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...
Recommended Posts