Over at www.bls.gov (bureau of labor statistics), it is reported that in 2000, there were 129,738,980 people employed - total.
link here table A

Then today, it is estimated that there are 146.5 million people employed which is down, but is showing a progressive average for much of 2003/2004. link here table A.

So does this mean that more people are working at the end of Prez Bush's 1st term than there were at the end of Prez Clinton's 2nd? I know that there may have been some population increases since then, but still there are more jobs today than in 2000.

Lot of interesting stats of there, but you do have to search and search for what you want.

What are your thoughts?

runnert

 

They are not knocking on doors.

Example, In 2000 a factory worker making $25.00 per hour losses his job.
(Minus 1 in Manufacturing category)

By the year 2004, his benefits have long ago run out so, he his no longer considered one of the 'unemployed'. He still has the family he had in 2000 along with the bills he had but, no job that will pay the $25 per hour he once earned. So, he works an 8hr shift at Burger King for $6.85 an hour.
(Cha-ching! Food preparation and serving related occupations up 1!)

Then he works a three hour part time shift for a custodial service at $7 per hour, four nights a week, that's all the hours he can get.
(Cha-ching! Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations up 1!)

The one free night and all weekend he drives a cab for $8.00 plus tips.
(Cha-Ching! Transportation and material moving occupations up 1!)

The statistics clearly indicate that we lost a job in 2000 but, gosh durn we picked up three more in 2004.

Yeah, he is working more and making less and his kids don't know who he is but, that is that suckers' problem because he had the audacity to get married and go to work in a factory right out of High School.

Job growth up!
Economy up!
Stock Market up!
I got mine.
Let him twist in the wind.

 

ok, I agree with that to an extent, but the stats I posted were for people working rather than how many jobs are out there. If a person has 3 jobs, does not that still count as 1 person working?

runnert

 

I thought the quote I posted from your source was pretty clear.

Disclaimer One - it is an estimate.

Disclaimer Two - Establishments are contacted, not employees.

I believe they would contact the Burger King franchise Raoul works at and the custodial service Raoul works at and the Cab Company Raoul works at and would never contact Raoul. I don't imagine they would cross check to eliminate dupes.

I believe they would acquire 'unemployment' numbers from various State offices. So long as you receive benefits or attempt to obtain employment through their services, you are counted.

Once you 'drop out' you are no longer considered one of the 'unemployed' irregardless of whether you have a job.

 

I read it over at length and to answer your question as far as I can tell, three jobs means three people.
They do not calculate for one person holding more than one job.

We aren't talking about a gross misrepresentation anyway.
How many 'full-time' jobs could one person handle?
They have to sleep sometime.

The point I was trying to make is you can't just look at two big numbers and think everything is peachy. How has the quality of life been impacted? How has the standard of living changed?

The fact that the economy is 'improving' and the 'stock market is rebounding' rings hollow to someone who has lost a good job and has no 'stock'.

I was offended by the Boortz comment, "So, 3 million are out of work. So, that's 3 million votes Bush won't get, big deal."

Whatever Party that guy is for...I'm for the other Party.

 

3 million goat herders out of work?

That can't be good.

 

Tell me about it.

I have all of this experience and have been forced to take a job herding chickens!

And the damn things won't listen to a word you say!

 

Yea, Total jobs is kind of a misleading statistic to look at. You always want to focus on Rates. With jobs it's best to look at the unemployment Rate. Rates help put things in much better perspective.

You'll see an increase in jobs per se but you'll also see higher unemployment. This accounts for population increases, those in the work force, etc.

For example, we gained 22,000 new jobs last month but Unemployment didn't change.

There are other stats to monitor to see how many "manufacturing" jobs have been lost. We're really suffering there...

The Democrats are just as guilty of this as the Republicans. "2.5 million jobs" is a lot more dramatic than "unemployment is up a 1.8 points (or whatever it is now).

Couple Records though this month. Record Trade Deficit, and Record high Gas prices. Cool...

 

Here's a very interesting article from The Economist. The subject is primarily the outsourcing/offshore controversy, but they talk about how this actually helps the US economy, and employment.

And I don't think there's much debate about the authority of this publication. http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...ory_id=2454530

I also read another article about job churn, that is, the creation of jobs, and the disappearance of jobs over time.

And do a little research on the unemployment rate since 1948: 5.6% is the average unemployment rate since then. In Clinton's third year in office, the rate was either 5.6 or 5.7 (can't remember exactly).

So relax, it ain't all bad out there. (contrary to HBibb, aka "Chicken Little")

 

yep...

runnert

 

Well if you looked at the population accurately as to the true reflection on total population and total jobs then it looks pretty damn good for jobs.

See, you can’t count all these people on welfare popping out babies to get a pay raise. They are the ones that screw the whole damn mathematically equation as to number of people working to total population (willing to work) that is what is important, those willing to work and how many there actually are…

Oh, and don’t listen to what liberals tell you about some people leaving the unemployment list because “their sad” that’s the biggest crock of crap I have ever heard. Most likely many people leaving the unemployment list are doing so because they started their own adventures or maybe decided to suck up some welfare benefits.

In either case they have to go somewhere because they still have bills to pay so they just can’t go home and watch Oprah all day whining….

Before you can accurately determine the number of people “really” out of work you need to do a study on those on welfare say from the year 2000 and then the year 2003, then you need to know how many puppies they are popping out for that pay raise. Then you can deduct the whole litter of them, mommies included since they are “unwilling” to work. Then you can arrive at something that makes sense…

 

From 'The Economist':

I find it amusing that this comes from the same group that wants to drag seniors off buses bound for Canada trying to save some money on the soaring costs of perscription drugs in this Country.

I would paraphrase it as:

If I ship your healthcare job overseas because it can be done cheaper then this is good for the country and to hell with you.

But, if you try to make ends meet and buy perscription drugs from another country then you are taking excess profit money out of my pocket and you are a criminal and should be treated as such.

America, love it or leave it.
(unless you are leaving it to buy perscription drugs, in that case you can't go)

 

I don’t agree with either of those and thus it seems I must agree with Raoul. I don’t want my x-rays being looked at by some foreigner overseas. That is my personal information and nobody has any business sending it overseas for someone to look at and “possibly” screwing up and saying “yaaaa dat luks find to me”.

Also, I see no problem with seniors going to Candia for cheaper prescription drugs. If they want to make the drive to save a few bucks then great…

 

Historicaly and mathmaticaly the number dont look that bad for jobs and job losses. Like 01 XLT said, they can be proven normal fluctuations in employment if you look at the history of employment. ( History does repeat itself)

Manufacturing jobs are on the decline yes, and have been for the past 20 years.
Its called technology, its great when surfing the net or warming your little pop tarts in a flash, but it sucks when it eliminates your job.
Just read an article about the new mustang that our beloved Ford will be putting out. To ensure quality and quantities they want to produce it said there would be less people working to build each car than the now current model. Why, do to more automation and people performing more task to ensure this quality.

Now if Kerry could get his little women to convince the Hienz Corp. to bring those 57 plants they have overseas ( verses the 22 here) back here that would do wonders for those unemployed people living here.

Sled...

 

I swear you do that just because you know it will make me feel like I have to go take a shower!