PDA

View Full Version : OH NO!!! Not Job Growth Too!!



imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 01:09 PM
More good news for the Bush team and America! Kerry supporters have been seen jumping out of short buildings, tongue.gif ;) ,Bill and Hill rejoice!

Feb 6, 12:17 PM (ET)

By LEIGH STROPE


WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent in January to the lowest level in more than two years as companies added just 112,000 new jobs - fewer than expected but enough to keep alive hope for a turnaround in the struggling job market.

The jobless rate fell 0.1 percentage point last month to the lowest level since October 2001, when it was 5.4 percent, the Labor Department said Friday. January's rate matched the 5.6 percent posted in January 2002.

Employers added new jobs last month at a pace not seen in three years. The last time payrolls expanded more than 112,000 was in December 2000, when companies added 124,000 positions.

High C
02-06-2004, 01:28 PM
Yeah, but...but...but...but...but.................

brad9798
02-06-2004, 01:32 PM
Oh, no guys, this CANNOT be ... ;)

I can hear it now from the folks who like to complain about job growth ...

"It's not enough ... we need more jobs!" :rolleyes:

ljb5
02-06-2004, 01:40 PM
Nice job of cherry-picking from the article.

Here is the complete article (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes)

And some selected quotes:

"It was the fifth straight month of payroll gains and the biggest gain since December 2000 -- but only because higher gains in prior months were revised sharply downward."

"This report is a slow boat to China, reflecting continuing business caution about hiring people"

"The report is certainly better than in December, but it just doesn't reflect the level of job creation we'd expect to see at this stage of the economic recovery"

"Rhame said she estimates household employment is still about 3 million jobs below long-term trend growth, while payroll employment is about 4 million jobs lower than it should be."

"The nation has lost about 2.35 jobs million since March 2001, the month the last recession began, the longest such stretch of pain since World War II. Nearly 800,000 of those jobs have disappeared since the recession ended in November 2001."

"Bush promised his proposals would create 300,000 jobs a month, which hasn't happened yet and may not happen at all in 2004."

"job growth has returned, but it is not at an acceptable level"

"This is not a good report, all things considered"

You should read the article for yourselves - it is much less optimistic than some of the people here claim.

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 01:45 PM
Oh ljb5, you're SO clever!! As you say, "nice job of cherry-picking." :rolleyes:

The salient point here, regardless of how it's framed, is that significant job growth is beginning to show up in the economy- and it's not good news for those who hope to defeat Bush in November. Sorry, bud. :eek: :D

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 01:53 PM
ljb5- the artist formerly known as......? :rolleyes: tongue.gif

Meerkat
02-06-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Conrad S.:
The salient point here, regardless of how it's framed, is that significant job growth is beginning to show up in the economy- and it's not good news for those who hope to defeat Bush in November. Sorry, bud. :eek: :D Well, here's some good news:

WASHINGTON - President Bush's public support dropped sharply over the past month, especially among older voters, political independents and people in the Midwest, an Associated Press poll found.

And for the first time, more voters in this poll's two years of tracking the question said they would definitely vote against Bush than said they would definitely vote for him.

Bush's approval rating stood at 47 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll taken in early February, down from 56 percent approval just a month ago. Half, or 50 percent, said they disapproved in the latest poll.
The poll findings marked a difficult month for Bush, as public attention focused on the Democratic presidential primary and the Democrats' daily bashing of the incumbent. The survey came at a time when the public is nervous about the economy and the chief adviser to the administration on Iraqi weapons, David Kay, said last month "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction.

Bush's 47 percent approval rating is the same as his father's at this stage in his presidency 12 years ago before he lost to Bill Clinton (news - web sites).

Just under four in 10, 37 percent, said they would definitely vote to re-elect Bush as president, while 43 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Another 18 percent said they would consider voting for someone else.

Other recent polls have shown Democratic front-runner John Kerry (news - web sites) with an advantage over Bush in a head-to-head matchup.

A month ago, voters were more inclined to say they would re-elect Bush rather than definitely vote against him by a 41-33 margin.

"Right now, it's a one-sided campaign," said presidential scholar Charles Jones. "The out party is running their nominating process. It's hard for the incumbent to inject himself into the Democrats' campaign."

Bush will make an appearance on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" program Sunday to talk about his agenda on the campaign against terror and the economy. Bush is likely to step up his campaign against the Democrats once they settle on a nominee.

"We have, from the beginning, recognized that this will be a marathon," said Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman. "We always anticipated a tough hard-fought contest."

Mehlman said an incumbent president is often at his most difficult point right before it is clear who the opponent will be. "When people focus more on the choice, numbers historically have changed," Mehlman said. Bush's approach of lower taxes, less lawsuits and less regulation will resonate with voters, he said.

The public perception of Bush and of the nation's economy slumped in the early February poll. Just over four in 10 said the country is headed in the right direction, while just over half said the country was on the wrong track. People were about evenly split on this question in early January.

The AP poll says people were more pessimistic about the economy, with consumer confidence dragged down by increased nervousness about the economy's current and future conditions.

Public approval of Bush's handling of the economy dipped to 44 percent, down from 53 percent in early January.

The public's mood took a positive turn after the capture of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in mid December, and the outlook about the economy is now settling back to levels in November. The drop in Bush's political standing was more dramatic.

Democrats are now as intensely opposed to Bush as Republicans are intensely supporting him. By a 2-1 margin, political independents were more likely to say they would definitely vote against him than definitely support him.

