Discuss: "Report Is Better Than Expected; 308,000 Positions Created."

What's Kerry going to talk about now?

Comments

[Kevin Brennan]

I don't know, maybe he'll talk about how the economy needs to generate significantly more than that every month between now and the election for Bush to avoid being the first president since Hoover to have a net job loss during his time in office?

It's a good number. But it's only one month.

[Edward]

I thought we all agreed that job creation was nothing the president could control and thereby this is good news for the nation but not necessarily good news for either candidate.

[Edward]

The other interesting aspect of this is that unemployment inched up as well. How does that make sense?

[bob mcmanus]

Considering your previous post, can these numbers be at all trusted?

Perhaps Kerry can talk about an administration so fundamentally deceptive, secretive, and dishonest that the default case can be that if their lips move, they are lying?

[Slartibartfast]

It's hard for me to swallow the old worse-than-Hoover line, particularly when it's completely wrong. Look at how many are employed now vs. in January 2001, and then tell me how we've got fewer employed.

The various other ways in which this meme has been abused are debunked here.

[Edward]

308,000 - 3,300 = 304,700 (and counting...)

Sun settles with Microsoft, cuts 3,300 jobs

[Kevin Brennan]

Slartibartfast,

I didn't say worse than Hoover, and I haven't heard anyone else say that. I said first since Hoover to preside over a net job loss. I think that's significant, don't you? Your source, unfortunately, tries to use the household survey as a counterargument, which is questionable for reasons cited here.

Edward, the unemployment rate is an estimate of the number of people actively looking for work. It doesn't count people who are discouraged and have given up. As a result, it's not unusual for the unemployment rate to increase when the economy improves, because people re-enter the labour force figuring that it's now worth the effort to try and find a job. Similarly, the rate can fall during lengthy bad times not because people are finding work but because they stop looking.

[von]

I trust the numbers, Bob, unless something comes out that suggests they shouldn't be trusted.

[Slartibartfast]

The relative merits of the payroll and survey data are currently under dispute; I'm not making a claim which one is valid. So, you have a point, and I concede it's a valid one.

As for Bush possibly being the FIRST president since Hoover to preside over a net job loss, I think that's meaningless; the current economy is not comparable with the economy under Hoover in any meaningful way.

[bob mcmanus]

"the current economy is not comparable with the economy under Hoover in any meaningful way."

Which is not at all the point. The comparison is with the 70 years or the 12 administrations that did *not* have job losses. Included in there are some wars and fairly fierce recessions, both Democratic and Republican presidents, many varieties of fiscal and monetary policies...

yet this administration is the only one not to produce jobs

[rilkefan]

Slart:
"The relative merits of the payroll and survey data are currently under dispute..."

From what I read, "under spin" would be more accurate. Greenspan says the payroll data is clearly superior.

"[...] the current economy is not comparable with the economy under Hoover in any meaningful way."

The comparison is with every economy since Hoover...

[a_rilke_fan]

no fair - bob's 12:07 beat my 12:07 alphabetically.

[rilkefan]

Maybe Kerry will talk about the Tyco mistrial.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, the BLS cites the household survey when assessing how many people are actually employed. I'm not sure why they're doing that, considering the degree to which you're saying it's inaccurate.

From what I've seen, the payroll survey is more accurate because it's a larger sample. So it's a more accurate measure of...something. The household survey, on the other hand, has larger error bars but is a more accurate measure of who's actually working. The payroll survey, for instance, would completely miss my wife, who's a 1099 consultant.

There, and I swore I wasn't going to get into this discussion. And I left the issue of what exactly the President has to do with the unemployment rate completely untouched.

[rilkefan]

Slart, it's claimed that the payroll #s contain good estimates for the consultants, and that the household data doesn't measure them well. If a guy knocked on my door and found me home (which he likely would since I'm out of work), I might call myself a consultant (instead of an unemployed physicist) as that's how I filed my piecework, and because the truth is a bit vexing.

[Slartibartfast]

See, I should just pay attention to my better instincts when it comes to things like this. The small number epsilon, in this case, appears to be very, very small.

Sorry you're unemployed. I have to admit I assumed otherwise because of your email addy. The question of what, exactly, I'd do as a physicist was the primary reason I switched from physics to engineering before my freshman year began.

[Navy Davy]

Myself, I'd go for another round of big 'ole tax cuts. This would continue to create more jobs and further boost the Dow Jones, which is up big over the last year (I think 28% accordin' to my broker)

It's a very simple see-saw. The government grows at the expense of the private sector. So, if you shrink the government, you enable the private sector to grow. Means more wealth, more investment, more savings and more jobs.

Still cain't figger out why this confuses some folks, but, Heck, some are easily confused:)

My 2 cents.

[sidereal]

"The government grows at the expense of the private sector."

Huh. Interesting theory. Any further detail on how public and private sector investment is zero-sum, rather than synergistic? The logical extension is that if we'd never spent a dime in government expenditure, we'd be trillions of dollars more wealthy.

[Navy Davy]

Any further detail on how public and private sector investment is zero-sum, rather than synergistic?

Synergistic? Hah, thatsa good one. Like a teenager arguin' to his Daddy --- "We'll BOTH be better off, if you buy me that nice car!"

Private sector creates wealth, Govt sector redistributes wealth.

This really ain't hard, Sidereal.

[kenB]

Like a teenager arguin' to his Daddy --- "We'll BOTH be better off, if you buy me that nice car!"

The teenager could be right. if Daddy is currently spending many hours driving his son around, then buying the son a car of his own frees up Daddy's time to do something productive.

[Navy Davy]

KenB,

Here's a thought: Maybe teenager should get a part-time job and buy his own car. You can get a used Honda for $3 - 4,000. If Daddy cain't figger this out, he deserves his inefficient ways.

Myself, bought a 1974 Chevy Nova for $850 bucks --way back when.

Surely, you ain't one of the folks be sucklin' off the government teat, too? :)

Any of you boys readin' Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman these days?

[kenB]

Maybe teenager should get a part-time job and buy his own car.

Ah, but what if teenager has to drive to work? Catch-22 -- he needs a job to get a car, but he needs a car to get a job.

Surely, you ain't one of the folks be sucklin' off the government teat, too? :)

I'm afraid I'm a milk supplier more than a milk consumer. Although my job depends on the gov't continuing to come up with rules so complicated that our clients can't follow them without our software. Ya gotta love that latest Medicare bill!

[rilkefan]

Slart, I hear the household survey shows a slight job _loss_ this month.

[Fredrik Nyman]

Did y'all know that Kerry served in Vietnam? Maybe he will finally start talking about that.

Or (paraphrasing Lileks), y'know that button that creates jobs in the vice president's office -- the one that Cheney refuses to push? Maybe Kerry could talk about how he's gonna push it really hard and really fast and create TEN MILLION jobs?

Oh, wait...