Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

144,000 Jobs Created in August (UE Rate Down at 5.4%)
CNBC | September 3, 2004

Posted on 09/03/2004 5:30:59 AM PDT by RWR8189

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next last
To: af_vet_1981

Did you know too that Daddy Bush helped W to avoid Viet Nam service??

(Big Texas Rat contributer to say so on See B.S. this Sunday)

< /dripping sarcasm>


151 posted on 09/03/2004 6:58:54 AM PDT by CedarDave (Viet Nam Vet, USN Coastal Div. 13, Cat Lo, XO USCG patrol boat, 1968: No atrocities on my watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X

Your tagline said:

"John sez: NO BLOOD FOR PURPLE HEARTS"

OK, OK, so make them lavender, with Fig Leaf Cluster.
"I'm John Kewwy, and I appwooved this medal"

New, GI Kewwy, with flip-flop action.


152 posted on 09/03/2004 6:59:12 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheyConvictedOglethorpe

so this may have a big effect next time since the effect of two hurricanes may be factored in


153 posted on 09/03/2004 6:59:29 AM PDT by Dr Snide (vis pacem, para bellum - Prepare for war if you want peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

"Just hope they don't come back with

Unemployment rate January 2001 - 4.20%
Current Unemplyment Rate - 5.40%"

I hope that they do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We just have to play a video of the two planes crashing into the Twin Towers. This argument will easily be defanged!!!

LLS



154 posted on 09/03/2004 7:00:27 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Continued Job creation will not matter, if kerry "Outsources" our National Defense!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

You wrote:

"How do you miss 36,000 jobs?"

Hanging chad.


155 posted on 09/03/2004 7:00:28 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
WaaaahhhhHH! No jobs. Economy sucks! Rich people tax cuts! Waaaahhhhhh!

You just distilled the entire Democratic Convention into 10 words. Kudos! :^)

you forget lied, Iraq, quagmire...

156 posted on 09/03/2004 7:01:22 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: lelio

Greenspan disagrees with your "talking point"!

LLS


157 posted on 09/03/2004 7:03:25 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Continued Job creation will not matter, if kerry "Outsources" our National Defense!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Because the difference between the preliminary 144,000 number for August and 150,000 is statistically insignifigant. Get real.

(devils advocate on\)

What is the standard deviation and confidence interval?

What is the Confidence level? 95%, 99%?

How was the Std Dev calculated?

(\advocate off)

158 posted on 09/03/2004 7:05:19 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill

Fortunately he lives about 100+ yards from me.

The other whiners on the cul de sac, know better than try their whines/lies with me.


159 posted on 09/03/2004 7:08:08 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (https://www.swiftvets.com/swift/ccdonation.php?op=donate&site=SwiftVets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

You wrote:

"Just hope they don't come back with

Unemployment rate January 2001 - 4.20%
Current Unemplyment Rate - 5.40%"

That is SO Sept. 10th.

See my earlier post.
BTW, why don't you make a month-by-month chart of the
# of employed in the US, and a month-by-month chart
of the unemployment rate in the US.

From (say) 6 months before Bush's first term ;-)
until today.
Put in arrows on 9-11 and at the passage of the Bush
tax cuts.

For extra credit, put in arrows at each movement in
the Federal Reserve Overnight Funds rate :-)


160 posted on 09/03/2004 7:09:44 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

You wrote:

"the Red Sox are only 2 1/2 back of the Yankees now."

Slam at Kewwy understood; but why would a TEXAN (Bush)
care about the Yankees?

Full disclosure: used to be an Orioles fan :-(


161 posted on 09/03/2004 7:11:19 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I'm not SO wrong.

I'm INCOMPLETE. (which is different than wrong...especially since you added to your list some of the things I had on mine.)

Thanks for a more complete list. I'll definitely use the Gore thing in the future as well as the oil price extortion.


162 posted on 09/03/2004 7:11:59 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Supporting Bush/Cheney 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: lelio

You wrote:

"150k is the amount of jobs that need to be created just to absorb new people entering the workforce."

Agreed. But just out of cussedness. . .
How long until the boomers start retiring,
and we start facing the 'worker shortage'
for real, which has been used as an excuse
for outsourcing to third-world countries already?


