progress in the bush economy..

[bishop]

article

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Hiring by U.S. employers slowed significantly in July, according to a government report Friday, as the number of new jobs added to payrolls came in far below Wall Street expectations. The Labor Department report showed only 32,000 new net jobs added to payrolls during the month, down from a revised 78,000 jobs that were added in June. The increase was the smallest since December, when payrolls rose by just 8,000.

any thoughts on why when things temporarily looked good, that they now look like a potential double dip?

[Jeff]

I think the job report is interesting. The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly at the same time that much few jobs were created. Statistics can show almost anything.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

In the above story about the jobs report it also shows the household survey. According to that report 629,000 jobs were added.

I do think that the biggest current threat to our economy is oil. Yukos is only the latest evidence that shows that we are to venerable to the fluctuation in oil prices. Yukos produces almost as much as Iraq did before the war. Our stock market has certainly followed the price of oil as of late.

[bishop]

over the past couple years, i've come to view the unemployment number as being irrelavent. there are so many different variations of that number as it is - the real number is typically 4 percentage points higher than the published number.

i've chosen to focus on net job creation. and when i want to get a more detailed picture, i research the trends in job churn (to see where jobs are being cut vs. the new ones being created). bls has online databases that you can query in a wide variety of ways.. i've found it to be extremely useful.

I do think that the biggest current threat to our economy is oil. Yukos is only the latest evidence that shows that we are to venerable to the fluctuation in oil prices. Yukos produces almost as much as Iraq did before the war. Our stock market has certainly followed the price of oil as of late.

you heard yesterday's news about how putin's blocked yukos from accessing their accounts? i've also seen reports explaining why people prefer arab oil over russian - the russians are inefficient and pass those extra costs onto purchasers.

personally, i think there is much that can be done at the federal level to help us move away from global oil dependency. unfortunately, everything the bush administration is doing only exacerbates the problem. be it their weak dollar policy, refusal to even research the impact of higher cafe standards, the proposal to dig up paltry reserves in anwr, etc.. the problem is larger than removing our dependency from foreign oil imports - the problem is our dependency on oil in general. we're greedy little piggies with our useless suv's/hummers, and it's catching up with us.

[waterfalllife]

From the Brits perspective. Looks like it took a major blow to Europe too. Why that is, I havent the foggiest, but the way things are going now, Im getting anxious about what the future holds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3542238.stm

[bishop]

i'm a believer that we will experience a double dip. i thought that since 2001, although i began to be less bearish over the past couple months in light of strong job reports. the bush cheerleaders chose to focus on things like the stock market boom, the housing market boom, etc.. but when it came to the fundamentals, like income increases, job creation, etc., they chose to ignore them. when you ignore the fundamentals, you cannot have strong, sustainable growth.

i believe the euro area has had relatively flat growth over the past couple years, right? countries like france and germany have been stepping over the line as far as their deficits are concerned. nothing remotely similar to our fiscal situation of course. i think the biggest hit to your economies has been reduced profits due to a weak dollar and poor domestic demand. of course, demand is always a bit on the low side in europe. you guys in britain especially are tasting the effects of an incoming crash of the housing market from what i've read. 30% overvaluation is nothing to blink at, that's for sure.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...MLTG.8&refer=uk

our own housing market is overvalued to the tune of 20% - 30%.. and our households also have record high debts. in some cases the ratio of household debt to income is 100%.

it's necessary that interest rates be increased, but that will also have a negative impact on household spending. and then the broad inflation that gas prices is causing..

just the other day, i saw bush on tv in iowa talking about all the jobs that were created over the past couple months. i wonder... if he claims his policies caused that increase, then logically, his policies are also causing the recent decline.

[XGropo]

So every aspect of the economy is driven by the POTUS? It's not the "Bush Economy" it's the economy period. The economy is recovering because its recovering, not because of Bush. Bush maybe nudged it a bit with the tax cuts (argue either way) but its miniscule compared to the complexity of the economy. Oil and the Fed have more impact than the tiny little tax cuts.

Bush isn't responsible for the current growth, Clinton wasn't responsible for the growth/recession during his terms, and Reagan wasn't responsible for the growth of the 80's. Reagan and Clinton got lucky (Information Age and Internet Age respectively), Carter and Bush I did not. It's political B.S. whenever a candidate or elected official starts saying how much they've improved the economy or how much their opponent has messed it up. Their taking credit for you and me buying stuff.

