Missing Jobs Found

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 11, 2004 | Wall Street Journal

[Brilliant]

The last jobs numbers to be reported before the Presidential election are in, and predictably John Kerry is spinning them as "disappointing." Well, if this is disappointment, most people would probably like to have four more years of it.

The figure of 96,000 jobs created... remains a perfectly respectable showing; the jobless rate was steady at 5.4%, well below the long-term average, and below the 5.5% rate of November 1996 when Bill Clinton was hailing prosperity as he ran for re-election. The data were in line with strong economic growth over the last year: Since the Bush tax cuts kicked in, year-over-year growth has been 4.8%, the second quarter was recently revised upward to 3.3%, and the consensus among economists for the third quarter just ended is more than 4%.

Moreover, Friday's jobs data brought some new information that is far more interesting than the headline figure. The Bureau of Labor Statistics finally confirmed what we and others believed all along, that its "establishment survey" underestimated the number of jobs created from March 2003 to April 2004. The government bean-counters offered a preliminary upward revision of 236,000, and some believe the final correction early next year will be between 300,000 and 400,000 jobs...

New jobs are being created as usual, but they are different kinds of jobs. The U.S. economy is undergoing a structural change as more people become self-employed or form partnerships, rather than working for large corporations...

But when a higher ratio of people make their livelihood as independent consultants to their old company, or as power sellers on eBay, they don't show up in the establishment survey that provides the most widely used employment figures...

These jobs do, however, show up right away in the "household survey."...

[Poohbah]

Don't believe this, unemployment is at 1,000,000% and we're all DOOMED!

[Conspiracy Guy]

You nailed it. I am wringing my hands now! ; )

[ClearCase_guy]

Third presidential debate is on domestic issues. I think Bush has not responded strongly to Kerry's little soundbite: "First president in 72 years who lost jobs". I think Bush has ammunition that he hasn't used yet. He's got one final chance to explain to 50 million Americans that the job situation is extremely good.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"I think Bush has not responded strongly to Kerry's little soundbite:"

I agree, but it was probably in the plan. Bush has done a good job, finally, of demonstrating Kerry unfitness to lead the WOT/foreign policy. In this debate, Bush will have 90 minutes to hammer home his points about No Child Left Behind, jobs, and so forth.

I think this election will end up like Australia. Close down the wire, but in the end, people will choose security over socialism.

[Brilliant]

Oddly, he doesn't want to. If you remember, Bush, Sr. got in trouble because he said the economy was good. People figured he was aiming too low. GW hasn't made that mistake. He's continually talking about making the economy better. What he needs is for his supporters to hammer away at the fact that the economy is strong and jobs are being created.

[1rudeboy]

This cannot be true. I know someone who knows someone that is working at Wal-Mart after he lost his job at the urinal-cake factory to somebody in Bangladesh.

[harpu]

Thanks for half of the story...it't nice to be teased with only a fraction of the whole story and its facts.

I know, it's not your fault but thanks anyway.

[kittymyrib]

Bush will lose this last debate if it centers on employment because almost every family has someone who has been unemployed for over a year and no longer shows up in the unemployment figures because they have exhausted their benefits. The unemployment rate is much higher than 5.4% and most people know it from their personal experience.

[Brilliant]

I gave you the good parts. The rest was boring. You're not missing much.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I've read that farm jobs, government jobs and home-based self employment work is not counted in the numbers.

I also would like see more reports about the high number of women who have returned home to raise their children. Their departure from the workforce can be counted but it should not be considered as a lost job.

[Sadie789]

The Democrats have got to stop blaming Bush for our manufacturing jobs going overseas. After all it was the Democrats who brought overseas into the United States to take our jobs. The Democrats started wars in Vietnam, Bosnia, and Somolia then brought refugees by the hundreds of thousands to fill our manufacturing jobs.

So, “Wake up America! Overseas is here, inside our country, taking our manufacturing jobs. Protest that! Protest the issuing of HB1 and HB2 Visas. No more HB1 and HB2 Visas should be issued for at least ten years. Americans need these jobs.”

