A thought about official reports of employment “increases”…

[raccoon]

ABC Company needs 100 temp workers to work for one month to fill a special order. I guess I don’t need to tell you these workers will be paid a low hourly wage, have no benefits, and, needless to say, have not a hope in Hades of becoming permanent with the company.

A full-time worker leaves XYZ University. The University post job openings for two part-time workers to replace this person, each working 20 hours per week for a low hourly wage and no benefits.

Reckon this is where at least some of these so-called “increases” come from? My guess is this is where the vast majority of them come from.

Then there's always the possibility that somebody just pulls these figures out of their arse...

[JuniperLea]

1. I'd like to know

How many people have exhausted their unemployment benefits, remain unemployed and have simply fallen off the list. Do those "no longer existing people" cause the numbers to shift?

[raccoon]

4. I believe that would be a BIG number. nt

[AllegroRondo]

18. Unemployment numbers have nothing to do with benefits

its based on a phone survey.

They ask "are you currently employed" - if yes, you count as employed.
If not, they ask "did you look for work last week" - if yes, you count as unemployed.
If not, you count as "not in the work force" and are not part of the calculation at all.

[Neil Lisst]

2. You're right. It's smoke and mirrors. Slight of hand. Distraction.

Anyone who really believes unemployment is below 5% has got to be out of their ever-loving mind.

[raccoon]

5. In my experience, some people who've been retired for a long time,

or not working because they don't have to, or have been in the same job forever and haven't had to look for a job in ages, AND if these same people don't have close relatives who've been looking for a job in the last few years, they have no clue how bad it is.

I doubt there are many people who meet BOTH these criteria.

[Neil Lisst]

7. I have younger family members who are out there as young adults

in this job market, and it's terrible! And the pay is terrible for all but the top echelon.

[HereSince1628]

3. Wasn't it last week that some economist said the true rate was 12%

unemployment?

If the economy were so rosy for everyone, there wouldn't be a negative savings rate that is equal to the depression years. People are financing their lives by cashing in their assets or by going deeper into debt just to meet living expenses.

[raccoon]

6. Living off the camel's hump.

"People are financing their lives by cashing in their assets or by going deeper into debt just to meet living expenses."

When the camel's hump runs out, what then?

[Neil Lisst]

10. indeed it is. good comment.

Americans have been devouring their own body fat the past 5 years to stay "healthy," and soon, it's going to be muscle tissue.

[Neil Lisst]

8. that sounds about right

many have simply given up

For God's sake, one third of black men in their 20s are unemployed. It's an epidemic, and the Bush plan is prisons for all of them.

[Sammy Pepys]

9. Wait until the revision....

...it'll give a better picture.

Personally, I think many of the jobs are short term, temp-type jobs like you're describing though. I wouldn't be surprised if the data was old and those jobs have already disappeared. This is something we should hammer in 2006 when it comes to jobs.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. It's a bald faced lie!

They simply don't count you as being unemployed if you aren't receiving unemployment benefits. There are millions of people that have had their benefits exhausted and now they are considered invisible. Add to that the wholesale exchange of high paying manufacturing jobs in America with low paying service jobs and you have the makings of a perfect storm of economic ruin. We cannot all sell french fries to each other and have a stable economy.

[neoblues]

12. New Walmart Greeters, McDonalds Table Wipers,

or whatever. One thing's for sure, and that is that most of the jobs created over Bush's 5.5 years is the result of growth in government spending. People either working for the government or working for those who provide goods and services to the government.

Here's a review of the type of jobs that have been created... Make particular note of the characterization: "This most certainly is not the labor market profile of a first world country"!

July 15, 2005


http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162005.html">Economic Treason
What Kind of Country Destroys the Job Market for Its Own Citizens?


By Paul Craig Roberts

The June payroll jobs report did not receive much attention due to the July 4 holiday, but the depressing 21st century job performance of the US economy continues unabated.

o Only 144,000 private sector jobs were created, each one of which was in domestic services.

o 56,000 jobs were created in professional and business services, about half of which are in administrative and waste services.

o 38,000 jobs were created in education and health services, almost all of which are in health care and social assistance.

o 19,000 jobs were created in leisure and hospitality, almost all of which are waitresses and bartenders.

o Membership associations and organizations created 10,000 jobs and repair and maintenance created 4,000 jobs.

o Financial activities created 16,000 jobs.

This most certainly is not the labor market profile of a first world country, much less a superpower.
...

As for the claim that the Tax Cuts have produced jobs...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060126">Sluggish private job growth indicates failure of tax cuts

Snapshot for January 26, 2006.

Sluggish private job growth indicates failure of tax cuts
Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005. Supporters of these tax cuts have touted them as great contributors to growth in jobs and pay. But, in reality, private-sector job growth since 2001 has been disappointing, and a closer look at the new jobs created shows that federal spending—not tax cuts—are responsible for the jobs created in the past five years.

If tax cuts have created jobs at all since 2001, it will have happened in the private sector. Assuming that job growth in 2006 matches the Bush Administration's projections, the economy will have added about 2.0 million jobs to the private sector from FY2001 through FY2006. But how many of these two million jobs actually can be attributed to tax cuts and how many to increased government spending—particularly increased defense spending—in this period?

Based on Defense Department estimates of the number of private-sector jobs created by its own spending, we project that additional defense spending will account for a 1.495 million gain in private sector jobs between FY2001 and FY2006. Furthermore, increases in non-defense discretionary spending since 2001 will have added yet another 1.325 million jobs in the private sector, for a total of 2.82 million jobs created by increased government spending. Increased mandatory government spending—which is not even included in these estimates or the accompanying chart—would account for even more job creation. The mere fact that the projected job growth resulting from increased defense and other government spending exceeds the actual number of jobs projected to be added to the economy through 2006 clearly indicates that the tax cuts hardly seem plausible as the engine of the modest job growth in the economy since 2001.

This Snapshot was written by EPI research director Lee Price with research assistance from David Ratner.

A summarizing view...

August 9, 2005

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/MSNBCHardball080905.html">Hardball: Paul Krugman debates Larry Kudlow on the state of the U.S. economy

...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The economy is growing faster than any other major industrialized country. Job growth is strong. We added over 200,000 new jobs in July. This country added nearly four million new job since May of 2003. The unemployment rate is 5 percent, which is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Americans have more money in their pockets. And that is good news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)
...
GREGORY: Paul Krugman, let me start with you. Do you see the same economic portrait that the president does?

KRUGMAN: No. I mean, look, some job growth is better than none. It is -- you want to put these in perspective. That -- last month was a pretty good month for this administration. It would have ranked 69 out of 96 in terms of job growth during the Clinton years. So, it is not -- it is not really terrific news. And it`s a recovery that is not really delivering. There`s not a whole lot trickling down to wages. It is -- it is a disappointing recovery, although it`s a lot better. Thing are certainly better than they were in the summer of 2003, when it was really depressing.
...
GREGORY: Larry mentions last week, a CBS News poll found 50 -- found 52 percent disapprove of the president`s handling of the economy.

KRUGMAN: Well, remember, the facts aren`t that good. Even Larry, in his attempt to spin it, is saying, well, it`s pretty good when you consider recession, stock market crash, the war. The fact is that, you know, by normal standards, this is a subpar recovery, by any standard. The Congressional Budget Office had a study out just yesterday talking about how much below the typical this recovery is in terms of job growth. It is not just not -- it is not great. It`s not -- don`t want to make it doomsday, but it is not great, very little shared by -- recent study by Congressional -- sorry -- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said, you know, you can look at seven indicators of strength of a recovery. On six of them, this is just way subpar. It`s the worst of the postwar period. The only one that is really above par is corporate profits. Well, that doesn`t mean anything to most people. People are not feeling good about their job prospects or their wages.
...
KRUGMAN: A lot of people are going to find themselves with mortgages they can`t handle. They are going to find themselves -- you know, personal bankruptcy will go up, except, of course, the laws have been tightened on that now, quite brutally. But the main thing, I`m just -- we -- you know, this -- this economic recovery, I`ve been complaining about it, but at least it is a recovery. And it is driven, it is driven mostly by housing.
...
KRUGMAN: It`s the increase in housing construction. It is the increase in wealth, which leads people to spend more. I`ve done the numbers, say about that three-and-a-half to 4 percent of GDP is housing. The tax cuts are around 1 percent. This is much more a housing story than a tax-cut story.
...
GREGORY: Final -- final question on this. If people are too leveraged, if they are putting too much of their money into real estate and the values don`t hold up, aren`t they in for a rude awakening?

