The Bush Legacy: Jobs Permanently Gone - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

HarmlessRabbit · 10-22-2003, 07:57 PM

http://www.msnbc.com/news/982733.asp

Quote:

RICHMOND, Va., Oct. 20 — Richmond Federal Reserve President Alfred Broaddus said Monday many of the U.S. jobs cut in recent years are gone permanently because of economic changes.

“A LOT OF these job losses are probably permanent structural job losses, but that trend probably has been exacerbated by weakness in the economy,” he told the Kiwanis Club of Richmond in a speech that largely mirrored an address in late September.
During later audience questions, Broaddus said he still feels cautiously optimistic about the economy but this optimism had become less guarded than five to six weeks ago.
The Richmond Fed chief, a voting member of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee this year, said the economy is in a “job-challenged recovery” and noted that September’s rise of 57,000 in nonfarm payrolls fell far short of what is needed to cut the unemployment rate given growth in the labor force as the disheartened go back to the job hunt.
Broaddus said a further pickup in the pace of U.S. productivity could push inflation down from already low levels. He added that he was confident the Fed could maintain U.S. price stability despite a risk of disinflation.
“High productivity growth is without doubt over the long run the best thing that could happen to the U.S. economy, but a further acceleration from here could be challenging,” because it could make it harder to work off overcapacity built up in the 1990s investment boom, Broaddus said.
“A persistent output gap ... could produce further disinflation, which we’d just as soon not have now,” he added.
Broaddus later told reporters he felt U.S. business sentiment and activity were on an upswing, although this may partly be due to the impact of recent tax cuts.
“I have a sense that ... some activity and attitudes have improved fairly materially in the last few weeks,” he told reporters after the speech, saying this was based on contacts with numerous business people across his district.
Broaddus said, however, that some of the improvements in the economic climate could be tax-cut inspired. “There’s some question, I think, in how long that stimulus is going to be there,” he said.
Asked about a proposal Friday from Fed Governor Ben Bernanke that the Fed adopt an explicit long-term inflation objective, Broaddus said while he had yet to explore the details, it may well be a helpful move.
“It’s something I want to look at carefully,” he said.

Thanks to GWB's tax cuts for the rich and lack of investment in USA infrastructure, jobs are leaving the country forever.

Despite GWB's promises, the unemployment rate has hovered at 6% for the last year. Wasn't his first tax cut supposed to fix things?

I guess if you want to get ahead in the future, you'll need to learn Mandarin.

Food Eater Lad · 10-22-2003, 08:10 PM

Then why is the economy on the rise?

DukeLeto · 10-22-2003, 08:31 PM

FEL: Figures? Facts? Anything at all besides your own luminous wisdom to show us the self-evident truth of your statement?

At least <i>attempt</i> to use evidence when you argue. Being querulous for its own sake is tiresome.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-22-2003, 08:42 PM

Speaking of stats, from the article:

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Recent figures
Sept 6.1%
Aug 6.1%
July 6.2%
June 6.4%
May 6.1%
April 6.0%
March 5.8%
Feb 5.8%
Jan 03 5.7%
Dec 6.0%
Nov 5.9%
Oct 5.8%

GDP
Recent figures
Q2 3.3%
Q1 2003 1.4%
Q4 1.4%
Q3 4.0%
Q2 1.3%
Q1 2002 5.0%
Q4 2.7%
Q3 -0.3%
Q2 -1.6%
Q1 2001 -0.6%
Q4 1.1%
Q3 0.6%
What is it?
The gross domestic product is the broadest measure of the economy, comprising the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It is reported quarterly with frequent revisions. Generally expressed as a percentage change from the previous quarter in “real” or inflation-adjusted terms. Economists presume real GDP is capable of growing at an annual rate of about 3.5 percent over the long term. When GDP declines over a sustained period of time the economy is considered to be in recession.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

EMPLOYMENT SITUATION

Sept* 57,000
Aug -41,000
July -57,000
June -83,000
May -76,000
April -22,000
March -151,000
Feb -121,000
Jan 03 158,000
Dec -211,000
Nov 1,000
Oct 119,000

What is it?
Represents the month-to-month change in jobs on payrolls of the nation’s business, government and non-profit establishments. Generally considered a more accurate indicator of labor market health than the unemployment rate. Analysts estimate the economy should add about 150,000 jobs monthly to keep up with the nation’s growing work force. Based on a sample of 300,000 establishments employing nearly a third of the nation’s workers, the figure is adjusted for seasonal variations and frequently revised.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 10:10 PM

Well it IS hard to clean up from the mess Clinton left, or are you going to blame Bush for a recession that started before he took office?

Ustwo · 10-22-2003, 10:11 PM

Oh and how do tax cuts lose jobs?

Pardon?

Lets not be trolling with party solgans eh?

HarmlessRabbit · 10-22-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Oh and how do tax cuts lose jobs?

Pardon?

Lets not be trolling with party solgans eh?

Step 1: enact a tax cut in June 2002 (not to mention the other tax cut, but for the sake of argument let's look at the June 2002 cut, which has had plenty of time to take an effect)

Step 2: lose jobs

What part of the statistic above about job loss is unclear?

Nizzle · 10-22-2003, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Then why is the economy on the rise?

Yeah, here in the tech sector of Silicon Valley, things are just booming. Booming with the rush to outsource development to India, that is.

And why not, we only pay them 1/3 the salaries of American engineers.

eple · 10-23-2003, 01:29 AM

I won't start pretending I know much about economy, but the numbers certainly don't look good. Guess I's good for India that they get all those lucrative jobs, but not neccecarily for the unemployed Americans. But hey, if your economy and wages take a real dive, you might soon compete with those darn developement countries.

Peetster · 10-23-2003, 02:09 AM

There once was an industry that was comprised of people that shoveled coal into the locomotive's burner box. They all had to learn to do something else. Lots of folks made their living in the home gas lighting industry, overtaken by technology. Menial jobs migrate to where labor is cheap. On paper, it looks like we are losing jobs. We have the advantage of access to education. Perhaps I'll become a typewriter repairman.

Superbelt · 10-23-2003, 03:24 AM

Ustwo, irresponsibly applied tax cuts lose jobs when states get less money from the federal government and have to raise property taxes to compensate. The majority of the people who have to pay these now higher taxes never really saw a substantial benefit from the cuts in the first place to offset this because, the tax cut was for the richest of us all.

Putting a new tax burden on a large segment of americans slows everything down.