"I think he's run the country into the ground economically, and he comes out with these crazy ideas like going to Mars and going to the moon," said Richard Bidlack, a 78-year-old retiree from Boonton, N.J., who says he voted for Bush in 2000. "I'm so upset at Bush, I'll vote for a chimpanzee before I vote for him."

Exit polls in the Democratic primaries have suggested considerable voter anger at Bush, among both Democrats and independents.

Bush still has the support of many Republicans, including 30-year-old Alicia Bleacher of Lancaster, Pa., a stay-at-home mother.

"We live in difficult times," she said. "He's doing the best he can. After 9-11, he took action immediately, we needed a president who would be decisive."

Bush saw a drop in support among most demographic and regional groups, but those were most pronounced among voters with a high school education or less, voters over age 65, political independents and voters in the Midwest.

Democratic strategist Jim Duffy said Democrats have gained ground because "now there is one focal point. It looks like John Kerry's going to be the opponent."

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken Feb. 2-4 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[ 02-06-2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

brad9798
02-06-2004, 02:07 PM
Just remember, Conrad, it's NOT really about the economy getting better, or any other POSITIVE things ...

It's about a loathing for President Bush and success in general.

Once everything is where they 'think' it should be ... they will just find other things about which to complain.

It's a never-ending cycle of frustration, and they know it!!! (that's the part I find dark pleasure in ...).

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 02:17 PM
:D ;)

On Vacation
02-06-2004, 02:28 PM
Well, even the out of work group, not not the unemployed here on the forum, cause some have a fulltime job as typist, should be typing happy posts. I saw another free ride of benenfits voted in by Congress. Wonder when we will hear about all of that rediculous spending going on in Washington. Nope, I don't have any second thoughts on my radical impatience and intolerances for whiners in this last year of job growths.

As stated before, if all of the jobs that so many of the losers state that went overseas was to return, who really would fill them. The next excuse would be not enough money for the jobs and you wouldn't bother to take them either. You people are so pathetic when it comes to sitting on your arsses and complaining. I still wonder how much Maalox you mix with your chili powder, to substain your bitter approach every morning of your life.

ljb5
02-06-2004, 02:30 PM
You guys fell for it again. Six months in a row we've heard about "record job growth" from preliminary reports. Each and every one of those reports has been revised downward significantly. This report will also be revised downward. But you won't pay attention to that, just as you didn't pay attention when the last reports were revised downward. (it now appears December has been re-revised upwards to 16,000 after being revised downward from 300,000)

The overall report is not good. But don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of a professional economist:

"This is not a good report, all things considered," said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research.

You know how there were more U.S. deaths in Iraq after Bush said, "Mission Accomplished" than before? Well, we've got the same situation here - 800,000 jobs have been lost since the start of the recovery. That's not exactly a recovery, is it?

Dave Williams
02-06-2004, 02:36 PM
Brad,

If you can. Take a sincere, unbiased look at w's record and you will see where that loathing comes from.

To kindness,
Dave

ljb5
02-06-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by brad9798:
It's a never-ending cycle of frustration, and they know it!!! (that's the part I find dark pleasure in ...).Ha! I remember an eight-year period of peace and prosperity. A time so good that the only thing we had to complain about was our president's personal life.

It was a time of soaring economies, record budget surpluses, falling crime rates and admiration in the world community.

brad9798
02-06-2004, 02:44 PM
ljb- I'm not complaining about the Clinton years, or Bush 1 years, or Reagan years for that matter.

Sounds like you aren't either. Perhaps you don't fall into the category I describe-- I hope not- for your sanity.

Dave- We'll have to just disagree, with all due respect to you.

Brad

brad9798
02-06-2004, 03:09 PM
Right on, Jeff.

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 03:22 PM
STOP IT- STOP IT, Donn!! We can't handle all this positive news!! If this keeps up even I will be looking for a short building to jump off of (Not another ski vacation)!! Please, just let them suffer quietly.. :D tongue.gif :D

ljb5
02-06-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Ironmule:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ljb5:
Ha! I remember an eight-year period of peace and prosperity.I remember US troops getting shot at in Somalia and Bosnia during those eight years :rolleyes:

And the prosperity is a pendulum that began swinging up at the end of the Reagan era, smile.gif and went down significantly during the end of the Clinton era. :( And is going up in the middle of the Bush era :D :cool:

Jeff Smith, just tryin' to keep the facts straight. :D </font>[/QUOTE]You forgot the Bush I years.

Bush I was chased out of office to the chant of "It's the economy, Stupid!"

Was that a Reagan swing or a Clinton swing?

On Vacation
02-06-2004, 03:47 PM
I wouldn't call this minimum wage jobs.

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls increased by 2 cents over the month to $15.49, seasonally
adjusted. Average weekly earnings rose by 0.7 percent in January to $522.01.
Over the year, average hourly earnings increased by 2.0 percent, and average
weekly earnings increased by 1.7 percent.

This is not just home building and an increase over the last year:
Employment in construction continued to trend upward in January (24,000),
and has risen by 147,000 since last March. About a third of the January
increase was in heavy construction.

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

This is a different and more accurate survey of actual housholds, that differs from the business surveys that is used to report the government numbers.:
Total employment rose by 496,000 in January after accounting for the
adjustment to population controls. (See table A and the note on page 6.)
The employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and
older with jobs--increased to 62.4 percent over the month. (See table A-1.)

