Bush: 5.6 Percent Unemployment Rate 'A Good Number'

[rodbarnett]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites), brushing aside criticism from Democrats, called the nation's 5.6 percent unemployment rate on Monday "a good number" given recent shocks to the economy.

"The 5.6 percent unemployment (rate) is a good national number. It's not good enough, but it's a good number, particularly since what we've been through, which has been a recession and emergency and corporate scandal and war," the president told U.S. governors at a White House meeting.

Unemployment has emerged as a hot-button issue in this year's presidential campaign. Nearly 2.8 million factory jobs have been lost since Bush took office and Democrats say the Republican White House has been insensitive to their plight.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20040223/pl_nm/bush_jobs_dc

[POed_Ex_Repub]

1. Yeah, Too bad it's closer to 9.7%

If you count underemployed and people who simply got discouraged and stopped looking.

[Frodo]

24. Be careful. What number are you using?

And how doe IT compare apples to apples? You can't take one measurement for one administration and a different number for this one.

[0rganism]

28. Here's the EPI's numbers (they put constructed unemployment at 7.6%)

http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/146/epi_bp146.pdf

"The depth and duration of the job decline since the start of the recession, along with the growth in the working age population, the fact that many people who have moved to the sidelines of the labor market are not included in unemployment measures, and the loss of wage and salary income, all indicate that the current labor market remains in severe and record-setting distress."

This study includes comparisons of these apples to apples of previous administrations.

[Frodo]

29. "Constructed" unemployment rate?

That's a new one. It's "constructed" based on some incredibly non-scientific principles - "We'll just assume a huge number of people who SAY they aren't looking for work AND don't qualify as "discouraged" (they won't even say they aren't looking because there ARE no jobs to be found - but we all know that's REALLY why) and we'll count THEM". No possibility that the makeup of the workforce has changed?

The point I was making was that the 9.7% cited is actually a reported UE figure. Which happens to mirror (pretty closely for the last year or so) the comparable UE figure at this point in the last administration.

They started at very different points, and Clinton of course wen't on to SUBSTANTIALLY lower UE in his second term, but the figure quoted is not damning by itself.

[0rganism]

34. So what's unscientific here? what are you complaining about?

> No possibility that the makeup of the workforce has changed?

Of course it's changed. It's much smaller now. How else are you going to account for 2.3 million uncreated jobs? Here's how the number is derived:

"The size of this “missing” labor force can be estimated by subtracting the size of the actual labor force in January 2004 of 146.9 million from the size of the labor force that would have existed that month had it grown along with the working age population since March 2001 (149.1 million). That results in an estimated “missing” labor force of 2.3 million as of January 2004."

The most unscientific thing about their estimate is using a linear rate of increase for the job-holding and job-seeking population.

It's no great secret that the economy has to create ~150000 jobs each month now just to maintain any employment-population ratio as the population grows. Your notion that Clinton's situation was similar falls flat, insofar as Clinton oversaw an increase in the employment-population ratio throughout both his terms, reversing the downward employment-population trend of bush Sr.'s presidency. The EPI was nice enough to make this chart for us, fig. 4 p. 6, covering the data since 1948.

At this time in his presidency, Clinton was looking at a 63% e-p ratio, trending up. Bush has got us to 62%, on a downhill slide from where he started in 2001 at over 64%. If this "mirrors pretty closely", then maybe your mirror is reflecting apples with oranges.

[stevedeshazer]

36. Smart ass

:)

[Frodo]

46. What's unscientific?

Let's just "assume" we know how many people there are who need jobs.

Of course, we do a survey each month of 60,000 households ASKING them whether they want a job or not, but THAT number isn't the one we'll use... we'll just assume that the same fraction of the working age population that wanted a job a few years ago want one today.

What about the possibility that the population has changed in terms of who needs a job and who doesn't? They just assume that there are literall millions of people who want and need a job but for some reason won't admit it - won't even say "there's no use, there ARE no jobs".

As for Clinton, I'm aware he did a much better job, he got to his end-of-term numbers from the higher numbers he inherited. My point was that the number itself was almost identical and therefore cannot be used as evidence of a "bad" UE situation. The better argument is the incredible length of time it is taking to recover from the recession. The number itself does not speak to the problem. You can't just throw out "9.7%" like it MEANS something if the comparable total un/underemployment measurement is the same as a time when things were not so bad.

