Truth on jobs report: 90% part-time! (Do you want fries with that report?)

[troublemaker]

Here's where 300,000 of the 308,000 new jobs came from. (Sung Won Sohn; Wells Fargo Bank)

http://www.drsohn.com/04pres/sohn/2004/MarEmployment.pdf

...The report was also helped by the significant jump in part-time workers for economic reasons to 4.7 million from 4.4 million. In fact, the increase in part-timers accounted for the vast majority of the increase in employment. The average duration of unemployment has been lengthening, persuading unemployed workers to accept part-time jobs. This in part explains the reason for the decline in the average workweek and no increase in overtime....

[Bozita]

1. 300,000 of the 308,000 new jobs are PART-TIME JOBS

Thanks for the post, Troublemaker.

[PA Democrat]

2. So people who are going to lose unemployment benefits

take part time jobs out of desperation. Wow! Happy days are here again?

:eyes:

[kalian]

7. And how about people that have to work TWO jobs.....

to make ends meet? Two part-time jobs....? :shrug:
These numbers don't mean crap! They can be manipulated by the
elites anywahy they please to make it sound good.

[angryinoville]

10. Never mind two jobs...

How about three or even four. Are we the only ones awar of this horseshit? I hope not. I work at a rock radio station here in Massachusetts, and I use every talk break to push these truths. I lobbied for a talk show but it never materialized.

[ArtieBoy]

12. Cool, what station?

Hey, angry, I'm down in Atlanta but I'm an aspiring radio guy. What station are you at?

[angryinoville]

15. 100.3 WKKB

You can go to kkbrocks.com and check out my picture and send an email. I'm Sully.

[Killarney]

25. If you have any friends that work at WAAF

tell them to get their heads out of Bush's ass.

They are such repukes, I can't listen to the station anymore and I like their music. Argh.

[underpants]

3. 71,000 (23%) were the grocery workers in Cali going BACK to work

"New" jobs huh?

These numbers not only don't add up but such a huge spike is outside of the realm of probability.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

4. Big Headlines: 308,000 new jobs!

small print: most part-time, rest: low paying burger flippers, back to work construction workers.

[cindyw]

5. This is the first sign that the Republican class warfare is working.

With Clinton the middle class was richer. Everyone was doing better. The jobs created under Clinton were good paying jobs. In this case Bush economics cause many in the middle class to lose those good paying jobs. After exhausting their unemployment and falling off the rolls they are forced to take jobs that cannot support their families. Republican mission complete. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, permanently.

[underpants]

6. ...and you must not question your superiors

That is their class warfare.

Since you have not been as "successful" (includes inheritance and old boy network) you obviously aren't credible and if you question those "above" you you are initiating class warfare.

A pre-emptive argument on their part.

[Nlighten1]

8. Economy Sheds 308,000 Jobs

Check this out. I did a quick google to see how this story is being reported by the various news agencies.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=308%2C000+new+jobs


This search brought up the latest story about "soaring job growth" (dated Apr 2, 2004)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/national/main609962.shtml



but right below it was another link to a story saying that there were 308,000 jobs lost. (dated Mar 13th 2003)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/13/national/main543864.shtml


:wtf:

on edit

After thinking about this for a minute I figured it out. Bush is out of Washington this week campaigning about creating new jobs. So what better way to begin that campaign than with some manufactured news about "soaring job growth"


on edit edit
I goofed that article was over a year old. Still a weird coincident though.

[Submariner]

11. That is just too weird

good find. Now I'm totally mistrustful of the guvmint. 308,000 twice is too much of a coincidence.

[MisterP]

looks like Mar 13, 2003

not '04

[Nlighten1]

14. Right you are.

oops

[Athame]

13. (dated Mar 13th 2004)

ummm. check again. That last story is dated Mar 13, 2003--even the link has the date.

Still, an interesting coincidence.

[KayLaw]

20. Very strange

Exactly 308,000. What are the chances?

[KayLaw]

9. That's awful

I hope many of the people who accepted part-time work at least have spouses or parent who have real jobs with decent wages and health care benefits.

[pepsi]

19. That's not all

Go check out http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (bureau of labor statistics) site. It claims "and the unemployment rate was about unchanged at 5.7 percent,"

about unchanged...about unchanged. I suppose close enough for Gov work.

"Total employment in March held at 138.3 million, and the employment-popula-
tion ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was
essentially unchanged at 62.1 percent. The civilian labor force was about
unchanged over the month at 146.7 million, and the labor force participation
rate remained at 65.9 percent."

[stopbush]

16. Since bush treats the presidency as a part-time job, it all makes sense.

[seabeyond]

17. whitehouse said beginning of march

they didnt have growth numbers yet cause the 50 year old way of figuring it wasnt a good way and they were changing it

now the numbers are high

they said it under a month ago. why hasnt anyone checked the numbers. they told us they were going to do this

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

18. I'd like those numbers again under oath

with a side of fries :hi:

[Skeptical Democrat]

21. care to upsize those fries?

I hear the positions for Wal-Mart greeters are going fast too.

[althecat]

22. Some analysis of the figs... - Are The Gobs Of Jobs Here Or There?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0404/S00029.htm
Are The Gobs Of Jobs Here Or There?

by PATRICIA JOHNSON
WOW! U.S. non-farm employment rose by 308,000 for March while January and February 2004 figures were revised (click here) by 159,000 and 46,000, respectively. Now that we’ve heard the oohs and aahs, let’s get down to the looking at the real numbers.

The civilian labor force (Household Data) increased by 179,000 from 146.471 million in February to 146.650 million in March, which is comprised of the following:

-A decrease in employment on the Household Data of (3,000)
-An increase in the number of unemployed persons of 182,000

The number of persons employed in the US, per the Household Data Survey went from 138.301 million in February to 138.298 million in March, which indicates that 3,000 fewer people were employed during the month of March than in the month of February.

The number of unemployed persons, per the Household Data Survey, increased from 8.170 million in February to 8.352 million in March. So, while we’re all cheering about the possible ½ million new jobs created over the past three months, another 182,000 people are out of work.

The reason I used the word possible ½ million new jobs is simple. For some reason the BLS is using preliminary figures for both the month of February 2004 and the month of March 2004.

Let’s take a look at these “preliminary” figures and see if we can determine what’s happening.

[rocktivity]

23. Fool me once, shame on me

I didn't believe for one second that we went from 21K public sector jobs to 300K private ones in a month. I figured the numbers would be revised down in few days. Well, they've sure made a fool out of me--can you ever forgive me for doubting you, Georgie?

:headbang:
rocknation

[mulethree]

24. How employment and unemployment can both grow

"It is too early to celebrate. The average monthly gain over the
past 8 months has been only 95,000, far below the 150,000 to
200,000 jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force."

We need job growth around 2mm jobs a year just to keep up with people finishing school? I wonder if that has retirements factored in?