As for the deficits, I definitely agree that the Bush and the Repubs are spending WAY too much (although military spending has pushed it up, they still are not restraining themselves), and the Dems spent way too much in the 80's, and both sides will spend way too much in the future.

Of course, the deficit is only loosely related to the jobs numbers. Housing numbers are almost directly related to interest rates, which Bush/Congress does not control. Job creation lags behind revenue growth of businesses, which makes sense. Also, the jobs numbers really started decling in Oct 2001. What significant event hapened in September of 2001?

The numbers may slow temporarily, then accelerate again, because revenues are up and GDP is growing. Of course, that's a guess on my part, I could be wrong. :)

[bishop]

the federal deficit ,the weak dollar and low interest rates have a significant impact on the economy (and commodity/oil prices). tax cuts and annual refunds also have an impact on the economy.

what bush does, DOES have an impact on the economy. the notion that federal policies have no impact, or even a minimal impact, on the economy are absurd.

Also, the jobs numbers really started decling in Oct 2001.

that's a lie. the job numbers were declining months before 9/11.. even if we weren't attacked, we were still going to have a recession.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/houston/...es/hb0106c1.gif
http://www.beyondvc.com/it_spending.jpg

[Technosoul]

About the drastic shift in new jobs opening and then switching to no help wanted.

This could be because of a normal yearly happening, in the spring a number of places hire extra people for summer jobs (a month or so before the summer tourest season and before people rush out to buy stuff need for summer useage). Just like they hire extra help during the Christmas season. Many of those jobs are temporary and involve the hiring of students. $ my guess)
Plus during the summer months more jobs can be done that winter snows would otherwise put a stop too. (like farming jobs).

So we have those seasonal jobs that come and go each year that can cause the stats to rise and fall.

Some of these stats are obtained from the employment office of human rescources (aka Unemployment office). The number of jobs they have listed for unemployed people getting checks to apply for.

The number of unemployed people can be manipuated (the numbers can) by different factors. If unemployment benifits are extended then the stats would show more people as be unemployed. But once benifits run out and you no longer get an unemployment check - you are not counted as one of the unemployed because they have no way to keep track of how many "homeless people" are roaming around without jobs.

If people swtich from getting unemployment check to going on welfare then the stats provided by the unemployment office would show less people being unemployed (as they do not count folks on welfare) - that counting is under a different bracket or heading as a different source of data.

Also if the govornerment should list a bunch of jobs for hiring that would fill government positions then that would give us the impression that the economy is booming with new jobs being created. But those jobs are not from inducstry or reflective of new products being manufactured. Although the space program or making jet fighters for the D.O.D would be a product and so those contracts can be viewed (I guess) as real jobs. The Kennedy "first man on moon" space program did a lot to create high paying jobs that stemulated the economy (which dropped off once the moon mission was completed).

Technosoul.

[bishop]

i queried the bls... there doesn't seem to be a clear trend as far as job creation from 1st qtr to 2nd qtr is concerned. check for yourself.

http://data.bls.gov/labjava/outside.jsp?survey=bd

the traditional seasonal trend that i know about is the market's performance - it's usually flat during the summer months. one thing is clear though, 3rd quarter is always a poor quarter for bush.


gotta get away from spending time talking about the unemployment number. it's futile and doesn't explain anything. comparing net job creation vs. net job loss is a lot more helpful.

[bishop]

some comments here

"The president keeps saying we've turned the corner," Kerry said in a written statement. "But unfortunately, today's job numbers further demonstrate that our economy may be taking a U-turn instead. Saying we've turned the corner doesn't make it so. America will not turn the corner to better days until we have a new president who can see our problems and take action to fix them."

"This year may be President Bush's best year; it would have been President Clinton's worst year," Kerry economic adviser Aida Alvarez told CNNfn.

this other bit was very interesting.. somebody's window dressing...