[mhr]

47. HI Organism, Understand That Frodo Is An Apologist For The Bush

administration on employment.

A search on his username will uncover numerous arguments with him by many at DU on the unemployment rate.

He steadfastly refuses to consider that the "numbers" reflect a reality worse than portrayed or admitted to.

Note this is not a personal attack on FRODO. This is an observation of fact over time. Search on his username and you will see the trend as well.

Admittedly, he is entitled to his opinion. However, the best course would be to ignore him on this topic.

On other topics he does have good observations. On this topic he is quite stubborn and intolerant.

[Frodo]

49. HI Organism, Understand That mhr rarely has the facts on his side on this

issue... So he resorts to insult.


Note this is not a personal attack on mhr, he actually seems like a nice guy. Just an observation of fact over time.

"Stubborn" is true. "Intolerant" I think reflects the other side of the argument. "Things aren't going to hell in a hand basket, but they aren't particularly good" is now "apologist for Bush"?

And that's "not personal"? On THIS board?

[Crachet2004]

50. The fact is, he is right and you are wrong-deal with it.

Unemployment figures are some of the most manipulated and abused government statistics out there...and we all know it.

Just by denying to renew the latest unemployment compensation extension, the Bush administration knocked 2/10% off the "official" unemployment rate. A cynical political move, and nothing more.

Nobody can tell what the real number is, due to obfuscatory record keeping...they don't want people to know! If you count all the "disgruntled" and "underemployed" (people working at lower levels than they have been trained for OR less than full time) then the number would probably top 20%. But no one can say for sure and there is no point arguing about it.

To say, as you have, there is no difference between the figures now and the figures during the same point in the Clinton administration, is an argument for the opposition...no matter what else you may say.

If I really, really, reallly strained, I might be able to think of something nice to say about Bush too...but I don't think this is the place.

[Frodo]

52. He really really takes good care of his hair.

There - I said something nice about bush.


Just by denying to renew the latest unemployment compensation extension, the Bush administration knocked 2/10% off the "official" unemployment rate. A cynical political move, and nothing more.

This is exactly the kind of misperception that I point out around here. And as soon as I point out that you are incorrect, someone else will say I'm "defending bush". The "fact" is that unemployment compensation does not IN ANY WAY effect the "official" unemployment rate. It DOES impact the "insured unemployed" rate, but NOBODY really reports that (currently at like 2.5% - is THAT a nuimber you've seen a lot of lately?)

If you count all the "disgruntled" and "underemployed" (people working at lower levels than they have been trained for OR less than full time) then the number would probably top 20%. But no one can say for sure and there is no point arguing about it.

You see, they DO count those people (though it's "discouraged"... if they counted "disgruntled" it would be in the 40s-50s). The "real" 9.7% figure that started this line of debate IS the "official" UE number including those people.


To say, as you have, there is no difference between the figures now and the figures during the same point in the Clinton administration, is an argument for the opposition

Ah yes! But it is also "fact", which kind of makes it difficult to spin as being "for" or "against" a political position. The number you are looking for (including discouraged and underemployed) IS virtually indistinguishable from the SAME number at this point in Clinton's first term.

My point is NOT that it means shrub has done a good job - it's that the argument CANNOT BE to just throw out a number and assume everyone will just realize "that's BAD". The discussion should focus on 1) Where was it when he started and what did he do with it? (the number itself is not the problem, it's how he got there) and 2) How much did it cost? (ok, you created a couple jobs in your last year... for HOW MANY BILLIONS??? Couldn't we just cut them a check?)

[Crachet2004]

57. Okay, Okay....

You can be our official unemployment number expert and nobody else gets to add anything to the discussion, as it would just be "spin", against, who, ourselves?

Put all that energy and those good arguments of yours in an e-mail and send it to the DNC. I promise they won't laugh.

But you do have one point, Bush has spent about a billion dollars for every job that HAS been created, but the exact cost calculation is probably better left to you...I might be a touch high...and nobody here would ever want to shortchange the Bush administration. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards of veracity, even though the numbers they give out have absolutely no bearing on what is really happening-and they have consistently lied about everything they put their mouths on.