On Vacation
02-06-2004, 04:03 PM
THE WORLD IN GENERAL 1970s
Average unemployment rate: 6.21%
Average inflation rate 7.04%
Presidents: Nixon (1969-1974), Ford (1974-1977), Carter (1977-1982)

THE WORLD IN GENERAL 1980s
Average unemployment rate = 7.27%
Average inflation rate 5.55%
Presidents: Carter (1977-1981); Regan (1981-1989); Bush (1989-1993)

THE WORLD IN GENERAL 1990s
Average unemployment rate 5.75
Average inflation rate: 3%
Presidents: Bush (1989-1993); Clinton (1993-2001)
Decade punctuated by downsizine/delayering/reengineering
Business focus on TQM, cross-functional teams, intellectual capital, technology, globalization
Dot-coms proliferate
Bull market

THE WORLD IN GENERAL 2000s
Average unemployment rate 5.75
Average inflation rate: 3%
Presidents: Bush (2001 present)
Collapse of the dot.com virtual empire
Decade punctuated by mergers and acquisitions

ljb5
02-06-2004, 04:06 PM
Oyster, as always, you don't know what you're talking about.

(still waiting for a response re: Reagan indictments and convictions, Clinton's cabinet and Jesse Brown etc).

You shouldn't be trying to do your own analysis of government economic numbers. It's much too complicated for you to grasp.

Unless you're a technical person, you should stick with the simplified version (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes)

If that's too much for you, you can just skip to the summary:


This is not a good report, all things considered.

[ 02-06-2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

On Vacation
02-06-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by ljb5:
Oyster, as always, you don't know what you're talking about.

(still waiting for a response re: Reagan indictments and convictions, Clinton's cabinet and Jesse Brown etc).

You shouldn't be trying to do your own analysis of government economic numbers. It's much too complicated for you to grasp.

Unless you're a technical person, you should stick with the simplified version (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes)

If that's too much for you, you can just skip to the summary:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
This is not a good report, all things considered.</font>[/QUOTE]Feel free to go to the government website, JERK, and spin it however you wish. Feel free to spin the numbers of the clinton years however you wish. You got more time than I do, so have yourself a very merry day jerk. Disprove the federal numbers jerk. You and meerkat seem to know all about everything. You need to be running to save the world, jerk. It is all for you to read Jerk.

On Vacation
02-06-2004, 04:17 PM
I don't need CNN reporting to read someone take on it.

Employment Situation Summary
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 04-120
http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release is
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EST),
Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, February 6, 2004.


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JANUARY 2004


Employment rose in January, and the unemployment rate, at 5.6 percent, was
little changed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor
reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 112,000, with job gains
in construction and several service-providing industries. Manufacturing employ-
ment continued to trend down, but the rate of job loss has moderated in recent
months.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons was 8.3 million in January and the
unemployment rate was 5.6 percent, seasonally adjusted. While little changed
over the month, both measures were down from their recent highs in June 2003,
when the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent. Unemployment rates for most major
worker groups--adult men (5.1 percent), adult women (5.0 percent), teenagers
(16.7 percent), whites (4.9 percent), and blacks (10.5 percent)--were little
changed in January. The unemployment rate for Hispanics rose to 7.3 percent
over the month, about the same rate as last fall. The unemployment rate for
Asians was 5.2 percent in January, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1,
A-2, and A-3.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment rose by 496,000 in January after accounting for the
adjustment to population controls. (See table A and the note on page 6.)
The employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and
older with jobs--increased to 62.4 percent over the month. (See table A-1.)

The civilian labor force increased by 422,000 in January, when adjustment
is made for the effect of population control changes. The labor force parti-
cipation rate was essentially unchanged at 66.1 percent. (See tables A and
A-1.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force
totaled about 1.7 million in January, about the same as a year earlier. (Data
are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to
work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not
counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work
in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 432,000 discouraged workers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| The establishment survey data in this release have been revised |
| as a result of the annual benchmarking process and the updating of |
| seasonal adjustment factors. See the note on page 5 for more infor- |
| mation on the revisions. |
| In addition, household survey data for January 2004 reflect updated|
| population controls. See the note on page 6 for more information. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


