Ravenwood - 09/08/04 06:45 AM
The preliminary employment numbers for August are out, and it appears as though 144,000 jobs were created. Likewise the unemployment rate dipped from an already low 5.5% to 5.4%.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.44 million jobs have been created in 2004. If the preliminary July and August figures are correct, we are on pace for 2.2 million jobs to be created in 2004. Although this is slightly less than the 2.6 million that the Bush Administration originally predicted, it's still a good number. If you remember, liberals originally scoffed at Bush's optimism, as if 2.6 million wasn't even possible.
To achieve Bush's goal, 290,000 jobs a month need to be created. While optimistic, that is still altogether feasible.
Related articles:
Chasing Jobs II - 06/04/2004
Chasing Jobs - 05/07/2004
This is all well and good, Steve, but lost in this number is another question: How well do these jobs pay in relation to those that were lost? If an engineering job has been "replaced" by a job at WalMart or McDonald's, is that really something Republicans should be trumpeting?
I'm not trying to rain on the GOP's parade (not this time, anyway...), but a little context would be helpful.
Posted by: Jack Cluth at September 8, 2004 8:10 AMJack,
The heartless libertarian in me says that if an engineer is stuck working at McDonalds, they apparently weren't a very good engineer. Or their skill set is no longer in demand and they need to change careers.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 8, 2004 1:24 PMYou would think that out of 1.44 million jobs, one would have been created that lets me sit at home in my underwear watching sports center.
Posted by: N. Bourbaki at September 8, 2004 1:54 PMI am sorry, but you are horribly mistaken in your logic. While I appreciate your views and respect the freedom of speech, you've got some very twisted facts, there. I just don't understand what they classify as "good jobs" in this country. I know the President says he's created all of these wonderful manufacturing jobs, but I haven't seen any of them. Oh, that's right... because I haven't seen the "Burger Manufacturing Artists" at my local McDonalds recently. Seriously, where do you get these "optimistic" statistics? Looks like Bush is about to become the second president to finish his term with the employment rate lower than when he started his term...
Posted by: Rachel at September 8, 2004 6:41 PMRachel,
Are you saying creating jobs isn't a good thing?
The 1.44 million statistic is straight from the Department of Labor. The 2.2 million number comes from a simple straight line extrapolation.
The government statistics are purely quantitative, and do not consider the "quality" of a job. Don't blame me for that, blame them.
But then again, are there really rocket scientists out there who have no better opportunities than McDonalds? I seriously doubt it. It's more likely that you are simply looking for a way to pooh-pooh the numbers.
By definition, any job is a good job. Even an underemployed person will not enter into a contract to sell his labor if it isn't economically beneficial. He may be unhappy, and he may be looking for something better, but work is still work and he wouldn't complete the transaction if there weren't some economic benefit.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 8, 2004 7:27 PMIs there any data to suggest that they are *not* good jobs? I've heard many people make the claim, but there does not appear to be any data to back it up.
Posted by: Rosin at September 8, 2004 7:47 PMTo be perfectly honest I don't want President Bush to create ANY jobs. I want the Federal and State governments to get the Hell out of the way so private enterprise can create jobs.
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip at September 8, 2004 8:17 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
