with three employers. One large manufacturing plant that employs 1000 people, and two small businesses that have a combined employment of 60. The large manufacturing facility has been in operation for 20 years and is a part of the government's monthly Establishment Survey. The two small businesses were only formed late last year and are not on the Establishment Survey. So ... let's say that in August the plant dismisses 5 people, but the small businesses hire those five people and about five more. Additionally, four other residents have started businesses from their homes. The Establishment Survey would show a net job loss in this town of five jobs in the September report. The Household Survey, on the other hand, would show a net job increase of nine jobs.

 

Remember now, politicians generally like to use government statistics to prove the need for more government or to prove that their political foes are doing a bad job. This means, of course, that the Democrats and the Kerry campaign will eagerly point to the Establishment Survey to prove that George Bush is losing jobs, not creating them.

 

By now I would bet that you're just screaming for me to get to the point. What figures do we get from the latest Household Survey?

 

Hold on ... let's go back to Kerry for a moment. Kerry says that Bush is the first president in 72 years to record a net loss of jobs during his term. Kerry puts that number at 900,000 jobs. NOW is the time to compare the two survey totals.

 

On September 3rd the Bureau of Labor Statistics published it's numbers. The Establishment Survey showed that 131.5 million people were employed in non-farm jobs during August. The Household Survey showed a total employment figure of 138.7 million. That's a difference of 8.2 million jobs ... 8.2 million more Americans actually working than the numbers Kerry cites. That sort of wipes out Kerry's 900,000 job loss, don't you think?

 

Come on, folks. How in the world can you ignore small businesses when you report job numbers? Most of the jobs in this country are in small businesses, the very businesses that can take up to two years to register on the government's Establishment Survey. Job growth numbers in the small business private sector lag for a year or more behind than job numbers in large employers. In other words ... the numbers Kerry is relying on are meaningless in the short term.

 

One more thing ... Bush inherited an economic recession that began under Bill Clinton --- then you had the dot-com bust and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. By any measure that's a tough hand to play. I wonder how The Souffl? would have performed?

 

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

 

http://www.bls.gov/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#ee

Establishment Survey

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/ces_cps_trends.pdf

Household Survey

[Flying_Mollusk]

So you support flip floppers?

 

 

The Jobs Jitterbug

The Bushies flip?and flip-flop?over the latest employment figures.

By Daniel Gross

Posted Wednesday, April 7, 2004, at 1:20 PM PT

 

 

Anyone who doubts that economics is political should check out the latest Republican and Democratic gymnastics over the March jobs numbers. They are a case study in opportunism and inconsistency.

 

The government's monthly employment survey, released last Friday, showed that payroll jobs rose an impressive 308,000 in March. The report, which also revised upward the payroll figures for January and February, inspired hosannas from the White House to Wall Street. President Bush immediately inserted the figure into his stump speech. "Today, the statistics show that we added 308,000 jobs for the month of March," he said on the hustings in West Virginia.

 

Talk about flip-flops. The administration and its allies had spent the past few months trying to denigrate and discredit the Bureau of Labor Statistics' establishment survey, from which payroll jobs figures are derived. While attacking the payroll figures, the administration tried to turn public attention to the so-called household survey, from which the unemployment rate is derived. In sharp contrast to the payroll survey, which has shown persistent job loss since President Bush assumed office, the household survey for much of the past two years has shown growth in the number of Americans working. Last October, I dubbed the Bush strategy of criticizing the less favorable jobs survey "antidisestablishmentarianism."

 

 

The campaign against the establishment survey hasn't made that much headway among mainstream economists. They?and many of President Bush's critics?continue to insist that the payroll figures are both more comprehensive and more representative of the health of the labor market than the household survey. In February, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, saying that "we have concluded that as best we can judge, the payrolls series is the more accurate number."