KRUGMAN: Yes. I mean, that -- this is exactly what we are worried about. We are worried that there will be a rude awakening, that people will find themselves in trouble. And it`s not just the people who are, you know, heavily leverage and bought real estate. But, again, the economy -- we`ve got a real-estate-driven economy right now. It is all -- you know, if you ask, where`s the growth coming from, the answer is, the bubble did it. And if the bubble bursts, it actually -- as I said in "The Times," it sort of deflates slowly. But then we are in a lot of trouble, all of us.

So, it's a real-estate based economy right now, and the 'good times' can't go on forever. The tax cuts hardly created any new jobs while government spending accounts for more jobs than actually got created (amazing), and of course, the quality of jobs simply aren't very good. I suspect the economy is in extraordinarily seriously bad shape, it just isn't particularly apparent--and it doesn't help that the Bush Administration has caused the government agencies responsible for economic measurements to... LIE and obfuscate reality (standard operating procedure for the BA).

note: the articles used here include materials from mid-2005 to January 2006, however this doesn't change anything--they are still entirely accurate and applicable; nothing new has occurred other than, perhaps, an increase in the HYPE put out by the Bush Administration as it's desperation grows!

[newportdadde]

13. Its the 50k jobs going to 28k which really hits the country.

Its better then the person not working at all but it has so many ramifications. The 50k would allow a well disciplined person to have a stay at home parent or if both parents worked say when the kids entered school you would have a nice chunk of extra dispossable income.

Benefits well think of the ramifications of a family with good healthcare and money to spend on education vs one without. Your next 'crop' of kids is going to be hurting, then they graduate with huge debt to find low paying jobs waiting for them. Then they wait to have children, just not sure how that will all play out for our society as a whole.

That the kicker, our economy is a spend spend spend economy and needs disposable income to flourish. I think the past 5 years have really hurt Americans ability to spend, true some borrowed against equity but that will end and then your left with even more debt.

I know from personal experience our corporate profits are down down down the past 6 years. Not from a lack of cutting costs or workforce we have done a lot there but the sales just aren't there. If your product is not a staple of life but an extra then everytime gas goes up 25 cents etc your company looses.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Somewhere In Between

The data are distorted by a new reporting methodology that only discloses those out of work who are still on UEI. When they get a temp job, they stop collecting UEI and are taken off the role. The value is not based upon the actual hiring survey sent out by Commerce, even though those data are available if one has a subscription to SAUS. So, the whole story is obfuscated by only reporting the convenient numbers.

So, the number really does go down as you explained, but using the convenient number is closer to pulling it out of the arse, than it is the truth.
The Professor

[blindpig]

15. The perspective from the Upstate is particularly bleak.

I'm hearing more and more of recent migrants from northern states heading back home for lack of jobs. Among the working class and working poor things are desperate. Many hold 2 or 3 part-time jobs and there are only so many lawn services and detail shops that the economy can support. Those last refuges will dissipate as the economy shrinks and their non-essential nature makes them the 1st to go.

[raccoon]

16. The migrants you mentioned, what kind of jobs were they seeking?

Lower-level or jobs such as teachers, etc.?

I'm in the same neck of the woods as you, and I know the job situation is bad. There have been so many layoffs and plant closing in recent years.

[blindpig]

17. Blue collar gigs.

Folks fleeing the Rust Belt mostly. NYC also. I guess nobody told them about the collapse of textiles.