163 posted on 09/03/2004 7:14:31 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

This is good. Didn't I hear that they revised the job creation up for June and July too.


164 posted on 09/03/2004 7:16:13 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

You wrote:

"I'm not SO wrong."


I thought people would realize by my extending your remarks that we were on the same side . . .

Sorry, next time I'll explicitly load my sarcasm torpedoes
first, like this:

[Sarcasm torpedo ARMED. FIRE!]
...and the new unemployment of Al Gore surely skewed
the numbers tremendously.


165 posted on 09/03/2004 7:22:38 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Jobs created: June 96k, July 73k, August 144k

MY math says there were over 300k jobs created in the 3 month period. I don't call that exactly static.

My point on the "new math" is that liberals will look at deltas between expectations and actuals and call that a decrease if it suits them. They do it on government spending all the time.

A liberal who gets a 4% raise while expecting a 5% raise would argue that they received a 1% pay cut even though they were taking home more money every month.

Sorry if my point was confusing.

166 posted on 09/03/2004 7:25:47 AM PDT by Boss_Jim_Gettys (Bush/Cheney, the Official Candidates of the 2004 Olympic Summer Games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Thanks for a more complete list. I'll definitely use the Gore thing in the future as well as the oil price extortion.

Don't forget my gracious thankfulness for your help on these ideas. They're good.

No (/sarcasm> needed.... I'm being sincere. :>)

167 posted on 09/03/2004 7:25:54 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Supporting Bush/Cheney 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: All

All I will say is thank you Lord (literally).


168 posted on 09/03/2004 7:26:02 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

July shoots up to 73K in a revision


169 posted on 09/03/2004 7:27:36 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Boss_Jim_Gettys
A liberal who gets a 4% raise while expecting a 5% raise would argue that they received a 1% pay cut even though they were taking home more money every month.

I agree with you on that ... however I'm talking about the 150k growth in jobs needed to employ just the new people entering into the workforce -- not the 150k expected figure.

So the economy needs to grow at 150k jobs a month just to remain constant.
170 posted on 09/03/2004 7:35:44 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: vishnu6
It is not the more important one, and it was down 152,000. It is a very volatile indicator.
171 posted on 09/03/2004 7:45:19 AM PDT by RWR8189 (Its Morning in America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Funny numbers

Somebody please explain:

The US population is growing by 1.8% a year, That means 7% population growth under W. Yet the Dems insist there are fewer peole working now that when W took office.

What's wrong with this picture? What are these "job numbers" that back this up?

172 posted on 09/03/2004 7:49:40 AM PDT by cookcounty (Watch the self-immolation of John Zippo Kerry live on national TV!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lelio
Since the unemployment rate dropped 0.1% with the 144k jobs added, one could argue that the we are just to the right of the balancing point. Of course all of these numbers can and will be spun by both sides to reflect that the economy is getting better or worse or is static. The truth is only knowable as longer term trends are revealed.

sKeery and his media accomplices are already on point with "lackluster." All-in-all, though, I think it is an overall plus for Bush/Cheney.

173 posted on 09/03/2004 7:55:03 AM PDT by Boss_Jim_Gettys (Bush/Cheney, the Official Candidates of the 2004 Olympic Summer Games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

??? 140,000 is pretty damn good!


174 posted on 09/03/2004 7:56:29 AM PDT by RockinRight (Liberalism IS the status quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gswilder

W's gonna win.

You may have seen my 307 EV prediction. I have revised and here's my new prediction:

Bush 344 EV's
Kerry 194 EV's

Bush 54.0%
Kerry 44.3%


175 posted on 09/03/2004 7:58:50 AM PDT by RockinRight (Liberalism IS the status quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

Wow...a whole 6000 short. But with lower unemployment. Why am I thinking these numbers are actually pretty damn good?


176 posted on 09/03/2004 7:59:50 AM PDT by RockinRight (Liberalism IS the status quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Whew.

Not a great number, but good enough. I was very worried about this given the hurricane in Florida and the fact that August job numbers traditionally aren't all that great.

177 posted on 09/03/2004 8:00:09 AM PDT by comebacknewt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Great news! - 144,000 new payroll jobs is just what we needed to see! - Unemployment continuing to fall!! -

Lets see how the media spin the UE rate falling - (I have a notion they will just try and ignore this fact!) -

It is now time for the GWB team to get positive economic ads on the air - Once we have the economic premise back....Kerry has no shot in Nov!

