Jobless Claims Drop, Economy On the Uptick

[jameseb]

"The number of new people signing up for jobless benefits dropped last week and a closely watched gauge of future economic activity rose more than expected in May, suggesting the U.S. economy can continue a sturdy expansion through the summer.

In another sign of a broadening recovery, the Labor Department's Producer Price Index, a measure of prices before goods reach store shelves, posted the largest increase in more than a year."
Source



Woo-Hoo! Thank ya, President Bush!

 

[doulosChristou]

finally the effect of Clinton's disastrous economic policies have been overturned by Bush.

here's to four more years of Bush.

 

[I'ddie4him]

All I can say is I hope this is true.
And that things continue to get better day by day.

 

[burrow_owl]

finally the effect of Clinton's disastrous economic policies have been overturned by Bush.

I'm not familiar with claims that Clinton's policies were bad for the economy. Could you provide an explanation or a link? I'll look in the meantime.

 

[jameseb]

In the spirit of neo-liberal challenges on addressing negative issues regarding Bush and Reagan, why aren't any Bush-bashers addressing this topic?

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

This is some of the best news that I had all day!

 

[burrow_owl]

In the spirit of neo-liberal challenges on addressing negative issues regarding Bush and Reagan, why aren't any Bush-bashers addressing this topic?

It's just unmitigated good news. The same way that it rained today when my brooklyn-backyard tomato plants needed the rain. Now, if you were to contend that it rained because of Bush's EPA regulation changes, then there'd be something to talk about, I suppose.

 

[Larry]

"The number of new people signing up for jobless benefits dropped last week and a closely watched gauge of future economic activity rose more than expected in May, suggesting the U.S. economy can continue a sturdy expansion through the summer.

In another sign of a broadening recovery, the Labor Department's Producer Price Index, a measure of prices before goods reach store shelves, posted the largest increase in more than a year."
Source



Woo-Hoo! Thank ya, President Bush!

That's good news! I have been following this for some months now. I hope it continues.

In the spirit of neo-liberal challenges on addressing negative issues regarding Bush and Reagan, why aren't any Bush-bashers addressing this topic?

Don't worry. They'll be along soon enough to put a negative spin on it....It's almost as if they are hoping against hope that the economy and job market becomes horrible...that more and more people will be unemployed...that the misery index rises....that struggling and suffering increases....just so they can win political points.

 

[praying]

In the spirit of neo-liberal challenges on addressing negative issues regarding Bush and Reagan, why aren't any Bush-bashers addressing this topic?

I'll take this challenge:

Who is counted as employed?
Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:

On vacation;

Ill;

Experiencing child-care problems;

Taking care of some other family or personal obligation;

On maternity or paternity leave;

Involved in an industrial dispute; or

Prevented from working by bad weather.

These persons are counted among the employed and tabulated separately as "with a job but not at work," because they have a specific job to which they will return.

But what about the two following cases? George Lewis is 16 years old, and he has no job from which he receives any pay or profit. However, George does help with the regular chores around his father's farm about 20 hours each week.

Lisa Fox spends most of her time taking care of her home and children, but, all day Friday and Saturday, she helps in her husband's computer software store.

Under the Government's definition of employment, both George and Lisa are considered employed. They fall into a group called "unpaid family workers," which includes any person who worked 15 hours or more in a week without pay in a family-operated enterprise. Such persons contribute significantly to our productive effort and are an important part of our labor supply, particularly in agriculture and retail trade. However, unpaid family workers who work fewer than 15 hours per week are counted as "not in the labor force."

Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview;
A public or private employment agency;
Friends or relatives;
A school or university employment center;

Sending out resumes or filling out applications;

Placing or answering advertisements;

Checking union or professional registers; or

Some other means of active job search.

Passive methods of jobsearch do not result in jobseekers actually contacting potential employers, and therefore are not acceptable for classifying persons as unemployed. These would include such things as attending a job training program or course or merely reading the want ads.