I sure wouldn't want anyone to think that Bush was a worse job-creator than Clinton-no way. Can't have that. Huh-uh. zzzzzzzz

[Bluzmann57]

2. Well yeah it's good as compared with 10 pct.

but it's still unacceptably high. And those that are finding jobs are often woefully underpaid and have little if any insurance.

[htuttle]

3. Golly, if real unemployment were 5.6%, it wouldn't be half bad

Unfortunately for all of us, the U6 rate is about twice that -- near 11%.

[jimshoes]

4. As long as they report

these fantasy numbers of unemployed and no one calls them on it, they figure they can get away with doing nothing about the problem.

[CO Liberal]

5. Bush Popularity Below 50% is Also a Good Number

:-)

[saigon68]

54. No CHIMPANZEE McSHRUB in white house a =ZERO= a good Number

Priceless

[Betty]

6. Good number if you're not unemployed

compassion, my ass.

[radfringe]

7. some other good numbers

$7 trillion dollar debt
$477 billion dollar deficit
0 WMDs found
3 million jobs lost

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joeunderdog]

37. If Bush doesn't deserve responsibility for what happens on his watch,

then why take the job?

This "It was gonna happen anyway" crap is just flat-out denial. The complete reversal of fortunes between the Bushes and Clinton was--what?--magic or destiny. Why put anyone in the White House if their own job performance has no effect on the economy?

Is the best argument that it isn't Chimp's fault is that he is completely inconsequential? Lame.

Let's get a president who will take responsibility for the outcomes of his decisions, period.

[rfkrocks]

39. Right on!

Bush has managed to steal and plunder his way through his term-water under the bridge is really another way of sticking it to another generation to pay the debts-cheese also forgot to say that the most absurd policy in American History was pursued when billions of dollars were spent on a war which found "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" and taxes were cut at the same time. Plus Bush did not prepare for retiring boomers meaning he will steal from them ultimately-which is also immoral.
The obvious failure of Bush is the pathetic attempt to declare fast food service jobs as "manufacturing".
I hope Gopers remember President Eisenhowers warnng "a bankrupt nation is a defenseless nation."

[Wickerman]

8. Add all the numwits in the West Wing to the rolls

and that 5.6 would be a great number. Arrogant bastard.

[54anickel]

9. Umm, Think he and Greenspin need to sit and talk and get on the same

page. Of course, manufacturing should see a pick up if they actually reclassify burger building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/business/yourmoney/22view.html

snip>
The puzzle is the enormous divergence between the two surveys that are used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure job creation and unemployment. The payroll survey, which is based on a monthly poll of 400,000 employers, shows a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001. The household survey, based on questions posed to people in 50,000 households, shows an increase of more than 500,000 jobs over the same period.

If the payroll survey is correct, Mr. Bush is on track to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to complete a term in office with fewer jobs than when he started. If the household survey is correct, Mr. Bush can claim credit for creating jobs despite the blows of a recession, terrorist attacks and two wars.

snip>
Unfortunately for the optimists, the Federal Reserve has just thrown cold water on the household data. It concludes that the gloomy payroll data is essentially accurate and that the household survey is probably off base.

"I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate,'' Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, said in his testimony at a House hearing on Feb. 11. "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.''

more...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtml

snip>

"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" it asks.

Manufacturing is defined by the Census Bureau as work involving employees who are "engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products."

But, the president's report notes, even the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its definition "can be somewhat blurry," with bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors and tire retreading services considered manufacturing.

"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."

more...

[dw]

15. If they consider intaking oxygen and carbon-based foodstuffs...

... and producing carbon dioxide and excrement, then we're all in the manufacturing sector...

... which would make us all employed.

Another problem solved the Republican way: using obfuscatory semantics.

[chookie]

10. Like father, like son

His Chimperial Majesty has largely re-made himself as to not *look* like his Dad -- not a wimp, not a Yankee, not a humanist.

But he really has missed out on this one. George the First plummeted in public opinion due to his denial that many Americans were indeed hurting during the recession he created. He continually painted happy pictures of prosperity, as if to deny the actual experience. Americans turned on him because of his seeming indifference to their problems -- which reached a dramatic climax during the third debate when he looked at his watch.

Seems a bit odd that His CHimperial Majesty would miss something as big as this. I guess he thinks his lies and equivocation will work in the end -- or maybe he knows that The Fix is In.

[htuttle]

14. He's more afraid of blame...

...than anything else.

He's likely to appear even more out of touch than his dad at this rate.

