PastaJoe Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 According to today's Labor Dept. job report, companies added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day, highlighting a modest pace of hiring that has become an issue in President Bush's bid for re-election. On MSNBC yesterday, conservative economic commentator Lawrence Kudlow said an increase of 150,000 jobs would be an acceptable number to support Bush's claims the job market is improving. Job growth was held down by losses in manufacturing, retail and information services. September's net increase of 96,000 payroll jobs was less than August's rise, which was revised down in Friday's report from 144,000 to 128,000. Though 1.8 million jobs have been added to the payrolls of U.S. businesses since August 2003, there are about 800,000 fewer jobs -- overall -- than when Bush took office in January 2001. But many of the added jobs pay less and have fewer benefits than those lost during that time period. In other news, AT&T Corp. announced Thursday that it is cutting at least 7,500 more jobs. The company now plans to shrink its work force by more than a fifth, or about 12,500 jobs, during 2004 - up from a previous target of about 4,900 jobs. And the Bank of America Corp., the nation's No. 3 bank, said Thursday that it will cut another 4,500 jobs nationwide, possibly including in its Amherst mortgage operation, a suburb of Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 So let me get this straight- 96,000 jobs were added last month; 1.8 million have been added in the past year, and this is bad news because??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 So let me get this straight- 96,000 jobs were added last month; 1.8 million have been added in the past year, and this is bad news because??? 61479[/snapback] Because someone on the left said it's not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 So let me get this straight- 96,000 jobs were added last month; 1.8 million have been added in the past year, and this is bad news because??? 61479[/snapback] Because people on the left believe one man actually has enough power to make companies around the country create jobs. Bill Clinton told them it was true on the campaign trail back in 1992 and the soundbyte has grown ever bigger along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Because people on the left believe one man actually has enough power to make companies around the country create jobs. Bill Clinton told them it was true on the campaign trail back in 1992 and the soundbyte has grown ever bigger along the way. 61490[/snapback] So GWB did not actually fire those people from AT&T and Bank of America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 So GWB did not actually fire those people from AT&T and Bank of America? 61512[/snapback] You'll have to ask Pasta Joe for the answer to that question. His understanding of the U.S. economy and mine are completely different. Mine is based in reality. His is based in partisan political fantasy land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Hey, thanks for the analysis. Maybe making money isn't a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Because 150,000 jobs need to be added each month just to break even and keep up with all the new young people entering the job market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Because 150,000 jobs need to be added each month just to break even and keep up with all the new young people entering the job market. 61569[/snapback] And you believe you can do that by raising the taxes companies pay, so then they have money to hire more people right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 And you believe you can do that by raising the taxes companies pay, so then they have money to hire more people right? 61574[/snapback] No. Just the companies that are swindling, stealing and legally and illegally avoiding relatively fair taxes. Besides, I was just providing the factual answer to the question in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Because 150,000 jobs need to be added each month just to break even and keep up with all the new young people entering the job market. 61569[/snapback] There is no one retiring from anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 There is no one retiring from anywhere? 61590[/snapback] I am not absolutely positive, but I believe the 150,000 number that has been bandied about for the last few years includes those retiring. It is the total amount needed each month to break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 According to today's Labor Dept. job report, companies added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day, highlighting a modest pace of hiring that has become an issue in President Bush's bid for re-election. On MSNBC yesterday, conservative economic commentator Lawrence Kudlow said an increase of 150,000 jobs would be an acceptable number to support Bush's claims the job market is improving. Job growth was held down by losses in manufacturing, retail and information services. September's net increase of 96,000 payroll jobs was less than August's rise, which was revised down in Friday's report from 144,000 to 128,000. Though 1.8 million jobs have been added to the payrolls of U.S. businesses since August 2003, there are about 800,000 fewer jobs -- overall -- than when Bush took office in January 2001. But many of the added jobs pay less and have fewer benefits than those lost during that time period. In other news, AT&T Corp. announced Thursday that it is cutting at least 7,500 more jobs. The company now plans to shrink its work force by more than a fifth, or about 12,500 jobs, during 2004 - up from a previous target of about 4,900 jobs. And the Bank of America Corp., the nation's No. 3 bank, said Thursday that it will cut another 4,500 jobs nationwide, possibly including in its Amherst mortgage operation, a suburb of Buffalo. 61432[/snapback] Funny thing is, what I heard yesterday morning was that Wall Street analysts expected an increase of somewhere between 10,000 and 148,000 (which is an atypically big spread), with a "consensus" of 70,000. But now that the report's out, the "consensus" is suddenly the high end of the range? Uhhh...yeah...right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 No. Just the companies that are swindling, stealing and legally and illegally avoiding relatively fair taxes. Besides, I was just providing the factual answer to the question in the thread. 