Workers expecting to be recalled from layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. But, in all other cases, the individual must be actively engaged in some job search activity and available for work (except for temporary illness).

Let's hope there are not a lot of George, Lisa's or

How are seasonal fluctuations taken into account?

Total employment and unemployment are higher in some parts of the year than in others. For example, unemployment is higher in January and February, when it is cold in many parts of the country and work in agriculture, construction and other seasonal industries is curtailed. Also, both employment and unemployment rise every June, when students enter the labor force in search of summer jobs.

The seasonal fluctuations in the number of employed and unemployed persons reflect not only the normal seasonal weather patterns that tend to be repeated year after year, but also the hiring (and layoff) patterns that accompany regular events such as the winter holiday season and the summer vacation season. These variations make it difficult to tell whether month-to-month changes in employment and unemployment are due to normal seasonal patterns or to changing economic conditions. To deal with such problems, a statistical technique called seasonal adjustment is used. This technique uses the past history of the series to identify the seasonal movements and to calculate the size and direction of these movements. A seasonal adjustment factor is then developed and applied to the estimates to reduce the effects of regular seasonal fluctuations on the data. When a statistical series has been seasonally adjusted, the normal seasonal fluctuations are smoothed out and data for any month can be more meaningfully compared with data from any other month or with an annual average. Many of the time series that are based on monthly data are seasonally adjusted.

http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

I am sure there are some seasonal fluctuations in there, summer coming tourists jobs, lanscaping, and such



Does this mean this is not good news, no not at all but it is good to understand what drives those figures.



I 'll come back on July 21st the day after I and some of my co-workers are laid/layed/leid ( I digress) off




I am pleased for anyone who is finding employment.


Edited to make clear the information that came form the Labor Dept.

 

[Starscream]

In the spirit of neo-liberal challenges on addressing negative issues regarding Bush and Reagan, why aren't any Bush-bashers addressing this topic?

I usually don't take the economy into account too much. In the end, I think the effect President's have on the economy is over exagerated (and that includes Clinton).

Regardless, even if this trend does continue till the end of Bush's 4-year term, we're still looking at a large gross loss in jobs. I fail to see how things finally starting to turn around is a boost for Bush.

 

[jameseb]

I usually don't take the economy into account too much. In the end, I think the effect President's have on the economy is over exagerated (and that includes Clinton).

Ah, but there's been a billion and one (a slight exageration) Libbies running around here claiming the economy is Bush's fault so there's no way in glorious Valhalla I'm going to let them now suggest that when the economy is doing good that its not to his credit. No sir. Lib's can't have it both ways.

Regardless, even if this trend does continue till the end of Bush's 4-year term, we're still looking at a large gross loss in jobs. I fail to see how things finally starting to turn around is a boost for Bush.

"Large gross loss in jobs" compared to what? The unemployment rate as of May 2004 is at 5.6%. The exact same rate in May of 1996 when Clinton was running for reelection.

We could also go back to another Democratic president and compare the unemployment rate of May 1980 when Carter was running for reelection.... that rate then was a whopping 7.1%!

Perhaps you were suggesting the literal gross number of unemployed? You do realize that's intellectually dishonest I hope. As the population of the U.S. continues to grow so will the 'gross numbers' of unemployed predictably. That's why figures are presented in percentages so as to give an accurate reflection of the unemployment rate.


So again, what are you comparing that "large gross loss" to?

 

[jameseb]

Who is counted as employed?

The statistics I just provided are courtesy of the U.S. Labor Department. Perhaps you can find your answer there. I won't bother myself as I'm sure whatever definition they used for "employed" is probably the exact same definition they used under the Clinton administration so I find it irrelevant as what's good for the goose is good for the gander, ya know?


P.S.

Okay, okay... since I'm a nice guy, I went and looked up the definition for you (though this is still irrelevant, mind you ) so here it is:


Who is counted as employed?

Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:

On vacation;

Ill;

Experiencing child-care problems;

Taking care of some other family or personal obligation;

On maternity or paternity leave;

Involved in an industrial dispute; or

Prevented from working by bad weather.

 

[kermit]

Ah, but there's been a billion and one (a slight exageration) Libbies running around here claiming the economy is Bush's fault so there's no way in glorious Valhalla I'm going to let them now suggest that when the economy is doing good that its not to his credit. No sir. Lib's can't have it both ways.

Where is it in some rulebooks that all "Libs" have to think alike? I'm a pro-capitalism liberal (actually, that make me a Progessive), not all liberals are.

Some liberals know the economy is recovering well. Some are just starting to realize it. This groups counterpart is conservatives who claimed the economy was fully recovered over a year ago. Some liberas deny they economy is doing well. Some won't say it's doing well until a liberal is in office. There is a spectrum.

BTW, Starsream is correct. The effect of presidential economic policy on the economy is grossly overexagerated, mostly by the right.

 

[jameseb]

Where is it in some rulebooks that all "Libs" have to think alike? I'm a pro-capitalism liberal (actually, that make me a Progessive), not all liberals are.

I never said all of them, kermit. Don't go and put words and intent in my mouth.

Some liberals know the economy is recovering well. Some are just starting to realize it. This groups counterpart is conservatives who claimed the economy was fully recovered over a year ago. Some liberas deny they economy is doing well. Some won't say it's doing well until a liberal is in office. There is a spectrum.

I'm fully aware of the spectrum, but by the example of a thread on page 2 of this forum, its apparent that a whole lot of liberals here are completely unaware about the booming economy. I, humbly, accept this duty to shed the truth on the matter, and heap vast accolades on your President, George Bush, for helping to turn this economy around.

BTW, Starsream is correct. The effect of presidential economic policy on the economy is grossly overexagerated, mostly by the right.

On the contrary, I would not deem it as "grossly" so. In fact, you can't even back that up. One of the greatest slams on Reagan here is precisely related to his effect on the economy, on job growth and unemployment because of his 'voodoo economics.' While I'll honestly suggest that a President does not have total sway on an economy, you, my friend, are being a tad bit biased in suggesting it is "grossly" exaggerated.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I sure would be interested in exactly "what kind of jobs?" I have a funny feeling a lot of displaced engineers are finding work out of their field, and probably at about 1/3 what they use to make. You know, kind of like a hold me over job, but little do the know, this probably be the best they'll do.
The only people who have done well lately salary wise are the CEOs, by dumping their fixed labor costs and shipping those engineering jobs offshore, and basking in the revenues.

 

[praying]

The statistics I just provided are courtesy of the U.S. Labor Department. Perhaps you can find your answer there. I won't bother myself as I'm sure whatever definition they used for "employed" is probably the exact same definition they used under the Clinton administration so I find it irrelevant as what's good for the goose is good for the gander, ya know?


P.S.

Okay, okay... since I'm a nice guy, I went and looked up the definition for you (though this is still irrelevant, mind you ) so here it is:


Who is counted as employed?

Not all of the wide range of job situations in the American economy fit neatly into a given category. For example, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time year-round employment. Persons also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:

On vacation;

Ill;

Experiencing child-care problems;

Taking care of some other family or personal obligation;

On maternity or paternity leave;

Involved in an industrial dispute; or

Prevented from working by bad weather.

That was really nice of you James thanks but............................


The "who is counted as employed?" question and subsequent information I posted came from the Labor Department Website, that is why I posted the link and I saw the information you posted there. But thanks anyway! I posted the information so there would be a balance an understanding if you will of how they come up with those figures. Which is a statiscal extrapolation of a survey of about 600,000 (I believe that was the figure) people sort of like the Nielsen Ratings for TV.





Edited to Add: I went back and looked at my post and I did not put that first part in quotes so perhaps that was unclear. I have corrected it now though.

 

[jameseb]

That was really nice of you James thanks but............................