[Lee'sGhost]

"I agree, but it was probably in the plan. "

I agree with you. Why show all your cards. It just gives them the op to twist it in the next debate. Wait until the last debate to bring all your big guns to bear. I think W will be smokin'.

[ClearCase_guy]

almost every family has someone who has been unemployed for over a year

I think your assumption is wrong. I work in the software world. I don't know any unemployed people. Last time I did know an unemployed person was 2 years ago.

Also, please note that self-employed people are not captured by the statistics. There has been a great increase in (happily) self-employed people in the past 5-10 years. My belief is that unemployment is not 5.4% -- it is actually quite a bit lower than that.

[FreedomPoster]

A lib we do battle with in a neutral forum, is a power-seller on eBay, and would only show up on the Household Survey. Nevertheless, he quotes the payroll survey numbers.

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.

[Casaubon]

if it isnt offically measured by the gov its not true!!

[Brilliant]

Bingo. Farm employment is interesting to me because the farming industry has been doing well under Bush for the first time, really, since WWII. Also, construction is up big time, and many of the construction jobs are temporary jobs that don't get counted. It's simply the nature of the industry. You work at one job until it's over, and then go to another. A lot of them are self-employed trades as well.

[JustDoItAlways]

The "Non-Farm Payrolls" report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics used to be a good quick snap-shot of what was happening in the US economy. Since the farm payroll numbers fluctuated around so much, the BLS and the media just kept reporting it as it was more stable.

But the BLS has another report "The Households Survey" which is far more comprehensive. It counts farm employment, partnerships, self-employment etc that the Payrolls numbers do not.

The Household survey counts 149 million jobs while the Payrolls only counts 141 million.

The Household Survey has increased by about 2 million jobs since Bush was elected while the Payroll numbers showed a large decline in 2001 and has never recovered.

Has the media EVER reported the more accurate and more comprehensive Household numbers. I have never seen it.

[reformedliberal]

I know some people who really do work at Walmart. They make above minimum wage, somewhere over $7/hr for checkers. They have, after a period of working there,access to health insurance. It isn't a top-of-the-line policy, but it is affordable and it is actually better than we, as self-employed, can afford, especially at our ages. There is also a 10% discount that does not apply to food or sales items, but employees have first chance at sale items.

Some of these folks, the younger ones, go on to other jobs. I know one who ia now in a receptionist job where she makes the same wage as she did at Walmart, but gets to sit down. This business also does sales and she is on the sales staff and makes commissions. In addition, when things are slow (this can be a seasonal business), she has access to a separate area where she can work on the items she makes for a sole-proprietorship craft business. In her *spare* time, she and her husband sell on eBay.

Another of these folks, is almost 70 and is working at Walmart until she has her 15 years in and her lifetime discount. Then, she will retire. Her husband is already retired and receives a pension & social security.

A third is a college student who has switched majors and taking a semester to build her savings so she can attend a different school that offers the pre-professional courses she needs. From a low-income family, she has paid her way so far, lives at home to help out the family, as well as keep her expenses down, and has almost enough savings for a new car and her Spring tuition costs. She does qualify for loans, of course, but is keeping those small so she isn't overburdened when she graduates.

Another woman works there is a supervisory position and is doing so to help w/tuition costs for her college student.

Walmart workers are not making a huge income, but they are working. They contribute to the economy. They pay payroll taxes. They can switch to stores in other locations and are given preference, from what I understand, when they do so. They can move up the ladder into supervisory/office positions.

Ditto eBay: it is a flexible business, often combining a passion or a hobby with a way to make money. The power sellers can buy affordable health insurance. I am rather impressed with the eBay folks I know: several are doing it full time, balancing other responsibilities and loving self-employment.

I am so tired of the snobbish tone the MSM takes towards these workers and business owners.

[Holicheese]

The economy is so bad, I was in a soup line today!