61589[/snapback] Which companies are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Funny thing is, what I heard yesterday morning was that Wall Street analysts expected an increase of somewhere between 10,000 and 148,000 (which is an atypically big spread), with a "consensus" of 70,000. But now that the report's out, the "consensus" is suddenly the high end of the range? Uhhh...yeah...right... 61600[/snapback] I saw Kudlow speak yesterday, and he did say "Most analysts believe it will be about 150,000, and some think 200,000." He also said they think that the previous months numbers would be adjusted up, and they were adjusted down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 And you believe you can do that by raising the taxes companies pay, so then they have money to hire more people right? 61574[/snapback] Right, but they shouldn't be taxed because they can just hire lawyers and accountants to get out of paying them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Which companies are you referring to? 61603[/snapback] Like, for example, the rich ones that end up paying 15% taxes, or the ones given tax breaks for outsourcing (not that there's anything wrong with that, like being homosexual ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I am not absolutely positive, but I believe the 150,000 number that has been bandied about for the last few years includes those retiring. It is the total amount needed each month to break even. 61598[/snapback] I don't know the numbers but that would surprise me. I was under the impression that the baby boomers are starting to retire and would have thought those would generate big numbers. Maybe they aren't quite at that age yet. In general I agree with AD that the economy itself has to be generating the jobs. The best any president/government can do is (basically) get out of the way, or at least not cause problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry in KC Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'm just trying to find out which ones are "stealing and legally and illegally avoiding relatively fair taxes". I don't know about you, but if I can avoid paying taxes legally, I'm all for that. Hey, you're not one of those guys who returned his tax cut last year because it was "unfair", are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Funny thing is, what I heard yesterday morning was that Wall Street analysts expected an increase of somewhere between 10,000 and 148,000 (which is an atypically big spread), with a "consensus" of 70,000. But now that the report's out, the "consensus" is suddenly the high end of the range? Uhhh...yeah...right... 61600[/snapback] I heard early this morning, before the figures came out, that they expected between 50,000 and 250,000 so it seems the actual is on the low side, according to those figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I saw Kudlow speak yesterday, and he did say "Most analysts believe it will be about 150,000, and some think 200,000." He also said they think that the previous months numbers would be adjusted up, and they were adjusted down. 61614[/snapback] Interesting. That's entirely different from what I heard (in particular, I didn't hear anyone mention anything higher than 148k. I'm trying to locate the story right now...it seems to be buried in the deepest bowels of the internet at this point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I don't know the numbers but that would surprise me. I was under the impression that the baby boomers are starting to retire and would have thought those would generate big numbers. Maybe they aren't quite at that age yet. In general I agree with AD that the economy itself has to be generating the jobs. The best any president/government can do is (basically) get out of the way, or at least not cause problems. 61637[/snapback] There doesn't have to be any implication that it's Bush's fault; the fact is that voters are very sensitive to economic performance, and they typically tie that to whoever has been in office when it comes to election time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Interesting. That's entirely different from what I heard (in particular, I didn't hear anyone mention anything higher than 148k. I'm trying to locate the story right now...it seems to be buried in the deepest bowels of the internet at this point... 61652[/snapback] This if from the first line in the WSJ article this morning: "Employers added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'd heard yesterday they were projecting 144,000. So officially this makes a net loss of 1,000,000 jobs, the largest since Hoobert Heever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 This if from the first line in the WSJ article this morning:"Employers added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day. " 61687[/snapback] And I'm saying the stories I read yesterday were different. What'd the WSJ say yesterday? Jesus...reading comprehension is a forgotten art... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 And I'm saying the stories I read yesterday were different. What'd the WSJ say yesterday? Jesus...reading comprehension is a forgotten art... 61751[/snapback] I realize what you wrote. I posted that because I didn't think the WSJ would contradict itself from the previous day. It's certainly conceivable that the range of forecasts was what you heard, but the typical focus is on the "consensus" forecast, not the range. Hope you're feeling better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Funny thing is, what I heard yesterday morning was that Wall Street analysts expected an increase of somewhere between 10,000 and 148,000 (which is an atypically big spread), with a "consensus" of 70,000. But now that the report's out, the "consensus" is suddenly the high end of the range? Uhhh...yeah...right... 61600[/snapback] But you don't think that there is any change in the original assertion that the job numbers were disappointing do you? Does the number of gross jobs created being at the high end of a projection make it less dissapointing when not a single net job was created? I know that it disappoints me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Stop buying foreign products and stop increases in computerization and robotics. When I worked in process engineering in automotive, the skilled tradesmen used to stencil the names of fired employees onto the machines. Use no computers. Don't demand lettuce in January, well out of season. Don't waste your money with vacations out of town - spend your money in your own locality. It's up to you to curb your desires...if you can. If you can't, read Rifkin's book, "End of Work". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Stop buying foreign products and stop increases in computerization and robotics. When I worked in process engineering in automotive, the skilled tradesmen used to stencil the names of fired employees onto the machines. Use no computers. Don't demand lettuce in January, well out of season. Don't waste your money with vacations out of town - spend your money in your own locality. It's up to you to curb your desires...if you can. If you can't, read Rifkin's book, "End of Work". 61794[/snapback] Curbing one's desires is un-American. What would have happened if we never had Manifest Destiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Curbing one's desires is un-American. What would have happened if we never had Manifest Destiny? 61994[/snapback] Well...for starters, that guy in the Village People would have had to wear an authentic Indian headdress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Which companies are you referring to? 61603[/snapback] Probably any company that has executives that gave money to Bush. I'm sure his opinions on Global Crossing will remain a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Because people on the left believe one man actually has enough power to make companies around the country create jobs. Bill Clinton told them it was true on the campaign trail back in 1992 and the soundbyte has grown ever bigger along the way. 61490[/snapback] Yeah, because Clinton with the first politician to promise to "create jobs". It must be burdensome to be right all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 But if you include all of the jobs created in India the numbers look alot better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Yeah, because Clinton with the first politician to promise to "create jobs". It must be burdensome to be right all the time. 62014[/snapback] I never said he was. However, the media coupled with the internet has perpetuated the soundbyte into mythical proportions. "If a lie is repeated often enough..." I wouldn't call it burdensome. I sleep well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Well, the dems learned it from the master, Goebbels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Transcript from yesterday's MSNBC Hardball: Joining us from New York right now is Lawrence Kudlow, co-host of CNBC‘s “Kudlow & Cramer.” By the way, the Labor Department releases new job figures tomorrow for the month of September. Lawrence, thank you very much for joining us. It is a hot number, the number that comes out before the election. This is one of the last ones. In fact, this is last number on employment. What do you think it is going to tell us? LAWRENCE KUDLOW, CO-HOST, “KUDLOW & CRAMER”: Well, the consensus view on Wall Street, Chris, is about 150,000, which is a pretty good number, and people are speculating that prior months will be revised upward, so the actual number could be over 200,000. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6206085/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelissaInPhilly Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 So GWB did not actually fire those people from AT&T and Bank of America? 61512[/snapback] I am not an economist, but it's my understanding that the president be s/he Republican or Democrat, has little to do with job creation. Is this true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I am not an economist, but it's my understanding that the president be s/he Republican or Democrat, has little to do with job creation. Is this true? 62157[/snapback] Certainly. The very device we are communicating upon is a key reason for the reduction in the requirement for employing people. A while back, when I worked in auto manufacturing - process engineering, the skilled tradesmen stenciled the names of the workers let go on the robotics that were installed - their joke. As we continually buy foreign goods (the increase in that - the trade deficit - has been a steep geomretric curve since 1993 and shows no signs of stopping), what can we expect? Another fact is that as productivity, largely through technological reasons, increases, people are incrersingly not needed. It's chilling, for sure. A respected chap, Jeremy Rifkin, wrote a book titled "The End of Work" a few years back. He posited that by 2050, 10% of the world's population could provide all the needed goods and services. Tie in a societal abandonment of wisdom that comes with age (I personally know of several companies that canned their "oldsters" and fell apart because those oldies, considered as behind the times and a liability to the bottom line because of health problems that come with age, who got canned only for the company or corporation to discover that same were the ones that due to their long experience and work ethics, took care of the mundane but critical "small" things" of a business. They swept them away and few of the new crowd with their 4.0 GPA's would bother to stop trying to shine their own stars and so a thousand little cuts caused the companies to bleed to death. But a standing or aspiring President cannot mention such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 The world ecomomy is based on energy cost (oil) as third world countries enter the world of competion the demand for oil goes up and thats the way it is .The oil goes to the higest bidder.I forsee 75 dollars a barrel no matter who is the president and after that I see a servere oil shortage. There will not be a world leader that can do anything about it. On the other hand this is really what wars are fought for. ..get ready Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'd heard yesterday they were projecting 144,000. So officially this makes a net loss of 1,000,000 jobs, the largest since Hoobert Heever. 61729[/snapback] Funny how having planes flying into buildings and killing thousands of people and shutting down the entire US ...including our airlines and other forms of transportation that play such an huge role on the economy and, thus, employment...can have such a ripple effect, huh Blz. Jeezus...is it even possible for you to think more than one-dimensionally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts