PDA

View Full Version : Good News on the heels of the election


Stinger
11-05-2004, 09:27 AM
October job gains strongest in seven months

WASHINGTON — The number of new jobs soared in October by the highest amount in seven months, the government said Friday, helped by a surge in construction as hurricane-racked areas in the Southeast were rebuilt.

A surprisingly strong 337,000 jobs were added to payrolls last month — twice the 169,000-job growth that economists had forecast and the strongest since March, when 353,000 jobs were created, the Labor Department said.

The unemployment rate edged up to 5.5% from 5.4% in September, but that was because more people were looking for jobs, a potentially hopeful sign. Economists had expected the jobless rate to hold steady at 5.4%. Not only was October strong, but the number of jobs created in the two prior months was revised up — to 139,000 in September fromf 96,000 and to 198,000 in August from 128,000.

"It looks like the job situation is improving, and that this will support consumer spending going into the holidays and offset some of the drag caused by high oil prices this year," said economist Gary Thayer of A.G. Edwards & Sons.

The data pointing to revival in the labor market come just before Federal Reserve policymakers, meeting Wednesday, are expected to nudge short-term interest rates up for a fourth time this year, by a quarter percentage point, lifting their target for the federal funds rate to 2%. The fed funds rate is what banks charge each other for overnight loans.

"It should empower the Fed to clearly do something next week and probably raises the odds that they will do something in December," said Robert MacIntosh, chief economist with Eaton Vance Management.
Kathleen Utgoff, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, noted that a 71,000 addition in construction jobs — biggest since March 2000 — "reflected rebuilding and cleanup activity in the Southeast following the four hurricanes that struck the U.S. in August and September."

October's 300,000-plus payroll increase isn't sustainable in the coming months, says David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's. But monthly increases of 200,000 are realistic through the end of the year.
The report on new hiring is good news for President Bush as he prepares for a second term. A generally weak job market plagued his campaign for re-election.

Employers have added about 2.2 million jobs since August 2003.

Some details in the report showed the jobs market, while clearly on the upswing, still bumpy.

Manufacturing continues to struggle — it was the only major sector to lose jobs last month — with employment falling by 5,000. That followed a decline of 14,000 in September.

The number of people who held more than one job rose 519,000 to 8 million. The average time for the unemployed to find a job was 19.6 weeks, same as in September.

The jobless rate for blacks jumped to 10.7% last month, from 10.3% in September. The rate for Hispanics fell to 6.7% from 7.1%. The rate for whites held at 4.7%.

The jobless rate for teenagers grew to 17.2% from 16.6%.

Link (http://http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-11-05-jobs_x.htm)

htismaqe
11-05-2004, 09:30 AM
Most of those jobs came from the rebuilding effort in Florida.

Of course, we all know Bush manufactured those hurricanes to create those jobs.

It's all part of the conspiracy.

HC_Chief
11-05-2004, 09:30 AM
Nice to see the job market trending upwards again. :thumb:

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 09:31 AM
Only a couple million more to go, and Bush will break even!

siberian khatru
11-05-2004, 09:32 AM
Only a couple million more to go, and Bush will break even!

More hurricanes, please! ;)

Cochise
11-05-2004, 09:33 AM
Most of those jobs came from the rebuilding effort in Florida.

Of course, we all know Bush manufactured those hurricanes to create those jobs.

It's all part of the conspiracy.

Yeah, remember the billboards, it's his 'global warming' encouragement policies that make the hurricanes happen.

siberian khatru
11-05-2004, 09:34 AM
Yeah, remember the billboards, it's his 'global warming' encouragement policies that make the hurricanes happen.

NOW you know why he didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty. It was a Rovian strategy to artificially inflate the jobs numbers.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 09:35 AM
More hurricanes, please! ;)

Why? He's increased the size of government by 1/3. He can just hire some more, and sell more debt to China to pay for it.

HC_Chief
11-05-2004, 09:36 AM
heh 'Rovian'.

Sounds like an evil empire from Star Trek. Funny thing is the leftist nutballs think of him as soime sort of eeveel alien warlord ROFL

ck_IN
11-05-2004, 09:56 AM
Its also interesting that when the exit polls showed Kerry winning the market stopped a rally in midstep and then tanked. Ever since the Bush win, the market has been booming.