Chao also emphasized that a separate survey of households -- which unemployment figures are based on -- showed 629,000 more people at work than in June. The jobs report is based on a separate survey of employers. "I think there has been a debate which survey should be focused on more," she said. "Both surveys are trending positive and show jobs growth." But Kerry economic advisers pointed out that the administration had emphasized the employer survey in March when it showed strong job growth while the household survey indicated a decline in employment. They said that even with the jobs growth now being reported, the administration will see a net decline in employment during its tenure.

since the unemployment figures are completely inaccurate, using the survey of households is also inaccurate.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by XGropo, So every aspect of the economy is driven by the POTUS? It's not the "Bush Economy" it's the economy period. The economy is recovering because its recovering, not because of Bush. Bush maybe nudged it a bit with the tax cuts (argue either way) but its miniscule compared to the complexity of the economy. Oil and the Fed have more impact than the tiny little tax cuts. Bush isn't responsible for the current growth, Clinton wasn't responsible for the growth/recession during his terms, and Reagan wasn't responsible for the growth of the 80's. Reagan and Clinton got lucky (Information Age and Internet Age respectively), Carter and Bush I did not. It's political B.S. whenever a candidate or elected official starts saying how much they've improved the economy or how much their opponent has messed it up. Their taking credit for you and me buying stuff.

I agree, and find it odd this is not mentioned more often. Any president will take credit for a sunny day and blame the rain on the opposition (unless we are suffering a drought).
I'm a big fan of personal responsiblity, so I think there should be some measure of responsibility taken when a politician spouts that crap. Maybe that will shut them up.

[bishop]

do you think that tax cuts, currency policies and/or budget deficits/surpluses have no impact on the economy?

[bishop]

heh.. well, i just checked. at least none of these jobs were created in the public sector!

[Young]

Bush's Tax cut Policy worked well under Reagan, but Reagan's trade policies were more fairly suited to the intrests of America. The idea of giving the top 1% the largest tax break worked because they used it to create new ideas and that created jobs, but now the same is true except, the jobs are created in places where these Corp's find cheaper labor so as to increase their profit. What really makes me sick is when bush talks to small towns and he's got tractors sitting behind the stage and he says Kerry plans to raise your tax's, but what he fails to tell them is that the Tax increases proposed by Kerry would really hurt Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, Carlyle, and the Elite....oops I meant Bush's BASE, My Bad.

[Comrade]

The Elite is Bush's base? That really made me laugh. Aren't the anti-Bush people the ones calling themselves the geniuses, and everyone else's Eyes Are Closed™. How often have you called pro-Bushers stupid on this forum? What a hypocrite.

Anyways, Kerry's tax policies are on people making more than 200,000 a year.
Do you know who this is, Young?

This INCLUDES married couples who file joint tax forms. This ALSO includes subchapter-S corporations (also known as SMALL BUSINESS, the people who create 75% of the jobs in this country), which are businesses who's owners file their business income on their personal tax forms, and small businesses typically make more than 200,000 a year.

Taxing small business and married couples isn't going to help the economy.

I realize, Young, that you are an envious person who is hates the productive, but even you have to realie Kerry's taxes are a bad idea.

[Young]

Crazy Comi back again, off your Med's huh, or did you loan them all to Bush? Bush told a room full of Elites that they were His base and if you'd of seen F9/11 you'd know this already. Comi we agree that the 200 to 750 bracket doesn't need that much taxing, but you'd also have to agree that giving the top 1% the largest percentage Tax breaks Is Crazy...and thats just what Bush has done. Stick around i could use some more good laughs....oh and i'm pretty sure that You & V, and Diev use the word "Hate" more than any other posters.

[Comrade]

Nice, I really like your debating style. It always seems to go something like this.

"Insult the people who disagree with me, attack Bush, attack some boogiemen, misstate facts, misunderstand the misstated facts, create a paranoid fantasy to tie it all together, then attack as a group the people who disagree with you."

The top 1% are going to benefit from ANY tax cut, more than anyone else. If a congress gives people a 20% tax cut, who is going to save more money, someone who makes 50,000 a year or someone who makes 500,000 a year?

Why do you think it is okay to steal successful people's money more than it is to steal anyone else's money? Just because they have more? You really ARE a Democrat, their entire platform is envy and class warfare.

[Young]

When the Nation is paying for a War...the Richest of Bush's elite Base should have their tax cuts rolled back a bit. Thats not UN-American...Your position scares me and i think you need Help.

[Comrade]

If your entire debating style consists of armchair quarterbacking and insults, I don't think I'm the one who needs "Help".

[Young]

***Parts of thread deleted by Moderator***