 

Last Friday's report showed what a difference a single number can make. Now that it is showing impressive job growth, the payroll survey?which the Bushies had faulted for its inability to pick up the formation of new companies and the rise in self-employment?has been suddenly redeemed in the eyes of the White House and its fellow economic travelers. (Some conservatives are sticking to their principles: Writing in the New York Times today, Tim Kane of the Heritage Foundation says the flaws in the payroll survey remain. Because of structural changes in the new economy, the growth in freelancing, and the surge in limited-liability corporations, "we should be prepared for the job numbers in the payroll survey to permanently look anemic compared to other measures.")

 

At the same time the president is touting the payroll numbers, he and his team are ignoring the household survey they have been boosting. That's because the household survey is now generating the more unpleasant figures. In March, the household survey measured job losses?not increases?and showed the unemployment rate ticking upward.

 

 

 

 

SO CAPEFISH SUPPORTS FLIP FLOPPERS!!

 

Thats the problem when you follow lock and step with whatever the right tells you. Does the article you post address the fact that Bush once touted the establishment survey? Would YOU like to respond to that?

[CapeFish]

The article I posted has official links and numbers, you article doesn't even have a source.

 

This has nothing to do with what he or has not said. This all has to do with what happened in the last 4 years in dealing with jobs.

 

You need to stop drinking the leftist Kool Aid.

[Flying_Mollusk]

No you need to get the point. The right wing article you posts tries to spin stats. I assumed you read it. The now bad payroll stats make Bush look bad. But those made Bush look good.

 

 

Forget the articles capefish. You give me YOUR opinion. Which stats are more important?

 

 

Here are your links:

 

 

That article: http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2098408

 

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatu...reation_numbers

 

Talks about Bush administration and the Heritage foundation attacking the Labor stats in late winter:

http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1076

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/CDA04-03.cfm

[CapeFish]

You still don't want to admit that Kerry is wrong when he says we have lost jobs.

[Flying_Mollusk]

First you have to tell me which survey is more accurate and why you think so. Clearly you havent shown me why Kerry is wrong to use one survey. Can you do that?

[CapeFish]

First you have to tell me which survey is more accurate and why you think so. Clearly you havent shown me why Kerry is wrong to use one survey. Can you do that?

560886[/snapback]

I believe that using the establishment survey when it is outdated because the employer must be established without the household survey like Kerry has done is misinforming. The reason they make both is because they are both needed to get some sort of view. It is similar to meteorology. You have a model or two you really trust but you run them all to make sure you have as many dangers covered.

 

I prefer the household survey because it is a bit more accurate quicker, but you can't only depend on one.

[DaGreatOne]

I was watching PBS last night and they had a guy from facts.org giving the facts on both what Kerry and Bush have been saying about each other and what not and one of the things was about Bush and about jobs.

 

The guy said the numbers show he has created more new jobs but since the end of the Clinton Adminstration he has lost more jobs than he created. I think the number was around 900,000.

[Fish Fry]

One more thing ... Bush inherited an economic recession that began under Bill Clinton --- then you had the dot-com bust and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.? By any measure that's a tough hand to play.? I wonder how The Souffl? would have performed?

560861[/snapback]

 

Constantly repeating a lie isn't going to make it true. The economy went into a recession under Bush's watch. Granted, it might have still happened if Clinton had been allowed to run for a 3rd term (and cruised to an easy victory over Dubya), but it's still a lie to say he "inherited" a recession.

[Flying_Mollusk]

btw, this article you posted is flawed for two reasons:

 

1)It states:

 

The Establishment Survey showed that 131.5 million people were employed in non-farm jobs during August.? The Household Survey showed a total employment figure of 138.7 million.? That's a difference of 8.2 million jobs ...

 

Hmmm...math:

 

138.7

- 131.5

-------------

7.2

 

7.2 does not equal 8.2. Cleary math is not is strong suit.

 

 

2.) His logic is flawed. The different in stats doesnt mean that both stats dont say a net dropoff of 900k. They both might say 900k, just with different starting numbers.

 

 

Who is this guy anyway? Not to good at analysis.

[CapeFish]

One more thing ... Bush inherited an economic recession that began under Bill Clinton --- then you had the dot-com bust and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. By any measure that's a tough hand to play. I wonder how The Souffl? would have performed?

