![]() | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« WMD Update: Iraq Nearly Became WMD Marketplace | Main | Tweedle Deposed and Tweedle Dumb » July 2, 2004Jobs Data: Corporations Add Jobs, But Small-Biz Adds MoreThe latest job numbers are out and they are good - 112,000 new payroll jobs were created in June - even though the press is telling you they are bad because analysts had expected double that. So why is lower-than-expected job creation not bad news? Because it's only part of the story - and the media is ignoring lots of good news on the jobs-growth front.
The media routinely reports the unemployment rate but doesn't dig deeper than the press release, and misses the bigger story. Here it is: total employment in America was 139,031,000 in June, according to the Household Survey. That includes employees on a big company payroll, small-business entrepreneurs and employees, and independent-contractors who make a living without showing up on any payroll. That's up 259,000 more people working just since the May report and 733,000 more since March. The Payroll Survey, on the other hand, shows only 131,301,000 people working in June, up only 671,000 from March. The news media, by focusing only on half of the data, is under-reporting June's job growth by 62,000 jobs – and is ignoring more than 8.7 million working people. President Bush's economic policies are fueling an economic recovery powered by small businesses, entrepreneurs and self-reliant independent contractors - the kind of people who have always been the backbone of the American economy. The kind of people who would be most harmed by John Kerry's plan to raise taxes. UPDATE: Via Pejman, I found this commentary on the jobs data from economist Tim Kane, Ph.D. The payroll survey simply ignores the growth in self-employed workers and microbusinesses. ... The Congressional Budget Office notably shifted its attention from payroll data to household data with this year's published Economic Outlook. The growing consensus of economists is that the payroll survey won’t be an equivalent gauge of labor markets until after its benchmark revision, which will occur in January 2005. Posted in Economy & Business
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS PLUMMET! Can I get a job at the NY Times? So what does Bush do to help convince the public the economy is doing better than the media, Dems, and official government statistics show? Most people won't be able to or won't care about the difference between the payroll report and household survey. Bush needs to convince the voters that the economy is doing well without sounding out of touch like his father did in '92 Posted by: AWW at July 2, 2004 02:46 PMIf the economy was doing well, the average family would already know it because they're living in it. One might suspect they don't need convincing, they need a better economy. Posted by: adaplant at July 3, 2004 12:50 AMWhat is the net job loss since Buch took office? Posted by: Al Hedstrom at July 3, 2004 08:03 AMAl asks: What is the net job loss since Buch [sic]took office? Well, I've lost two, myself. Neither of them, nor my current job, nor any other I've had in my 30 plus years in the workforce would have shown up in the Establishment Payroll survey. My son walked away from a job that would show in the survey. Whoever was hired to replace him did not get a newly created job. The original plan was to take a year off to travel, but he got a job offer so attractive (altho beneath the statisticians' radar) that he has gone back to work. My wee wifey would be hard pressed to lose a job if she wanted to. The labor shortage has reached the point that they are barely enforcing the attendance policy because they cannot do without the people who show up occasionally. It is easy for me to ignore the incessant reminders that I am worse off because of Bush and his tax cuts. The average worker may be able to disregard his own prosperity as a fluke if he is told often enough that the nation is facing hard times. Posted by: triticale at July 5, 2004 01:28 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||