so, how many net jobs has * "created" since 2001 ?

[doubleplusgood]

Anyone keeping a running tab of total job "growth" under Bush since Jan. 20, 2001 ?

Up until the Nov 2004 election, Bush hadn't created a single net new job. I think some job #'s in Nov-Dec supposedly gave him a tiny net gain for his first term. But haven't the employment numbers so far this year been pretty sucky ?

[notadmblnd]

1. I'm guessing Zero

the number of jobs that have been lost or offshored would probly put the total at a negative number.

[tofubo]

8. djia

when bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001 the markets closed at 10587.59, right now it's 10553.49

so, after four plus years of a business friendly administration, we're at negative growth (not even keeping up with inflation)

way to fucking go bush team

[paineinthearse]

2. The department of labor tracks jobs lost and created.

Tons of data on their website.

Unforutnately, jobs created and lost are like apples and oranges. Gone offshore are high-paying professional jobs with full benefits, replaced by low-paying service sector jobs with poor or no benefits.

A job is not a job is not a job.

[whistle]

3. Here you go.....

<link> http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

<snip>
Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1995 116377 116588 116808 116971 116962 117189 117260 117538 117777 117926 118070 118210
1996 118192 118627 118882 119047 119376 119647 119875 120078 120296 120534 120826 121003
1997 121232 121526 121843 122134 122396 122642 122918 122911 123417 123756 124063 124361
1998 124629 124814 124962 125240 125641 125846 125967 126322 126543 126735 127020 127364
1999 127477 127873 127997 128379 128593 128850 129145 129338 129525 129947 130242 130536
2000 130781 130901 131377 131662 131882 131839 132015 132004 132122 132110 132326 132484
2001 132454 132546 132511 132214 132187 132029 131941 131803 131549 131172 130879 130705
2002 130581 130478 130441 130335 130326 130377 130277 130295 130250 130309 130315 130161
2003 130247 130125 129907 129853 129827 129854 129857 129859 129953 130076 130172 130255
2004 130372 130466 130786 131123 131373 131479 131562 131750 131880 132162 132294 132449
2005 132573 132873 132995 133269(p) 133347(p)
p : preliminary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: CES0500000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total privateIndustry: Total privateNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1995 96980 97181 97381 97537 97544 97744 97823 98109 98347 98462 98607 98744
1996 98742 99142 99350 99532 99847 100119 100328 100574 100729 100980 101261 101432
1997 101639 101928 102235 102531 102795 102982 103232 103294 103738 104018 104302 104595
1998 104859 105028 105170 105424 105766 105967 106037 106363 106558 106734 106976 107285
1999 107393 107729 107829 108142 108364 108578 108806 108963 109121 109490 109746 109996
2000 110210 110302 110644 110860 110735 110952 111148 111167 111387 111367 111566 111680
2001 111622 111644 111565 111219 111156 110916 110763 110579 110301 109896 109551 109352
2002 109206 109077 109003 108887 108790 108831 108765 108724 108693 108735 108733 108559
2003 108614 108492 108296 108258 108252 108250 108250 108279 108432 108525 108617 108701
2004 108839 108915 109204 109516 109787 109908 109976 110105 110203 110462 110588 110749
2005 110863 111140 111264 111525(p) 111598(p)
p : preliminary

[punpirate]

6. Now, wouldn't it be nice...

... if we were also provided with the net jobs calculated under the old standard, instead of their revised business death/birth model (which, from what I can see, is badly flawed). ???

[doubleplusgood]

21. thanks...interesting numbers

Not surprisingly, looks like annual totals for non-farm & private industry for 2004, under Bush, are still less than for Clinton's last year 2000. In fact it looks like employment numbers grew in each of the the Clinton years that you posted, from 1995-2000. Damn those godless liberals !

Of course, as Cheney said (IIRC), these numbers don't reflect all of the people making big bucks selling things on E-Bay...

[paineinthearse]

4. Try techsunite.org

For an interesting perspective technical jobs offshored, see http://www.techsunite.org/offshore/

Top 10 Culprits
Company Most Recent Event Date Jobs Offshored Estimated jobs lost
EDS 07/05/2004 20000 7950
Cognizant 11/01/2004 15000 data unavailable
IBM 11/14/2004 15000 1847
Siemens AG 03/02/2004 15000 data unavailable
General Electric 12/20/2004 14250 data unavailable
Convergys 04/13/2005 14000 160
Dell 04/29/2005 10750 5700
Accenture 11/17/2004 10000 90
Keane 12/01/2004 9000 data unavailable
Computer Sciences Corp 09/11/2003 7700 5400

[notadmblnd]

11. EDS has been cutting jobs quarterly for the last 3 or 4 years

mine went last August. I still speak with my co-workers and nothing has changed.