560861[/snapback]

 

Constantly repeating a lie isn't going to make it true. The economy went into a recession under Bush's watch. Granted, it might have still happened if Clinton had been allowed to run for a 3rd term (and cruised to an easy victory over Dubya), but it's still a lie to say he "inherited" a recession.

560892[/snapback]

How is it a lie? Clinton started having an economic decline late in his term and it carried through because economics has lag.

[Flying_Mollusk]

dude, your guy Boortz is not too smart.

[CapeFish]

dude, your guy Boortz is not too smart.

560897[/snapback]

still a big difference from what Kerry is saying.

[Flying_Mollusk]

how?

[Fish Fry]

How is it a lie? Clinton started having an economic decline late in his term and it carried through because economics has lag.

 

 

Because it wasn't officially a recession. It didn't become a recession until Dubya took over. A 1-quarter downturn (or != for you C/C++ programmers) a recession.

[CapeFish]

how?

560900[/snapback]

Kerry keeps saying we have lost jobs when in reality we have seen a gain under Bush. Another thing I noticed on PBS was that while we have lost jobs overseas, we have gained more than we lost from other countries shipping their higher paying professional jobs here.

[SorianoFanHFW]

the president's effect on the economy is minimal unless he outright screws it up, ala FD roosevlet. otherwise, we are looking at the shambles of a fake dot com economy and bad accounting from the 90s.

 

jesus people, it's so obvious.

[Flying_Mollusk]

how?

560900[/snapback]

Kerry keeps saying we have lost jobs when in reality we have seen a gain under Bush. Another thing I noticed on PBS was that while we have lost jobs overseas, we have gained more than we lost from other countries shipping their higher paying professional jobs here.

560905[/snapback]

How have we gained jobs? Thats not what the article you posted says. Did you read it? It says there is a difference in the measurments. But it doesnt say what the starting stat for both surveys was. Kind of interesting that it leaves that out right? Thats because it engages in misinformation.

[CapeFish]

how?

560900[/snapback]

Kerry keeps saying we have lost jobs when in reality we have seen a gain under Bush. Another thing I noticed on PBS was that while we have lost jobs overseas, we have gained more than we lost from other countries shipping their higher paying professional jobs here.

560905[/snapback]

How have we gained jobs? Thats not what the article you posted says. Did you read it? It says there is a difference in the measurments. But it doesnt say what the starting stat for both surveys was. Kind of interesting that it leaves that out right? Thats because it engages in misinformation.

560911[/snapback]

Misinformation? What about Kerry? Why doesn't he talk about jobs that we are gaining from other countries? Why doesn't he talk about professional jobs coming here from Europe?

[Flying_Mollusk]

Changing the subject? Show me that data capefish.

[FreshFish]

the president's effect on the economy is minimal unless he outright screws it up, ala FD roosevlet.? otherwise, we are looking at the shambles of a fake dot com economy and bad accounting from the 90s.

 

jesus people, it's so obvious.

560908[/snapback]

 

Bingo. it is simple economics!

 

It is a Normal business cycle.

 

The economy has more effect on how the public look at the President, than what the President can have on the economy.

[CapeFish]

This is not the article I saw, but a good one nonetheless.

 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P79592.asp

[Flying_Mollusk]

You said that insourcing has caused a net creation of jobs. That doesnt say that. In fact that article says the labor market is weak!

[SorianoFanHFW]

the president's effect on the economy is minimal unless he outright screws it up, ala FD roosevlet.? otherwise, we are looking at the shambles of a fake dot com economy and bad accounting from the 90s.

 

jesus people, it's so obvious.

560908[/snapback]

 

Bingo. it is simple economics!

 

It is a Normal business cycle.

 

The economy has more effect on how the public look at the President, than what the President can have on the economy.

560919[/snapback]

these people are not seeing the obvious and forget the april of the year 2000 when a sudden drop in DELL stocks started it all.

[Flying_Mollusk]

Dont let details get in the way of politcs sorianofan.