Creation of Jobs Surged in April, and Income Rose

By LOUIS UCHITELLE
Published: May 7, 2005 (NYT)

Overriding earlier evidence that suggested the economy was slowing significantly, job creation and income growth appear to be holding up their end of the recovery.

The government reported yesterday that the nation's employers generated an unexpectedly large number of jobs in April - 274,000 - even as they gave their existing employees additional hours of work.

The employment report was the most positive news about the economy in weeks. It dented the gloom that had accumulated after a number of recent measures provided evidence that last year's robust growth might be fading.

"The main thing I think these employment numbers tell you is that all this worry about the economy experiencing a significant soft patch has been exaggerated," said Richard D. Rippe, chief economist at the Prudential Equity Group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/business/07econ.html?th&emc=th

Note the statistical "adjustment" at the bottom of the linked page.
http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

257,000 out of 274,000 of those jobs are "assumed" to have been created. Ever try to cash an assumed paycheck? They throw you right the hell outta the bank!

This report is complete hogwash. Sort of like Enron accountants, they are treating pie-in-the-sky projections as fact.

but maybe I'm exaggerating...:sarcasm:

see my sig below for sources and links

as for "incomes rose".. the jobless have no wage checks. Nothing changed there, did it.

they try to live without an income... result .. street crime. Our prisons are full of those who tried to live without an income.

Job Shortage = crime , street crime

dont like crime? work for total employment. See first site in my sig below... JFA advised by Galbraith and clinton's sec. of Labor

As to the MSM job stats.. many are the fragmentary stats. The bottom line is Job Shortage, but you never hear of it on MSM. Too vividly bad news that never changes much.

But now YOU know of it.. JS stat. To monthly, calculate it, ... just refer to the "total job openings" link below, from the gov no less. Total openings lets you calculate JS... as described in my sig.

You can ignore the fractional stats in the MSM, since they often give misleading pictures of the job situation {as in, eg, "jobs up" .. But what's this other item? "new jobless into the market is up even more". LOL}. Ignore confusing misleading fractional stats that MSM loves.

Pay attention to the LW, dem party type of stat.... JS. --- JS is the

BIG PICTURE

make it look like things are improving, even when they're not.

And they are not, in all actuality.


"Employment rose across all sectors except manufacturing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised its estimates for February and March, adding 93,000 jobs - enough to erase the impression that job growth had faltered, particularly in March."


So really, the rosey numbers are all about revising your 'model'.

As a consultant, I'm constantly competing for jobs in the technology industry. And as a person who has current, first-hand experience, let me say that the job market sucks a** right now. Not only are wages down, expectations are up. They've flooded the market with unemployed, or under employed tech workers, who will work for a fraction of their worth. I've had to lower my hourly rate by nearly 50% in order to stay competitive, and now the candidate holds no, repeat: NO cards, because if they don't like the conditions there's a line of qualified guys and gals in line who'll do it because they're desperate.

Desperation is a BushCo method for improving those numbers. When a software engineer can't find work, they turn to the service or retail industry, or whatever industry will have them, and if they want to get back into technology they can expect a hefty salary cut.

This is job market in Jesusland, unless your a professional government spook or a mercenary. In that case, it's a good market. :-(

what the real unemployment numbers are and how you go about getting them?

This report just seems too convenient.

It would be average to poor for a democratic president. Republican presidents are always, always, always bad for job creation. Since the 1920's, the annual rate of job creation under republican presidents has always been lower than under democratic presidents.

Since the depression, not a single republican president has had a better rate of job creation than any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office.

Between the end of WWII and July 2003, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.

In more recent history, the rate of job creation under Reagan was only two-thirds of what it was under Carter. The rate under Poppy Bush was only one-tenth of what it was under Clinton. And the rate under W Bush is only one-tenth of what it was under Poppy.

You can not have cheap labor in a strong job market. Nothing is more republican than that.

The numbers in this chart are from July, 2003 so Bush no longer has a negative number.

No doubt you will be undeterred by the fact that the US has lost more jobs under Bush than any president in history.

government.

They constantly fix facts, as well as intelligence.

Otherwise, shut up about your lies about jobs growth and economic improvement. The only growth industry in this country is war, and the follow-up health care and arms restocking.

"...appear to be holding up their end of the recovery."

Recovery? Damndedst recover I ever heard of, it's the recovery that wasn't. If this is "holding up their end" we're all fucked because it's weak and there's nothing holding up any of the OTHER ends.

"It dented the gloom that had accumulated after a number of recent measures provided evidence that last year's robust growth might be fading."

Dented the gloom? Why should there be any gloom? You just said we're in a recovery, everything should be peachy keen all around, assholes. Last years "robust" growth? Really? Robust? :eyes:

The NYT desperately grasping for anything, anything at all. How pathetic.

duplicate topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1449716