- 2 -

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
| Quarterly | |
| averages | Monthly data |
|_________________|__________________________| Dec.-
Category | 2003 | 2003 | 2004 | Jan.
|_________________|_________________|________|chan ge1/
| III | IV | Nov. | Dec. | Jan. |
_________________________|________|________|______ __|________|________|_______
HOUSEHOLD DATA | Labor force status
|_________________________________________________ ___
Civilian labor force.....| 146,628| 146,986| 147,187| 146,878| 146,863| 422
Employment.............| 137,647| 138,369| 138,533| 138,479| 138,566| 496
Unemployment...........| 8,981| 8,616| 8,653| 8,398| 8,297| -74
Not in labor force.......| 74,885| 75,290| 75,093| 75,631| 75,298| -210
|________|________|________|________|________|____ ___
| Unemployment rates
|_________________________________________________ ___
All workers..............| 6.1| 5.9| 5.9| 5.7| 5.6| -0.1
Adult men..............| 5.8| 5.5| 5.6| 5.3| 5.1| -.2
Adult women............| 5.2| 5.1| 5.1| 5.1| 5.0| -.1
Teenagers..............| 17.5| 16.3| 15.7| 16.1| 16.7| .6
White..................| 5.4| 5.1| 5.2| 5.0| 4.9| -.1
Black or African | | | | |
American.............| 11.0| 10.7| 10.4| 10.3| 10.5| .2
Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |
ethnicity............| 7.8| 7.1| 7.4| 6.6| 7.3| .7
|________|________|________|________|________|____ ___
ESTABLISHMENT DATA 2/ | Employment
|_________________________________________________ ___
Nonfarm employment.......| 129,820|p130,005| 130,027|p130,043|p130,155| p112
Goods-producing 3/.....| 21,718| p21,677| 21,686| p21,670| p21,677| p7
Construction.........| 6,738| p6,770| 6,771| p6,784| p6,808| p24
Manufacturing........| 14,410| p14,337| 14,344| p14,317| p14,306| p-11
Service-providing 3/...| 108,102|p108,328| 108,341|p108,373|p108,478| p105
Retail trade.........| 14,912| p14,917| 14,922| p14,881| p14,957| p76
Professional and | | | | | |
business services..| 16,023| p16,114| 16,114| p16,159| p16,137| p-22
Education and health | | | | | |
services...........| 16,594| p16,706| 16,705| p16,734| p16,756| p22
Leisure and | | | | | |
hospitality........| 12,120| p12,173| 12,178| p12,193| p12,214| p21
Government...........| 21,560| p21,548| 21,544| p21,539| p21,526| p-13
|________|________|________|________|________|____ ___
| Hours of work 4/
|_________________________________________________ ___
Total private............| 33.6| p33.7| 33.8| p33.5| p33.7| p0.2
Manufacturing..........| 40.2| p40.6| 40.8| p40.6| p40.9| p.3
Overtime.............| 4.1| p4.5| 4.5| p4.6| p4.6| p.0
|________|________|________|________|________|____ ___
| Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100) 4/
|_________________________________________________ ___
Total private............| 98.2| p98.6| 99.0| p98.0| p98.8| p0.8
|________|________|________|________|________|____ ___
| Earnings 4/
|_________________________________________________ ___
Avg. hourly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| $15.41| p$15.45| $15.46| p$15.47| p$15.49| p$0.02
Avg. weekly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| 517.67| p520.26| 522.55| p518.25| p522.01| p3.76
_________________________|________|________|______ __|________|________|_______

1 Changes in household data levels reflect an adjustment to remove the
effect of updated population controls. See the note on page 6 for more
information.
2 Establishment data have been revised to reflect March 2003 benchmarks
and updated seasonal adjustment factors. See the note on page 5 for more
information.
3 Includes other industries, not shown separately.
4 Data relate to private production or nonsupervisory workers.
p=preliminary.

- 3 -

in January. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, were
not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were
available for them. The other 1.2 million marginally attached had not searched
for work for reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See table
A-13.)

Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 112,000 in January to 130.2
million, seasonally adjusted. Since August, payroll employment has grown by
366,000. Retail trade and construction added jobs in January on a seasonally
adjusted basis. Manufacturing job losses continued, but at the slower pace
that has prevailed in recent months. Employment in temporary help services
edged lower, following 8 months of gains. (See table B-1.)

Retail trade employment increased by 76,000 over the month, after seasonal
adjustment. The industry had lost a total of 67,000 jobs in November and
December. Weak holiday hiring in general merchandise, sporting goods, and
miscellaneous stores meant that there were fewer workers to lay off in January,
resulting in seasonally adjusted employment gains for the month. Building
material and garden supply stores added 14,000 jobs, reflecting continued
strength in the housing market, and food stores also added 14,000 jobs.

Employment in construction continued to trend upward in January (24,000),
and has risen by 147,000 since last March. About a third of the January
increase was in heavy construction.

Manufacturing employment edged down (-11,000). Small job losses continued
throughout most of nondurable goods. Employment in durable goods manufactur-
ing was about unchanged in January. The durable goods sector of wholesale
trade continued to trend up; since October the industry has added 28,000 jobs.

Employment in education and health services was up over the month. Out-
patient care centers and hospitals added 6,000 and 5,000 jobs, respectively.

Accounting and bookkeeping, which includes tax preparation services, lost
18,000 jobs in January (after seasonal adjustment), offsetting gains in the
prior 2 months. Employment in temporary help services edged down (-21,000);
this follows 8 consecutive months of gains totaling 184,000.

Within the financial activities industry, employment in securities, commod-
ity contracts, and investments increased by 7,000 in January. This industry
has added 23,000 jobs since August.

In January, employment fell by 5,000 in mining. The decline was concen-
trated in nonmetallic minerals, such as stone, sand, and gravel.

- 4 -

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.2 hour in January to 33.7 hours, seasonally
adjusted. The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.3 hour to 40.9 hours,
and manufacturing overtime was unchanged at 4.6 hours. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers
on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.8 percent to 98.8 in January
(2002=100). The manufacturing index increased by 0.6 percent over the month
to 94.1. (See table B-5.)

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls increased by 2 cents over the month to $15.49, seasonally
adjusted. Average weekly earnings rose by 0.7 percent in January to $522.01.
Over the year, average hourly earnings increased by 2.0 percent, and average
weekly earnings increased by 1.7 percent. (See table B-3.)

______________________________

The Employment Situation for February 2004 is scheduled to be released on
Friday, March 5, at 8:30 A.M. (EST).

