Will You Watch the Debate?

On domestic issues in tonite's debate, the following should be mentioned by Kerry.
***************************
Business - Reuters


September Job Growth Weaker Than Expected

2 hours, 34 minutes ago Business - Reuters


By Glenn Somerville

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. payrolls grew by just 96,000 workers in September, the government said on Friday in a surprisingly weak report that will sharpen criticism of President Bush (news - web sites) in a looming debate and may hasten a pause in U.S. interest-rate rises.


The Labor Department (news - web sites) report, which showed the jobless rate steady at 5.4 percent in September, is the last before November's presidential election and is sure to add bite to a second debate between Bush and Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) later on Friday.
*******
According to most financial pundits, it will take the creation of over 200,000 per month to show real strength in our economy. With the continued loss of jobs, how many jobless are prepared to vote for Bush on November 2? It seems about 50 percent. Just wondering if all the jobless are liberals.

The jobless rate remains steady only because of the steady flow of people who are no longer looking and therefore no longer counted as unemployed. The truth is that the new jobs "Created" are not even keeping up with the number of people entering the labor force.

In addition the newly created jobs do not match the well paying manufacturing jobs that are being lost. Neither in pay nor benefits.

These numbers as bad as they are-are the governments sleight of hand and mask the true picture of the plight of the American worker.

au, I know all that, but am glad you repeated those facts again, because it's being missed by the repubs/conservatives. Maybe they're just ignoring those facts for the purpose of this election. Who knows?

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: SEPTEMBER 2004

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend upward in September, increasing
by 96,000, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.4 percent, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the prior
3 months, payroll employment rose by 103,000 on average. In September, modest
job gains occurred in a few service-providing industries.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons was unchanged at 8.0 million in September,
and the unemployment rate held at 5.4 percent, seasonally adjusted. The jobless
rate is down from its most recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003; most of this
decline occurred in the second half of last year.

The jobless rates for the major worker groups--adult men (5.0 percent), adult
women (4.7 percent), teenagers (16.6 percent), whites (4.7 percent), blacks (10.3
percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (7.1 percent)--showed little or no change in
September. The unemployment rate for Asians was 4.3 percent, not seasonally ad-
justed. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment was about unchanged in September at 139.5 million, and the
employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over
with jobs--was little changed at 62.3 percent. Over the month, the civilian
labor force was essentially unchanged at 147.5 million. The labor force
participation rate was 65.9 percent in September and has been at or near that
level since late last year. (See table A-1.)

Jobless Rate All in the Eye of the Beholder

In 1995, at the height of the stock market boom (the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 33.45 percent) and amid glowing reports in the media about the Clinton administration's economic performance, the year's average unemployment rate was 5.6 percent.

(SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Larry
Check this link out.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35588&highlight=

Larry, A one month stats on labor force participation rate does not make any sense. One must look at the longer term period, such as the one during Bushies tenure from 2000 onward to 2005 (since we're now in October of 2004). Here's the graph that tells the story. I wish you would get your head out of the shet pile, and stop your b.s.

If you don't understand graphs, I'm willing to spell it out for you in simple English.

Please do. What is the y axis measuring?

I think there are a lot of people who have jobs who are concerned about the economy because the jobs they have don't pay enough to make ends meet. Unemployment numbers are interesting and all, but they only paint part of the picture.

Please do. I don't understand your graph because there is no definition of what the y axis is.

And of course you will call any data you do not want to see or hear BS. What else is new? :wink:

Plus, it only covers 8 units. How definitive can it possibly be?

The first sentence with my post with the graph, "Larry, A one month stats on labor force participation rate does not make any sense." To spell it out for you, it's the LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE graph.

Please explain what "LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE" is and how it is measured.

Repeated here for your benefit from the post with graph. Quote, "One must look at the longer term period, such as the one during Bushies tenure from 2000 onward to 2005 (since we're now in October of 2004). Here's the graph that tells the story. I wish you would get your head out of the shet pile, and stop your b.s." The vertical axis is the PARTICIPATION RATE.

The horizontal axis shows the years labeled in five year increments.

INTERPRETATION of the graph: Since Bush's tenure, the LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE has DECREASED. That means less people are WORKING in the LABOR FORCE as a percentage of the US population.

What assumption accounts for the projected increase in participation up to 2010 and then a decline thereafter?

You'll have to ask the DOL for that info; I had nothing to do in preparing that graph.

Oh, yeah, DOL means Department of Labor of the US government.