Look for fast and furious spinning in this Friday's job report...

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

"Economists expect Friday's January jobs report to show a gain of 180,000 in payrolls versus December's gain of 1,000. The unemployment rate is expected to hold steady at 5.7 percent."

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/markets/sun_lookahead/index.htm?cnn=yes

This article is a good overview of the events coming up this week. If that 180,000 number gets published expect a truly major "the economy has recovered, the tax cuts are working, we have to make them permanent" spin. Expect more "I will cut the deficit in half in five years" bravado.

Quote:

"It's critical that the labor market start to show unambiguous signs of strength," said Deutsche Asset Management Americas chief economist Josh Feinman. "It's a necessary condition for the recovery to be on a self-sustaining path."

...it's safe to assume that the Bush administration and its various offshoots, toadies and lackeys will paint a picture of 180,000 new jobs as an "unambiguous sign of strength."

[mhr]

1. "When You Spin Shit, You Still Have Shit"

That's an old Texas saying.

Quite apropos for the pResident.

All he's good for is spinning shit!

[alfredo]

2. Arethese jobs in the US or are they jobs created by US companies

overseas.

[Maeve]

3. One thing to remember

The economy needs approximately 150,000 jobs added every month just to stay even. Since we're 2.4-3.0 million jobs in the hole since Dubya took office, 180,000 is barely adequate.

[TahitiNut]

10. Here's the graph ...

[SheilaT]

4. Isn't January

always a month in which the number of jobs is down? Normally there's quite a bit of Christmas hiring, jobs which are of course temporary. Which is what makes the 1,000 jobs this past December so amazing. Amazing in that so few were created.

Instead, the report should say that another couple of hundred thousand jobs were lost. Perhaps we'll need to read the fine print very carefully, because no doubt in every month there are brand new jobs somewhere, but the lost jobs will far outweigh the created ones.

[nostamj]

6. but there was little Xmas hiring this year

existing workers just had to work harder for less.

if they REALLY were 180,000 created, what is the # on jobs lost? there seem to be multi-stories of plant closings, downsizing and, of course, out-sourcing every day.

if 200,000 were lost while 180,00 were created, that's continued job loss.

the RWs can't be allowed to tout one number w/o the other

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

8. Expect at least one interview with Don Evans...

...and this is what he had to say on January 11th:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/11/elec04.prez.bush.economy/index.html

Sample quote:

"The tax relief the president has given to this economy is working," Commerce Secretary Don Evans told CNN's "Late Edition." "On three separate occasions over the last three years, he's provided additional tax relief for American workers, American families, businesses across America, and guess what? It's working. The results are showing that it's working."

...and this was directly on the heels of the "1000 Jobs" report.

John Snow will be the other one to watch. A quote from the same article:

"However, Treasury Secretary John Snow predicted that hiring will pick up in 2004.

"All the evidence points in that direction," Snow told ABC's "This Week." "And everything we know about economics indicates that, as you get an economy into high gear, as you get a strong recovery under way, it does translate into jobs."

That 180,000 number...regardless of the facts behind it and the offset of jobs lost...will be presented as Snow's "evidence."

Both gentlemen could save themselves some time in the week ahead by simply cutting and pasting from the CNN article...just like I did.

[Lindsay]

5. Employment numbers are cooked so much

that whatever we finally read/hear is a cinder.

They will announce whatever the heck they think will do the gang that can't admini-straight the most good...then sneak in a correction the next week.

A pox on all of them!

[darkstar]

7. And wasn't 180,000

the same number predicted in December?

Possibly not, but seems to be my mushy memory of things. It was a whole month, ago after all....

[JanMichael]

9. I believe it was. Remember we need to "create" some 150k jobs...

...a month to to keep even. So 180k, if they magically reported it, isn't that big of a deal considering that they're probably 3 million or more in the hole.

If an individual used their math they'd be living on the street within a month.