# Can we necessarily believe Bush's new jobs claim? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082 "2004-04-03T18:26:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/21 "2004-04-03T23:02:36Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > A major problem for me is that I don’t know who Sung Won Sohn is, except that he’s seems to work for the Wells Fargo Bank. In a PDF file, Dr. Sohn alleges that the overwhelming number of the new jobs created in March 2004 are part time jobs. > > If you go to… > > [http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable\_type/2003\_archives/001233.html](http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001233.html) > > …you will learn that Sung Won Sohn is rather depressed over this matter. > > Well, if what he said is true, then so am I. > > Perhaps manhattan can shed some light on this report. Dr. Sohn’s website: [http://www.drsohn.com/](http://www.drsohn.com/) This from EPI: [http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures\_econindicators\_jobspict](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict) > [@](#): > > The household survey also reveals a few other indicators that labor demand is still a problem. The share of the long-term unemployed - those who have been jobless for at least half a year - jumped up a percentage point to 23.9%, the highest level since July 1983, when the unemployment rate was 9.3%. > > There was also a 296,000 increase in the number of so-called involuntary part-time workers, i.e., those who would prefer full-time work. This change helped push up the BLS’s comprehensive measure of underemployment - which adds discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers to the traditional group of unemployed to 9.9%, up 0.3 percentage points from last month. > > The increase in part-time work may be reflected in the payroll numbers, which showed a 0.1% decrease in average weekly hours last month. In fact, even with the large net increase of employment last month, the number of total hours worked in the labor market actually fell slightly, meaning more workers are working fewer hours than last month. This from the BLS houshold survey: [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) > [@](#): > > In March, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons > increased to 4.7 million, about the same level as in January. These indivi- > duals indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part > time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to > find full-time jobs. (See table A-5.) Am I reading all this correctly? Are 296,000 of these new jobs part-time? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/22 "2004-04-03T23:19:58Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Unemployment numbers went up. > > From 5.6% to 5.7%. > > If you are going to jump in with both feet at least get your facts straight. Not that I claimed that unemployement didn’t blip up a bit, but you will notice that our rate is significantly lower than [Europe’s.](http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/62/29589476.pdf) You will also notice, no doubt, that the Democratic nominee wants to introduce various Euro-style [protectionist policies](http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040403/ap_on_el_pr/bush_kerry_economy_1&printer=1). If you care about jobs, you won’t be voting for Kerry, that is for damned sure. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/23 "2004-04-03T23:38:04Z")
There should be a good explanation as to how it was possible to add that many jobs, and then have more unemployment. And I do think that beside temp jobs, a good chunk of the new jobs are contract jobs with no benefits and no security whatsoever, just like in my case. Yes, I got a job, and even though I like it, it is very likely that it will be transferred to India in the near future, hence the need to keep the majority of the workers in my workplace under contract. Even if I get a good job, I am going to vote against Bush this November. Funny that many Bush supporters forget that Bush somehow convinced a good number of people to vote for him even when fully employed, why should I vote for him even if a million jobs are added from here to November? It did not work for the Democrats before, why it should work for the Republicans now? Job creation is good, but there are other (many more) reasons why I am not voting for Bush this November. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/24 "2004-04-03T23:47:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There should be a good explanation as to how it was possible to add that many jobs, and then have more unemployment. More people were looking for jobs. If you create 308,000 jobs in a month in which an additional 400,000 people entered the workforce (the seocnd number I just made up as an example) then you would have more people with jobs, but a higher unemployment rate. I think Bush is a dolt but it’s pointless to doubt jobs were created; the Departmenr of Labor has no reason to lie. They weren’t lying in the no-job months. The guy who runs [monster.com](http://monster.com) was on the radio today, and HE said they knew the job creation figures would be way up. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/25 "2004-04-03T23:58:52Z")