Liquor Dealer · 10-23-2003, 04:42 AM

9-11 caused some jobs to disappear permanently - companies that moved out of New York, and many that stayed in New York restructured their organizations. 9-11 created some jobs - granted, these are probably not a good replacement for some of the jobs lost because many of those lost were very high paying executive posiitons that were not refilled. George Bush inherited an economic nightmare from old what's his name that Bush replaced. Time and policy are alleviating the economic downturn and the economy is coming back. By the time the election gets here the economy will be a non-issue - in fact, it will probably be an area that the Democrats want to avoid like the plague. Why have the 9 or 10 stoogies that are running for the Democratic nomination dropped, or are dropping economics as an issue and concentrating all their efforts on Iraq? It is the only card they've got to play and that card could easilly bust their hand before the dealing is through. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike George Bush - or if you approve or disapprove of the job he's doing - he beats anything offered by those wanting to move into the White House at this time. I believe that the only card any of them have to play that will work is the old pick me if you're wanting change simply for the sake of change - don't look at me too close because you won't like what you see.

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
There once was an industry that was comprised of people that shoveled coal into the locomotive's burner box. They all had to learn to do something else. Lots of folks made their living in the home gas lighting industry, overtaken by technology. Menial jobs migrate to where labor is cheap. On paper, it looks like we are losing jobs. We have the advantage of access to education. Perhaps I'll become a typewriter repairman.

Exactly right. "Permanent" job losses are a fundamental part of innovation and something that was bound to happen as we become more of a global economy.

IT jobs going out of the country is just like garment worker jobs going to China. It happens. Those that put all their faith in the "get into computers" career advice of the last 20 years were being set up for this type of thing.

Unemployment is typically at the 5 to 6% (median rate over the last decade has been 5.4%) level. To scream over .7% more unemployment than is "normal" is ridiculous.

Not to get too involved in the economics again since the other half a dozen times that this has been pointed out have been ignored, but GDP was growing at more than 5% a year. This rate is unsustainable, period. It is now growing in the 3% range which the Federal Reserve had as its target since Alan Greenspan has been there. The SLOWDOWN in the economy--that's right, slowdown, not a recession, not a depression--has been warned of for years. If you don't believe me I'll fax you some articles that I wrote 5 years ago, or better yet you can do some research since you probably won't believe anything I wrote anyway.

If anyone believes that these are bad economic times, you might want to leave the country to see what real bad economic times look like. Most countries only dream about the growth rates that we are still achieving to this day. When the economy does go into recession again (and it will) people better watch out. This economy is still growing. There are sections of the economy doing very well (check out the growth in service industries over the last several years), when ALL the sectors slow it will be an ugly sight.

And once again, the President has virtually nothing to do with the performance of the economy. Clinton didn't "give" us the 5% GDP growth just as Bush did not "give" us the 3% rate. The economy is made up of businesses by the thousands and hundreds of millions consumers. The interactions among these businesses and consumers are what generate GDP. Two-thirds of GDP (about 7 trillion dollars of the 10 trillion dollar GDP) comes from consumer spending.

lurkette · 10-23-2003, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2

If anyone believes that these are bad economic times, you might want to leave the country to see what real bad economic times look like.

...

And once again, the President has virtually nothing to do with the performance of the economy.

onetime2 is wise.

Yes, we are down from the "boom times" of the 90s, and yes, a lot of people are unemployed or underemployed, but the death of the business cycle was greatly exaggerated and what we're going through right now only looks so dire compared to the days of wine and roses we all thought would last forever. I think we should be doing more to help people who just can't find a job, whether it's education credits so they can learn new skills, or extension of unemployment benefits, or small business loans or what have you. But while Bush's economic advisors have been somewhat inept, I think the economy is far too complex a system to be able to pin blame or credit on any one force. However, human beings don't like complexity and go looking for simple causal explanations, and because presidents are so willing to take credit for the economy when it's good (ahem, Bill C.) they also tend to be who we point the finger at when it's bad.

Ustwo · 10-23-2003, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Step 1: enact a tax cut in June 2002 (not to mention the other tax cut, but for the sake of argument let's look at the June 2002 cut, which has had plenty of time to take an effect)

Step 2: lose jobs

What part of the statistic above about job loss is unclear?

Step 1: Collect Underpants

Step 2:

Step 3: PROFIT!

Harmless you are missing a step 1.5, with your logic we can assume the following.

Step 1: Chicago White Sox have a June 2002 record 12 16.

Step 2: Lose Jobs.

Or

Step 1: enact a tax cut in June 2002 (not to mention the other tax cut, but for the sake of argument let's look at the June 2002 cut, which has had plenty of time to take an effect)

Step 2: Chicago White Sox have a June 2002 record 12 16.

So using your logic I have proven that the Chicago White Sox win/loss record causes job loss and that tax cuts have caused the team to have a losing record.

Now again, how did me getting back 600 of the dollars that my labor earned cost someone their job when I spent the money on the nice desk I'm using right now? (Its a really nice one too, its like two desks joined together, my wife uses one half and I use the other, it also cost exactly 600 dollars (plus tax))

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Now again, how did me getting back 600 of the dollars that my labor earned cost someone their job when I spent the money on the nice desk I'm using right now? (Its a really nice one too, its like two desks joined together, my wife uses one half and I use the other, it also cost exactly 600 dollars (plus tax))

Hmm, so it looks like the early return of your own money added to the coffers of the state government. The only thing lost by the federal government was the interest they would have earned on that $600 over the months between you cashing the check and you filing your tax returns.

Although your win loss record argument could use some work since there are lots of times that win/loss records in baseball cost people their jobs.

mb99usa · 10-23-2003, 07:21 AM

I guess what scares me the most is that I do not see the current administration doing anything about the jobless situation. They seem to be entirely focused on external issues. Everytime I hear our president speak it is about the "War on Terror". The only real terror I face right now is the thought I might lose my job.

We attacked Afghanistan, "freed" Iraq, now lets focus on us.

As for those who like to blame Clinton, all I can say is that the 8 years he was president my job was more secure, the company I work for was making money, and the only thing I had to worry about was which fat chick he was gonna go after next. GW seems intent on starting WW3 so he can stay in office.

Ustwo · 10-23-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mb99usa
I guess what scares me the most is that I do not see the current administration doing anything about the jobless situation. They seem to be entirely focused on external issues. Everytime I hear our president speak it is about the "War on Terror". The only real terror I face right now is the thought I might lose my job.

Our economy is not controlled by the govt (at least not yet), so what do you want them to do? There is VERY little a president can do for an economy. The last thing I want is the government attempting to controll the largest economy in the world, I would think by now we all know how well state run economies work.