- 5 -

Revisions to Establishment Survey Data

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data have been
revised to reflect comprehensive universe counts of payroll jobs, or benchmarks.
These counts are derived principally from unemployment insurance tax records
for March 2003. The benchmark process resulted in revisions to all unadjusted
data series from April 2002 forward, the time period since the last benchmark
was established. All seasonally adjusted data series beginning with January
1999 were subject to revision, in accordance with the usual practice of revis-
ing 5 years of data. In addition, because of revisions to the base-year data
for the indexes presented in tables B-5 and B-6 of this release, the entire
historical data series for those indexes were subject to revision. Previously,
the revised establishment survey data were published in June of each year;
earlier receipt and tabulation of the benchmark source material made it fea-
sible to accelerate the publication date to February.

Table B presents revised total nonfarm employment data on a seasonally
adjusted basis for January through December 2003. The revised data for April
2003 forward incorporate the effect of applying the rate of change measured by
the sample to the new benchmark level, as well as updated net business birth/
death model adjustments and new seasonal adjustment factors. The November and
December 2003 revisions also reflect the routine incorporation of additional
sample receipts into the November final and December second preliminary
estimates. The total nonfarm employment level for March 2003 was revised
downward by 122,000 (163,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis). The previously
published level for December 2003 was revised downward by 77,000 (81,000 on a
seasonally adjusted basis).

The February 2004 issue of Employment and Earnings will contain an article
that discusses the benchmark and post-benchmark revisions. This issue also
will provide revised estimates for all regularly published tables containing
national establishment survey data on employment, hours, and earnings.

LABSTAT, the BLS public database on the Internet, contains all revised
historical CES data. The data can be accessed through the CES homepage
(http://www.bls.gov/ces/).

Further information on the revisions released today may be obtained by
calling 202-691-6555 or via the Internet on the CES homepage.


Table B. Revisions in total nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted,
January-December 2003

(In thousands)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
| |
| Levels | Over-the-month changes
|---------------------|---------------------------------
Year and month| As | As | As | As |
|previously| revised |previously| revised | Difference
|published | |published | |
_______________|__________|__________|__________|_ _________|___________
2003 | | | | |
January........| 130,356 | 130,190 | 158 | 94 | -64
February.......| 130,235 | 130,031 | -121 | -159 | -38
March..........| 130,084 | 129,921 | -151 | -110 | 41
April..........| 130,062 | 129,901 | -22 | -20 | 2
May............| 129,986 | 129,873 | -76 | -28 | 48
June...........| 129,903 | 129,859 | -83 | -14 | 69
July...........| 129,846 | 129,814 | -57 | -45 | 12
August.........| 129,881 | 129,789 | 35 | -25 | -60
September......| 129,980 | 129,856 | 99 | 67 | -32
October........| 130,080 | 129,944 | 100 | 88 | -12
November.......| 130,123 | 130,027 | 43 | 83 | 40
December(p)....| 130,124 | 130,043 | 1 | 16 | 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
p = preliminary.
- 6 -

Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey

Effective with the data for January 2004, updated population controls have
been used in the household survey. Population controls for the household sur-
vey are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau
updates the controls to reflect new information and assumptions about the
growth of the population. The change in population reflected in the new con-
trols results primarily from adjustments to the estimates of net international
migration.

Official population and labor force estimates for December 2003 and earlier
months will not be revised. To assess the impact of the updated population
controls on trend growth, however, December 2003 estimates for selected data
series (not seasonally adjusted) were recalculated using the new controls, and
the differences from estimates based on the old controls are shown in table C.
The adjustments decreased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional
population by 560,000, of the civilian labor force by 437,000, and of employ-
ment by 409,000; the new population controls had a negligible impact on unem-
ployment rates and other percentage estimates. More detailed information on
the population adjustments and their effect on national labor force estimates
are available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps04adj.pdf on the Internet and also
will be published in the February 2004 issue of Employment and Earnings.

Table C. Effect of the revised population controls on December 2003
estimates by sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, not seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | His-
| | | | | Black | | panic
Category | | | | | or | | or
|Total| Men |Women|White|African|Asian| Latino
| | | | | Ameri-| | ethni-
| | | | | can | | city
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian noninstitutional | | | | | | |
population ..............| -560| -165| -395| -445| -60 | -44| -583
Civilian labor force ....| -437| -163| -274| -360| -33 | -39| -446
Employed.............. | -409| -152| -258| -339| -29 | -37| -421
Unemployed.............| -27| -11| -16| -22| -4 | -2| -25
Unemployment rate....| .0| .0| .0| .0| .0 | .0| .0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Detail for men and women may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Estimates for the above race groups (white, black or African American, and
Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races.
In addition, persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino
may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as well as
by race.