Chief Henry
11-05-2004, 09:58 AM
Its also interesting that when the exit polls showed Kerry winning the market stopped a rally in midstep and then tanked. Ever since the Bush win, the market has been booming.

Don't remind them of that. Don't remind them that Cliton was the
Pres when the market crashed and the job market went south.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 10:01 AM
Don't remind them of that. Don't remind them that Cliton was the
Pres when the market crashed and the job market went south.

Clinton was president in March of 2001? ROFL

Who knew?

ChiTown
11-05-2004, 10:04 AM
Why? He's increased the size of government by 1/3. He can just hire some more, and sell more debt to China to pay for it.

Yes, wtf was he thinking after 9/11........

ck_IN
11-05-2004, 10:08 AM
<i>Clinton was president in March of 2001?</i>

Every reputable ecconomist I've seen agrees that the recession started under Clinton, was recovering before 9/11 and then went into another dip after that.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 10:10 AM
Yes, wtf was he thinking after 9/11........

Excuses, excuses.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 10:11 AM
<i>Clinton was president in March of 2001?</i>

Every reputable ecconomist I've seen agrees that the recession started under Clinton, was recovering before 9/11 and then went into another dip after that.


Then how is it that the Fed announced that the recession began in March 2001?

HC_Chief
11-05-2004, 10:12 AM
Excuses, excuses.

So you deny the events of 9/11 had no significant impact on US domestic, economic and foreign polocies? :spock:

Again, you wonder why your party lost...

ChiTown
11-05-2004, 10:13 AM
Excuses, excuses.

ROFL

I know, I know......that whole 9/11 thingy was just a Hollywood set, just like Man landing on the moon. I'm so fn gullible..........

htismaqe
11-05-2004, 10:14 AM
Then how is it that the Fed announced that the recession began in March 2001?

I lost my first telecom job during massive layoffs in 1999.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 10:23 AM
ROFL

I know, I know......that whole 9/11 thingy was just a Hollywood set, just like Man landing on the moon. I'm so fn gullible..........

So, the US constitution can't handle a terrorist attack?

For that matter, the FBI, CIA, etc can't?

No, the only solution is to increase the size of the government.

KCTitus
11-05-2004, 10:25 AM
So, the US constitution can't handle a terrorist attack?

For that matter, the FBI, CIA, etc can't?

No, the only solution is to increase the size of the government.

Actually the FBI and CIA couldnt...there was a wall established between the two agencies that prevented them from working together. Fortunately the author of said policy was on the commission so it got swept under the rug.

ROYC75
11-05-2004, 10:26 AM
We can thank Bush for the hurricanes ? LOL

Every since Tuedsay, my business has boomed. Really, last month leading up to the election was horrible, probally the worst on record.

BTA, the Christmas rush is here and coming and stores and warehouses are being stocked.

Logical
11-05-2004, 10:42 AM
The claim that the last recession started under Clinton is absolutely true. To deny this is not only to blame Bush for a problem he didn't cause, but to deprive him of the credit for fixing it with effective policies — which is exactly why the Left is so eager in this case. Here, however, are the facts:

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm) in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif The fed funds rate — the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve — peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3,
2001, "in light of further weakening of sales and production" (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/general/2001/20010103/) (during the Clinton administration).

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&FirstYear=2003&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr) (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_luskin_5-5-04.gif

The one and only piece of evidence offered by Media Matters that’s to the contrary is that fact that the National Bureau of Economic Research set the beginning of the last recession at March 2001 — two months into the Bush administration. Check that date on the chart above: This well-respected economic research group set the beginning of the recession after GDP growth had already crashed from almost 5 percent to near zero. But according to Media Matters, this single authority determines truth, and everyone else is a liar. The article declares that "if NBER says the recession began in March 2001, the recession began in March 2001."

RINGLEADER
11-05-2004, 10:50 AM
Only a couple million more to go, and Bush will break even!


Actually, he's only down 250,000 now.

I guess he won't end up being the first president to lose jobs since Herbert Hoover (even after a recession and having the heart of our financial district attacked - something that never happened to Hoover) after all. He's got three more jobs reports to make up a quarter million lost jobs.

RINGLEADER
11-05-2004, 10:53 AM
Then how is it that the Fed announced that the recession began in March 2001?

The economic downturn started in the second-half of 2000. The technical recession didn't begin until March, 2001 and didn't end until June, 2001.

BCD
11-05-2004, 10:54 AM
Gloom and Doom for the libs...