Where are all of the new jobs coming from?

[madmunchie]

I have heard this referred to by some of the rw wackjobs and I would like to know what they are talking about, specifically.

The economy as well, I have heard that the economy is doing well and that Bush isn't getting any credit for it. How could this be when we have a massive deficeit and social programs are being cut left and right?

Could anybody explain this to me so that I could have an answer just in case someone says something to me about this?

[Poiuyt]

1. Welcome to WalMart!

[Donkeykick]

3. That or our younger folks can ...

join the armed forces and build a career.:sarcasm: :eyes:

[stevedeshazer]

2. I have a new job

I drive a delivery truck. It pays about 40% of what I made in my previous job as a call center supervisor. The economy is just great!

[mdmc]

4. I would be glad to answer

I will use an example.
A company has 5 sales people. They belong to a union, and have a pension. They are salaried. Each earns 20,000, plus commission.
The company fires 4 sales people, and hires 12 part time "sales assistants". They have no union, no pension, no benefits. They work for minimum wage, plus commission.
The same work is being performed, by more people, at a lower salary.

In manufacturing, this idea is easier to see.
A shoe plant in Maine employs 200 laborers to make shoes. If the company has the shoes made in China, they can fire the 200 manufacturers and hire additional people to transport, market, and sell their shoes. Since they can manufacture more shoes, they will hire more people to transport, market, and sell the shoes. They make more, sell more, and hire more.

These new jobs are lower paying replacement of the jobs that are lost.

[madmunchie]

6. Is that the key, numbers that are being used can also be

part time workers to? I know that wages are being attacked and full time workers are doing the work of what 2 or 3 workers used to do, but part time people are in the numbers to?

[mdmc]

8. in NYS someone that works 40 hours can be considered part time

so, yes, absolutely.

[elfin]

5. I wonder how many are defense related

Is the war propping up the jobs data? My guess is yes.

[rman]

7. In China and India. nt

[mdmc]

9. your argument should be about the quality of life, not about job

creation.

How much are people earning and saving? How much are people working. When someone loses a high paying job and accepts employment in two low paying jobs, the quality of life suffers.

[izzybeans]

10. All you need by way of explanation is to ask the person telling you

this how they define the variable "job". What does it take to be counted as new? And of course what is the average wage of these new jobs and how does this average compare/deviate from "old" jobs?

[spindrifter]

11. Are they actually counting the overseas outsourced jobs if

the employer is an American company--as in we have created 40 call center jobs but they aren't in the U.S.?

[tritsofme]

13. No.

You read about the Current Establishment Survey, which calculates job creation here:
http://www.bls.gov/ces/

[AndyTiedye]

12. The NSA Must Employ A Lot More People Now…

[etherealtruth]

14. I can't help but ask ...

"What 'new' jobs?"


Does anyone have actual statistics r/t net jobs created? If the country loses 2 million jobs but, 1000 jobs are created are we to accept the notion that 1000 jobs were created, or that we are 199,000 jobs "in the hole"?

[madmunchie]

15. Great point! I didn't look at it that way

What is the "net" job number and where can I find that?

[leftofthedial]

16. businesses start (and fail) and expand (and contract) continuously

so there are always "new jobs." Unfortunately, there also are lost jobs.

Two big, unreported problems with the bush crime gang's economic numbers regarding jobs are:

1. Most (>95%) of the jobs being created are much lower-paying jobs than those being lost. Therefore we are seeing a steady decline in median wage and an increasing number of middle class families "falling out the bottom" as their lost wages drop them into poverty. Also many of the "new jobs" offer no benefits or reduced benefits compared to the lost jobs.

2. Almost all the significant reported job gains in the past five years are not actual jobs, but are mathematical estimates based on the number of jobs lost in the recent past. The formulas they use are based on historical trends from back when the economy was actually healthy instead of being almost entirely fueled by the phony anomaly of artificially low interest rates driving massive early withdrawal of home equity. (THAT's a scary bursting bubble.) For example, let's say in January, 200,000 jobs are lost. The formulas would predict that in February 150,000 jobs would be added and in March another 25,000 jobs would be added. Again, these are not actual jobs, these are a number predicted by a questionable formula. When you stretch this out over time and factor in the number of people who drop off the radar because there simply are no jobs for them (tens of millions now since the coup of 2000), this begins to look like job growth. Economic reporting in the current administration is nearly pure propaganda.

The chocolate ration has been increased!

Nonpartisan groups of independent economists examining employment measure current real unemployment to be much higher than reported by the bush crime gang's office of economic propaganda. Estimates I've seen range between 9.5% and 22%.

I have articles about this stored on a hard drive at home. Unfortunately, I won't be home for another two weeks to retrieve links. The above is this layperson's recounting of several of these expert technical studies of economic statistics and employment trends.

Maybe some other kind DUers will post links to soem of this information, much of which has been discussed here.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

18. old article from 2 years ago, but it explains the magic math pretty well

snip>
The Bureau of Labor Statistical Magic

First, some would argue that we should not be whining about unemployment. It is, after all, only 5.6%, which is historically not all that high. But current headline Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates are not the whole story. The magic of statistics is that if you get to define the terms, you can make the numbers say what you want them to say.

No great conspiracy here, but the unemployment numbers are developed in such a way that unemployment is understated. If there was some conspiracy, we would not be able to look at the detailed way in which the numbers are developed. The fact that most commentators do not look beyond the headline number is not a conspiracy. It is laziness. Big difference.

The unemployment numbers are useful as they give us a direction of employment, which has been improving, and a basis for historical comparison. But there is more when you look at the underlying actual numbers that make up the statistics and how they are counted.

lots more> http://news.goldseek.com/MillenniumWaveAdvisors/1078675364.php

[thinkingwoman]

17. they're in the service sector

miscellaneous personal services (from spas and hair salons, to personal shoppers, personal assistants, etc. ), retail sales, restaurants, movie theatres, and so on.

Most (not all, but most) of these new jobs pay much less than entry and mid-level manufacturing jobs did at their peak...hence, lots of people underemployed, still having trouble making ends meet even though they're working their asses off.

[kentuck]

19. I know a lot of younger folks that hop from company to company...

as phone reps and customer service reps....they may work for a couple of months and then they move on... the turnover in most companies is well over 100%...I don't know how that would affect the unemployment rate but I would believe it would be a lot of people nationwide.