BTW I did not doubt the numbers, I was only wondering why the rate numbers came like that, and why it is that, on the whole, this is considered good news. I do think that, just like the Democrats found out that prosperity is not a warranty to victory, that the Republicans will find the same on November, specially since the prosperity Republicans are gloating now, is for jobs that are a shadow of what many had before. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/26 "2004-04-04T00:16:36Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, see, **milroyj** , there’s this little issue called “credibility”. What it means is that people who are constantly being lied to be someone (read “Bush Administration”) lose the ability to trust that someone…even when they tell the truth (or when the department releasing the statistics is sufficiently independent from the lying ideologues in the Administration to succomb to spreading falsehoods). As I said, people can’t legitimately cite BLS numbers to argue about how Bush is Bad (to wit, all of the claims from the Dems that 2 million jobs have been lost since he’s been in office), and then, when the numbers turn positive, say that the numbers from the very same source, are all of a sudden lies. Can’t have it both ways, mi amigo. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/27 "2004-04-04T02:35:21Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Not that I claimed that unemployement didn’t blip up a bit, but you will notice that our rate is significantly lower than [URL=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/62/29589476.pdf]Europe’s. Brought to you by the “Hey, look, everybody, a pony!” school of economic thought. I am hopeful that the economy is improving, but I’ll wait awhile before jumping up and down at this news, and would friendlily advise everyone else to do the same: you don’t want to make predictions or conclusions based on this that later make you look foolish. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/28 "2004-04-04T02:57:15Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > As I said, people can’t legitimately cite BLS numbers to argue about how Bush is Bad (to wit, all of the claims from the Dems that 2 million jobs have been lost since he’s been in office), and then, when the numbers turn positive, say that the numbers from the very same source, are all of a sudden lies. Can’t have it both ways, mi amigo. Which is why everyone needs to understand HOW the numbers are created rather than simply focusing on essentially meaningless single numbers like a 5.7% unemployment rate. You need to look at all the footnotes that the BLS offers, hours worked, changes in wages earned, etc. Only then will you have enough information to truly understand what you are being told. As everyone can see from the posts and links in this thread (and other similar ones): \*\*- part-time workers are counted as fully employed - people who haven’t looked for work in the last 4 weeks are not counted as unemployed - many “adjustments” are made to account for seasonal factors and most important of all - QUALITY of jobs created does not enter into the calculations. \*\* There is no distinction or consideration when someone who was making 60k/yr loses their job and then gets another at 35k/yr., perhaps with less or no benefits Unless they were living frugally (unlikely given all the statistics about low savings rates and increasingly high credit card debts), then that person’s/families ability to participate in American consumerism is much more limited than before. Furthermore, if that person now HAS to work a 2nd job to make up the difference between 35k and 60k, then their quality of life is likely to be lessened. Businessweek recently ran the following article that says that maybe there REALLY are big problems with the availability of jobs and that this is because the GDP numbers are not correct: [GDP Growth: Are The Numbers Too Rosy?](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_14/b3877044.htm) An informed person is less likely to be bamboozled by politicians and the sound bite media… ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/29 "2004-04-04T03:12:35Z")
A few random comments: 1. Those numbers mostly come from the Census Bureau, which does a whole bunch of surveys for other government agencies on a contract basis. (It’s what they do ‘the other nine years’. :)) But the Census Bureau takes its independence every bit as seriously as the Bureau of Labor Statistics does, so that doesn’t make any difference. Karl Rove ain’t telling neither agency what the stats should look like this month. 2. The current month’s CPS survey estimated the unemployment rate at 5.7%. The _estimate_ was up from last month’s estimate of 5.6%. This doesn’t mean unemployment went up; if there was a statistically significant increase, they would have said it went up, rather than using fudge words that translate into “no statistically significant change”. 3. WAG territory: I’m not sure what the numbers ‘mean’ either. I’m glad to see more people going back to work, but a few different categories look like they have the potential to be one-shot increases, and some of those hourly/weekly wage numbers further down look kinda weak. I’m personally guessing April will see a lot fewer new jobs than March, but I’m no expert; it’s definitely a WAG. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/30 "2004-04-04T05:51:54Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > Go ahead, call it sour grapes, but I think only a retard would accept as fact, anything that comes out of this WH. Well, why don’t you show us all how bright \*\*you \*\* are and produce a cite with the “correct” numbers? The BLS is not the WH. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/31 "2004-04-04T15:32:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, why don’t you show us all how bright \*\*you \*\* are and produce a cite with the “correct” numbers? The BLS is not the WH. There you go again John. Offer nothing substantive throughout the thread, but come in at the end with a snide remark. If you want a cite, you find it. But I think that if even \*\*you, John Mace \*\* reread this thread, you might agree that BLS skews the data in ways to present the best possible picture for the sitting president. Take just one excerpt - from **iame99** ’s post on BLS’s job-counting protocols: \*\*- part-time workers are counted as fully employed - people who haven’t looked for work in the last 4 weeks are not counted as unemployed - many “adjustments” are made to account for seasonal factors and most important of all - QUALITY of jobs created does not enter into the calculations. There is no distinction or consideration when someone who was making 60k/yr loses their job and then gets another at 35k/yr., perhaps with less or no benefits Unless they were living frugally (unlikely given all the statistics about low savings rates and increasingly high credit card debts), then that person’s/families ability to participate in American consumerism is much more limited than before. Furthermore, if that person now HAS to work a 2nd job to make up the difference between 35k and 60k, then their quality of life is likely to be lessened.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/32 "2004-04-04T15:54:09Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > There you go again John. > > Offer nothing substantive throughout the thread, but come in at the end with a snide remark. Sorry, but you set it up with an OP that was nothing other than a snide remark. You provide no data to back up your opinion. Nothing. As for your “skewed data” hypothesis, you need to demostrate that the BLS has made substantive changes recently to the way it processes the data. Do you think that during the Clinton presidency the BLS counted a job differently if the person taking it ended up with a pay cut from his previous job? Do you think the BLS suddenly invented “seasonal adjustments” last month? Please. Offer something of substance for a debate, and you get something of substance in response. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/33 "2004-04-04T18:14:28Z")
**Brutus:** _[…]but you will notice that our rate is significantly lower than Europe’s. You will also notice, no doubt, that the Democratic nominee wants to introduce various Euro-style protectionist policies. If you care about jobs, you won’t be voting for Kerry, that is for damned sure._ Actually, **Brutus** , if you look at the European unemployment rates [by country](http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=3-02032004-EN-AP-EN&mode=download), you’ll notice that several of the more socialist/protectionist EU countries have unemployment rates comparable to, or in some cases **lower** than, that of the US. There is no clear and simple correlation between what you call “Euro-style” policies and high unemployment. (Note also that the US unemployment rate is artificially lowered by our very high incarceration rate, especially for nonviolent crimes such as drug offenses. We’ve got [nearly 3% of our entire adult population](http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/66177/1/) in jail, and since most inmates fall in the working-age category and have fairly poor employment prospects, it’s likely that a large number of them would be unemployed if they weren’t doing time. The **combined** incarceration plus unemployment rate for the US is probably much closer to the European average than the unemployment rate alone.) ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/34 "2004-04-04T20:44:29Z")
The second thing I look at in the report, after the number of jobs created, is the number of hours worked. Scan down to that and you’ll notice that total hours worked in the private sector fell by .1 hour to 33.7, which is unchanged from a year ago. Manufacturing hours worked also fell by the same .1. This confirms and ties in with the idea that most of the new jobs were part time. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/35 "2004-04-04T22:21:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **Brutus:** _[…]but you will notice that our rate is significantly lower than Europe’s. You will also notice, no doubt, that the Democratic nominee wants to introduce various Euro-style protectionist policies. If you care about jobs, you won’t be voting for Kerry, that is for damned sure._ > > Actually, **Brutus** , if you look at the European unemployment rates [by country](http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=3-02032004-EN-AP-EN&mode=download), you’ll notice that several of the more socialist/protectionist EU countries have unemployment rates comparable to, or in some cases **lower** than, that of the US. There is no clear and simple correlation between what you call “Euro-style” policies and high unemployment. > > (Note also that the US unemployment rate is artificially lowered by our very high incarceration rate, especially for nonviolent crimes such as drug offenses. We’ve got [nearly 3% of our entire adult population](http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/66177/1/) in jail, and since most inmates fall in the working-age category and have fairly poor employment prospects, it’s likely that a large number of them would be unemployed if they weren’t doing time. The **combined** incarceration plus unemployment rate for the US is probably much closer to the European average than the unemployment rate alone.) While I think the concept preposterous, I’ll still play along. However, if one was going to include the incarcerated in unemployment rates, you would first have to deduct the number of inmates actually performing jobs while incarcerated. You would also have to eliminate the inmates that are on work release programs and there would be no use in including inmates with prison terms which exceeds their “working age” (no use in including people that will never again be able to enter the job market). The reason this is a preposterous concept is that unemployment figures are comprised of people that are available for work **and** that are attempting to find work. Being incarcerated makes it difficult to do either. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/36 "2004-04-04T22:36:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > As for your “skewed data” hypothesis, you need to demostrate that the BLS has made substantive changes recently to the way it processes the data. Do you think that during the Clinton presidency the BLS counted a job differently if the person taking it ended up with a pay cut from his previous job? Do you think the BLS suddenly invented “seasonal adjustments” last month? Please. Offer something of substance for a debate, and you get something of substance in response. Jumping in on your battle with Antiochus - It wasn’t my contention that the numbers are being massaged by the Bush administration. I believe the BLS numbers have been awry for a long time. They didn’t give an accurate picture of employment in the past (due to the reasons I have previously cited) nor do they do so now. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/37 "2004-04-04T22:48:41Z")
The OECD uses standardized numbers to compare unemployment rates between the various countries. They standardize the methodology so that they can make good comparisons. I believe they are the same as followed by the BLS. So if there are any errors in methodology, they are the same across all countries. So you can’t simply wave away the low unemployment figures for the United States as being ‘faulty data’. If unemployment is higher than 5.7% in the U.S., then it’s also higher than 7.4% in Canada. If the methodology is the same, the relative difference between the two is the same. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/38 "2004-04-04T23:24:40Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The OECD uses standardized numbers to compare unemployment rates between the various countries. They standardize the methodology so that they can make good comparisons. I believe they are the same as followed by the BLS. So if there are any errors in methodology, they are the same across all countries. So you can’t simply wave away the low unemployment figures for the United States as being ‘faulty data’. If unemployment is higher than 5.7% in the U.S., then it’s also higher than 7.4% in Canada. If the methodology is the same, the relative difference between the two is the same. OK, so that means that there are likely MORE people unemployed or marginally employed than the official numbers are showing in all countries. Therefore, it is imperative that we do something to address and fix the problem before it becomes much worse, rather than sitting on our arses and saying everything is good. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/39 "2004-04-04T23:44:54Z")
?Bush and Co. can’t touch it; that he wouldn’t dare…? There is no gainsaying their brass–they will tell whoppers with a straight face that are breathtaking! (also, what manual did I not read to tell me how to frame prior quotes in that cute little box?) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082/40 "2004-04-05T00:23:39Z")
**iamme99** said: > [@](#): > > OK, so that means that there are likely MORE people unemployed or marginally employed than the official numbers are showing in all countries. Therefore, it is imperative that we do something to address and fix the problem before it becomes much worse, rather than sitting on our arses and saying everything is good. uh… What? How do you conclude that there are more people unemployed than the official numbers show? And since the same methodology has been in place for a long time, perhaps you could explain why the 5.6% unemployment figures today are somehow worse than the 5.6% unemployment figures in 1996? And if something drastic needs to be done to save the day, could you explain why we managed to survive the nearly 10% unemployment in the early 1980’s? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-necessarily-believe-bushs-new-jobs-claim/238082.md?page=3)