Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But by the time November rolls around the economy will be producing around 200,000 new jobs or so a month; and most people will see that as evidence of Bush doing a good job.

.

I don't understand. Why do you think the economy will be produing 200,00 per month, and where do you get that number?

1) The international economy is starting to recover. The current recovery isn't limited to the US, which is a very good sign.

2) 57,000 additional jobs are a sign of a weak recovery. It follows that more jobs will be added when the recovery is more sustained (as it is expected to be).

3) Jobs won't decrease forever. 200,000 a month isn't a great number, it's actually quite average. 140,000 or so is what we need to break even.

4) Employment is a lagging indicator. It's cliched at this point, but still true. Employment probably won't recover this time as much as previously because of structural reasons, but it does indeed appear to be happening.

The improvement in the economy so far has been the result of incredible government stimulus of a size and scope never seen before. That stimulus includes near record low short term interest rates set by the Fed, longer term interest rates at or near 40 or 50 year lows heavily influenced by the Fed, a huge increase in the money supply since the first of the year, record deficit spending by the federal government this year and next, a substantial decline in the dollar, and the Bush tax cuts. None of this stimulus can be repeated and most can not be sustained for too many more months, especially the low interest rates. Bush is hoping that it will last long enough for him to win in 2004, and it might.

However, job growth is facing several headwinds. These include increasing productivity, globalization, foreign outsourcing, merger and acquisition activity, and the excess capacity which still exists with a lack of pent up demand to drive the creation of additional capacity. There are also a significant number of part time workers who will move closer to full time. Add to these factors the fact that since the 1920's, republican presidents always have been bad for job creation.

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.

Since WWII ended, 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.

As for the fact that employment is a lagging indicator, we are now in the ninth quarter of this recovery. Employment did indeed lag but it does not lag forever. We may very well be near a peak in job creation within the next few months.

One other factor relating to the unemployment rate is that discouraged workers will be returning to the labor market as economic growth continues. The unemployment rate including discouraged workers and part time workers seeking full time work in September 2003 was 9.3%. This does not include under employed workers.

Those jobs are going to come from where?

The "stimulus" from the tax cut has blown it's load. It couldn't sustain the 150+ jobs it supposedly generated last month. This month was supposed to be another 150K+ and came in 100K short. There's no more stimulus AND we're in the middle of Xmas season, when jobs (low paying) should be fairly plentiful...They're not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The average monthly jobs growth between 1991 and 2001 was 174,000 workers. Due to population growth, much of this growth reflects a "steady state" economic condition where the workforce expands at the same rate as the population.

The average monthly loss of jobs over the last 3 years has been 68,900 workers.

Thus, the Busholinis have been "behind the curve" by nearly 243,000 jobs per month for their entire maladminstration.

Without even going into "underemployment" and other labor conditions, our economy is currently distributing the benefits of wealth-creation to approximately 7,000,000 fewer workers than mere "steady state" employment conditions would imply. It would literally take decades of job growth at the mediocre rate of 200,000/month to undo the economic damage wrought over the last three years.

This should be more easily seen with the following graph.



(The data are available to anyone from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

Of the "economic recovery" lie, when these fuckers publicize vague lists of supposed job creations without mentioning WHERE the numbers come from

(i.e. India, Burger King, or seasonal Christmas help which will be gone a month from now)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Mis-management of the economy by Bush* resulted in 3,000,000 Americans losing their jobs.

Can we trust Bush* not to mis-handle the next fiscal emergency? NO.

He's done a superb job of mishandling, misdirecting, and mismanaging everything under his control.

We've just misunderestimated is capabilities, that's all.

Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend Borrow and spend, borrow and spend

...has a ring to it.

Bush and the Republican Congress have saddled our nation with. They have ruined us, while making sure the fat cats get fatter.

the cable business programs. I heard a guy on CNBC this AM "they may as well call off the elections" since "business is booming".

in l998 but with a shit load of debt and how many dead. Sure, give this man another 4 years.

in big letters at the bottom of the screen when she was discussing the "good" economic news.

Using that standard,the next segment should have discussed the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq with the words Repub Woes.

Frankly, I don't think bad economic news is good news for anyone, just as I don't think dead American soldiers is good news for anyone. We used to be one country and bad news was bad news for everyone.

Republicans WANT job losses because it keeps the rabble down while propping up rich friends.

for the benefit of all lurking dittoheads, I am stating that this is what the Republicans are doing. I personally think we should remain the UNITED STATES as we always have. But it's becoming the "Red and Blue States" instead.