DNC Ad Says Bush Lost Manufacturing Jobs

its not the point in time that a decline was first noticed. Bush was responsible for maintaining a trend of decline for almost 4 years.
If the decline was a few months or a year into his term and it then began to turn around, why then hed be an economic hero. instead, weve had an entire term of slack economic performance.
So, attempting to hang this on Clinton is just an example of the bankrupt spin that Bush 's ventriloquist wishes to maintain.
I think that , although Kerry looked great in Thursdays debate, Bush is in greater peril for his administration in next weeks debate about the economic front.
Gonna be there with popcorn

Lets just look and see how many jobs have been lost during the Current Administration


(Source for tables: US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics )


OK, the first full month of the Current Administration was February of 2001, and 137,581,000 folks were employed in America. In August of 2004, the latest month for which official figures are currently available, 139,681,000 were employed. Hmmmm .... that works out to a gain of 2,100,000 jobs over the period, doesnt it? While you're checking that out, note too that the August '04 Total US Employed figure is the 5th consecutive all-time record high ... that's right, the record for people employed has been successively broken over each of the past 5 months.

Oh well, everybody knows the good, high-paying jobs have been replaced by demeaning, low-wage jobs, right?



Well, there's another talking point shot all to hell. The average hourly wage in January of 2001 was $1.52 less than the average hourly wage reported for July of 2003, the latest month officially reported, which works out to a nearly 10% gain.

Damned pesky things, them facts. If you're a Democrat, that is. Its sorta tough to make the case the economy is in the dumps when more Americans than ever before in history are employed, earning the highest average hourly wage ever paid in America.

Oh, BTW, Total US Manufacturing Output , Q2 '04, was 37.6% higher than it was in 1992, with output-per-hour-per-manufacturing-employee (that's "Productivity") 60.9% higher than in 1992. No manufacturing jobs have been "lost", they've been left behind by history, just as the jobs of telephone operators or harness makers or ice merchants were in their turn rendered anachronistic by the relentless march of technology. Progress happens. Get used to it. The future is now.

Damn. Just Damn. If you're a Democrat.



Sure glad I'm not.

<<<<YAWN>>>>>>
Now , plot the BLS "unemployment" statistics. They show another , different, outcome. They show an unemployment chart which, when viewed over the last 10 years, shows a decline and underperforming job market surprisingly coincident with the Bush admin. Those people who lost jobs are a nagging presence to your logic there S. Total unemployment was approaching 3.9 percent when clinton left office.

Plot the 10 year data, please. It shows that our economy hasnt yet caught up to a flat performance curve. Beware of selective data presentation we can all go to http://www.bls.gov and slice and dice these to your hearts content and see the complete labor statistics picture.

You are guilty of selective data presentation. Always question the data presented, if you only present performnace within an underporforming period, any upturn looks significant. When you compare with a retrospective decennial look, its a bit different.
Bush is out of the "negative' numbers but , if he leaves office in jan with a grest last few months, hell only show a flat curve over the past 5 years.
cmon s, youre better than that

what was the outcome of the administration's attempt to move stuff like flipping burgers at mcdonald's from service industry to manufacturing? it sort of fell off of the grid(le)?

Economy Producing Mostly Bad Jobs? Not so fast.

A new set of figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show HIGHER-paying jobs growing faster.

Now that the economy is growing and creating new jobs, John Kerry has been saying that the quality of those jobs is "much lower" than the quality of jobs that have been lost. A recent ad by some Kerry allies even shows a middle-aged man reporting for his new job wearing a paper hat at a seedy-looking burger joint.

Well, hold on -- there's strong new evidence to the contrary.

A new set of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually shows solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth at all in relatively lower-paying occupations including office clerks and assembly-line workers. It's the most detailed breakdown yet -- looking at 154 different job and industry groupings. These statistics are a FactCheck.org exclusive -- supplied to us by BLS at our request and not previously published.

Another statistic often overlooked by Bush critics is that average earnings of rank-and-file private-sector workers have increased since Bush took office, though modestly. Even after adjusting for inflation -- including the rising price of gasoline --those earnings are up just over 1% since January 2001, despite the recession and the initially slow recovery.

These statistics come from a different BLS survey and cover a somewhat different time period than the figures cited by Kerry. They are going to be controversial and won't settle the good jobs/bad jobs argument. There's also plenty of evidence that large numbers of Americans are indeed worse off now than they were before 2001, including the fact that more than 1 million Americans have been out of work for a full year or more.

We can't disprove Kerry's claim that bad jobs are replacing good jobs over the past few months. But we do see good evidence that job quality has increased over the past year or more.

source

OK ... Here's your 10 Year Track of Unemployment:


The trend and current positioning need no explanation.

Now, here are a couple bonuses.

First, the Growth in Labor Force - the number of people added to the labor pool due to population growth:



Again, self explanatrory; the population grows, and as it does, more people are available for employment.


And now, Not in Labor Force, but Want Job - the "Discouraged Worker"



The number of those wishing, but unable, to find work, is well below the 10 year average. Clearly, the current economy more than accommodates the employment requirements of the burgeoning population.