178 posted on 09/03/2004 8:02:53 AM PDT by POA2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: slowhand520

Yes, and admitted he was a war criminal. I am still waiting for the Eurowinnies and the famed World Court to bring war crimes charges against him for his war crimes. I had better not hold my breath, huh?


179 posted on 09/03/2004 8:03:06 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The time is coming for all true Patriots to rise up and take back this Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

For the record...

The administration is just 101,000 jobs short of when it took office (based on Non-Farm Payrolls). The economy lost 1,263,000 jobs in 2001, gained 11,000 in 2002, lost 212,000 in 2003 and has gained 1,363,000 in 2004. Over the last 12 months it has gained 1,604,000 jobs for an average of 133,667 per month.


180 posted on 09/03/2004 8:05:48 AM PDT by GallopingGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GallopingGhost

My figures say we are still behind 913,000 in nonfarm employment.


181 posted on 09/03/2004 8:07:40 AM PDT by RWR8189 (Its Morning in America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: NC28203
Let me straighten things out for you, Dilworth Pansy:

Last month many hear were trashing the payroll survey as unreliable when numbers came in below expectations.

The payroll survery IS unreliable in that it does not report a full picture of employment, only a large segment.

They pointed to the household survey as the one to watch.

It's kind of volatile, but that would be nice, since we would've gotten the +600k number last month PLUS the UE drop this .... but the media fixates on the payroll survey so that's where the attention goes.

This month the payroll numbers are up and the report seems to carry more credence with Freepers.

Because it is the one the media focuses on and has been a yardstick by which they measure Bush.

Strangely, little is heard about the household survey which was relatively flat.

Helloooooooo, the household survey is the one showing unemployment dropping to 5.4%.

182 posted on 09/03/2004 8:10:42 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Indians 22, Yankees 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

How much were the June numbers revised upward?


183 posted on 09/03/2004 8:28:56 AM PDT by Uncle Kermie (Long Live RWR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

What were the June numbers previously (i.e. how much is the June number revised upward)?


184 posted on 09/03/2004 8:29:57 AM PDT by Uncle Kermie (Long Live RWR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Kermie

I want to say June was 78k, but I'm not exactly sure.


185 posted on 09/03/2004 8:31:37 AM PDT by RWR8189 (Its Morning in America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

I agree that the payroll survey is unreliable. The fact that the revisions were so large is an indication that the preliminary releases are unreliable. I was just noting that general perception of its worthiness here on FR seems to vary with directly with the number of new payroll jobs posted.

If the media and the markets focus on the payroll number, then its fair enough to trumpet it when it is up. Just don't complain that the media is ignoring the household survey when the payroll numbers don't go your way, which is what happened last month.

>>>>Strangely, little is heard about the household survey which was relatively flat.

>>Helloooooooo, the household survey is the one showing unemployment dropping to 5.4%.

Yes, but the 21,000 job growth is being ignored, whereas last month's 600,000 job growth was all the rage.


186 posted on 09/03/2004 8:35:25 AM PDT by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

To dang long to type everything out. I have it in a spreadsheet if you want to freepmail me.


187 posted on 09/03/2004 8:41:20 AM PDT by GallopingGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: GallopingGhost
This is where I get my number from.

National Employment, Hours and Earnings


Series Id:     CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:  Total nonfarm
Industry:      Total nonfarm
NAICS Code:    N/A
Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 132388 132492 132507 132236 132237 132087 131972 131831 131564 131203 130871 130659  
2002 130494 130404 130447 130379 130381 130406 130295 130306 130259 130342 130305 130096  
2003 130190 130031 129921 129901 129873 129859 129814 129789 129856 129944 130027 130035  
2004 130194 130277 130630 130954 131162 131258 131331(p) 131475(p)          

131,475,000-132,388,000= -913,000

188 posted on 09/03/2004 8:45:43 AM PDT by RWR8189 (Its Morning in America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

The real story is that 203,000 jobs were added. Here's how:

August: 144,000 new jobs
July: Upward revision of 41,000
June: Upward revision of 18,000

Total new jobs = 204,000


189 posted on 09/03/2004 8:46:13 AM PDT by Uncle Kermie (Long Live RWR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NC28203
Just don't complain that the media is ignoring the household survey when the payroll numbers don't go your way, which is what happened last month.

