Would be very interesting to know how many of these foreign-owned US plants are building for the exports market as well as purely for the U.S. domestic market. I know BMW builds some models for worldwide sale at Spartanburg; not sure about the others.

Two comments. First of all, the employment mentioned here is a drop in the bucket. 70,000 new workers by 2006? We need twice that many in a *month* to keep up with growth. And that's not even taking into account the catching up we have to do after the Bush Depression.

Secondly, what will the pay and benefits be in these jobs? I'll bet in real inflation-adjusted terms it's less than an experienced autoworker made in the 1950s.

Do these manufacturing jobs include the reclassified "burger flippers" ?

Excertpt from a letter of Congressman John Dingell to Greg Mankiw (Sorry for the paste, couldn't find a good link):

I noticed in the recently released Economic Report of the President that there was some consternation in the defining of manufacturing. It could be inferred from your report that the administration is willing to recognize drink mixing, hamburger garnishing, French/freedom fry cooking, and milk shake mixing to be vital components of our manufacturing sector.

I am sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost their jobs in Michigan will find it heartening to know that a world of opportunity awaits them in high growth manufacturing careers like spatula operator, napkin restocking, and lunch tray removal. I do have some questions of this new policy and I hope you will help me provide answers for my constituents:

Will federal student loans and Trade Adjustment Assistance grants be applied to tuition costs at Burger College?

Will the administration commit to allowing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) to fund cutting edge burger research such as new nugget ingredients or keeping the hot and cold sides of burgers separate until consumption?

Will special sauce now be counted as a durable good?

Do you want fries with that?
...

Firebug is right. We should nuke a couple of cities in Japan and run the Third Army through Germany again to get things back to the way they were in the good old 50's. /sarcsasm off.

Look at the numbers for the American manufacturers. 30% more labor to build a car at Chrysler! That the Japanese are competitors should not be news to Detroit in the 21 st century.

When I, or any other consumer, go out to buy a car, the advantages of the Toyota product will be as evident as they were 12 years ago when I bought, in spite of my desire to buy American, a Toyota product that is still running excellently. I did not believe at the time that I would get the same longevity out of a Detroit product and I was correct. A lot of this quality results from the reduced direct labor in the car.

American manufacturers who have rested or become victims of inertia need to catch up now and stop pining for a wonderful moment (for them) in history that we hope will never recur.

You'll notice that those very efficient factories making Toyotas, Nissans, and Hondas are all in "right-to-work" states - states where union membership cannot be a required as a condition of employment. Virtually every southern state (members of the Confederacy plus Kentucky) is one, as is Ohio. The unions, like many of our elected officials, don't recognize that business can relocate, or, in this case, that new businesses can locate in places that are friendlier to business.

Jim points out the biggest problem for the bottom of the man hours list. Those auto manufacturers are beholden to union regulation. They, however, signed onto to these labor deals.

One of the things about regulation from Unions or the politicians likely to meet their demands are the balance between overtime and hiring new workers. In some cases there is enough overtime to hire new workers, but unions tend to try and get the most for present workers rather than to hire new ones.

The other point is that the midwest has been declining in manufacturing jobs for over 15 years now due precisely to the competition presented by the "right to work" states. Where therego auto manufacturing does the steel industry follow.

It is our productivity, rather than the lack of it, which brings more jobs to America. It is due to the American worker's amazing efficiency that the Japanesse automakers would actually want to make more cars here, hiring more of our highly skilled and proficient laborers in the process. If the Japanese were getting a better cost per unit back home, they would have kept the jobs there. Furthermore, the competition from the Japanese automakers in the 80s and 90s has actually forced the U.S. automakers to improve their product so as not to get thrown out of the business. Once again, free trade and competition is a win/win for the American people. Some argue that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act, which was supposed to keep jobs here in America, made sure that the Great Depression was as long and destructive as it was. Protectionism is the knee jerk reaction of the uninformed mind. It is disconcerting to see the Democratic candidates rush to embrace what could be the most harmful economic policy imaginable that the POTUS actually has some power over.

“And that's not even taking into account the catching up we have to do after the Bush Depression.”

