The employment survey for June shows an increase of only 32,000 jobs, the smallest increase all year. This is bad news for the President. On the other hand, unemployment is down nationally to 5.5% which is good news for the President (this is the same level of unemployment that Clinton had when he was running for reelection in a “boom” year.)
On the other hand, the latest consumer confidence index shows very positive numbers which certainly helps the President make the case that the economy is turning the corner.
The Democrats will undoubtedly spin the low job numbers and harp on how the President isn’t creating new jobs, etc, etc. On the other hand, perception matters more than reality. If people are feeling better about the economy, they’ll be more likely to vote for the incumbant.
In any event, the low numbers for June may be just a temporary blip in a period of high levels of sustained growth – and they may be revised upwards later as many figures are. However, it’s guaranteed not to be welcome news at the White House right now…
“and they may be revised upwards later as many figures are.”
Indeed many figures have been revised in 2004, but they have not been revised “upward”. The opposite is true. The figures of unemployment, job creation and consumer confidence were all too optimistic when published.
But once again, maybe it’s just W messing up with words!!
I strongly believe perception is that the economy is not in great shape based upon employment numbers. Thos eof us, white and blue collar are seeign very few jobs out there. We knwo too many people who are out of working and have been searchign for jobs for months or longer and when jobs are foudn they are at much lower pay levels. Although the numbers show the economy growing, for the average worker, for those currently employed, salaries are stagnant and for thsoe unemployed there are few opportunities. Either way it doesnt bode well for the President.
If you’re going to lie, make it one that a can’t demolished with ten seconds on Google. The growth for the first few months of the year was later revised upwards.
Well, I suppose we could be like France where the unemployment rate is nearly 10%. Still, I hear there’s lots of job growth in the industries of paying off French officials, oil exploration in the Sudan, and cleaning anti-Semitic graffiti off of Jewish cemetaries…
The economy isnt doing that good in the job sector, but thats because businesses see no need to hire yet. The labor market is deep, and new production methods have cut the need for many formerly needed employess. President bush needs to either A, shrink the job market by expanding government jobs B, give a greater incentive to small business to expand and C, to encourage people to start their own. Failure to do this could hurt him. Especially if this trend of negative job growth and pay roll freeze stays the same
Thank you Jay for your very interesting article from MAY! If you had bother doing your research job properly, you would have clicked on a link at the bottom of the very page you sent me to, leading to an article from August 6th saying:
“In addition to the weak job growth in July, the Labor Department revised data from the previous two months, showing the economy added 61,000 fewer jobs than previously reported. Although the economy has added 1.2 million jobs this year, that is only slightly more than what is needed to keep up with growth in the nation’s work force. Employers would have to add another 1.2 million jobs by the end of the year just to get even with where the economy was before President Bush took office in January 2001.”
That’s for your first remark.
For the second part, 1)it is true that unemployment in France is very high, even though french politicians are trying as hard as they can to lower it by creating many fake jobs for their friends in the administration…
2)I think that french oil company are still way behind their american counterparts in benefiting from governmental action…
3)The rest of your answer is just racist insults, and you should be banned from the blog for that under your own rules…
Moving to a society composed of “communities” is a big mistake: 1)the mixing of populations and cultures is what creates innovation and 2)put a wall (for example….) between human beings can only produce more problems than solutions (in the long-term as well, as the difficult recovery of the former soviet countries proves it)
Increasing the tension between communities around the world is not helping. Hate is spreading around the globe, and Bush,inc has something to do with it, whether you like it or not.
Chris, Bush is not responsible 100% of it, but it has to be understood that the young muslims involved in antisemitic actions in France do so because of the situation in the ME. Therefore:
1)The more Israel segregate muslims in Gaza and/or grab land over palestine, the angrier muslims are against jews all around the world.
2)Today, the whole world agree on one point: Israel shouldn’t build this wall: it is dangerous (see post above). The whole world…not quite…the US are allowing Israel to continue…
Before the second intifada, there was NO antisemitic movement in France (even the Front National, extreme right wing of the political spectrum is only against arabs, and doesn’t say anything about jews; it must be said that the french jewish community is the largest community in the world, and have been in France for over 1000 years…). In fact, I think that France is so secular that no one cared any more about if someone was jewish or else. Racism in France was more related to skin colors than religion.
As long as Bush supports Sharon (like three days ago, when some Israelis journalists revealed that 600 new houses would be built in 2004 in Cisjordania, against all agreement, be it national or international. What was the reaction of the US? None!). If one were to be logic ( Jay, you can feel targeted by this remark), when condemning islamofascism, one would also condemn orthodox jews. Some muslims saying that they should destroy all jews and Israel are stupid; the jews saying that they should kill all arabs and Palestine are stupid too!!
To answer your question, it is not “home-grown”. Antisemitism in France is “made in Israel”, and Bush has something to do with it (as well as Sharon and Arafat in the first place, but the position of the US make hate sustainable).
Yes, the reason that Jews are being systematically harrased in France is because that Israel does something.
I guess I should find some French people and beat the crap out of them because I don’t like France’s policies. After all, if Jews can be attacked because of what Israel does, why not be consistant and do the same for everyone?
Strange, I’m sure 60 years ago the French were saying the same thing – one would think that they would have learned from history, but sadly it appears they France is doomed to repeat it…
“On the other hand, unemployment is down nationally to 5.5% which is good news for the President (this is the same level of unemployment that Clinton had when he was running for reelection in a ‘boom’ year.)”
Ah, but when Clinton got to the White House, unemployment was 7.5 percent, so that 5.5 percent represents a 2 percent drop. When Bush was installed, unemployment was around 4 percent, so 5.5 percent means a 1.5 percent increase in the number of people out of work. At least the ones that get counted.
In reality, current numbers are nowhere near accurate. Only people who apply and qualify for unemployment benefits, and are actively searching for work, make it into the official tally of the unemployed. Republicans in Congress, with Bush’s blessing, have repeatedly killed Democratic measures going back more than a year to extend unemployment benefits. A nice little political benefit of this callous maneuver for Bush and the Republicans is that from January to July, around 245,000 people a month exhausted their benefits and were dropped from the count, whether they had found jobs or not, whether they were still looking or not.
What this means is that the official unemployment number is way low by some unknown amount, which makes things look better for Bush, erroneously.
That’s simply untrue.
Thank heavens for snopes.com…
If you count in the “discouraged” workers – basically all those who have given up looking for a job, the number is still 5.9%. (Table A12 in the BLS survey, if you’re interested.)
Remember also that Clinton came into office during an economic boom and didn’t have to contend with corporate scandals and the loss of $1.2 trillion from the economy and 3,000 Americans killed in the worst attack on the US since the War of 1812…
“Remember also that Clinton came into office during an economic boom and didn’t have to contend with corporate scandals and the loss of $1.2 trillion from the economy . . .”
Clinton came in, in large part, because the economy had spent the last 18 months or two yaers of George H.W. Bush’s tenure limping out of a recession. Booming? That’s not what I recall.
While corporate scandals hadn’t reached the outlandish levels of recent years, or at least corporate crooks weren’t found out, there was the savings and loan scandal, implosions, and residuals thereof.
As for the number of discouraged workers, so-called, I take it as a very rough estimate at best.