Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Republicans Politics

Last Pre-Election Jobs Report Released 225

Posted by pudge from the mmmmm-fodder dept.
September's jobs report notes a gain of 96,000 jobs, and a downward revision for August from 144,000 to 128,000. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.4% (about even to Nixon's and Clinton's when they were reelected), while another 236,000 jobs were added in a periodic revision to the total, leaving Bush at a deficit of 585,000 jobs from where he started. If he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term, he will net positive job growth. The effects of the recent hurricanes were not possible to determine at this point, the report said. This will surely be featured prominently in tonight's second Presidential debate (starting at 9 p.m. Eastern).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Last Pre-Election Jobs Report Released More

Last Pre-Election Jobs Report Released

Comments Filter:
  • The most motivated people at the polls this election will be the ones without a job... As they should be.

    The rest of us with jobs will just decide our canidate based upon other issues.

    • Re:What motivates people (Score:4, Insightful)

      by b-baggins ( 610215 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:41AM (#10470093) Journal
      Don't count on it. The truly motivated people are already working.

  • Don't Worry... (Score:4, Funny)

    by cyranoVR ( 518628 ) * <`moc.liamg' `ta' `RVonaryc'> on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:18AM (#10469851) Homepage Journal
    ...all those unemployed folks are making up for it by selling beanie babies on eBay! Problem solved.

    /hey, Cheney said it, not me

    • ...all those unemployed folks are making up for it by selling beanie babies on eBay! Problem solved. /hey, Cheney said it, not me

      Funny, but sounds a bit dated.

      Also, your sig...

      BUSH '04 ^_^
      draft '05 o_0

      ... should be more like:

      Kerry '04 :-/
      Draft '05 :-O [littlegreenfootballs.com]

      (Though more likely it's Draft '(never) [slashdot.org])

      • Nice try, but I saw it on a t-shirt sold by sinful shirts [sinfulshirts.com]. Oops, it's not there anymore...oh well.

        As for Little Green Foozballs...no I don't visit white supremacist sites, thankyouverymuch.

        And BTW it's more like Bush '00, draft RIGHT NOW [military.com]

        /here come the OT downmods
      • Funny, but sounds a bit dated.

        Dated? Cheney made his Ebay comment on September 9, 2004, just under a month ago.

        For comparison, Gore's made his unfortunate "inventing the Internet" gaffe on March 9, 1999. I don't remember anyone saying that one was "dated" in 2000.

  • ...they said that the difference in what was expected and what the numbers actually are, could be attributed to the hurricanes in florida.

    though i expect construction jobs to really pick up there in the next few months.

  • Jobwatch.org (Score:2, Informative)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    More informative context is available here [jobwatch.org].

  • Before all you people start bashing Bush (Score:5, Informative)

    by Your_Mom ( 94238 ) <slashdot@@@innismir...net> on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:22AM (#10469900) Homepage
    Economists have predicted the economy will continue to get better despite who is elected.

    The entire economy problem can be traced back to the Dot-Coms. There is no 'quick fix' after a bubble bursts. If you don't have an economics degree, don't start spouting crap.
    • Moreso than the dotcoms was the bubble in telecom spending as corporations added networks at the same time many startups all began shooting for 10% of AT&T's commercial long distance network. No one stood back and said, hm 15 companies all targeting 10% of the commercial data haul market might be a problem, so investors kept funding them until their networks were completed. Greenspan's strategy of inflating another bubble (housing) as one pops has been interesting to say the least, if I weren't a playe
      • Greenspan's strategy of inflating another bubble (housing) as one pops has been interesting to say the least, if I weren't a player, this would be a very enjoyable situation to watch.

        I was very hard on greenspan in the late 90's and early 2k but I have to say that lately I have seen why he is Chairing the Fed and I am not. Hopefully other areas of the economy will recover before housing goes but I am already seenig it start to pop.

        My wife and were looking for a house but at almost 200K for anything half

    • The Dot-Com stuff hurt the stock market, but I think that the Y2K IT spending spree where most companies upgraded equipment a bit out of cycle and the subsequent drop in demand after January 1 started the recession. The attacks of 9/11 hurt the economy even more. It's amazing that those two events didn't spiral into a worldwide depression like what happened in the 1930's.
    • If bush doesn't deserve to be bashed, why did you predict it yourself?

      Oh, I see. You're entitled to your opinion, and to slander and bully anyone who doesn't share it. But people who disagree, they don't have a right to their opinion and must be wrong no matter what. It must be nice to live in a fantasy land.

      • If bush doesn't deserve to be bashed, why did you predict it yourself?

        It's not really a prediction at this point...nearly any newspaper you pick up, or any Democrat you listen to, openly blames Bush for the economy and job loss. It's partisan rhetoric, since there's very little effect presidential actions have on the economy until at least half way through their term. Their economic policies and budgets don't go into affect until almost a year after they're elected.

        That being said, this is the 13th con
        • >>nearly any newspaper you pick up, or any Democrat you listen to, openly blames Bush for the economy and job loss.

          That's funny, I haven't heard anyone openly blame bush, as in "Bush is the reason the economy is down". What I have heard is that the economy's performance is likely to be a major issue in the election, and that it reflects poorly on bush.

          As for partisan rhetoric, conservatives are blatantly, continuously partisan, crossing every line and redrawing a few to boot, while bashing liberals f

        • Halfway through Bush's term, I was still unemployed and IT jobs loss was continuing.

          It's still continuing today- only construction and retail have seen gains, and neither one of those pays as much as manufacturing or IT did.
    • Economic degrees are crap- and these job numbers are ignoring the 150,000/month increase in job search population because Bush told the DOL to ignore population increases way back in January 2001.
  • You can tell the policical slant of the editor by the way he posts the article. pudge paints the dissapointing news in the best possible light (read his journal for more of his slant) and the other editors go the other direction. Pudge's slant is much less inflammatory however.

  • He needs closer to 300K per month to break even... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:24AM (#10469914)
    ...leaving Bush at a deficit of 585,000 jobs from where he started. If he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term, he will net positive job growth.

    While 585,000 / 4 = ~150,000 that isn't the entire story. The economy needs to have about 150K jobs created per month just to keep up with population growth and the number of new people entering the job market(s). If Bush only averages 150,000 / month for the rest of the year he'll still end his first (and hopefully only) term with a net loss of over 1/2 million jobs. That would (will) make him the first President in 70 years to end a term with less jobs than when he started.

    To reduce his .5 million jobs deficit Bush needs to have closer to 300,000 jobs created in each of the next four months. That's a number he hasn't been able to achieve at any point of the last 3.66 years. I doubt he can do it now, as his plan for the economy was never anything that sitmulated job growth.

    • Fewer new jobs in September than in August. August corrected downward. Neither month kept up with population growth. A weak June and a weak July, which didn't keep up with population growth either. The last strong months for job creation [gopusa.com] were March, April, and May. Those were great months, but May is a long way back.

      We are entering the fourth quarter, and the last strong job growth was Q2. Looks like the recovery is fading to me. It probably has something to do with $50+/barrel oil.

  • Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:28AM (#10469958) Homepage
    "If he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term, he will net positive job growth."

    Uh, no. Since you need about 150,000 jobs added each month just to keep up with a growing population, if he averages 150,000 jobs for the last four months of his term he will merely tread water. At this point, there is absolutely no chance that Bush can avoid being the first president since Hoover in the Great Depression to have had fewer jobs at the end of his term than when he began. With a growing population, that ain't easy to do. Just keep up with the population growth and you will wind up with more jobs at the end of four years. Which is why through recession after recession over the last seventy years no other president has managed to pull off such a shoddy record on job growth.

    Naturally whatever the number is, it gets trumpeted by the incumbent. "96,000 new jobs were added last month! That shows my economic policies are working!" Garbage. It shows that the job market is going backward, not even keeping up with equilibrium.

    • That is assuming of course that all things are equal. That the proportion of working age adults to children/elderly the country entering the country is the same as the existing percentage..
  • I think when there is peace, business flourishes because people then start looking towards more than the bare necessities of life. Only if you are comfortable will you start looking for that funky feature on your mobile, or that vacation that you were looking forward to.

    War is a good stimulant as it pulls more out of people for a brief time, and it jump starts the war-industry establishment. But, over a long period of time, like line after line of coke, it starts doing damage. There is nothing really prof


    • exactly.

      Also, the number of working age people increases by a million a year, bush is -4.5 million jobs by any fair reckoning. Everyone else manages to create jobs, through world wars, cold wars, whatever. Only bush failed in the last 70 years, it is his fault. In addition, look at the budget deficit, notice that it always goes down (as a percentage of GDP) during democratic presidencies (since carter at least), and up during republicans, it's not an accident. The jobs record of bush would be even worse i

  • Why are jobs a Presidential issue? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @10:31AM (#10469994) Homepage Journal
    I know, realistically they just are. People expect the President to "handle the economy".

    But it's stupid. The President has no control over the unemployment rate. All he can do is ask Congress to lower taxes or let them raise taxes. Maybe he can give a speech.

    The rest is cyclical. From where I'm sitting the economy is doing fine, even though the government still takes too much money out of it.

    If I lost my job, I wouldn't blame the President, I'd blame the bum in the mirror.
    • Lets see, what can goverment do. How about things like you mentioned various taxes. Not just the basic tax but how about extras like extra tax on companies outsourcing and tax cuts for companies that get jobs into the country involved.

      Things like extra tariffs on certain products. Working with foreign goverments on trade deals. Investing in education to make certain that the companies still employing in your country can actually hire the people they need. Investing in healthcare so people can be cured fast

    • If I lost my job I'd blame the president. Who's fault is it that the barrel shot up to 52$?

      Petrol prices aside, he's also lowering taxes the wrong way. It's all about who you lower the taxes for. Someone really rich who already owns everything he needs getting a 20000$ tax reduction won't be spending that tax reduction. He'll put it in his caymen island account or something. However 100 lower to middle class people getting a 200$ tax break will use the tax break to get the urging things in their life

      • Re:Why are jobs a Presidential issue? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Matrix272 ( 581458 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @11:12AM (#10470540)
        If I lost my job I'd blame the president. Who's fault is it that the barrel shot up to 52$?

        The Chinese. They're buying more of it than ever before.

        Petrol prices aside, he's also lowering taxes the wrong way.

        It makes a lot more sense if you look at it as percentages of income, not as raw dollars. For instance, if I make $200,000 a year and get a $2000 tax rebate, that's only 1%. If you make $5,000 and get a $200 tax rebate, that's 4%. Suddenly it doesn't look like the rich are getting all the money back, does it?

        Of course, some real numbers are worth taking a look at. Bush only cut the Federal Income tax, which is the only part we're concerning ourselves for the purposes of this discussion. Did you know that the top 1% of the country makes 17.53% of the money in the country, but pays 33.89% of the Federal Income tax? (Note: To be in the top 1%, you must make more than $293,000 or so.) The top 50% of the country makes 86.19% of the money, but pays 96.03% of the Federal Income taxes. What are the bottom 50% of the population doing, if they're not reporting their income and paying tax on it?
        • Bush still didn't do what I wanted to see, completely eliminate payroll taxes and use the income tax to fund it.

          If you graph salary v. % of income spent on taxes, it's really low as you approach that middle 50% but as you get up to the top 25% it goes up (no surprise here).

          What is surprising is that as you go lower the federal taxes as a percent of income go up as well. Much of this can be attributed to payroll taxes. I'd like to see that problem get fixed; it's not fair no matter how you cut it.

          • Bush still didn't do what I wanted to see, completely eliminate payroll taxes and use the income tax to fund it.

            What? you have to be kidding, I was under the impression that payroll taxes cover things like Social security. Social security is supposed to work like this: you put something in you get something out. My SS benefit will be the exact same as someone who makes half of what I do, to you this is not fair? No instead we should more focus on income re-distribution.

            If you graph salary v. % of incom

            • My SS benefit will be the exact same as someone who makes half of what I do, to you this is not fair?

              I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but here goes: Social Security and unemployment benefits are giant horribly run pyramid schemes that have no place in America. Medicare and Medicade (also financed through payroll taxes) as poorly run as they are do have some societal benefits (not that there arn't other ways to get them), but, like publicly funded schooling, are technically a form of wealth

              • Social Security and unemployment benefits are giant horribly run pyramid schemes that have no place in America.

                Than do away with is all together dont shift the cost into income tax

                Reguardless on where you stand on any of this, it is unfair for someone who is poor to spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes then someone in the middle class.

                Except SS is not a tax like income is a tax. The government can do whatever it wants with income taxes, SS is marked for a retirement fund in which I will

                • Than do away with is all together dont shift the cost into income tax

                  That's what I'd like to see, but I'm realistic, that's not happening anytime soon.

                  SS is not a tax

                  A Tax is (according to Mirriam-Webster) "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons for public purposes". Social Security is supposedly for the public good and it's certainly a public program. By that definition, it's definately a tax; especially after you consider that even the poorest Americans get out less then they pu

                  • "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons for public purposes"

                    Note that social security is not for public purposes it provides no service for the general public, I pay money in that I will get out.. So no by that definition it is most definatly not a tax.

                    My point is that Bush wanted to cut taxes across the board so he opened up a new low 10% bracket, and reduced the percentage of federal revenue comming from the middle class (by increasing the percentage of federal revenue comming in fr

        • could the barrel prices have something to do with invading some oil-rich country? Of course you can kid yourself that the daily explosions in Bagdad have nothing to do with oil prices rising but then again lots believed Bush and Co when they said that Iraq had WMDs and were tied to Al Quaeda.

          Now my assertion was that trickle up economy is what works, not trickle down. Lowering taxes for the rich only make rich people richer. Poorer people are the ones who spend their tax credits not the rich people.

      • Someone really rich who already owns everything he needs getting a 20000$ tax reduction won't be spending that tax reduction.

        Most likely they will buy stock, or invest. Rich people dont throw money in their matress they invest it which create puts the tax cut money right back into the economy.

        However 100 lower to middle class people getting a 200$ tax break will use the tax break to get the urging things in their life, like changing that timing belt or fixing the crack in the foundation. Heck I know I c

    • Unless that President is John Kerry - they've got enough personal wealth to hire enough people to affect the unemployment rate :)
    • The President has no control over the unemployment rate. All he can do is ask Congress to lower taxes or let them raise taxes. Maybe he can give a speech.

      My oh my. I guess the President doesn't also do things like sign subsidies and tariffs and such. What about the budget?

      The President asks for specific taxes and his budget spends that money in specific ways. Both of those affect the job situation.

      I should remind you of what Ross said about a giant sucking sound if NAFTA was approved.
  • I'm leaning toward voting Bush, but I have heard Kerry and others attack Bush for "mismanaging the economy". It seems to me that none of this is really Bush's fault, the tech bubble was bound to colapse and actually began to fall apart in April 2000 when the Nasdaq tanked. And also that 9/11 thing.

    Bush's deficit spending on defense has created jobs (at the expense of accumulated debt of course). But I'm surious to hear what you anti-Bush people think. Specifically, what has Bush done to mismanage the econo

    • Re:question for anti-Bush people (Score:5, Informative)

      by ObligatoryUserName ( 126027 ) on Friday October 08, 2004 @11:43AM (#10470975) Journal
      The basic theory of how Bush is ruining the economy is that the budget deficits & the growing international disdain for America (generated by the President) are deflating the economy by discouraging international investment in America. You might not think that international investment is very important to the American economy, but you just have to consider the trade deficit to know that it is. Afer all, by definition the trade deficit means that there is net a outflow of money in the form of direct commerce. If the trade deficit alone defined the financial landscape, America would spend itself into oblivion.

      Fortunatly, that is not the case, foreign investment in the United States takes many forms (not just the purchase of American hard assets, but also of American securities, and currency), and often more than offsets the trade imbalance. One of the better theories on the 90's boom was that a weak international economy (compared to the US) + international respect for the only remaining Superpower + Clinton's fiscal responsibility all mixed together to create a bonanza of investment (so much, that we ended up with a crisis of bad investments, but that's another story).

      That this flow of foreign money has been greatly reduced is, no doubt related to 9/11, but many would argue that the reduction is because of how we reacted, not because of the event itself. Our response was the beginning of an internatational disillusionment that continues to this day. The high rate of exchange between the Euro and the Dollar is a quick way to see the effect. The exchange is where it's at because of the balance of people who would rather hold their investments in the Euro vs people who want to hold their investments in dollars. There's even some evidence that Bush is actually directly pushing for this imbalance because he mistakenly believes that manufacturing is the core of the economy and is trying to boost that sector. To many, it would just be another example of how he's out of touch with reality. Anyway, I'm Am Not An Economist, but I am a Democrat, so take my analysis with the usual grain of salt.

    • The Washington Post had an interesting article today. Here it is [washingtonpost.com]. It's basically a critique of Bush's tax cuts.

      It all boils down to this: Bush wanted lower taxes. He lowered all the brackets that were in effect in 2000 and added a 10% bracket (details and comparisons can be found here [moneychimp.com]). This ends up 'costing' the nation money, because the revenue that would have come from the additional taxes isn't going to be there. Whenever you see 'Bush's tax cut cost $X.YZ billion over 10 years', that's what it me
    • And no sooner do I finish my post when this comes across SharpReader: Framing the Economic Debate [heritage.org].

      Complete with pretty pictures :)

      --trb
  • It was a few sundays ago, that the local newspaper had an article saying that the middle class was only disappearing because they were all becoming upper class. Complete with numbers, too. Numbers to the effect that 50% of us were in the $70,000 a year bracket. (well, close... can't remember, but was over 40%, 44%ish). I was flabbergasted. At age 30, I've only grossed over $30,000 a year twice.

    I have no clue what the real numbers are for any of this. But they aren't anything like what is published as trut
  • Something nags me throughout this whole discussion: Of what effect does the economy, the president, and any other external factor have on whether or not you have a job?

    There are two ways to view the world: I am a captain of my fate, or I am a robot with its fate predetermined by people I don't even know (God, the President, or some secret Jewish conspiracy).

    I know which philosophy I adhere to. That's why when the dot com bubble burst, and I found myself on the streets with a new child and without cash, I went to find a job and eventually found a well-paying one, albeit not in the industry. Now I am back working at a major dot com and I am enjoying life.

    I can't imagine what drives people to make themselves slaves to someone else's will. How does the president create or destroy job? Has he ever interviewed for you? Has he hired you? Does he write secret messages to your potential employer "Hey, don't hire this guy. We don't want the economy to grow right now." Of course not.

    And the economy dictating your lifestyle? That's silly. I think of the economy as the weather. Sure, I won't sow wheat in the fall, but then again, I wouldn't sow in the summer either. The economy has its cycles, and rather than wake up every morning and look out the window to see which way the economic winds are blowing, how about you learn a bit on the subject and figure out which way the winds will blow tomorrow so you are ready for it? It really isn't that complicated of a subject. All you need to understand is what Adam Smith wrote down in the "Wealth of Nations" and then how to identify the conditions he described in today's environment.

    I totally support Bush. But if Kerry gets elected, or even Nader, or even Stalin for instance, it won't effect my fate. I am a captain of my fate. I don't let others dictate which way I go.

    I think that is a major difference between Bush and Kerry supporters. I am hiring Bush for a job. He is going to go take care of the terrorist problem so that I don't have to worry about that so much. Kerry supporters are looking to Kerry as a savior. Kerry is supposed to correct all of life's ills and prescribes a panacea to the old, sick, young, and uneducated. They want to put Kerry in charge, but I want to hire Bush to do a job. That's a big difference in perspective.

    • Re:Free Will and the Economy and the President (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I am hiring Bush for a job. He is going to go take care of the terrorist problem
      so that I don't have to worry about that so much.
      The President has had nearly a term in office since the Sept. 11th outrage.
      If you think the degree to which he has removed the
      terrorist problem is acceptable then you should vote
      for him.
      If, however, you believe that during his term he
      should have been able to utterly destroy Al Quida
      then I'd like to suggest an alternative [johnkerry.com]
      Al Quida is still in existence.
      Q.E.D.
  • How is unemployment calculated? I am unemployed, as are most of my close friends. Are we included in the statistics? If so, seeing as I dont regularly tell anyone I am unemployed, how?
  • From the actual report [bls.gov]:

    "Total employment was about unchanged in September at 139.5 million, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was little changed at 62.3 percent. Over the month, the civilian labor force was essentially unchanged at 147.5 million. The labor force participation rate was 65.9 percent in September and has been at or near that level since late last year. (See table A-1.)"

    Bush and his apologists can spin these numbers any way th
    • > "when Clinton was reelected" in 1996: jobs were falling off the trees

      Not quite.

      Actually I was doing quite a bit of hiring in 1996 and jobs were not falling off trees. In silicon valley I could find a LOT of VERY qualified applicants in 1996.

      It didn't get difficult until 98 or so. And then the CISCO's etc. of the world were snatching up anyone who even knew how to do simple math.

      From 1998 to 2000 I was seeing applicant's resumes who had no business doing anything but retail. And then I'm not su
  • How much of the job losses were from the dotBOMB crap? Talk about a much needed event. I'm glad the investors lost their money, but I wish it hadn't hit so many every day folk.

    Damien
  • if you look at the numbers, the jobs that have been added recently have come largely from government and healthcare, there is no way that either of those groups can sustain growing employment for that much longer. Government because there is that wacky thing calld the deficit that W. seems to think is his score on pac-man, just gobble it all up, and healthcare because economies cannot sustain having huge amounts of the GDP eaten up by healthcare.
    In many ways things like healthcare and gas prices are exa

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Close