300,000 new jobs
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=668&ncid=716


With this news and the fact that 29 states have or just elected republican governors, some of which had been strictly democrat for years, shows that Bush will most likely be your president again come 04.

Yeah, I think the Dems are boned this year. Glad to see the cycle still comes as reliably as ever.

I thought CLinton was the only dem that got boned?

Simmer down, it was a joke.

Haha, I bet he doesn't. If it's not politically beneficial to him, no one else should be able to make a living, right?

As an American, and someone who needs a job, I am very happy that things are looking up. Does it mean that Bush we get four more years, no, but it does help. I always felt that regardless of whether it was Bush or Gore we were looking at a one term president. I still think that the nation is split almost 50-50 and that if the Dems produce a serious candidate they could still win. But yes, it is getting more and more difficult.

I think Dean will win the democratic nomination, and he looks like a walking penis (or has like a badger in his ass or something). Things aren't looking up for them now, they weren't looking up for them before. They're boned.

Yea they are boned, BUT I still wonder if they boned themselves on purpose. (They being the DNC leadership) When Bush gave his 9/11/01 speech Hilary Clinton saw her aspirations for 2004 take a nosedive. (Remembers those looks on her face?) The last thing she would want is a democrat to win in 2004, she is not for the party, she is for herself, and losing to Bush isn't going to help her much. On the other hand 2008 where the Republican is still unknown (run Rice run) she would have a much better chance, and making SURE no other Democrat could win in 2004 would be a must.

It's still early in the election, a lot can happen. I don't believe Bush is unbeatable but the Dems have to get a cohesive story together that isn't just a bunch of criticism of the President. They need to narrow the field quickly and quit hacking each other off at the knees.

So far Bush has the right strategy, he's publicly focused on running the country and privately focused on the campaign. What those that keep posting about how polls show the nation is evenly divided on Bush don't seem to grasp is that he hasn't started campaigning yet.


There's still a long way to go with the economy and there are risks. Not the least of which is inflation/deflation (Personally, I see a bigger risk in inflation than deflation but that's another topic altogether).

Before y'all start doing your happy dance, I just wanted to remind you that we're still 2.4 million jobs away from what we had at the end of Clinton's term. And we're still bleeding jobs in the manufacturing sector.

Cheers to the 300,000 homies who found jobs last quarter!

Of course productivity is a hell of a lot higher than it was at the end of Clinton's term. This, of course, means fewer people are required to produce the same amount of goods.

You are absolutely correct. If the Dems could get it down to even three or four candidates it would be a HUGE improvement.

First, these jobs are mostly in the service sector. Manufacturing jobs are still going down the drain. Second, its the holiday season. There is always a jump in jobs this time of year. Third, there was a similar jump to this last year at exactly this time and it went the way of the dinosaur. Fourth, 2.4 million more to go before we are back at square one.

I'm not saying that the economy is not going to recover nor that this might not be the start of that recovery. However, the highly political election cycle starting has got everyone jumping the gun on issues like this. A sudden surge (especially this time a year) means nothing. However, it is a good sign that this year followed normal annual trends in the job market. That being said it could be taken as an indicator of a return to normal affairs which could imply that the down turn is over. Ultimately, I am glad many Americans are returning to work but we have a long way to go to get the rest of the recently unemployed back to work AND at the same level of pay they were receiving in the Clinton years. Whats more, there is no sign that Bush's tax cuts had anything to do with this beyond the most simplistic of conjecture. I find it very humorous to see the same people that touted the 10 year doctrine for economic change now trying to credit this recent upturn to a year old policy.

Clinton pay levels should not be a goal. It could be argued that the pay/benefit levels that were so easily thrown about by companies while unemployment was low and the economy was booming amplified the unemployment situation and made companies slower to rehire.

As far as the tax cuts, I agree they are not the main driver but when one party screams that the tax cuts are the cause of the slowed economy, the one responsible for the tax cuts must equally scream that they are responsible for the upturn. That's just what happens when an issue gets politicized like that with an upcoming election.

Okay, so 300,000 new jobs in the past three months. But how many people lost their jobs in that same time frame? This number has apparently been buried. I haven't read a single article on the story that took the cumulative numbers into account. I suspect this number is not insignificant.

Add to that the fact that the new jobs are low-paying and temporary and part-time (sounds mostly to be holiday season work to me) and I don't understand the widespread good cheer I've seen in the press.

Unemployment is not THAT bad. These new jobs brought us down to an even 6%. In the eighties it was double that. The problem is a lot of jobs were lost in the technology and manufactering areas, also fucking asshole bitches ship out America jobs to increase profits. As technology improves this will continue to happen, why pay people to do it when machines can do it cheaper and more efficently?

Johnny Rotten I hear what your saying about the new jobs. What I percieve to be the good signs behind it is that with more people in the work force (even if it is low paying or part time), people will be making money again and be spending it. That in turn will hopefully open the door for more full time and part time jobs.

"Okay, so 300,000 new jobs in the past three months. But how many people lost their jobs in that same time frame? This number has apparently been buried. I haven't read a single article on the story that took the cumulative numbers into account. I suspect this number is not insignificant.

Add to that the fact that the new jobs are low-paying and temporary and part-time (sounds mostly to be holiday season work to me) and I don't understand the widespread good cheer I've seen in the press."

Anyone who wants to work can find work. When people are unemployed it is usually because they are receiving unemployment compensation, severence packages, or just living off of savings. If they really needed to go to work they would. Also, these official numbers don't take into account the "underground" economy. Do you think a skilled carpenter would ever have to be unemployed unless he wanted to be?

This is a very simplistic way of looking at the job market. I am not sure where you live, but many manufacturing plants are located in smaller towns and when there are layoffs, there are not other jobs to be picked up. Also, in larger cities, while other jobs may be available, underemployment can be a problem. Yes, it is better to take a job a McDonalds than to not work at all, but it can damage your ability to get a job commensurate with your pervious employment and interfere with your ability to interview for employment that may be more appropriate to your skill level.

The news of an increase in jobs is good, but it is not the whole story. Let's hope that the trend continues and leads to a resurgence of the U.S. economy.

Well, according to what I've read the economy needs 2 million jobs a year just to absorb new workers. We're not there yet, and it's uncertain whether we _will_ get there.

If the number of jobs continues to increase slower than the workforce, there'll still be big trouble. And if the newly created jobs are of lower quality, pay, and benes than the manufacturing jobs and tech jobs that are going offshore, the newly employed still will not feel particularly happy.

1) Manufacturing jobs have been declining since the 50s as a percentage of the work force, as have agricultural jobs. Service jobs have always been increasing, but that is a very broad sector definition.
2) In a recovery, employment lags other indicators. The cost of employing people is very expensive and often the new workers do not contribute enough to justify what they cost. THis makes employers reticent to hire until certain that they will profit from the new labor. They delay the new hiring through temp services, contract labor, and overtime. They also put more work on existing employees, hence the productivity gains. These will ebb as more are employed.