The Bush depression? Is this some sort of pathetic Billy Crystal joke? On the evening of the Academy Awards the host either proved that he is an idiot---or a complete liar. The United States is currently experiencing one of its greatest booms. For God sakes, the unemployment rate is only 5.6%! A few years ago, the liberal media were saying that such a rate was a fantastic vindication of the Clinton administration:

“Here’s CNN in July 1996, as the Clinton-Dole election approached:

Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.”

http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006086.php

The liberals are employing the Big Lie tactic. They have control of the “mainstream” media and so-called elite intellectual institutions. Thus, they can repeat lies ad nauseum until they seduce the general public. We must be aware that these liars are doing everything to destroy the presidency of George W. Bush. They are merely disgusting low lifes who haven’t the foggiest notions of how to tell the truth.

Um Dave,

Unemployment rates are low because people run out of benefits and thus drop off the rolls. Even the Fed has emphasized that the job market has been weak even if you accept the Household survey numbers, and the Fed has said that the payroll survey numbers are more reliable. This is especially ironic since Bush et al. didn't extend unemployment benefits. If they had, the rate wouldn't be 5.6%, it'd be higher. You can tell because the average time unemployed has been increasing for some time. I'm not sure what weed you've been smoking, but get a grip okay Dave?

To keep benefits the UAW made some concesions last year, including job security. If the cost of assembly in the US is reduced enough, it will encourage foreign manufactures to assemble in the US to take advatage of reduced importing cost (importing tightly packed parts, like the US companies do, rather than space consuming whole cars).

Being that there are more cars than people in the US, how about the auto industry manufacturing new improved cars for Americans, buy back their used cars and export them?

“If they had, the rate wouldn't be 5.6%, it'd be higher.”

You are either a fool or a liar. It is time to take people like you task. Your ongoing deceitful rhetoric must cease. You should either present facts, and not idle speculation----or just shut up. Nobody was saying this stuff about these numbers while Bill Clinton was in office. No, this is just a disgusting dishonest way of destroying President Bush. Please take your falsehoods somewhere else.

In some economics class long ago, and in current dealing with political justification of tax offsets to encourage trade, tourism or local manufacturing, the concept of "multiplier" comes up.

The logic goes that if I can get ten new jobs in my county I can get the county to pay (by tax forgiveness the equivalent of the xx people's salaries one time), over a period I will cause other jobs to exist, other taxes to be paid etc. Thus the offer is justified to me as a taxpayer. This incentive is routineley offered to businesses to relocate.

If that logic holds then the outsourcing of jobs from my city to another city, when the business could hire locally, COSTS the local economy some multiple of the payroll loss. As a city taxpayer I would be unhappy with my city if they gave tax breaks and then applauded the company shipping jobs away, to make more profit. I would be even unhappier if the profit went to stockholders outside my city so none of the dollars would circulate here.

By extension when jobs are outsourced, even just from my city to another, my local government incurs a signigicant multiple of the labor costs in jobs, and thus significant tax loss. The same logic would seem to work with international job transfers and the resulting loss of "spin off" jobs and tax revenue.

Can some economist out there tell me why there is a "benefit" to the locality, to help ship jobs to the next city, county, state or country?

Just a quick comment.
Ohio is not a "right to work" state.
Honda located in Ohio almost thirty years ago to make motorcycles, and has kept growing to make Accords and Civics (I've owned two Hondas made their).
They have repeatedly rejected UAW representation, along withe rest of the companies in their "kiretsu". The reason why (my explanation, not a scholarly tome) is that while much of urban Ohio is third and fourth generation organized
labor, rural Ohio (Marysville where the Honda factory is located) consciously rejects the organized labor mentality (similar mindset that exists in right-to-work states).
Interestingly, Saturn (in Tenn., which is a right to work state) does have UAW representation, but very different shop rules than other GM plants.
is located)

“Can some economist out there tell me why there is a "benefit" to the locality, to help ship jobs to the next city, county, state or country?”

Whoever said that there was ever a direct benefit to a particular locality? Towns and cities have come and gone throughout history. Ever heard of Dodge City? The overall economy is always helped by increasing productivity. Prices drop for the masses. Those individuals negatively impacted must unfortunately find new work. And yes, their locality may disappear into the black hole of history. There is a price to be paid for an improving economy. Job hopping is the norm, and not the exception. Anyone telling you something different is either a fool or a liar. There is no in between. Did you want me to lie to you? I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not a Democrat.

Aaron,

The Americans would sell their used product oveseas if anybody wanted to buy the used American cars. Only the Japanese do it.

Paolo

Did you read the numbers? Toyota builds product for 25% less labor input than Chrysler. Americans do not have amazing efficiency. Americans working for Toyota do. And who made them more efficient? Engineers and designers in Japan.

Oldman, you don't know what you're talking about. Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate. Whether you're counted as unemployed for the purposes of calculating the unemployment rate depends on whether you're looking for a job (and of course whether you currently have one). Whether you're collecting unemployment doesn't factor into the equation.

Firebug writes:
"70,000 new workers by 2006? We need twice that many in a *month* to keep up with growth."

Firebug is too optimistic. It is 70K workers total by 2006, not 70K new jobs.

David Nieporent writes:
"Unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the unemployment rate. Whether you're counted as unemployed for the purposes of calculating the unemployment rate depends on whether you're looking for a job (and of course whether you currently have one). Whether you're collecting unemployment doesn't factor into the equation."

This is right as far as it goes.

Extended unemployment benefits keep unemployment slightly higher as some people are not in a hurry to hustle for a new job.

A laid-off $140K/year engineer, currently working 4 hours/week in HomeDepot, counts as employed. Or, if he is not working at HomeDepot, he is probably a consultant with about 1 bill hour per month. In this case he is counted as employed also.
On another hand, people getting paid under the table may be counted as unemployed.

Unemployment rate is a lousy and easily manipulatable stat for dumb public. What has some value is a difference in unemployment rates as indicator of direction of employment, up or down.

Payroll and household survey are the real stats. Unfortunately household survey results are subject to guessing the number of illigals. Anyway, accordingly to Greenspan, currently only payroll data are trustworthy.

Accordingly to payroll survey there are 2.4 million fewer jobs now then on 1/20/2001. Very likely Bush will be the first Prez since Hoover to have fewer jobs at the end of his term.

Oldman said...

"This is especially ironic since Bush et al. didn't extend unemployment benefits."

Bush can only sign what the Congress sends to his desk. Federal unemployment benefits being one that requires such a bill. Some Senate Democrats argued that an extension was necessary, however the measures were soundly defeated. Senator Nickles proposed a bi-partisan approach to craft a bill that would directly stimulate job growth through cuts in the corporate tax rate, but the Senate Democratic leadership balked at the idea of further tax cuts.

Furthermore, when people drop off unemployment insurance it could be for reasons other than their benefits expired. If one fails to report their job search progress, declines a job offer or does not meet other state requirements to receive benefits they will not show up as a benefactor of the insurance.

Two points:

It is figures like this which casue me to ask questions as did in another thread the other day about foreign investment here.

I am struck by the idea that to the degree the Unions have been browbeaten into submission is the degree to which the firms such as Honda and Toyota have been a success.... both before and after they came here.

Before, simply because therew as a market for more inexpensive cars, impossible given the state of labor visavie the US auto firms...

... and after, given that they were able to re-structure the labor force to their own needs, given that they had a far cleaner slate with which to deal... no pre-existing rights, etc.

Funny how all that works, isn't it?

Dave Thomson,

You wrote:
"You are either a fool or a liar. It is time to take people like you task. Your ongoing deceitful rhetoric must cease. You should either present facts, and not idle speculation----or just shut up... No, this is just a disgusting dishonest way of destroying President Bush. Please take your falsehoods somewhere else."

Since you've called me out David, let me answer you with some facts.

The following information comes from the Jan'04 Household Survey produced by the BLS:

"The number of unemployed persons was 8.3 million in January and the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent, seasonally adjusted...

The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force totaled about 1.7 million in January, about the same as a year earlier... These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."

If we simply count in the marginally attached workers who wanted work, but were not counted as unemployed then the "real" unemployment rate rises to 6.75% from 5.6%. That's 1.7 million people who want work according to the survey, but didn't bother to look.

Now remember that this is the Household Survey. The Fed has on several occasions including Greenspan directly stated that the Payroll Survey is more reliable because of biases in Census Bureau estimates of population growth.

Therefore, we can quite firmly conclude that the actual unemployment rate is easily upwards of 7%.

When I spoke earlier about the connection of unemployment benefits and counting as unemployed, the oldman was not trying to imply a causal connection. To obtain benefits, they have to continue actively searching for work. When benefits stop, they can stop searching and thus fall off the unemployment ratings. Why bother forcing yourself to look for work if you can't find any and you can't get any benefits for continuing your search?

They may be going to school, have switched to taking care of their family, etc. The number according to the household survey is about 1.2 million people in one of these two categories. Another half a million fell into the discouraged worker category.

Now the oldman here has been called unjustly a fool or a liar, however the facts amply support his contentions as an absolute matter.

