thelizman
April 22nd 04, 09:10 PM
HubCity wrote:
> thelizman > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Less than a few hundred thousand Americans have lost their job, and
>>they'll find one soon enough.
>>
>
>
> That is wrong.
>
> By July 2003 there were 2.6 million fewer jobs in the US now than when Bush
> took office. That has improved - there are now just over 2 million fewer
> jobs.
Wrong. By July 2003 there was a gross closure of 2.6 million jobs, and a
gross opening of 2.3 million jobs, leaving .3 million positions vacant.
However, that means nothing - people enter and leave the workforce all
the time, and labor markets do not count a number of jobs. Thats why
people don't look at job numbers, they look at jobless claims and
unemployment - or more to the point underemployment. The unemployment
rate is at very low 5.6% - lower than even Clinton ever managed.
The bottom line is you can't argue with facts - employment grew under
Bush because more jobs were created than lost:
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
> Bush has seven months to pull a Reagan - who actually lost more jobs than
> Bush, but managed to get them all back.
>
Change in Payroll Employment:
+308,000(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Average Hourly Earnings:
+$0.02(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Average Weekly Hours:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Manufacturing Average Weekly Hours:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Aggregate Hours Index:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Real Earnings:
-$0.03(p) in Mar 2004
Sounds like the Reagan was already pulled off.
> You may have been misled by a statistic that states that there are less
> than a few hundred thousand Americans who've lost their jobs and are still
> on unemployment, e.g. "looking for work". Those are the numbers the White
> House reports.
>
>
> But it ain't a "few hundred thousand".
You're clueless if you think that jobless claims have anything to do
with receiving unemployment benefits. The fact of the matter is that
only one number counts - 5.6% unemployment.
You just can't stand the fact that Bush is successful, so what do you
do? You slam him with made-up statistics, bad facts, and poor
interpretation of economic theory. That's the problem with people like
you - you don't have principles, platforms, issues, or even an inspired
message. All you have is hatred for Bush, and that ain't gonna win you jack.
--
thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either"
Before you ask a question, check the FAQs for this newsgroup at
http://www.mobileaudio.com/rac-faq. It contains over a decade and
a half of knowledge.
teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"
This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.
> thelizman > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Less than a few hundred thousand Americans have lost their job, and
>>they'll find one soon enough.
>>
>
>
> That is wrong.
>
> By July 2003 there were 2.6 million fewer jobs in the US now than when Bush
> took office. That has improved - there are now just over 2 million fewer
> jobs.
Wrong. By July 2003 there was a gross closure of 2.6 million jobs, and a
gross opening of 2.3 million jobs, leaving .3 million positions vacant.
However, that means nothing - people enter and leave the workforce all
the time, and labor markets do not count a number of jobs. Thats why
people don't look at job numbers, they look at jobless claims and
unemployment - or more to the point underemployment. The unemployment
rate is at very low 5.6% - lower than even Clinton ever managed.
The bottom line is you can't argue with facts - employment grew under
Bush because more jobs were created than lost:
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
> Bush has seven months to pull a Reagan - who actually lost more jobs than
> Bush, but managed to get them all back.
>
Change in Payroll Employment:
+308,000(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Average Hourly Earnings:
+$0.02(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Average Weekly Hours:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Manufacturing Average Weekly Hours:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Aggregate Hours Index:
-0.1(p) in Mar 2004
Change in Real Earnings:
-$0.03(p) in Mar 2004
Sounds like the Reagan was already pulled off.
> You may have been misled by a statistic that states that there are less
> than a few hundred thousand Americans who've lost their jobs and are still
> on unemployment, e.g. "looking for work". Those are the numbers the White
> House reports.
>
>
> But it ain't a "few hundred thousand".
You're clueless if you think that jobless claims have anything to do
with receiving unemployment benefits. The fact of the matter is that
only one number counts - 5.6% unemployment.
You just can't stand the fact that Bush is successful, so what do you
do? You slam him with made-up statistics, bad facts, and poor
interpretation of economic theory. That's the problem with people like
you - you don't have principles, platforms, issues, or even an inspired
message. All you have is hatred for Bush, and that ain't gonna win you jack.
--
thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either"
Before you ask a question, check the FAQs for this newsgroup at
http://www.mobileaudio.com/rac-faq. It contains over a decade and
a half of knowledge.
teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"
This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.