The "who is counted as employed?" question and subsequent information I posted came from the Labor Department Website, that is why I posted the link and I saw the information you posted there. But thanks anyway! I posted the information so there would be a balance an understanding if you will of how they come up with those figures. Which is a statiscal extrapolation of a survey of about 600,000 (I believe that was the figure) people sort of like the Nielsen Ratings for TV.





Edited to Add: I went back and looked at my post and I did not put that first part in quotes so perhaps that was unclear. I have corrected it now though.

But that still has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the statistics that I've provided, courtesy of the Labor Department, that reflect given values that were measured equally against all US administrations since records were kept.


Again, the facts on the unemployment rate:

May, 2004 ~ 5.6%

May, 1996 (Clinton's 2nd reelection bid) ~ 5.6%

Also, as this thread doesn't soley revolve around the unemployment rate (which if one is to measure it against Clinton supporters' beliefs, that's FANTASTIC news! ) I would also point to the economic 'boom' our country is experiencing right now. Three cheers for George W. Bush Woo-Hoo!

 

[razzelflabben]

I am not much of one to discuss politics on the forum, but I have a couple of questions

1. How is the economy the result of the President? Doesn't he have to go through channels? Doesn't he have to fix or continue what went before him? Doesn't the rest of society have a much bigger roll? As an example to the last, we live in a depressed economy and our area is loosing jobs rapidly. The city could have prevented the lose of many of those jobs, so could the state, but instead, they watched it happen. So should be blame Clinton or Bush?

2, If society dealt with the issue rather than leave it to the hands of the politicians, would the economy be better off?

3. I see people talking about all the signs of a growing economy, unemployment rate, etc. Yet we also have reports that the unemployment rate dropped because of people running out of benefits. We see the fastest growing segment of the population being the working impoverished, and boast of new jobs. Food and other necessities are raising, including soaring gas prices. So what by definition is a good strong economy? Is it where the few improve their monitary status, or is it where the society as a whole seeing less financial and financially related struggles?

 

[Starscream]

"Large gross loss in jobs" compared to what? The unemployment rate as of May 2004 is at 5.6%.

I meant to say "net loss in jobs". And it is something to the tune of over 2 million jobs lost, even if the current job trends continue.

Plus, there is also the sticky, age-old quandry of quality vs. quantity. Are three new jobs at McDonalds better than one new job at IBM?

I'm not solely impressed with numbers, there is much more data to take into account, but unfortunately most people don't think past the headlines.

The exact same rate in May of 1996 when Clinton was running for reelection.

Which is only half the story. The economic conditions under which Clinton took office is completely different than the conditions under which Bush did.

 

[jameseb]

I meant to say "net loss in jobs".

Fair enough.

Plus, there is also the sticky, age-old quandry of quality vs. quantity. Are three new jobs at McDonalds better than one new job at IBM?

Ah... *pulls the fact card on starscream* What factual data can you provide to show that those new jobs are coming from McD's versus IBM? I would be very interested in seeing this....

I'm not solely impressed with numbers, there is much more data to take into account, but unfortunately most people don't think past the headlines.

Well, I guess I can safely assume you're not an actuary. However, you continue to lace your thoughts with errant 'de facto' statements such as not thinking beyond the headlines. Indeed... the numbers I've presented do not come from headlines, mate, but come from real, genuine facts as provided by the Labor Department. As those statistics are used to measure our economy, how can you suggest they are irrelevant? By what scales do you use to measure the merits of the economy?

Which is only half the story. The economic conditions under which Clinton took office is completely different than the conditions under which Bush did.

Again, you are in error (unless of course you're suggesting the obviouis that conditions are always different from year by year, but then again, that is irrelevant as that card is never pulled when Democrats speak about the economy under any given Republican). If you read what I wrote more closely you would realize that percentage given was dated 1996----after he'd already been in office for four years. However, your'e right... Bush did inherit an economy from Clinton that was heading toward recession. That much is fact.