[Robin Hood]

11. What would the number be if 150,000 national guards were home?

Nobody seems to take that into consideration.

[tritsofme]

13. Negligible due to the huge # of people in the workforce nt

[Thor_MN]

43. Hmm, seems to me that Jan job increases were reported

as less than that 150,000, much lower than 200-300 thousand that *'s administration dreamed up. Turn that Jan number into a goosegg and * can't claim ANY increase...

[0007]

22. The unemployment number would be higher for sure.

[Frodo]

23. Nonexistant.

And I doubt there are that many guardsmen over there. Surely the active dudty military sent somebody?

Anyhow, the percentage is workers divided by people in the employment pool. National Guard call-ups fall out of both the numerator and denominator and would have VERY little effect. The only change would be to what extent the people called up HAD jobs or not before deploying.

[Yavin4]

12. What About Your Tax Cuts, George?

Didn't you and your people promise us millions of new jobs when your tax cuts were passed last year? Can someone find a link to this? I recall that it was called Job Creation act or something like it.

[Cocoa]

20. the magnitude of the failure is staggering

as is the fact that he is now calling for his failed tax cuts to be made permanent.

http://www.jobwatch.org/creating/

<snip>

While campaigning for last year's tax bill, which had large long-term revenue losses favoring the wealthy, President Bush regularly claimed that the tax cuts would remedy the biggest problem facing the country: two years of job losses. Today's job numbers for January 2004 provide a benchmark for evaluating these promises.

The president specifically promised that the tax bill would generate an additional 510,000 jobs by the end of 2003, growth above and beyond the jobs that an economy in recovery would naturally generate. In fact, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) projected that, with no change in policy, the resilient U.S. economy would generate a baseline of 4.1 million jobs by the end of 2004, even without the tax cut. (That baseline 3% gain in jobs was modest compared to earlier recovery periods without tax cuts: job growth was 4% over a comparable period of time following the early 1990s recession.) The CEA explained that, on top of that baseline job growth, the tax bill would add 510,000 jobs by the end of 2003 and a total of 1.4 million more jobs by the end of 2004. All told, the Bush Administration projected growth of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004 if its tax cuts were adopted, or an average growth rate of 306,000 jobs a month from July 2003 to December 2004.

The January 2004 job gain of 112,000 is a staggering 194,000 jobs below the promised monthly increase. In fact, this is the first time job growth has reached even a third of the promised rate of 306,000 jobs a month since the tax cut was implemented in July 2003.

[DrDan]

16. I believe I have heard argued . . .

by "real" economists, that 4% is a good number.

I have never heard anything near 5.6% is good.

[pw]

19. It's a good number if you want to hold wages down

But I'm surprised he was stupid enough to think this would fly with state governors. Does he imagine they're as out of touch as he is?

[Lorien]

17. quote:

"The 5.6 percent unemployment (rate) is a good national number. It's not good enough, but it's a good number, particularly since what we've been through, which has been a recession and emergency and corporate scandal and war," the president told U.S. governors at a White House meeting.

Yes, a recession he and Cheney created in 2000 by constantly stating that we were headed for a recession, an emergency that he allowed to happen, corporate scandal that he participated in, and a war of aggression created for profit and supported only by his misadministrations lies. Way to go, Smirky McCokespoon! :grr: :grr: :grr:

[tritsofme]

25. How does a president create a recession in his first few months of office?

Its ignorant statements like these that get Democrats in trouble.

[Another Bill C.]

18. He's aiming for his daddy's

7.5%. He may even hit uncle Ronnie's 9.7% unless he institutes a draft and that will pull it down a little.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

[jburton]

21. rate this on yahoo

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20040223/pl_nm/bush_jobs_dc

[BeatleBoot]

26. Worst. President. Ever.

[truthbetold]

27. That number seems low....

Compared to ones I've heard.
Am I delusional?

[alcuno]

33. It's a percent and in itself, misleading.

First of all you have to ask yourself 5.6% of what? Second of all, it's a percent that does not include people who have been put off of unemployment or people who have stopped looking for work. It also does not count the people who want full-time employment and can't find it.

The reason that Americans think the job situation is quite serious is because their reality is not matching the WH happy talk.

[truthbetold]

41. Ah, gotcha.

Thanks for clarifying.

[rfkrocks]

30. Gotta love this clown-not!

5.6 percent unemployment is an amazingly good number considering Bush has practically destroyed the country with fiscal mismanagement-its amazing we still have running water in the usa-all be it arsenic laced. if we get another 4 years of this "uniter not divider" the country will look like the number 2 if you know what I mean.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rfkrocks]

32. new job

Cheese do you live in India?

[Yavin4]

38. You've Lost Two Years of Income And You're Happy?!?!

You're still a loser. You've lost two years of income only to be hired back at the exact same rate. You've gained nothing. Moreover, you're in a field that's disappearing every day. So, how long will it be until you're laid off again??

[Jim__]

40. Right George - 5.6% is a great number - n/t

[Barkley]

42. The unemployment rate is not 5.6% the 'swing states'

34 TENNESSEE 5.7
37 ALABAMA 5.8
37 COLORADO 5.8
37 LOUISIANA 5.8
40 OHIO 6.0
41 NORTH CAROLINA 6.1
41 SOUTH CAROLINA 6.1
43 NEW YORK 6.2
44 CALIFORNIA 6.4
44 ILLINOIS 6.4
44 TEXAS 6.4
47 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 6.6
48 WASHINGTON 6.8
49 MICHIGAN 7.2
49 OREGON 7.2
51 ALASKA 7.7

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

[flaminbats]

44. I understand that seven is God's number...

Of course the seventh day is the day of rest, does this also make the seventh trillionth dollar of borrowed taxpayer spending nonrefundable? :shrug:

[depakid]

45. The more he harps on this, the more out of touch he looks

Like father like son.

Bush and his minions can continue throw out all sorts of statistics and indices, but so long as none of them ring true- so long as they differ from what most people perceive is going on around them, it only serves to further erode his credibility.

I think most of us at DU know that the unemployment numbers- whoever compiles them- are suspect for one reason or another. Whether and to what extent they are underestimates is in some senses immaterial, because in addition to people who are actually out of work, there are people who are "constructively out of work" meaning that all they have now are part time or low paying jobs that won't sustain their current living arrangements.

Moreover, there are a quite a few more people who are apprehensive about losing their jobs to downsizing, outsourcing or other factors- and these people keep an eye on the employment market. They have a pretty good idea what is and isn't out there- or likely to be out there six months from now.

Bush, Snow, Mankiw can make all the rosy predictions and engage in all the number twisting that they want. It's not likely to persuade anyone who either has first hand experience or knows someone who does.

[74dodgedart]

48. How would he know, he's not a statistician

[calimary]

51. Time to start repeating "Let 'em EAT CAKE!"

We need to get that one out about 70 bajillion times.

So we can accurately reflect their high regard for the little guy.

[bearfan454]

53. This number counts the Military as employed

(Reagan changed that) and does NOT count people whose benefits have run out. They never approved extended benefits this last time.

[Frodo]

55. Link please?

The number doesn't count the military as "employed" OR "unemployed". It does not include and "institutional" individuals - that is, people in prison, in mental hospitals, or on active duty in the military (very like prison AND a mental hospital). And there is NO effect of whether you receive unemployment benefits or not.

[VeniceBeat]

56. Now I Know Why Bush* Didn't Let the Feds Extend My Unemployment Benefits

Gotta keep that percentage down.

And then there's also the redefining manufacturing strategy: Has anyone else seenhttp://www.house.gov/dingell/Manufacturing_letter_02-23-04.pdf"> the John Dingell response yet?

Hilarious!

(PDF link courtesy of Atrios)

[Crachet2004]

58. That's all it was, a cynical political trick...

to manipulate perceptions as to the true depth of unemployment...similar to a certain poster on this board. An unemployment extension would add to the official rate, bumping it from 5.6 to 5.8. And of course we can't have that! Oh no! This is an election year, so we better get our own memes out there on the message boards! They are pathetic. And transparent.

I heard on Scarborough last night the US House has passed a new extension. Love that Pelosi! The Senate has yet to take action, but as it is an election year, there is a good chance of something being done there as well...which at the very least would force a Bush veto...which at the very least, will make him look like the piece of uncaring shit he is.

And he is fully capable of vetoing it...don't think he isn't-his father did. And I think that is when America really began to see what the old man was like. I think it was one of the biggest reasons he lost. "Like father, like son. One term and they are done!"