I have particular contempt for you David Thomson, because you have made unfounded partisan charges. In this case, my argument that the "actual" unemployment rate is above 5.6% is quite sound!!! More than this, on matter after matter you have proven to be completely unreliable and the oldman has proven to be absolutely correct. As he has again. When will you begin to ask yourself about how can you be so wrong so often and not question your assumptions?

Now let me ask you - in ignoring such facts are you a fool or a liar?

So, Oldman... Interesting numbers you project.

It' seems to me that this is hardly a new phenom.. Such margins are always around.
So why was this not being shown at the peak of unemployment under Bubba Clinton?

I ask because it strikes me that it'd be interesting to see the number of what you call 'marginally attached workers' during those years, as a comparison, before you start making the charge about 'partisan politics' again.

Bithead,

The oldman can duel it out with you as long as you please. Thomson didn't have much luck, and considering how limited your thinking is you wouldn't have much luck either.

As a matter of fact, my claim was that real unemployment was above the nominal 5.6% rate. According to the most optimistic national estimate we have (Household Survey data) I have in fact demonstrated the bono fides of my claim. It's probably above 7% to estimate it conservatively. That's not a partisan claim, that's a very strongly supported assertion.

Now, if you want me to make a historical comparison that would be interesting and worth doing. To be honest, I don't know off the top of my head what hte result of a Clinton years comparison would be. I do know that the job-creation numbers were more robust and that the "jobless recovery" of the period was not as severe.

However, I'm not just going to do it if you won't cede points of argument. Otherwise, dimwits could simply tie up my time by asking me to prove points. This is because it takes a dud like Thomson only a moment to make a baseless accusation, and it takes significantly longer for me to collect, reference, analyze, and present facts. Being an idiot is easy work and takes no training at all. Me, I got other things competing for my time and valuable brain-power.

So which is it bithead? Are you interested in the truth? Enough to be challenged and maybe change your ideas? Or are you just making an easy and flippant accusation you want to use to look good with, but if confronted by contradictory facts will just try to weasel it out of? What if the Clinton numbers are better? Will you cede that this economic recovery is worse than? Consider carefully before you answer, that'll put you light years ahead of Thomson.

Oldman: You point out something that appears to be quite important to statistical analysis when addressing unemployment figures. Considering the fact that your estimates of "Real unemployment" are outside a percentage difference in the catalogued unemployment rate, why does the government not produce these figures each quarter?

Secondly, why does the media only pull numbers comparable to yours during Republican administrations and not during Democratic administrations?

Third, would you not agree that selective coverage of the economy is prejoratively pessimistic today where as in 1996 it was prejoratively optimistic?

Fourth, is there any brain power left for a prediction? The World Series Champs in 2004, the Red Sox or the Yankees?
NOTE: Statistical analysis is not required here.

Oldman, the problem with your argument is that "actual unemployment rate" is a made-up term. Now, certainly "unemployment rate" is, also, but it's a long-established, universally-used one, not one constructed in the middle of an argument. To say, "I'm going to suddenly redefine it, counting people who have never been counted as unemployed as unemployed" is rather disingenuous. After all, the only real value to the statistic is that it allows us to put the current economy in context -- but when you change the definition, it no longer allows us to do that. So what purpose is there to doing so?

As for your response to me, "When I spoke earlier about the connection of unemployment benefits and counting as unemployed, the oldman was not trying to imply a causal connection. To obtain benefits, they have to continue actively searching for work. When benefits stop, they can stop searching and thus fall off the unemployment ratings. Why bother forcing yourself to look for work if you can't find any and you can't get any benefits for continuing your search?"

I would say that you have this precisely backwards, because you ignore incentives. Unemployment benefits pay you for not working; you have less reason to look for work. (You have to say that you're looking for work to collect them; you don't have to do anything. This is essentially perfunctory; many states have set up an automated system where, once you've first been declared eligible, you simply call in, punch in your ID, punch 1 for "yes, I looked," and then they send you your check for the week.) But when your benefits run out, you have actual incentive to search. And the "benefits to continuing your search" are, you know, getting a job.

The oldman can duel it out with you as long as you please. Thomson didn't have much luck, and considering how limited your thinking is you wouldn't have much luck either.

Oldman:
You provide only one point on which to judge, a point which as presented, gives a slanted view with no possiblility of accurate comparison with previous administaton actions and I'm projecting narrow thinking?

I was making a quite similar point to what Stout makes.. in his words "...why does the media only pull numbers comparable to yours during Republican administrations and not during Democratic administrations?"

What if the Clinton bumbers are better?

I happen to know they're not. You see, I've actually looked, instead of taking my numbers form the Democrats. (Even the raw numbers at their peak values, are worse, much less the calculated ones you're attempting to tar Mr. Bush with) Whence comes the questions that I asked.

I supposed, and you have confirmed for us, that you didn't bother to look, and are therefore arguing (...in a quite authoritive manner, may I say...) from ignorance.

This point is astride of the others who have responded. Between the lot of it, I'd say ofhand you've got some numbers research to do.

Mr, David Nieropent,

You write that:
"I would say that you have this precisely backwards, because you ignore incentives. Unemployment benefits pay you for not working; you have less reason to look for work. (You have to say that you're looking for work to collect them; you don't have to do anything. This is essentially perfunctory; many states have set up an automated system"

If you look here at this site, regarding unemployment compensation it states that:

Registering with the state job service and actively seeking work is a requirement while collecting unemployment. You must be ready, willing, available, and able to work. The Job Service may require job seekers to apply for jobs, submit resumes, and not turn down a position if it meets certain standards.

This includes:
The state Job Service Offices are excellent resources to assist with a job search. Many free services are offered including job listings, career counseling, resume and cover letter writing help, and training.

In other words, semi-active participation is required while on unemployment. Otherwise the actual Household survey numbers speak for themselves. The number of marginally attached workers includes by definition those ready, willing, and able to work, but have no looked for work within the last month because they'd given up job searching. That number was not insignificant - 1.7 million people and enough to jump unemployment easily to about 7%.

I'm not sure how you can argue with those numbers whatever your personal whacked out idea of the unemployment mentality you have!!!

It seems that you're arguing from what you think must be rather than from the simple facts of the situation.

Mr. Bithead,

You wrote:
"I happen to know they're not. You see, I've actually looked, instead of taking my numbers form the Democrats. (Even the raw numbers at their peak values, are worse, much less the calculated ones you're attempting to tar Mr. Bush with) Whence comes the questions that I asked."

I'd be curious to see the numbers that you have. You see if you look at the historical Household Survey data from the BLS some things become clear.

For instance, let me set you up a chart

Year__NIP___PE%__Diff__UEMP
1992___66.4___61.5___4.9__7.5%
1994___66.6___62.5___4.1__6.1%
2000___67.1___64.4___2.7__4.0%
2003___66.2___62.3___3.9__6.0%

Now if you 1992 to the present you can see that the difference between the non-institutional population and the Percent Employment in 2003 is closest in appearance to 1994.

Now if you look here at labor force particapation numbers you can see that the non-institutional pop numbers are almost identical to the labor force participation numbers for ages 16&up.

So what we're comparing is labor force participation against percent employment. If you do that, you can see that there has been a strong drop - the DIFF - column from peak.

Moreover, this drop is stronger if you compare the maximum labor force participation with the current employment percentage:
67.1% - 62.3 = 4.8%.

So from peak we can see that normalized to population there is a 4.8% gap in the people who could work and the people who have work.

That's significantly comparable only with 1992, which had a 4.9% DIFF.

Finally, we look at average and median time unemployed ... if you look here at this BLS time series request and ask for the average and median time unemployed ... you can see that the time from 1992 declined while the average and median time unemployed was still growing through the beginning of 2004.

So what does all this mean? Well it means that according to these statistics that normed to the population, that from 1992+ the unemployment rate dropped and that the gap between the percent of people who could work and had worked declined. Likewise, from 2000+ the gap between the people who had work and could work grew, and that the median and average time unemployed has been steadily growing even as the nominal unemployment rate has contracted.

If you ask on the BLS request page for the graph and for the time series to be set from 1992-2002 the results are striking. You can also play with the percent unemployed at 15+ weeks. It confirms that through the Clinton years, unemployment and time unemployed steadily declined while it's been steadily increasing 2000+ during the Bush years.

These are verifiable and presented facts. I don't know what the hell you were looking at, but your arrogant attitude is completely unsupported by actual numbers.

You might want to consider Bithead that the reason that the oldman argues so authoratatively is that he is right so often. Confidence comes from success time and time again. You might want using some facts to try instead of sounding off like a wanker. Or maybe you should stop getting your numbers from the RNC.

Well, first, a laugher is this:

... your arrogant attitude is completely unsupported by actual numbers. You might want to consider Bithead that the reason that the oldman argues so authoratatively is that he is right so often. Confidence comes from success time and time again.

But I'm "arrogant". Right... got it.
(Snicker)

I've been waiting for this.

Unemployment rates are low because people run out of benefits and thus drop off the rolls

And you further claim that:

from 1992+ the unemployment rate dropped and that the gap between the percent of people who could work and had worked declined. Likewise, from 2000+ the gap between the people who had work and could work grew,

You're making several unwaranted assumptions about the numbers of people off the employment or unemployment rolls. I do understand it's the only way for you to make your case, but there it is.
In both cases you have no way of knowing what had fallen off the rolls!

Well, perhaps we need to get a bit more basic:

I'd like you to go back to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site and click on the little check box marked “Civilian Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS12000000” then drop to the bottom of the page and click on the button marked “retrieve data.”

Here's why:

For all of your whining about job losses and trying to blame the Republicans in gernal and Mr. Bush particularly for job losses, you've apparently never bothered to see if your foundational argument is correct; that there has, in fact actually been a net emplyment loss.

The answer you're going to find there is really rather simple: There hasn't been.

There are 776,000 more jobs now than there were in the first month of George Bush’s administration. Look at the Jan 2003 number, 137,477,000, which means there are 1,119,000 more jobs YOY.

(Tip of the hat to Sean)

You'd think that someone right so often as you claim you are, would have done this basic research. Guess not...

Ah, well.

Mr Bithead,

You wrote:
"I'd like you to go back to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site and click on the little check box marked “Civilian Employment (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS12000000” then drop to the bottom of the page and click on the button marked “retrieve data.”

... you've apparently never bothered to see if your foundational argument is correct; that there has, in fact actually been a net emplyment loss.

There are 776,000 more jobs now than there were in the first month of George Bush’s administration. "

Which is all to say that this is why statistics in the hands of dummies like you is dangerous. Look Bithead, the population has grown since the first month of GW's tenure. The 776,000 number you quote is at best maybe 4-5 months of historically good growth.

If you want to look at these series why don't you look at not just absolute numbers, but at relative numbers? That's why I used the numbers I did before, they were normed to the population size at the time.

As a matter of fact, try this BLS page and run the time series, seasonally adjusted for participation rate, employed, and employment-population ratio. Then run them in graphs from 1992-2004.

Specifically:
LNS12300000
LNS15000000
LNS11300000
LNS13000000

If you compare your series
LNS12000000

with

LNS15000000

Which is the "not in labor force" you'll see the absolute number of people without a job has grown as well as the people who have jobs. This is your big rebuttal? This is what you've been waiting for? This is your big contradiction?

That the total number of jobs grew a small amount, while the total number of unemployed grew as well - all because you forgot to factor in population growth?

If you look at the LNS12300000 Employment to Population Ratio then you'll see that the number of employed to population has cratered to pre-1995 levels, basically to just above early 1994 levels.

If this is the best you can do bithead, I'm not surprised you call yourself a bithead ... because all the previous numbers are right ... and they included factoring in for changing population by using percentage population comparisons. As a matter of fact, while the absolute number of employed persons increased by 776,000 a look from Jan'01 to Jan'04 reveals that the not in labor force number grew by 5,197,000 in the LNS15000000 series.

So clearly, your 776,000 number is below trend compared to the even standard population growth!!!

You really take the cake with this one ... bithead ... whoever this sean is he really steered you wrong. In other words, if you use this method of analysis ... my numbers are not only reinforced, they come out better!

"Being that there are more cars than people in the US, how about the auto industry manufacturing new improved cars for Americans, buy back their used cars and export them?"

And how would they make "new improved cars" now? Make ones that fly?

Actually, that would be pretty cool. Get the FAA on board (or out of the loop entirely), and watch manufacturing employment skyrocket.

Which is all to say that this is why statistics in the hands of dummies like you is dangerous.

And I'm arrogant.
Have you looked in a mirror of late, professor?

As to the rest, let me remind you: The claim was jobs LOST. Nothing was said about population adjustments in the claim.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to Brennan's question:

"You point out something that appears to be quite important to statistical analysis when addressing unemployment figures. Considering the fact that your estimates of "Real unemployment" are outside a percentage difference in the catalogued unemployment rate, why does the government not produce these figures each quarter?"

Can you tell us?

AS to:

Which is the "not in labor force" you'll see the absolute number of people without a job has grown as well as the people who have jobs.

Ah. And of what age groupings are these numbers?
My 12 year old shovels the driveway snow... does that count as a job? (Chuckel)

Has it also occurred to you that the biggest surge in people not working of late is people either unfit to work, or retired? The latter could certainly work had they the desire, but....

The point here should be obvious; the conditions under which the numbers you cite are not working is at the very least questionable, and in truth unknowable, based on what you've provided.

Ohhh....

While I have the editor open, I find your comment to David laughable:

If you look here at this site, regarding unemployment compensation it states that: Registering with the state job service and actively seeking work is a requirement while collecting unemployment. You must be ready, willing, available, and able to work.

Yes, it does.... the law does say that. But you see, that's no measure of how active one is in their attempts at finding work.

I've been there, my testy freind, I've LIVED that life you've only read about second and third hand, and I can tell you from very personal experience that it seldom works by the rule book... almost never, in fact. That second and third hand data is not serving you, or this discussion well.

Out here in the *real* world the level of proof of active employment seeking for a government check, is nowhere near as stringent as you'd apparently have these people think. You speak as someone who has not been in a real job in a long time.... and I say, good for you.

Just don't expect anyone who actually works for his living to take *your* word as to what the perspective of actual *workers* is.

You know bithead,

Your excuses get weirder and weirder. Like your comment about your kid shoveling the driveway. First of all it was you who invoked that particular series and the source data. You can hardly claim it's illegitimate after you've invoked it! Second of all, your point shows that you don't do allot of reading. The numbers for employment are generally calculated 16 and above. If you actually read those sites instead of spouting off, you would find the truth.

As for the rest of your objections, I suppose I could point out how and why I took your objections into account ... why the terminology of unemployment has you flummoxed ... why an absolute number of jobs gained can still mean more net people are out of work and out of work longer (the population grows even faster dumbass) ... and why more net jobs lost doesn't mean that absolute jobs didn't grow ... (there's a difference between # people employed and employment-population ratio)...

But apparently you aren't actually interested in the truth as you FLAIL around impotently.

Now as for people gaming the system, there will always be people who malinger. If you didn't take advantage of the opportunities and tried to slide by without looking for work, then that is your problem.

Second of all, I don't know what it is like to be you. Frankly, I've been fired at least twice for sticking to my principles. But I've never taken a day of unemployment. I have helped many friends and former co-workers find jobs and careers across the country including some recently. I've worked in industry, temping, sorting hydralic fixtures according to catalog number, been offered a very good job in a clerical, advised people on their financial portfolios to their profit, wroked in manufacturing, worked in shipping&recieving, programmed databases, programmed, worked in a medical library ...

I've also made allot of money sometimes, and at least twice refused the opportunity to make allot more and own my own business. Now I teach college physics. Soon I'll be changing my career again and making my third fortune - this time I won't walk away from it.

So having worked across this great country in a variety of jobs, in good years and bad, and never being unable to find work and never having had to take unemployment I don't know what it is like to be you. As a matter of fact, despite department cutbacks of people senior to me I was recently granted a contract extension and pay increase.

When you're good, people want to keep you.

However I do know that you are being an ass. You aren't interested in real facts, real numbers, or real experience. I do know many people like you that have been out of work for a while. If you knew me, chances are I'd find you gainful and satisfying employment within a reasonable period of time.

I also do know my numbers and statistics. This is why I hate arguing with ditto-heads like you. You asked me for facts and numbers, I supplied. You contested my findings, and I successfully rebutted. The same skills that serve me well crushing your puny objections serve me well winning both in the applied and political realms of career success.

But you aren't interested in the truth. You aren't interested in truly improving your situation. You aren't interested in anything but your partisan bitterness. David asked me if I was a liar or a fool, as it turns out that you and Thomson seem like fools.

Now as an objective basis the Clinton years were better than the present time. However, I never said that Clinton was the reason why. As a matter of fact, I blame poorly written trade policies conducted by Reich, Rubin, and Clinton, et al. for creating structural problems in the economy coming to roost now. I just blame Bush for being too incompetent to even realize the problem created by Clinton, much less fix it.

But you, or Dave, never asked my opinion. Instead you assumed that my asserting the fact that real unemployment is higher than the nominal 5.6% number was a partisan attack bent on destroying Bush. Frankly, the man is so clueless he doesn't need any help. If he'd listened to his own Treasury Secretary he wouldn't be in the fix he is now.