(btw our economy is doing better then Europes)

mb99usa · 10-23-2003, 07:33 AM

No, all I meant was I don't see anything being done to encourage companies to keep jobs here, expand, bring in new businesses. Government plays a large part in our economy. Economic confidence draws heavily form how our gov't is performing.

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mb99usa
I guess what scares me the most is that I do not see the current administration doing anything about the jobless situation.

The "jobless situation" is hardly an issue. Yeah, it sucks if you don't have a job but the economic reality is that at least 4% and more than likely somewhere between 5 and 6 % unemployment is "normal". A great majority of them are people in transition from one job to another, one region to another, one career to another, or are in the midst of a life change (perhaps going from a working father/mother to a stay at home father/mother). There are also a number of people displaced due to changing market factors.

The IT industry is one example. There are far greater numbers of people that are capable of doing the work and want to do it than there are companies that want/need to hire them. Until this situation equalizes (people decide to give up on that career and move to another or there is an increase in companies wanting this work to be done locally) there is little the government can do. Even if the government does something to stimulate work for those in this situation what would motivate the IT employers to hire more expensive labor than they need to? Even if they pass a law saying companies can't outsource IT to other countries, it is a temporary solution that will eventually fail.

It's far more likely that the government can NOT stimulate that specific area of the economy to hire more people than if it were to try to stimulate the overall economy to grow jobs. Now, if this happens, the jobs will still require certain skills which the IT worker probably doesn't have. So, they need to be trained. This takes time and then there are those IT workers who will refuse to do that type of work and will remain unemployed by choice.

As with the rest of the economy, employment is complicated. There are no easy answers. The government can impact things only marginally. The market is far more powerful than the government.

smooth · 10-23-2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Hmm, so it looks like the early return of your own money added to the coffers of the state government. The only thing lost by the federal government was the interest they would have earned on that $600 over the months between you cashing the check and you filing your tax returns.

I don't understand how you conclude that the federal government only lost the interest from his tax return.

They gave him $600--they now have $600 less than they had before. The federal government didn't recoup that amount from him or anyone else so shouldn't the rational response be to lower spending by $600, not raise it?

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I don't understand how you conclude that the federal government only lost the interest from his tax return.

They gave him $600--they now have $600 less than they had before. The federal government didn't recoup that amount from him or anyone else so shouldn't the rational response be to lower spending by $600, not raise it?

The $600 is money that would have been returned to the taxpayer when they filed their tax returns.

smooth · 10-23-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
The $600 is money that would have been returned to the taxpayer when they filed their tax returns.

Thank you for resonding.

If Ustwo is referring to the $600 he received from his tax return does your statement still hold true?

The way I read it, he received an extra $600 on his tax returns (money that "[his] labor earned") that he wouldn't have received had the tax cuts not been enacted.

We'll need to wait for Ustwo to come back and clear it up but your claim doesn't seem to be correct if he was the taxpayer who received $600 due to a tax cut provision after he filed his tax return.

Ustwo · 10-23-2003, 10:22 AM

It was the $600 refund check from the Bush tax cut that I bought my nice desk with.

I'm still trying to figure out how $600 in Federal hands creates a job, but $600 that I spent does not.

Maybe the Underpants Gnomes, know.

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Thank you for resonding.

If Ustwo is referring to the $600 he received from his tax return does your statement still hold true?

The way I read it, he received an extra $600 on his tax returns (money that "[his] labor earned") that he wouldn't have received had the tax cuts not been enacted.

We'll need to wait for Ustwo to come back and clear it up but your claim doesn't seem to be correct if he was the taxpayer who received $600 due to a tax cut provision after he filed his tax return.

I believe my statement holds true as that's the way the tax "cut" was designed. It wasn't a cut in the real sense of the word. It was more of an early refund.

Ustwo · 10-23-2003, 10:25 AM

Well it was $600 of my money I wouldn't have had, unless the Bush tax cut was passed, so while you could argue it was a refund, it was a refund I would not have had if a Democrat was the president. Democrats think they can spend your money better then you can. We, the people, don't spend it correctly.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Well it was $600 of my money I wouldn't have had, unless the Bush tax cut was passed, so while you could argue it was a refund, it was a refund I would not have had if a Democrat was the president. Democrats think they can spend your money better then you can. We, the people, don't spend it correctly.

I have an idea. Instead of paying property taxes, perhaps we should just pave the roads ourselves... We are better at spending our own money aren't we?

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
I have an idea. Instead of paying property taxes, perhaps we should just pave the roads ourselves... We are better at spending our own money aren't we?

Don't even get me started on road paving. I worked in the Road Machinery division of Ingersoll Rand for a few years. The spending that went on by state and local governments was far from efficient.

smooth · 10-23-2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Well it was $600 of my money I wouldn't have had, unless the Bush tax cut was passed, so while you could argue it was a refund, it was a refund I would not have had if a Democrat was the president. Democrats think they can spend your money better then you can. We, the people, don't spend it correctly.

I think Astrocloud raises a good point but where we should cut spending (that is, what services we are willing to pay for) is an ideological point.

Keep in mind, however, that this is an interesting twist of the debate. Very few progressives were opposed to things like the $600 credit--in fact, we wanted it extended to the lower classes, as well, because we argued that demand side spending would boost the economy.

The problem was, however, that your $600 was wrapped by provisions that gave extremely wealthy individuals and corporations money they weren't going to use to invest domestically. If they were intelliegent (and there isn't any reason to believe they weren't) then they invested whatever gains they made in the stock market or other global investment where their capital could seek the highest return for the lowest cost of investment.

Thus, we (progressives) agreed that you should get your $600 back because we believed that once you spent it, our economy would start moving. The opponents, however, argued that the economy would start moving from topside investment--not consumers--and consequently, they should receive the bulk of the tax reimbursment.

One of the issues as I see it then becomes how to effect domestic investment. I believe we could have tied specifics tax refunds to domestic investment and small business ventures. I think we would be hard pressed to find multi-millionaires purchasing $600 desks with their tax credit. They might purchase other high ticket items but, for the most part, their money is going to create jobs--just not in the US.

The other issue, of course, would be to reduce expenditure comensurate with tax refunds, cuts, or whatever you want to label them--normally the stance of the conservative party. Instead, for the first time in our country's history, we had simultaneous tax cuts for the wealthiest portion of our society while increasing expenditures for military endeavors--by far the largest chunk of our national expenditure that outpaces several of the lagging nations combined!