Employment Situation Explanatory Note
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age
Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age
Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
Table A-5. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
Table A-6. Selected employment indicators
Table A-7. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
Table A-8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
Table A-9. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
Table A-10. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-11. Unemployed persons by industry, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Table A-13. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-2. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-4. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted
Table B-5. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-6. Indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-7. Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted

Text version of entire news release

Access to historical data for the "A" tables of the Employment Situation Release
Access to historical data for the "B" tables of the Employment Situation Release
Table of Contents
Last Modified Date: February 06, 2004




Back to Top www.dol.gov (http://www.dol.gov)

Frequently Asked Questions | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey
Privacy & Security Statement | Linking to Our Site | Accessibility

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Postal Square Building
2 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20212-0001

Technical (web) questions: webmaster@bls.gov
Other comments: feedback@bls.gov
Labor Force Statistics
CPS Phone: (202) 691-6378
CPS data questions: cpsinfo@bls.gov
National Employment, Hours, and Earnings
CES Phone: (202) 691-6555
CES data questions: cesinfo@bls.gov

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 04:29 PM
ROTFLMAO!!! What a riot!! Only a liberal could make such an asinine statement with a straight face! :D :eek: :D

I'll take a hundred thousand new jobs any day, and revel in the news, as will those who now hold/work them. :D

What an utterly selfish thing to suggest, that ANY number of new jobs is not great news- only from a loser. :rolleyes: tongue.gif :eek:

On Vacation
02-06-2004, 04:37 PM
:D Whine before jobs, whine after jobs, whine if they have no jobs, whine if the job don't pay as much as they think they need, whine about not connecting the dots, whine if the dots are connected,

Speaking of wine, I think I will take my wife out tonight, and buy her a nice bottle of wine. You guys and girls have a good dinner now. Later

ljb5
02-06-2004, 04:44 PM
Easy there Oyster...

I didn't say you don't know how to read. I said you don't know how to do the sophisticated interpretation that this complex subject requires.

You should leave that to the professional economists.

For the record, I think all job growth is good. But it's below expectations for months in a row and described as "anemic" and "not where it should be" and professional economists say very clearly that they are not happy with it.

Maybe the best you want for America is job growth that is "not at an acceptable level," but I want better for America.

ljb5
02-06-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Conrad S.:
ROTFLMAO!!! What a riot!! Only a liberal could make such an asinine statement with a straight face! :D :eek: :D
I was quoting Richard Yamarone, the chief economist at Argus Research. You would know that if you'd read this very gloomy and pessimistic article.

I don't know if he's a liberal. I do know he is better informed on the subject than you are.

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 04:58 PM
Gee, I'm an enconomist, have a degree or two, with honors, and everything. :D :rolleyes: Here's the deal on forecasts, as any economist with an I.Q. higher than his/her body temp and a few beers in 'em will tell ya: they're nothing but SWAGs. Any projections re: jobs in our current economy, based on models formulated on historical data from past economies, are particularly worthless. The basic structure of both the world and U.S. economies changed significantly over the last decade, rendering almost all modeling data meaningless along with any projections based on that data. Harvard Business Review had a great series on this a couple of years back (supplemental).

But remember, here in reality, 100K new jobs are very real and significant, projections and academics be damned. What relevance does any projection have to reality, aside from the mental masturbation it allows self-proclaimed intellectuals to indulge in?

ljb5
02-06-2004, 05:08 PM
A lot of your fellow economists seem to believe that projections are important and that this Bush economy is not living up to them.

Did you read the article? Maybe you and your fancy degrees can explain why all of your co-workers feel that this report is disappointing.

The last thing we need on this forum is amateur economists like Oyster glancing at reams of government data and trying to draw difinitive conclusions (which always, amazingly, coincide with his pre-drawn conclusions).

I'm not as fancy as all that. If a bunch of professional economists who make a pretty nice living off of thinking about this stuff tell me that it's not good news, I don't feel qualified to contradict them.

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 05:09 PM
AAack!! It gets WORSE!!

Surging US economy leads global recovery

Mark Tran and agencies
Friday February 6, 2004

The US economy strengthened considerably in December, leading the global economic recovery and leaving Europe and Japan behind, the Organisation of Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) said today.
The upbeat assessment of the US economy from the OECD came just hours ahead of a meeting of finance ministers from the G7 group of leading industrialised countries, with the weakness of the dollar the prime subject of concern.

"Moderate to strong recovery lies ahead in the OECD area," the organisation said in a statement. "December data signal continued strong improvement in the United States but weaker development for Italy."

ljb5
02-06-2004, 05:20 PM
Felt like changing the subject, did you?

Worse? That sounds like good news to me.

Of course, there's always a fly in the ointment (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1142714,00.html)


George Bush needs the fall in the dollar to support American growth and to be re-elected, even if that is to the detriment of Europe.If the European Central Bank acts to protect themselves by lowering their rate, the U.S. and Bush might be in a lot of trouble.

It sure is a good thing that we didn't squander all of that good will the people of "Old Europe" felt for us.

[ 02-06-2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 05:39 PM
"George Bush needs the fall in the dollar to support American growth and to be re-elected, even if that is to the detriment of Europe."

Garbage. GWB's successful re-election doesn't require any one specific item except more votes than his opposition.

Do you ever do any independent thinking there jlb5 (the artist formerly known as....), or do you just parrot the current media consensous?

Enough- it's back to work, stealing from the wealthy to keep myself wealthy. :D

ljb5
02-06-2004, 05:44 PM
I was just quoting from the exact same article you were quoting from.

Got something in your eye there?

High C
02-06-2004, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by High C:
Yeah, but...but...but...but...but.................I told you!!! :D ;) :D

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 06:36 PM
I remember when my daughters passed from the "concrete" stage of conceptualization to a more open model, indicating ongoing mental development. All of a sudden they were able to see the world on more than one level. This facilitated a sense of humor, the understanding of irony, etc., and an awareness of sarcasm.

Did you miss that growth stage?

