Why does media ignore real job loss under Bush?

[papau]

Can the media compare the 23066000 new jobs under Clinton of which 273,000 were "pretend-work at home - not paying payroll tax yet), to the 1053000 jobs under Bush which includes 2689000 pretend!

Yes, Clinton too had pretend jobs in his total job increase – all of 273,000 new work at home not yet on the payroll tax jobs.

Those 273000 new pretend work at home not paying payroll taxes yet jobs were only 1.18% of the jobs growth under Clinton. But Bush ‘s pretend new jobs of 2689000 EXCEEDS his TOTAL new jobs of 1053000 since Jan 2001 – Bush has lost 1,646,000 jobs since Jan 1, 2001 without that adjustment.

I repeat, Without the 2689000 pretend jobs at home not paying payroll tax yet jobs (“pretend” means the “BIRTH DEATH adjustment” that is never checked or bench-marked to anything other than a curve fitting of "expectations"), BUSH HAS LOST 1,646,000 JOBS SINCE JAN 1 2001.

So it looks like Bush is still negative as to job growth - and people wonder why the folks are discouraged and leaving the work force in such numbers that the unemployment rate goes down.. And other folks wonder why our media says nothing other than repeating the Bush line that we are in an economic expansion (which is true but only part of the story).

Seasonally Adjusted Total nonfarmIndustry: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1992 108313 108242 108301 108457 108584 108640 108714 108851 108888 109061 109205 109418
1993 109725 109962 109916 110223 110496 110660 110960 111119 111359 111638 111901 112203
1994 112473 112665 113133 113490 113829 114139 114498 114801 115155 115361 115786 116056
1995 116377 116588 116808 116971 116962 117189 117260 117538 117777 117926 118070 118210
1996 118192 118627 118882 119047 119376 119647 119875 120078 120296 120534 120826 121003
1997 121232 121526 121843 122134 122396 122642 122918 122911 123417 123756 124063 124361
1998 124629 124814 124962 125240 125641 125846 125967 126322 126543 126735 127020 127364
1999 127477 127873 127997 128379 128593 128850 129145 129338 129525 129947 130242 130536
2000 130781 130901 131377 131662 131882 131839 132015 132004 132122 132110 132326 132484
2001 132454 132546 132511 132214 132187 132029 131941 131803 131549 131172 130879 130705
2002 130581 130478 130441 130335 130326 130377 130277 130295 130250 130309 130315 130161
2003 130247 130125 129907 129853 129827 129854 129857 129859 129953 130076 130172 130255
2004 130372 130466 130786 131123 131373 131479 131562 131750 131880 132162 132294 132449
2005 132573 132873 132995 133287 133391(p) 133537(p)
p : preliminary

2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total
225 204 181 -80 123 44 55 9 66

http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbdhst.htm

2005 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Total -280 100 179 257 207 184

January 2004 – December 2004 Preliminary Estimates
Total -321 115 153 270 195 182 -91 120 39 42 54 78 836

April 2003 – December 2003 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (Jan Feb Mar)
Total 128 192 164 -83 124 33 45 30 62 695

April 2002 – March 2003 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 45 176 156 -61 106 23 68 25 53 -391 119 151 470

April 2001 – March 2002 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 75 112 106 -13 53 10 -31 -23 3 -239 -4 42 91

April 2000 – March 2001 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 53 72 48 11 37 23 10 -5 -6 -133 31 52 193

April 1999 – March 2000 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Total 1 9 5 -6 9 4 4 6 9 -23 6 6 30

[acmejack]

1. Don't muddy the issue with facts!

We all know that is favorite liberal trick. Technical trivia does not aid the conduct of a rational discussion, we know the truth cause God told us through *!

[OneBlueSky]

2. the media ignores EVERYTHING negative about Bush . . .

and that encompasses pretty much everything he's done in the past 4-1/2 years . . . the corpororate media coverage of BushCo is largely feel-good fiction with little or no relationship to reality . . .

[papau]

3. I agree :-(

:-(

[Double T]

4. Because all of the numbers in the bush administration are "FIXED"!!!!

There is not one damn thing that is real or true in the bush administration!!!!!!

[jojo54]

5. They can make the numbers say whatever they want

The fact remains that most manufacturing jobs in this country have left for more sandy pastures. Then there's the IT jobs and customer service. Whatever way it's sliced, Bu*hco is taking us directly down the path of the Orwellian society, exactly where he wants us to be.

[papau]

6. Drop in UE rate due to long term UE's being dropped

Can media ignore DOL stat UE rate drop being due to long term UE's dropping out? How many ways can the media ignore DOL saying UE rate drop is due to long term UE's being dropped?


The DOL http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Friday, July 8, 2005 THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2005

"Nonfarm employment increased by 146,000 in June, and the unemployment rate continued to trend down, reaching 5.0 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today" is pushing stocks higher today and indeed the job growth on its face without analysis is good news - Employers added 146,000 jobs last month, and upward revisions to employment gains in April and May totaled 62,000, yielding an overall job increase of 208,000.

But even ignoring the effect of the pretend and never benchmarked "birth/death adjustment" in those job growth numbers, how does the media justify ignoring:

1. Over the past four months, the economy has added an average of 166,000 jobs per month while during the expansion of the 1990s, from 1993 through 1999, the economy added an average of 251,000 jobs each month.

2. Average weekly hours held steady at 33.7 hours per week in June, after falling from 33.8 in April.

3. When you drop long out of work folks from the calculation you get the share of unemployed workers who have been out of work and searching for a job for at least six months falling, from 20.1 to 17.8 percent, just like we did in this report. Indeed the average number of weeks that workers spend unemployed showing a large drop, from 18.8 to 17.1 weeks, is more proof that the DOL dropped the long unemployed out of their calculations

4. Meanwhile wage growth is less than inflation at 2.8% annualized rate of growth vs, inflation of 4.4%. Since when does this happen in a tightening labor market?

5. And the best summary of our "tightening labor market" - the labor force participation rate - fell by 0.1 percentage points last month.

Where the hell is our media?

[SemperEadem]

7. they ignore it because they've still got jobs.

they don't feel the pain, so why should they report on it? They're all getting paid.