Bithead, you puzzle me. You argue that you've been out of work a long time, but you seem to be arguing that the 5.6% unemployment is "actual" when even by their own numbers BLS says they aren't.

As for guessing why the government doesn't report upfront real numbers, it would take a more Machiavellian man than me to know why ... one might as well ask why doesn't the governmnet just fix problems instead of just letting them fester and using them for partisan attacks. One might as well ask why people relentless lie and make up crap when they could just tell the truth instead.

I'm here for three things:
1) For the truth, come what may.
2) To get things done, and make things better.
3) And to help people, even assinine impotent malingerers like you.
4) Getting ahead and enjoying the hell out of myself.

This is what my conservative background taught me, and I have taken it to heart. Now, I don't have to like you or agree with you to want to help you ... but that's the way I live my life. As a matter of fact, I don't believe in babying people.

So ... you got two choices. You can continue to be a bitter, resentful whinger ... or you can open your eyes and see the best way of helping yourself out of this pit is to get the truth and start aligning yourself with people who make sense and can get things done. Ain't nobody can help you bithead if you keep on trying to snap at everybody who just happens to be right, just like the oldman!

I may be arrogant, and hell I am, but I'm also helpful and truthful and trustworthy. Now if you'd rather have politicians who pander to you, and then let you down, that's your problem and not mine bithead. think about it.

Your excuses get weirder and weirder. Like your comment about your kid shoveling the driveway. First of all it was you who invoked that particular series and the source data. You can hardly claim it's illegitimate after you've invoked it! Second of all, your point shows that you don't do allot of reading. The numbers for employment are generally calculated 16 and above. If you actually read those sites instead of spouting off, you would find the truth.

Ah, but you see, the problem here is I'm talking to YOU. You are the one taking these numbers as anyone 16 and above who isn't institutionalized, is supposed to be working. THe point about my kid was an attempt at humor on the point that not everyone in the list is capable, or desirous of a job, and that thereby your data is at best guesswork because you've not quantified those subgroups.

Bithead, you puzzle me.

Yes, that much has been rather depressingly clear from the outset.

I also do know my numbers and statistics.

No question of that. Where I think your problem comes in however, is translating such numbers into reality.

You can continue to be a bitter, resentful whinger ... or you can open your eyes and see the best way of helping yourself out of this pit is to get the truth and start aligning yourself with people who make sense and can get things done.

I've been doing the latter... a point which causes no end of discussions such as this.

Instead you assumed that my asserting the fact that real unemployment is higher than the nominal 5.6% number was a partisan attack bent on destroying Bush.

Perhaps they were influenced in that by a string of comments such as:

"I just blame Bush for being too incompetent to even realize the problem created by Clinton, much less fix it."

I'd say given the rather heavy economic turnaround of the last few months and the projections we see for the summer, you may want to re-evaluate Mr. Bush's ability, here... and as an offspring of THAT, a re-calc of the depth of the problems Clinton caused that Bush has been forced to overcome. I think you've under-estimated Mr Clinton's culpability here all along.

Bithead,

You are a moron grasping at straws. I included a table devoted to nothing else but the age break-downs of labor force participations. It completely backed up my point. It's not my fault if you couldn't click on the link and read it.

Furthermore, I only said that it was Bush's fault for not being able to handle the situation AT THE END of the conversation. You and Thomson made that presumption at the outset. You can't switch it around and make it seem like something at the end was a reason why you argued so pitifully at the beginning!!! Unless you have ESP or something.

If you do, it's badly out of tune. Your comments and evasions and failures to live up to your pathetic claims of having information to support your views ... and failures to admit your incredible errors ... were only emphasized by the very weak employment report this morning.

Denial is not a river in Egypt you fool. This is even worse than the WMD debate. At least there people could make weak arguments it was shipped to Syria. Here, the emperour really does have no clothes but yet you still relentlessly defend the indefensible.

Such utter lack of independent judgement is exactly why you have no job mister. Judgement is the essence of leadership, and making the right calls isn't a moral issue of right and wrong - it's a success or failure issue in reality. You ought to come visit it some time. Maybe we could help you find a job there! A real job might be nice instead of the virtual job you have now.

You and Thomson made that presumption at the outset.

And why do you suppose we'd do that? On what basis? After all, all we have to go on is your attitude as reflected in what YOU typed.

The rest of your comments are exacrtly in line with our original judgement of you. What's amazing is how easy that's been to do.

Ta!