Here's a clue- all, or at least 90% of my posts here are done in a sarcastic vein, with the intent of inciting an increase in the blood pressure of any resident liberals, thus hastening their death. :eek: No more, no less.

I see little point in trying to educate those who are essentially unwilling or able to change their perspective, locked in as they are by relationships, experiences, and current circumstances. When change needs to happen, it does. Until the need precedes, nothing short of the second coming will cause change, not my words or yours. So stop being so serious all the time.

Given the above, the only reason to be here is entertainment. And concrete thinkers who simply research, confirm, compare, and contrast other's opinions have very little entertainment value. I can do that myself, at a higher level, should it prove neccessary.

Why not throw out a few original thoughts, take a position, and stick your own neck out into the stream of life and see what happens? But watch out for the sarcasm. :eek: ;)

[ 02-06-2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Conrad S. ]

ljb5
02-06-2004, 07:30 PM
All I did here was post the complete article and some of the more significant quotes and ask people here to read it before they leapt to conclusions.

Now that your position is 100% indefensible, you claim you were only joking in the first place.

I'll consider your suggstion to lighten up and I think you ought to suggest it to Oyster also.

During the conniption fit he threw earlier, I thought he was in danger of having a stroke. His frenzy of C&P was the classic defense mechanism of a trapped animal. It was an attempt to overwhelm with false bravado. Too bad he didn't read it.

I post here for the same reason some people do the crossword puzzle. I like to find the correct answer. I find that entertaining. I don't care if you think I'm too serious. I don't care why you post here. Maybe I do need more humor, but I think you need more reverence for the truth.

In the final analysis, I am correct. The article posted above is very reserved and cautious about the latest employment figures.

You might think denying that is "sarcasm." I think it's a fool's errand.

imported_Conrad
02-06-2004, 07:55 PM
You still don't get it, do you!

Truth, like sanity, isn't a statistical norm. Believing any article because it's "reserved and cautious" doesn't make it true or false. At what point does a pile of assumptions turn into a truth?

You, sir, are a myopic fool of the worst kind. Good luck in life.

[ 02-06-2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Conrad S. ]

Rogue Sailor
02-06-2004, 08:15 PM
It was a time of soaring economies, record budget surpluses, falling crime rates and admiration in the world community. ... and it was a time for festering animosity in the Middle East. A time for the rise of Al Queda and the Taliban. A time when the impact of the internet inflenced global economy to unprecidented heights(thanks to Al Gore). A time when the Pakistanis' proliferated nuclear weapons technology to the third world. A time when the incumbent President insulted his office and embarassed the American people.

On Vacation
02-06-2004, 09:00 PM
"The last thing we need on this forum is amateur economists like Oyster glancing at reams of government data and trying to draw difinitive conclusions (which always, amazingly, coincide with his pre-drawn conclusions)."

Posting replies with facts seem to bother those with pre-drawn conclusions. In my previous post, that brought about your belittling factor concerning me being an economist, I ask you what part of the facts don't you buy? I will also assume you bring to the table here, a real objective desire of the truth in items of discussion? :rolleyes: Yea right. :eek:

I made several statements of facts concerning information that is provided to one and all, no more and no less. You appear to think otherwise, as to the issues of increased employment.

So on that note, tell us what you know that this agency, that work with this type information everyday for projecting this country's growth, areas of concern, and forcasting future trends, doesn't know.

The information from the household survey, has always been a better cross section of actual workers, because this will take in many jobs and businesses at home and full-parttime positions such as lawn services and jobs from small independant single proprietorships that will not be surveyed in normal strutured businesses as in the lower numbers.

These facts maybe boring, but these represent more of the truth than a media person. I blow my stack? Nope, just feel the need to respond sometimes to the pre-conceived and opinionated jerks that live here on this board, in the same manner which I am also addressed here. As stated also, not one person here will change the course of events of life.

One more item of business, 15 dollars and hour, an average wage, I have never made. So if you poopoo this figure as being mimimum wage jobs, you are one greedy person yourself. But you know something else, there are jobs out there for all to work if a person wishes to work. But there are too many freebies out now, provided by politicans for the sorry and worthless citizens of this country. I know because I hired many of these useless creatures, trained them for two weeks, till they got a little money in their pockets to supplement their free ride and quit. I wasted many hours of training for nothing, useless American working class. And you wonder why many businesses are hiring Cubans and Mexicans. They show up and they take care of the equipment and are very thankfull for what you do for them.

ljb5
02-07-2004, 12:42 AM
Oyster, I don't dispute the data. I just know that you aren't qualified to interpret it.

I'll leave that to the professionals and experts.

When they say this newest data is "a slow boat to China" then I have to believe that's not a good thing.

If you know so much about the subject, how come CNN didn't interview you for the article? How come everyone quoted in the article disagrees with you?

ljb5
02-07-2004, 01:01 AM
Conrad, I don't beleive the article because it is 'reserved and cautious.'

I believe it because it appears on the front page of the financial section of one of the most respected news sources in the world and it includes the opinions of some of the most influential and respected economists in the world.

I tend to believe them more than I believe you. If you were as competent as they are, I'm sure you would have been interviewed for the article. But you weren't.

So would someone please explain to me why I should believe you more than these experts?

Just to reiterate, the experts say:

"household employment is still about 3 million jobs below where it should be "

"payroll employment is about 4 million jobs lower than it should be."