So while the conservative party laments the rise of an activist judicial branch and appropriately points to comments by our nation's framers as evidence of their claims, they ignore the warnings of those same leaders regarding the dangers of the growth of a massive, industrial military complex.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Don't even get me started on road paving. I worked in the Road Machinery division of Ingersoll Rand for a few years. The spending that went on by state and local governments was far from efficient.

Awesome dude, because out here there ARE places where you get a tax break and the city doesn't take care of the roads. In those places -the roads are a complete mess. Perhaps the "far from efficient" government paving roads is a wee bit better than expecting the citizens to do it themselves.

Ustwo · 10-23-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
IKeep in mind, however, that this is an interesting twist of the debate. Very few progressives were opposed to things like the $600 credit--in fact, we wanted it extended to the lower classes, as well, because we argued that demand side spending would boost the economy.

You Liberals (note I didn't say progressive, you can relable yourself but its the same rose) don't get it. You can't give a REFUND to people who don't pay an income tax.

If you gave $600 to low income families its not a refund, its welfare. Of course the 'rich' get the tax refunds because the top 50% earners PAY 97% of the tax!

And Astro, I'm talking income taxes, we have lots of other taxes which can pave the roads quite nicely, lets start with the gas tax.

seretogis · 10-23-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Awesome dude, because out here there ARE places where you get a tax break and the city doesn't take care of the roads. In those places -the roads are a complete mess. Perhaps the "far from efficient" government paving roads is a wee bit better than expecting the citizens to do it themselves.

A group of concerned citizens can pool their own money together and hire a contractor to do it at a lower cost than it would take for the government to do so. All that it takes is for citizens to be interested in improving their community without the intervention of government.

Wouldn't you rather promote community interest rather than an apathetic "the government will take care of it" attitude?

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Awesome dude, because out here there ARE places where you get a tax break and the city doesn't take care of the roads. In those places -the roads are a complete mess. Perhaps the "far from efficient" government paving roads is a wee bit better than expecting the citizens to do it themselves.

I live on an unpaved road right now. No city maintenance it's up to the homeowners to do it all.

So it's the Bush tax cut that keeps those roads from being paved and maintained? I think not. If government was more efficient in their spending on the roads in the rest of your state they could pave and maintain the other roads without increased taxes.

A prime example of government's inability to manage the roads is how long it has/will take to spend the money associated with TEA-21. As the government delays spending the roads worsen which ends up boosting repair costs exponentially.

Food Eater Lad · 10-23-2003, 11:47 AM

Here are some stats that show the exact opposite of what Harmless Rabbit posted. Note I used a real source, not a secondary article to pursue an agenda.
Notice unemployment is LOWERING. Not rising as HR's post claimed.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 03-523
http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release is
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EDT),
Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, October 3, 2003.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: SEPTEMBER 2003

The unemployment rate remained at 6.1 percent in September, and total
nonfarm payroll employment was little changed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The number of jobs in manu-
facturing declined at a slower pace than in recent months, while employment
in temporary help services continued to trend upward.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons, 9.0 million, was about unchanged in
September, and the unemployment rate was 6.1 percent, the same as in August.

Unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (5.7 percent),
adult women (5.3 percent), teenagers (17.5 percent), whites (5.3 percent),
blacks (11.2 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (7.5 percent)--were little
changed in September. The unemployment rate for Asians was 6.2 percent,
not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In September, there were 2.1 million unemployed persons who had been
looking for work for 27 weeks or longer, representing 23.2 percent of the
total unemployed. Since November 2001, the proportion of long-term unem-
ployed has increased by about 9 percentage points. (See table A-9.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Both total employment (137.6 million) and the employment-population
ratio (62.0 percent) were about unchanged in September. The employment-
population ratio was down by 1.0 percentage point over the year. Both the
civilian labor force, 146.5 million, and the labor force participation
rate, 66.1 percent, also were little changed in September. (See table
A-1.)

The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons rose
in September to 5.0 million, seasonally adjusted. These persons indicated
that they would like to work full time but worked part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. The total number of persons at work part time, including both the
economic and noneconomic categories, was essentially unchanged at 24.0
million. (See table A-5.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In September, 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.)
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, how-
ever, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding
the survey. Of the 1.5 million, 388,000 were discouraged workers--persons
who were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed
no jobs were available for them. The number of discouraged workers in
September was about the same as a year earlier. The other 1.2 million
marginally attached had not searched for work because they were in school
or had family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)

- 2 -

Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
______________________________________________________________________________
| Quarterly | |
| averages | Monthly data |
|_________________|__________________________| Aug.-
Category | 2003 | 2003 | Sept.
|_________________|__________________________| change
| II | III | July | Aug. | Sept. |
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______
HOUSEHOLD DATA | Labor force status
|____________________________________________________
Civilian labor force.....| 146,685| 146,539| 146,540| 146,530| 146,545| 15
Employment.............| 137,638| 137,559| 137,478| 137,625| 137,573| -52
Unemployment...........| 9,047| 8,980| 9,062| 8,905| 8,973| 68
Not in labor force.......| 74,090| 74,974| 74,712| 74,977| 75,234| 257
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Unemployment rates
|____________________________________________________
All workers..............| 6.2| 6.1| 6.2| 6.1| 6.1| 0.0
Adult men..............| 5.9| 5.8| 5.9| 5.8| 5.7| -.1
Adult women............| 5.1| 5.2| 5.2| 5.2| 5.3| .1
Teenagers..............| 18.6| 17.5| 18.4| 16.6| 17.5| .9
White..................| 5.4| 5.4| 5.5| 5.4| 5.3| -.1
Black or African | | | | | |
American.............| 11.2| 11.1| 11.1| 10.9| 11.2| .3
Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |
ethnicity............| 8.0| 7.8| 8.2| 7.8| 7.5| -.3
|________|________|________|________|________________
ESTABLISHMENT DATA | Employment
|____________________________________________________
Nonfarm employment.......| 129,984|p129,838| 129,846|p129,805|p129,862| p57
Goods-producing 1/.....| 22,093| p21,976| 22,001| p21,972| p21,955| p-17
Construction.........| 6,782| p6,821| 6,804| p6,823| p6,837| p14
Manufacturing........| 14,744| p14,591| 14,631| p14,585| p14,556| p-29
Service-providing 1/...| 107,891|p107,862| 107,845|p107,833|p107,907| p74
Retail trade.........| 14,981| p14,962| 14,958| p14,959| p14,969| p10
Professional and | | | | | |
business services..| 15,999| p16,082| 16,063| p16,058| p16,124| p66
Education and health | | | | | |
services...........| 16,498| p16,507| 16,487| p16,512| p16,521| p9
Leisure and | | | | | |
hospitality........| 12,036| p12,048| 12,051| p12,048| p12,045| p-3
Government...........| 21,495| p21,452| 21,458| p21,456| p21,441| p-15
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Hours of work 2/
|____________________________________________________
Total private............| 33.7| p33.7| 33.6| p33.7| p33.7| p0.0
Manufacturing..........| 40.2| p40.2| 40.1| p40.2| p40.4| p.2
Overtime.............| 4.0| p4.1| 4.1| p4.0| p4.2| p.2
|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100) 2/
|____________________________________________________
| 98.7| p98.5| 98.3| p98.6| p98.6| p0.0
Total private............|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Earnings 2/
|____________________________________________________
Avg. hourly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| $15.34| p$15.45| $15.43| p$15.46| p$15.45|p-$0.01
Avg. weekly earnings, | | | | | |
total private..........| 517.07| p520.04| 518.45| p521.00| p520.67| p-.33
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______