[Kansas Wyatt]

5. In this allegedly robust booming economy under G. W. Bush...

The United States cannot even create enough jobs to keep up with our population growth. To keep the unemployment rate down, skilled labor and college graduates have to accept that they are only worth minimum wage and may have to accept only part-time work under the George W. Bush agenda.

[nickinSTL]

7. hmm, let's see...

My fiancee lost her programming job in 2001, making $57k a year.

She just started a job coloring an online comic making...$30 a MONTH.

So...it's even now, right? Lost a job, gained a job. :eyes:

[whistle]

9. Yes, but even better for BushCo because her on-line job is...

...viewed as a small business by BushCo. So using their birth/death models your fiancee's start-up business which only makes $30 per month in revenues, is assumed to be hiring at least three other workers. Thus, BushCo reports four jobs created. Then later on when no one is looking, the BLS goes back and revises the figures back down to where they should be.

The numbers we get on the economy are all Bushit.

[nickinSTL]

16. does it matter that she's essentially

an employee of a guy in Canada?

The Canadian guy does the writing, drawing, maintaining the website, forums, store, etc. She just colors the strip.

Does that still get counted the same way?

[whistle]

17. Well if she is an actual employee, that is her employer withholds

...and submits taxes on every paycheck including income tax, FICA, workers comp and directs and supervises her work, then she would be considered an employee and would basically be part of his company model in the statistics.

But, if she is actually an independent subcontractor, which I suspect she might be, then BushCo sees her as one of the million points of entrepreneurial lights glittering in the starry ski of free enterprise supply side economics and she 8is counted as a sole proprietor business and gets plunked into the small business birth/death model. She is also deleted from the roles of the unemployed and if she files quarterly tax estimate payments (14% of $30 times 3 months or about $12 in FICA per quarter as a minimum) then she has already set herself up as a small business.

If she fails to file with the IRS, the BushCo privatized IRS will be tracking her every movement and will wait until she is 4 or 5 years behind on her taxes, slap her with an audit and levy stiff penalties and interest charges against her. They will also calculate not only what she owes, but what all of the other employees that they assumed worked for her, their back taxes and hit her little prosperous enterprise right in the funny bone. The proof that they are wrong will be on her shoulders and all collection fees will be accumulated right into those numbers.

[nickinSTL]

19. great....

yeah, she'd essentially be an independent contractor.

I can't imagine, with an income of...$360 a year...that that would mean much in taxes.

[whistle]

20. It will mean that like tipped service workers she is expected....

...to declare the income as an independent subcontractor and pay FICA and medicare which come to 14.4%. She will also have to disclose on her tax return that she is an independent subcontractor and will be subject to all forms and paperwork disclosures relating to that type of activity. This prick in Canada has saved himself a pile of booking keeping work and tax reporting, while shifting the responsibility over onto your fiancee.

The saving grace will be that if she earns under $600 with this particular employer, he is NOT obligated to file a 1099 form with the IRS and so there will be no direct paperflow of her earnings from this company to the IRS. She is required to disclose the earnings, but if she does not, then the IRS is not likely going to know she had them, unless they audit this company and trace her invoices and checks or payment transfers to your finacee.
:shrug:

[kedrys]

10. At least -1

Mine, that little drunken frat bitch... :mad:

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Two days ago he said he created 3 1/2 million new jobs in the

past two years.

Making shit up is so much fun.

[Protagoras]

13. Don't forget average and median wages

You can have positive job growth and still make out like a Corporate Bandit if the jobs you create pay 1/2 of the jobs you get rid of.

Which has been the biggest part of our bait and switch economy.

The Neocon goal isn't to make us all unemployed. If we're completely unemployed we're a drain on their system. They want us to contribute without taking out. So their goal is to make us all work at a minimum wage with few or no benifits so that we can return to our proper laboring serflike state while they live in their deserved roles as our owner/masters.

As Thomas Hartmann says so often...we're returning to Feudalism.

[slackmaster]

14. Invalid question

Presidents don't create jobs.

[driver8]

15. He's created a lot of jobs for suicide bombers...

I know...poor taste...but I couldn't help myself.

[dogday]

18. I posted a thread yesterday layoffs at 42% for May

That is a high figure....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3773115&mesg_id=3773115