Bush cuts job growth forecast from 300,000 per month to175,000-media says?

[papau]

Bush cuts job growth forecast from 300,000 per month to 175,000-media says ?????

Seems that in December 2004 the Bush administration's Council of Economic Advisers cut its forecast for job growth this year to 175,000 jobs a month from its forecast last year of 300,000 new jobs a month (granted that job growth last year ended up at about 180,000 a month).

DID ANYONE HEAR THIS IN THE MEDIA?

Meanwhile the DOL reports that labor market's "participation rate"- the portion of working folks with a job or looking for one- slid last month to its lowest level since 1988, with the number of "discouraged" workers- people who quit looking because they couldn't find jobs- having jumped 20 percent from January 2004 to last month.

DID ANYONE SEE THIS IN THE MEDIA?

[Lindacooks]

1. Amazing. Just amazing.

Do you have a link? Howard Dean needs to see this.

[papau]

2. CEA and DOL are dot Gov sites - so the info is there

I did not save the links

[EVDebs]

3. Lemme git this straight ....that's less than a 2% growth rate

if the current 290 million Americans is figured...290 million x .02 = 5,800,000 / 12 = 483,333 per month.

So we're looking at population growth of under 1% per year ?
"The U.S. population growth rate is slowing.
Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the population, the rate of population growth, referred to as the average annual percent change,1 is projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10 between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the United States would grow more slowly than ever before in its history"
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

If GDP is at 3 to 4% but population growth is way way down, what's happening here ?

[papau]

4. I'm afraid I do not understand the question - The Gov does state that

GDP Growth runs at 3 to 4% per year and there are population projections put out by the gov that show about a 1% increase changing to 0.5% increase over time. If the rich can screw the benefits of the GDP growth as per the direction Bush wants - then they will get extremely wealthy.


http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.txt

(NP-T1) Annual Projections of the Total Resident Population as of July 1:
Middle, Lowest, Highest, and Zero International Migration Series,
1999 to 2100.

Source: (1) Population Estimates Program, Population Division,
U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. 20233
(2) Population Projections Program, Population Division,
U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. 20233
Contact: Statistical Information Staff, Population Division,
U.S. Census Bureau, [phone] by telephone,
[e-mail] by e-mail (please include telephone number).

Internet Release Date: January 13, 2000
Revised Date: February 14, 2000

(Numbers in thousands. Consistent with the 1990 estimates base.)


Projected Population Zero
International
Year Middle Lowest Highest
2003 282,798 280,624 285,422 278,112
2004 285,266 282,352 288,841 279,493
2005 287,716 284,000 292,339 280,859
2006 290,153 285,581 295,911 282,219
2007 292,583 287,106 299,557 283,579
2008 295,009 288,583 303,274 284,945
2009 297,436 290,018 307,060 286,322
2010 299,862 291,413 310,910 287,710
2030 351,070 311,656 409,604 313,219
2031 353,749 312,204 415,839 314,153
2032 356,411 312,692 422,154 315,049
2050 403,687 313,546 552,757 327,641
2051 406,396 313,296 561,106 328,291
2052 409,127 313,030 569,589 328,949
2053 411,884 312,752 578,211 329,617
2080 497,830 300,747 873,794 354,471
2081 501,341 300,029 887,263 355,574
2082 504,866 299,286 900,922 356,681
2099 567,153 283,758 1,164,842 376,243
2100 570,954 282,706 1,182,390 377,444


Note: For a description of the methodology and assumptions see the
corresponding menu item, "Methodology and Assumptions for the Population
Projections of the United States: 1999 to 2100, Working Paper #38."

[EVDebs]

5. Both jobs growth and wage growth are stagnant....the rich are doing well

though.

Jobs Byte by Dean Baker of CEPR
http://www.cepr.net/Bytes/jobs_byte_2005_01.htm

"The establishment survey showed the economy generated 157,000 jobs in December. This figure is just fast enough to keep pace with the natural growth of the labor market. This rate of job growth will not reduce the number of unemployed or tap the pool of workers who have dropped out of the labor market altogether. Even more discouraging, there are several items in this report that point to slower job growth in the future, suggesting that unemployment may actually start to head up again.

At the top of this list is wage growth. Wage growth had fallen behind inflation in early 2003, but there had been some evidence of a pick-up in wage growth over the summer. Recent data show wage growth to be slowing again, with the annual rate of increase over the last quarter being just 2.3 percent, compared to 2.7 percent over the last year. Both figures are well below the 3.5 percent rate of inflation over the last year. As is typical of a weak labor market, those at the bottom seem to be doing worst. Over the last year, wages in the retail trade and the leisure sectors have risen by 2.3 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively.

The other items in this report suggesting further weakening in the future are the decline in the employment diffusion indexes and the weak growth in jobs in the temp sector. The employment diffusion indexes, which report the percentage of industries in which employers plan to add workers over various time frames, all showed substantial declines. This was most notable with the manufacturing indexes, with the 3-month diffusion index now showing a reading of just 42.3. This is the lowest since last December and a drop from 71.4 in May.""

[papau]

6. true :-(

:-(