1 Includes other industries, not shown separately.
2 Data relate to private production or nonsupervisory workers.
p=preliminary.

- 3 -

Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (+57,000) in
September at 129.9 million. Over the month, manufacturing job losses
continued, although at a slower pace. Professional and business services
added jobs, as temporary help employment increased for the fifth consecu-
tive month. (See table B-1.)

Manufacturing employment decreased by 29,000 in September. Although
small declines occurred throughout most of the sector, September's loss was
below the average for the prior 12 months (-54,000). Most of the easing in
September occurred among durable goods industries.

Professional and business services added 66,000 jobs in September; half
of the gain occurred in temporary help services. Since April, temporary
help has added 147,000 jobs. Architectural and engineering services
employment increased by 9,000 in September.

Health care and social assistance had a small employment increase over
the month (15,000). Job gains in this industry averaged 23,000 a month
during the first half of this year, compared with a monthly average of
13,000 since June.

Within transportation and warehousing, air transportation added 3,000
jobs in September. Employment in retail trade was little changed; however,
employment increased in two of its component industries--motor vehicle and
parts dealers (8,000) and building material and garden supply stores
(7,000).

Construction employment continued to trend up. Since February, the
industry has added 137,000 jobs, with most of the gains among special trade
contractors.

Employment in financial activities remains on an upward trend, though at
a reduced pace. For the past 4 months, job gains have averaged about 5,000
per month, compared with 16,000 per month from August 2002 to May 2003.

Employment in government was little changed over the month. Seasonal
hiring was weak in local education, and, after seasonal adjustment,
employment decreased by 44,000 in September. However, the decline was
partially offset by a gain of 17,000 jobs in local government, excluding
education.

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls was unchanged over the month at 33.7 hours, seasonally
adjusted. The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.2 hour in September
to 40.4 hours, seasonally adjusted. Manufacturing overtime also rose by
0.2 hour to 4.2 hours. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory
workers on private nonfarm payrolls held at 98.6 in September (2002=100).
The manufacturing index increased by 0.2 percent over the month to 94.2.
(See table B-5.)

- 4 -

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private
nonfarm payrolls were down by 1 cent over the month to $15.45, seasonally
adjusted. Average weekly earnings were down by 0.1 percent in September to
$520.67. Over the year, average hourly earnings grew by 2.7 percent and
average weekly earnings increased by 2.1 percent. (See table B-3.)

______________________________

The Employment Situation for October 2003 is scheduled to be released on
Friday, November 7, at 8:30 A.M. (EST).

smooth · 10-23-2003, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
You Liberals (note I didn't say progressive, you can relable yourself but its the same rose) don't get it. You can't give a REFUND to people who don't pay an income tax.

If you gave $600 to low income families its not a refund, its welfare. Of course the 'rich' get the tax refunds because the top 50% earners PAY 97% of the tax!

And Astro, I'm talking income taxes, we have lots of other taxes which can pave the roads quite nicely, lets start with the gas tax.

I'll make my point without stooping to labeling you with a perjorative term.

The claim was that tax cuts would stimulate the economy, provide jobs for US citizens, and pull us out of a recession. Who should receive them is a moot point since the tax cuts have already been approved.

I provided a few paragraphs to illustrate challenges of current policies in regards to their effect on promoting domestic growth and suggested policy changes that would or could have facilitated such growth.

Rather than respond, however, you attempted to incite me into an ideological debate--let's stick with addressing the former issues I have already raised because the latter argument will rapidly degrade (as it appears to have done already judging from your first sentence).

smooth · 10-23-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Here are some stats that show the exact opposite of what Harmless Rabbit posted. Note I used a real source, not a secondary article to pursue an agenda.

Notice unemployment is LOWERING. Not rising as HR's post claimed.

FEL, I'm going to point out two alarming trends by bolding the relevant portions from your quote:

Quote:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons rose in September to 5.0 million, seasonally adjusted. These persons indicated that they would like to work full time but worked part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In September, 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) 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, how-ever, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Of the 1.5 million, 388,000 were discouraged workers--persons who were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The number of discouraged workers in September was about the same as a year earlier. The other 1.2 million
marginally attached had not searched for work because they were in school or had family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)

While 1.2 million of those 1.5 million are in school or taking care of family responsibility (something I would hope our society wants to promote--not hinder), this is hardly a portrayal of domestic growth.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 12:49 PM

First of all, -since some want to talk about whether living on a paved or an unpaved road is better... (I was speaking figuratively about living with a paved road vs. an unpaved road.) Personally I think most people would prefer paving at a cost through their taxes; I'm sorry if some of us prefer to drive within squalor. But I'm not talking about that so let's take it up a notch.

More literally speaking -we are talking about federal taxes. The literal "pavement" is things that the Federal Government pays for. A great deal of our Federal tax dollars goes to social spending -it's a fact. Defense is also a significant expendature.

Without actually considering the numbers (or politics,) we can note that both these expendatures are going up. For example, the number of unemployment claims has made a significant rise since Bush came to office. One could also say the same of the defense budget.

Obviously, the wars Aghanistan and Iraq are a federal expendature. Whether they are "just" or not is the topic of another thread, but whether they could be managed better... especially fiscally better is perfect for this one, now.

A simple fiscal fact about war is that the more parties you have on your side -the more the economic burden of war can be distributed (shared) with allies. At least in the Afghanistan war, Bush had the chance to include Allies, but snubbed them... It doesn't make sense in an economic sense.

Furthermore, if you are trying to determine the state of the economy and you really want to consider "the numbers" -rather than just plugging various numbers in (from various sources): Why not read what the Experts have to say?

http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wj030403.html

Quote:

Originally published in The Wall Street Journal
March 4, 2003

Stimulate Now
By Martin Feldstein

Today's economic outlook is far from rosy. Consumer confidence is at a 10-year low, retail sales are declining, share prices continue to fall, and oil prices are spiking. A substantial tax cut now would reduce the risk of slow growth and possible decline in the months ahead. While such a fiscal stimulus will increase the budget deficit, there is ample time to reduce unnecessary spending and wasteful tax features to achieve budget balance in the years ahead.

The reason for a fiscal stimulus is not just the recent economic news. Consumer spending over the next few years is particularly vulnerable if households raise their saving rates to rebuild the wealth lost by stock-price declines. Weakness in Europe and Japan suppresses American exports. State governments must cut spending. Low capacity utilization will restrain business investment even after the uncertainties of the Iraq war are resolved

Monetary policy is now appropriately expansionary. The Fed's policy shows, more clearly than its words, its concern about potential economic weakness. With current economic conditions, past experience implies the federal-funds rate would be set at about 3%, well above the current 1.25% rate. Money supply is also growing much faster than nominal GDP. In other words, the Fed has gone unusually far to provide a margin of safety.

In contrast, there is virtually no additional discretionary fiscal stimulus in the pipeline for 2003 and 2004. The shift of the cyclically adjusted federal budget from a $108 billion surplus in 2001 to a $117 billion deficit in 2002 added $225 billion to aggregate demand last year, helping to achieve the 2.7% GDP growth. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that the cyclically adjusted deficit will rise by only $32 billion in 2003 -- less than 0.3% of GDP -- and that this will be reversed by a $36 billion fall in 2004.

President Bush's tax proposal would double the fiscal stimulus in 2003 and add a fiscal stimulus of about 1% of GDP in 2004 (an estimated $113 billion). The resulting increase in GDP may be more than these direct fiscal measures imply. Advancing to 2003 the tax cuts scheduled to phase in over the next five years would not only put additional cash in taxpayers' pockets but would boost household spending by removing uncertainty about whether the projected tax cuts will ever occur. Similarly, eliminating double taxation of dividends would raise share prices, an added stimulus to consumer spending and business investment. The president's tax proposal would provide a very useful stimulus as well as a substantial improvement in long-term economic incentives.

Congressional Democrats would prefer to stimulate demand by one-time aid to state and local governments and by one-time payments to low-income households. The negotiations between Congress and the administration could lead to a choice between enacting both the president's and the Democrats' plans or a stalemate in which both are rejected. To reduce the risk of a new downturn and increase the prospect for solid growth in the years ahead, it would be far better to accept some combination of both plans than to have no additional fiscal stimulus.

Critics of the proposals for fiscal stimulus have rightly questioned the impact on the fiscal deficit and the resulting increase in the national debt. The disadvantage of increasing the deficit and debt must be balanced against the desirability of both the short-term fiscal stimulus and the long-term improvements in tax rules. The president's proposal is officially estimated to reduce revenue by $665 billion from 2004 to 2013. That's less than one-half of 1% of the total GDP over those years. And even that overstates the likely revenue loss because it ignores totally the favorable effects of the tax changes on GDP and taxable income

Even if we increase the officially projected deficits to include the effects of making permanent the tax changes enacted in 2001, extending a variety of other expiring tax provisions, revising the alternative minimum tax so it does not affect most taxpayers, fighting an Iraq war, and increasing the discretionary government spending in line with rising GDP, the CBO's estimates imply that the total cumulative deficit over the next 10 years would be only 1.8% of the corresponding GDP, and the ratio of national debt to GDP at the end of the 10 years would remain at the current 35% level. The budget deficit in 2013 would be only 1.4 % of GDP and the ratio of debt to GDP would be declining. These numbers are fundamentally different from the deficits that averaged more than 4% of GDP in the mid-1980s.

The bond markets are clearly quite comfortable about the projected deficits. The 10-year Treasury interest rate is only 4%, down from 4.9% a year ago, and the corresponding real rate on inflation-protected treasuries is only 2%, also down from a year ago. The low current deficit and debt and the public's confidence in the Fed's ability to maintain low inflation imply that even an excessively strong fiscal expansion will not start a spiral of rising inflation or unstable output.

Decisions about monetary and fiscal policy require a balancing of risks. A more stimulative policy now would reduce the risk of rising unemployment and a weakening economy. Even if it turns out to have been unnecessary, the adverse effect would be small and not hard to correct. The balance of risks clearly calls for more fiscal stimulus now.

Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, is an economics professor at Harvard and a member of the Journal's Board of Contributors.

Food Eater Lad · 10-23-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
FEL, I'm going to point out two alarming trends by bolding the relevant portions from your quote:

While 1.2 million of those 1.5 million are in school or taking care of family responsibility (something I would hope our society wants to promote--not hinder), this is hardly a portrayal of domestic growth.

And your point is? The fact is that the truth is the opposite of what Harmless Rabbit tried to pass as truth. The economy is on an upswing, and unemployment is lowering, not rising.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
The economy is on an upswing,

I can give you a very large list of leading economic PHd's who will say otherwise. Should I call you doctor?

eple · 10-23-2003, 02:31 PM

It's never been better!

10-22-2003, 08:31 PM	#3 (permalink)
DukeLeto Upright Location: Minneapolis	FEL: Figures? Facts? Anything at all besides your own luminous wisdom to show us the self-evident truth of your statement? At least <i>attempt</i> to use evidence when you argue. Being querulous for its own sake is tiresome. __________________ "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine

10-22-2003, 10:10 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Well it IS hard to clean up from the mess Clinton left, or are you going to blame Bush for a recession that started before he took office? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-22-2003, 10:11 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Oh and how do tax cuts lose jobs? Pardon? Lets not be trolling with party solgans eh? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-23-2003, 04:42 AM	#12 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	9-11 caused some jobs to disappear permanently - companies that moved out of New York, and many that stayed in New York restructured their organizations. 9-11 created some jobs - granted, these are probably not a good replacement for some of the jobs lost because many of those lost were very high paying executive posiitons that were not refilled. George Bush inherited an economic nightmare from old what's his name that Bush replaced. Time and policy are alleviating the economic downturn and the economy is coming back. By the time the election gets here the economy will be a non-issue - in fact, it will probably be an area that the Democrats want to avoid like the plague. Why have the 9 or 10 stoogies that are running for the Democratic nomination dropped, or are dropping economics as an issue and concentrating all their efforts on Iraq? It is the only card they've got to play and that card could easilly bust their hand before the dealing is through. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike George Bush - or if you approve or disapprove of the job he's doing - he beats anything offered by those wanting to move into the White House at this time. I believe that the only card any of them have to play that will work is the old pick me if you're wanting change simply for the sake of change - don't look at me too close because you won't like what you see. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

10-23-2003, 07:21 AM	#17 (permalink)
mb99usa Keep on rolling. It only hurts for a little while. Location: wherever I am	I guess what scares me the most is that I do not see the current administration doing anything about the jobless situation. They seem to be entirely focused on external issues. Everytime I hear our president speak it is about the "War on Terror". The only real terror I face right now is the thought I might lose my job. We attacked Afghanistan, "freed" Iraq, now lets focus on us. As for those who like to blame Clinton, all I can say is that the 8 years he was president my job was more secure, the company I work for was making money, and the only thing I had to worry about was which fat chick he was gonna go after next. GW seems intent on starting WW3 so he can stay in office. __________________ So, what's your point? It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.

10-22-2003, 08:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Then why is the economy on the rise?

10-22-2003, 08:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	Speaking of stats, from the article: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Recent figures Sept 6.1% Aug 6.1% July 6.2% June 6.4% May 6.1% April 6.0% March 5.8% Feb 5.8% Jan 03 5.7% Dec 6.0% Nov 5.9% Oct 5.8% GDP Recent figures Q2 3.3% Q1 2003 1.4% Q4 1.4% Q3 4.0% Q2 1.3% Q1 2002 5.0% Q4 2.7% Q3 -0.3% Q2 -1.6% Q1 2001 -0.6% Q4 1.1% Q3 0.6% What is it? The gross domestic product is the broadest measure of the economy, comprising the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It is reported quarterly with frequent revisions. Generally expressed as a percentage change from the previous quarter in “real” or inflation-adjusted terms. Economists presume real GDP is capable of growing at an annual rate of about 3.5 percent over the long term. When GDP declines over a sustained period of time the economy is considered to be in recession. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. EMPLOYMENT SITUATION Sept* 57,000 Aug -41,000 July -57,000 June -83,000 May -76,000 April -22,000 March -151,000 Feb -121,000 Jan 03 158,000 Dec -211,000 Nov 1,000 Oct 119,000 What is it? Represents the month-to-month change in jobs on payrolls of the nation’s business, government and non-profit establishments. Generally considered a more accurate indicator of labor market health than the unemployment rate. Analysts estimate the economy should add about 150,000 jobs monthly to keep up with the nation’s growing work force. Based on a sample of 300,000 establishments employing nearly a third of the nation’s workers, the figure is adjusted for seasonal variations and frequently revised. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

10-23-2003, 01:29 AM	#9 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	I won't start pretending I know much about economy, but the numbers certainly don't look good. Guess I's good for India that they get all those lucrative jobs, but not neccecarily for the unemployed Americans. But hey, if your economy and wages take a real dive, you might soon compete with those darn developement countries.

10-23-2003, 02:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	There once was an industry that was comprised of people that shoveled coal into the locomotive's burner box. They all had to learn to do something else. Lots of folks made their living in the home gas lighting industry, overtaken by technology. Menial jobs migrate to where labor is cheap. On paper, it looks like we are losing jobs. We have the advantage of access to education. Perhaps I'll become a typewriter repairman.

10-23-2003, 03:24 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ustwo, irresponsibly applied tax cuts lose jobs when states get less money from the federal government and have to raise property taxes to compensate. The majority of the people who have to pay these now higher taxes never really saw a substantial benefit from the cuts in the first place to offset this because, the tax cut was for the richest of us all. Putting a new tax burden on a large segment of americans slows everything down.

10-23-2003, 07:33 AM	#19 (permalink)
mb99usa Keep on rolling. It only hurts for a little while. Location: wherever I am	No, all I meant was I don't see anything being done to encourage companies to keep jobs here, expand, bring in new businesses. Government plays a large part in our economy. Economic confidence draws heavily form how our gov't is performing. __________________ So, what's your point? It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.