It's a "hoist on your own petard" reaction. Even those who think the payroll survey is absolute crap are psyched when the MSM and Democrats have to eat it.

190 posted on 09/03/2004 8:49:31 AM PDT by JohnnyZ (Indians 22, Yankees 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

You're forgetting one thing. Liberals don't need to have numbers that back up their claims. Only Republicans need that, and then, those numbers are disregarded anyway.


191 posted on 09/03/2004 8:54:00 AM PDT by AQGeiger (Have you hugged your soldier today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
You people are missing the point -- the Vice President got five deferments! Five!

That's right! And who is better equipped to lead the country, someone with FIVE deferments or someone who served TWO tours in Vietnam? What's that? Cheney doesn't lead the country? ...Oops!

192 posted on 09/03/2004 9:00:48 AM PDT by twhitak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
[144,000 Jobs Created in August (UE Rate Down at 5.4%)]

Kerry: "There goes Bush again with the negative campaign. Always the negative campaign. And impugning my credentials to be Commander In Chief. By the way, did you know I served in Viet Nam?"

193 posted on 09/03/2004 9:32:29 AM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (You have entered a "No Girlie Men" zone. Thank you for not whining and sniveling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
From: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

These are the Total employment numbers. This includes not only the survey of businesses, but people like many I know who are self employed - engaging in the increasing number of jobs such as designing web pages, manning phones for web sites, or operating their own CNC milling machines and circuit board copper etching for local businesses who only want onesies and twosies of a product, not a manufacturing run.



Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721  
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088  
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860  
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679  
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602  
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523  
2000 136561(1) 136599 136668 137264 136611 136923 136516 136701 136908 137124 137316 137632  
2001 137790 137581 137738 137275 137063 136842 137091 136314 136869 136447 136234 136078  
2002 135715 136362 136106 136096 136505 136353 136478 136811 137337 137079 136545 136459  
2003 137447(1) 137318 137300 137578 137505 137673 137604 137693 137644 138095 138533 138479  
2004 138566(1) 138301 138298 138576 138772 139031 139660 139681          
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000, January 2003 and January 2004.

Notice that this indicates that over four million people more are employed than were employed in 2001. Yes, the statistical fluctuations are greater month-to-month, but the aggregate/ average figures are reliable.
/

194 posted on 09/03/2004 9:52:49 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

Oooops: I should have written "about two million more jobs", not "four million". Sorry.
/


195 posted on 09/03/2004 10:01:14 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Looking at the adult men UE rate of 5.0 and adult women UE rate of 4.7, we really have full employment. Economist consider 5.0 to be the natural rate of UE, I.E. full employment. Because certain number of people are in between jobs at any given moment.


196 posted on 09/03/2004 10:01:35 AM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

ABC News just now:

Job growth disappointing, less than predicted. Only 144,000 jobs created; economists had predicted 150,000. Don't remember them mentioning that unemployment was down.

MSM bias shows again.


197 posted on 09/03/2004 10:07:02 AM PDT by CedarDave (Viet Nam Vet, USN Coastal Div. 13, Cat Lo, XO USCG patrol boat, 1968: No atrocities on my watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LakeLady

Definitely good enough. I was in fear of another 5K increase or something. That would have killed the Big Mo, but 144K is fine. Particularly since the UE dropped. The UE is more important in my opinion. Clinton just sort of invented those job creation numbers when the UE wasn't where he needed it to be.

Kerry's goin' DOEN!


198 posted on 09/03/2004 10:28:02 AM PDT by johnb838 (Deconstruct the libsocs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

>>>Notice that this indicates that over two million people more are employed than were employed in 2001.

You'll also note if you look at the unemployment level table that over two million people more are unemployed than were unemployed in 2001.


199 posted on 09/03/2004 10:30:55 AM PDT by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

hoo wee, what a great tagline.

a sign for the ages!


200 posted on 09/03/2004 10:35:06 AM PDT by Future Useless Eater (FreedomLoving_Engineer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-211 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson