Politics, Jobs etc.…2005 December- 160K +4.9% UE=” Anemic Jobs Recovery”

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Trajan, Aug 3, 2012.

  1. Trajan

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Jun 17, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Monthly Unemployment reports always bring out the angst or the jubilation depending naturally on which side of the fence you sit....even if you sit on the fence, its plain; the benchmark(s) for performance and being held up for castigation and/or critique has been set..........

    Just to keep things in perspective. This article was published in Jan. 2006 after a December 2005 jobs report of 160K and an Unemployment rate of 4.9.%........

    W could paper this forum with alike articles as well, I think you get the picture though.

    Jan. 2006
    ( Dec. 160K +4.9% U Unemployment rate = 4.9%)

    Anemic Jobs Recovery

    Responding to yesterday's government report showing paltry job creation in December, Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Americans not to overreact to one month's snapshot, but to focus on the bigger picture. But that picture is not so pretty.
    In 2005, the economy added about 2 million jobs. At this point in the last recovery, the yearly job-gain total was 3.5 million.


    A smattering of looks at the prevalent media attitudes for election season 2004…..

    October 2004

    (sept. 2004 jobs+ 161K, Unemployment Rate = 5.4%)

    Last Job Count Before Election: Always a Political Number

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - It's official. President Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to face re-election with fewer people working than when he started.
    No president may have more than an indirect influence on unemployment, and Mr. Bush had the bad luck to take office in January 2001, just before the economy was about to slide into a recession.

    Still, despite the stimulus from three rounds of tax cuts, a spectacular expansion of the federal budget deficit and enormous assistance from the Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates 13 times, the nation has at least 585,000 fewer jobs now than when Mr. Bush took office.

    On Friday, as the Labor Department issued its last update on job creation before the elections, the Bush campaign aggressively defended its record in a barrage of interviews and in a new television advertisement, declaring that the nation has added "nearly two million jobs'' since August 2003.


    August 2004

    (July 2004 jobs+ 81K, Unemployment Rate = 5.4%)

    Spin the Payrolls

    When Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, "Kerry, Kerry." But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques.

    First, they talk about recent increases in the number of jobs, not the fact that payroll employment is still far below its previous peak, and even further below anything one could call full employment. Because job growth has finally turned positive, some economists (who probably know better) claim that prosperity has returned - and some partisans have even claimed that we have the best economy in 20 years.

    Op-Ed Columnist - Spin the Payrolls - NYTimes.com

    March 2004

    (Feb 2004 jobs+ 162K, Unemployment. Rate = 5.6%)

    this one speaks to the divergence of the labor participation rate etc.

    No More Excuses on Jobs

    As job growth continues to elude the U.S. economy, we're hearing two main excuses from the Bush administration and its supporters: that the real situation is much better than you're hearing, and that to the extent employment is lagging, it's the result of factors outside the administration's control. But after three years of extravagant promises and dismal results, the time for excuses has passed.
    It's true that there are two employment surveys, which have been diverging lately. The establishment survey, which asks businesses how many workers they employ, says that 2.4 million jobs have vanished in the last three years. The household survey, which asks individuals whether they have jobs, says that employment has actually risen by 450,000. The administration's supporters, understandably, prefer the second number.

    No More Excuses on Jobs - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

    August 2004-

    (July 2004 jobs+ 81K, Unemployment Rate = 5.4%)

    Tax Cuts Become A Juicier Target

    For President Bush, tax cuts have been an all-purpose elixir, a cure for budget surpluses and a bursting stock bubble, for terrorist attacks and boardroom scandals, for the march to war and a jobless recovery in peacetime.

    Now, after three successive tax cuts, and after a record budget surplus has turned to a record deficit, the president faces an unenviable choice. He can either concede that his $1.7 trillion tonic has not worked as advertised, or he can insist that the economy is strong despite the slowdown in growth and job creation.

    Last week's news of stagnant job creation has revived the debate over the effectiveness of the tax cuts, the centerpiece of Bush's domestic program. Economists of all political stripes say the tax cuts did jump-start the economy, which was in recession from March to November 2001. But to many, that kick is starting to look more like a sugar high than a cure for the economy's underlying weaknesses.

    Tax Cuts Become A Juicier Target (washingtonpost.com)

    October 2004.

    (sept. 2004 jobs+ 161K, Unemployment Rate = 5.4%)

    What economic recovery?

    The latest job figures show that Bush has bungled the economy as badly as he has Iraq.

    {But the news does not merely confirm that grim narrative about Bush’s presidential term. It also points to an ongoing reality. It’s not just that job growth has been miserable in the past four years. It’s that it continues to be miserable right now and has actually gotten worse since the spring. Job creation since June is 150,000 short of the minimum required to keep up with population growth. This isn’t a “jobless recovery.” It’s jobless, yes. But is it a recovery?}

    What economic recovery? - Salon.com

Share This Page