And finally, to avoid even the appearance of selectively picking a favorable data set, and to put this all into perspective, here is the unemployment chart for the past 50 years:



Nothing "Flat" there ... unemployment is cyclical. The current 5.4% unemployment rate is well below the 50 year average, and the low point of unemployment reached during the end of the Clinton Administration was both clearly abberational and demonstratedly unsustainable.


The Democrats simply have no basis for the "Lost Jobs/Unacceptable Unemployment" argument. Real Life just doesn't work the way thay'd like it to. That's life.

in the last point , youre taking credit for the sunrise there Timber I just wanted you to recognize that your first post was not the complete rosy pic youve painted. Besides the job slippage and, of course, there was a nice recession that may still not be finished, AND the stock market, its had one good year in 4 and that was 2003, wherein it only recouped 15& of a 45% LOSS since Bush took office. all the projections for 2004 have not been realized (an 80 point or 75 growth on the S&P isnt in the cards right now) Of course, youll blame oil prices, to which Id say, yeh but oil prices were not factored in the planning of that dumass war for which we are footing 90% of the bill. Itll take a Dem administration to finish thewar and restart the economy

I don't see that my last chart "takes credit" for anything, it merely points out the invalidity of the core Democratic argument re employment. As to " ... a Dem administration to finish thewar and restart the economy", I have to ask you what Democratic Administration since Truman's has accomplished either?

This is enjoyable...you guys are real good....pass the popcorn

Here, help yourself. There's plenty for everybody.



Thanks, of course, to a booming economy

Timber-your question is better asked, nAme ANy administration that fought a war and kicked the economy.

clinton has been the only president that had followed a gOP president and kicked the economy.

The truth is more complex than you seem to recognize. The economy has not been defecit free since 1969 (with a minor period at end of Clinton years when there was a near balance)
reagan had , proportionately, the largest defecit recorded(in time weighted dollars) His military spending , Ill admit that it played a role in bringing down the uSSR earlier than if left alone, was responsible for bush's recession. Bush I and Clinton together were responsible for the 'Bubble" that made the stock market unsustainable. Ill even give Bush II the pass that he inherited an embryonic recession and then with 9/11, the cards were more difficult. BUT, his tax cut AND a major bonehead war were really poor fiscal policy. A president is measured , not by what he inherets, but what he does about it. Thats why Im gonna vote for Kerry

PS it worked for Reagan only because the FED clamped down on the money supply, which hasnt occured in this admin. Consequently , whoever backs into office , is going to inheret a huuuge defecit with a looming depression.

Clinton = Blow jobs

Bush = No jobs

and you gotta admit if you're going to be unemployed .....that's when you need a blowjob the most......morale and all.....so if emplyoment AND blowjobs are down well....that sucks :wink:

statistics and their selected use
Aren't statistics grand.

Timberlake,
you forgot to post the BLS table for the number of unemployed for that 10 year period as well as several other tables.

Bush has a grand record of 2 million more unemployed, 400,000 more discouraged workers while only creating 2 million jobs for the 4 million increase in labor force.
Then we can look at the fact that 177,000 more people are working 2 or more jobs. "Multiple Jobholders"
Then we can examine the table that reports that 300,000 more people are "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available" And don't forget the table of "Number Unemployed for 27 Weeks & over" Over 1,000,000 more last month than in Jan of 2001.
And "Average Weeks Unemployed" has gone from 12.7 in Jan of 2001 to 19.0 last month.
And lets not forget "Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries" has gone from 3.3 million to 4.5 million (Isn't that 1.2 million part time work more than half of what you are trumpeting as Bush's progress in jobs?) (Phew.. there's about half the BLS tables for the entire work force. Most of the rest are subcategories or similar.)

So lets recap: Since Bush took office, the labor force has gone up 4 million, the number not in labor force but would like to be has gone up 300,000, the number of people employed has gone up 2.1 million, the number of people working part time has gone up 1.2 million, the number of people unemployed has gone up 2 million.

The only possible conclusion is that under Bush jobs have not been created fast enough to keep up with population growth. You are free to massage the numbers and take them out of context of the way economists view them but it doesn't change facts. More people are out of work today than when Bush took office.

parados, I gotta warn ya that this is the same guy that said job creation happens six months after tax cuts. The only problem is that job creation under this president is the worst since Hoover, and Hoover was president during the depression. I've actually seen the unemployed as high as over five million posted by some financial pundits. I wouldn't be surprised, because not only are new high school and college graduates unable to find jobs, but those losing jobs can't find replacements for much longer periods.

parados-timbers a good guy , he just likes to foment discussions.

I love discussions. I just prefer that we get all the facts on the table so it can be an informed discussion. The sleight of hand argument that Timber started with ignores many other facts about job creation. I hope I managed to fill in those holes so we can all discuss it intelligently.

We can disagree in our opinion of whether Bush has been good for jobs or bad for jobs but we can't just ignore the facts that dispute our opinion.

Personally, I think only 900,000 full time jobs created at the same time that 2.3 million people more people want work is not a good record. (We have no way of knowing for sure how many of those part time workers would really prefer full time.) People can try to convince me otherwise if they have more facts than I do but don't try to change my mind with less.

parados, Your requirements for the pursuit of truths in discussions is greatly appreciated by this participant. Not many on a2k base their opinions on reliable sources and full disclosure. I'm looking forward to participating with you on many forums.

But please be gentle; I'm a senior with a failing memory.