10-23-2003, 10:22 AM	#24 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	It was the $600 refund check from the Bush tax cut that I bought my nice desk with. I'm still trying to figure out how $600 in Federal hands creates a job, but $600 that I spent does not. Maybe the Underpants Gnomes, know. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-23-2003, 10:25 AM	#26 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Well it was $600 of my money I wouldn't have had, unless the Bush tax cut was passed, so while you could argue it was a refund, it was a refund I would not have had if a Democrat was the president. Democrats think they can spend your money better then you can. We, the people, don't spend it correctly. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-23-2003, 11:47 AM	#34 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Here are some stats that show the exact opposite of what Harmless Rabbit posted. Note I used a real source, not a secondary article to pursue an agenda. Notice unemployment is LOWERING. Not rising as HR's post claimed. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Technical information: Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 03-523 http://www.bls.gov/cps/ Establishment data: 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release is http://www.bls.gov/ces/ embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EDT), Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, October 3, 2003. THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: SEPTEMBER 2003 The unemployment rate remained at 6.1 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment was little changed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. The number of jobs in manu- facturing declined at a slower pace than in recent months, while employment in temporary help services continued to trend upward. Unemployment (Household Survey Data) The number of unemployed persons, 9.0 million, was about unchanged in September, and the unemployment rate was 6.1 percent, the same as in August. Unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (5.7 percent), adult women (5.3 percent), teenagers (17.5 percent), whites (5.3 percent), blacks (11.2 percent), and Hispanics or Latinos (7.5 percent)--were little changed in September. The unemployment rate for Asians was 6.2 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.) In September, there were 2.1 million unemployed persons who had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer, representing 23.2 percent of the total unemployed. Since November 2001, the proportion of long-term unem- ployed has increased by about 9 percentage points. (See table A-9.) Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data) Both total employment (137.6 million) and the employment-population ratio (62.0 percent) were about unchanged in September. The employment- population ratio was down by 1.0 percentage point over the year. Both the civilian labor force, 146.5 million, and the labor force participation rate, 66.1 percent, also were little changed in September. (See table A-1.) The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons rose in September to 5.0 million, seasonally adjusted. These persons indicated that they would like to work full time but worked part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. The total number of persons at work part time, including both the economic and noneconomic categories, was essentially unchanged at 24.0 million. (See table A-5.) Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data) In September, 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) 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, how- ever, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Of the 1.5 million, 388,000 were discouraged workers--persons who were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The number of discouraged workers in September was about the same as a year earlier. The other 1.2 million marginally attached had not searched for work because they were in school or had family responsibilities. (See table A-13.) - 2 - Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) ______________________________________________________________________________ \| Quarterly \| \| \| averages \| Monthly data \| \|_________________\|__________________________\| Aug.- Category \| 2003 \| 2003 \| Sept. \|_________________\|__________________________\| change \| II \| III \| July \| Aug. \| Sept. \| _________________________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|_______ HOUSEHOLD DATA \| Labor force status \|____________________________________________________ Civilian labor force.....\| 146,685\| 146,539\| 146,540\| 146,530\| 146,545\| 15 Employment.............\| 137,638\| 137,559\| 137,478\| 137,625\| 137,573\| -52 Unemployment...........\| 9,047\| 8,980\| 9,062\| 8,905\| 8,973\| 68 Not in labor force.......\| 74,090\| 74,974\| 74,712\| 74,977\| 75,234\| 257 \|________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|_______ \| Unemployment rates \|____________________________________________________ All workers..............\| 6.2\| 6.1\| 6.2\| 6.1\| 6.1\| 0.0 Adult men..............\| 5.9\| 5.8\| 5.9\| 5.8\| 5.7\| -.1 Adult women............\| 5.1\| 5.2\| 5.2\| 5.2\| 5.3\| .1 Teenagers..............\| 18.6\| 17.5\| 18.4\| 16.6\| 17.5\| .9 White..................\| 5.4\| 5.4\| 5.5\| 5.4\| 5.3\| -.1 Black or African \| \| \| \| \| \| American.............\| 11.2\| 11.1\| 11.1\| 10.9\| 11.2\| .3 Hispanic or Latino \| \| \| \| \| \| ethnicity............\| 8.0\| 7.8\| 8.2\| 7.8\| 7.5\| -.3 \|________\|________\|________\|________\|________________ ESTABLISHMENT DATA \| Employment \|____________________________________________________ Nonfarm employment.......\| 129,984\|p129,838\| 129,846\|p129,805\|p129,862\| p57 Goods-producing 1/.....\| 22,093\| p21,976\| 22,001\| p21,972\| p21,955\| p-17 Construction.........\| 6,782\| p6,821\| 6,804\| p6,823\| p6,837\| p14 Manufacturing........\| 14,744\| p14,591\| 14,631\| p14,585\| p14,556\| p-29 Service-providing 1/...\| 107,891\|p107,862\| 107,845\|p107,833\|p107,907\| p74 Retail trade.........\| 14,981\| p14,962\| 14,958\| p14,959\| p14,969\| p10 Professional and \| \| \| \| \| \| business services..\| 15,999\| p16,082\| 16,063\| p16,058\| p16,124\| p66 Education and health \| \| \| \| \| \| services...........\| 16,498\| p16,507\| 16,487\| p16,512\| p16,521\| p9 Leisure and \| \| \| \| \| \| hospitality........\| 12,036\| p12,048\| 12,051\| p12,048\| p12,045\| p-3 Government...........\| 21,495\| p21,452\| 21,458\| p21,456\| p21,441\| p-15 \|________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|_______ \| Hours of work 2/ \|____________________________________________________ Total private............\| 33.7\| p33.7\| 33.6\| p33.7\| p33.7\| p0.0 Manufacturing..........\| 40.2\| p40.2\| 40.1\| p40.2\| p40.4\| p.2 Overtime.............\| 4.0\| p4.1\| 4.1\| p4.0\| p4.2\| p.2 \|________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|_______ \| Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100) 2/ \|____________________________________________________ \| 98.7\| p98.5\| 98.3\| p98.6\| p98.6\| p0.0 Total private............\|________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|_______ \| Earnings 2/ \|____________________________________________________ Avg. hourly earnings, \| \| \| \| \| \| total private..........\| $15.34\| p$15.45\| $15.43\| p$15.46\| p$15.45\|p-$0.01 Avg. weekly earnings, \| \| \| \| \| \| total private..........\| 517.07\| p520.04\| 518.45\| p521.00\| p520.67\| p-.33 _________________________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|________\|_______ 1 Includes other industries, not shown separately. 2 Data relate to private production or nonsupervisory workers. p=preliminary. - 3 - Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data) Total nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (+57,000) in September at 129.9 million. Over the month, manufacturing job losses continued, although at a slower pace. Professional and business services added jobs, as temporary help employment increased for the fifth consecu- tive month. (See table B-1.) Manufacturing employment decreased by 29,000 in September. Although small declines occurred throughout most of the sector, September's loss was below the average for the prior 12 months (-54,000). Most of the easing in September occurred among durable goods industries. Professional and business services added 66,000 jobs in September; half of the gain occurred in temporary help services. Since April, temporary help has added 147,000 jobs. Architectural and engineering services employment increased by 9,000 in September. Health care and social assistance had a small employment increase over the month (15,000). Job gains in this industry averaged 23,000 a month during the first half of this year, compared with a monthly average of 13,000 since June. Within transportation and warehousing, air transportation added 3,000 jobs in September. Employment in retail trade was little changed; however, employment increased in two of its component industries--motor vehicle and parts dealers (8,000) and building material and garden supply stores (7,000). Construction employment continued to trend up. Since February, the industry has added 137,000 jobs, with most of the gains among special trade contractors. Employment in financial activities remains on an upward trend, though at a reduced pace. For the past 4 months, job gains have averaged about 5,000 per month, compared with 16,000 per month from August 2002 to May 2003. Employment in government was little changed over the month. Seasonal hiring was weak in local education, and, after seasonal adjustment, employment decreased by 44,000 in September. However, the decline was partially offset by a gain of 17,000 jobs in local government, excluding education. Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data) The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged over the month at 33.7 hours, seasonally adjusted. The manufacturing workweek increased by 0.2 hour in September to 40.4 hours, seasonally adjusted. Manufacturing overtime also rose by 0.2 hour to 4.2 hours. (See table B-2.) The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls held at 98.6 in September (2002=100). The manufacturing index increased by 0.2 percent over the month to 94.2. (See table B-5.) - 4 - Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data) Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls were down by 1 cent over the month to $15.45, seasonally adjusted. Average weekly earnings were down by 0.1 percent in September to $520.67. Over the year, average hourly earnings grew by 2.7 percent and average weekly earnings increased by 2.1 percent. (See table B-3.) ______________________________ The Employment Situation for October 2003 is scheduled to be released on Friday, November 7, at 8:30 A.M. (EST).

10-23-2003, 02:31 PM	#40 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	It's never been better!