"This report is a slow boat to China"

"it is not at an acceptable level"

"This is not a good report, all things considered"

Remember, if you want to argue these points, you're not arguing with me - you're arguing with respected, professional economists. You must be delusional. Good luck with that.

imported_Conrad
02-07-2004, 02:22 AM
OK, one last time, then goodbye. You say/ask:

"I tend to believe them more than I believe you. If you were as competent as they are, I'm sure you would have been interviewed for the article. But you weren't."

No, I wasn't, because I no longer work as an economist, not because my reasoning in this matter is incorrect. I'm much happier working in an industry where I can make 10 times as much money, using my understanding of economics to increase my personal wealth. Your statement is illogical, if not downright stupid.

So would someone please explain to me why I should believe you more than these experts?

Because I offered a logical explanation regarding the fallacy of their predictive models, which they themselves would admit, based on personal experience writing similar predictive forecasts? You really have had one put over on yourself by believing the "experts" that impress you so.
Do you have any education in economics? Do you have higher level education in mathematics- specifically linear algebra, probability theory, and statistical modeling? If not, how are you qualified to judge the quality of their work or my ability to critique them, especially given that you know nothing of my education or ability? You only show yourself to be a fool to those that know.

Just to reiterate, the experts say:

"household employment is still about 3 million jobs below where it should be "

Says who? This conclusion is based on interactive models, which in turn are based on data from past economic recoveries, and were accurate to a limited extent in the past, but most likely don't apply now. The world economic engine has undergone significant, unexpected, and not yet understood change. A similar situation occurred in the '70's when inflation and high unemployment (under Jimmy Carter) gave rise to the term "stagflation," and none of the existing models were able to accurately predict growth or employment rates. The current situation also has no past examples to base predictions on.

"payroll employment is about 4 million jobs lower than it should be."

Yeah, according to the old models, but employment patterns are responding to new inputs that weren't present in past recoveries, as well as increased foreign competition and capabilities that can't be accurately factored in to current predictive programs- because no one, despite their "expert" claims, knows what the end effect will be.

"This report is a slow boat to China"

Only by historical standards- this may be the new standard we're experiencing, or it may be better than what we can expect in the future. But no one knows, and won't for about three years- the time it takes to collect/assimilate/model the data and do the regression analysis to see how it all MAY have fit together. And then there's no guarantee it will EVER happen that way again.

"it is not at an acceptable level"

Same answer as above. To state this is to effect the braggert where no one can honestly lay claim. This is the most idiotic statement a responsible professional could ever make. It's pure politics, not economic science. But you swallowed it!

"This is not a good report, all things considered"

I agree- its a load of tripe, concocted by a group that really doesn't know what's happening, but needs to put out something to make it look like they're on top of it, and protect their jobs/status.

If, as you state, you're interested in getting things right, stay away from economics. It involves no right/wrong, or certainty, only probabilities within confidence levels. You show yourself to be out of your league.

[ 02-07-2004, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Conrad S. ]

On Vacation
02-07-2004, 07:50 AM
Conrad, well put. And in no way did I ever say the experts quoted was wrong. One thing many people are looking for, right now anyway, was a short term increase of work, period. This latest year and trend points to issues directly releated to policy changes by this administration. Nafta added together with some regulations during the 1990s created the enviroment for many of the jobs hemmoraging to overseas countries. You may not know a fellow poster by the name of Pat Cox. He was a paid spinner for the Democratic party and was pretty effective at taking portions of issues and doin the same thing some of these economists and you are doing right now. Please again point towards any expert advice I attempted to portray. All you have done is to say "IN YOUR OPINION, AND IN SOME FOLKS OPINION, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH JOBS NOW."

That does not make the latest recovery null and void for many people. If you want to blame a president for job losses to other areas, you will need more than just saying jobs are leaving here and direct me to policies directly causing this action since Jan, 2001. Until then, mindless sayings as I am no expert, is nothing more than just diversion for your pre-concieved notions on opinion based on nothing more than a partisan hate as noted by your replies here. Refute this with your own data of doom and gloom data. Did they interview you?

ljb5
02-07-2004, 11:18 AM
Fine. Both of you are smarter than all the experts in the world and there's nothing you could learn by listening to anyone.

All these professional economists are really stupid because they waste all that time actually studying the subjects before they form an opinion. Even then they still don't come up with the answer you came up with immediately.

(I can be sarcastic too)

[ 02-07-2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

Nicholas Carey
02-09-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Conrad S., cribbing from an unknown source:
The nation's unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent in January to the lowest level in more than two years as companies added just 112,000 new jobs - fewer than expected but enough to keep alive hope for a turnaround in the struggling job market.It's a pity that the US economny needs to create 150-200,000 jobs per month just to keep up, due to population growth.

By my math, that's still a net decrease in the jobs:people ratio.

imported_Conrad
02-09-2004, 06:35 PM
"It's a pity that the US economny needs to create 150-200,000 jobs per month just to keep up, due to population growth."

Not true re. your numbers- you forgot to factor in death and retirement.

And why would any of this be a "pity?" What in the world are you saying- that the jobs shouldn't be created, that the unemployed should remain so in order to continue some semblance of a power base for the liberal elements? Hmmmm? ;)

And for the record, 5.6% unemployment isn't far off the long term average, and is much lower here than in a variety of "industrialized" nations. Life ain't that bad. I'm looking at retiring at the end of this year- 15 years early, so there'll be yet another job available. :D

[ 02-09-2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Conrad ]