# Does Bush Favor Unemployment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657 "2004-06-29T03:14:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/41 "2004-06-30T04:50:25Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Yep, economists estimate a good 4-5% unemployment rate is healthy. 😕 Why don’t they consider an unemployment rate of **zero** to be even healthier? How are they defining “healthy”? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/42 "2004-06-30T04:55:55Z")
An unemployment rate of zero means that industries aren’t growing. You naturally expect to have _some_ unemployment when industrial growth occurs, since it takes a finite amount of time to fill newly created job openings. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/43 "2004-06-30T04:59:14Z")
Actually, I should amend that last statement to say that zero unemployment means that people aren’t around to fill job openings. That is not good, since it means that vital functions are not being fulfilled. (This is not quite the same as saying that there is no industrial growth, and so I was speaking hastily in my last post.) If industries are growing, and if people are around to fill the requisite jobs, then there will be some unemployment, since it takes a non-zero amount of time to fill the positions being generated. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/44 "2004-06-30T05:03:04Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > An unemployment rate of zero means that industries aren’t growing. You naturally expect to have _some_ unemployment when industrial growth occurs, since it takes a finite amount of time to fill newly created job openings. But why is **growth** considered essential to a “healthy” economy? Why can’t an economy be “healthy” and be in a steady state? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/45 "2004-06-30T05:29:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But why is **growth** considered essential to a “healthy” economy? Why can’t an economy be “healthy” and be in a steady state? Because the population is not in a steady state? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/46 "2004-06-30T05:36:34Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Because the population is not in a steady state? That just begs the question. Besides, in Europe the population is **declining,** or threatening to, but somehow I don’t think any orthodox economist would argue that a steady-state (or contracting) economy would be “healthy” even under those circumstances. Makes me wonder what, exactly, their values are. If they’re assuming that it’s not enough to be rich, people (in the aggregate) always have to be growing steadily richer – isn’t that an assumption that needs to be examined more closely? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/47 "2004-06-30T05:48:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But why is **growth** considered essential to a “healthy” economy? Why can’t an economy be “healthy” and be in a steady state? Well first, even if we consider a steady-state economy to be healthy, a growing economy is generally healthier. (I say “generally” because it has to be sustainable growth – unlike the [dot.com](http://dot.com) bust, for example.) And second, a steady-state economy is a stagnating one. It runs the risk of being overtaken by other economies which are indeed growing. In a world of capitalist competition, particularly in high-tech arenas, that is simply not a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/48 "2004-06-30T06:03:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That just begs the question. Besides, in Europe the population is **declining,** or threatening to, but somehow I don’t think any orthodox economist would argue that a steady-state (or contracting) economy would be “healthy” even under those circumstances. Makes me wonder what, exactly, their values are. If they’re assuming that it’s not enough to be rich, people (in the aggregate) always have to be growing steadily richer – isn’t that an assumption that needs to be examined more closely? No, not really. **JThunder** gave a good reason. More generally, and more closely related to my point, the number of people was not the only thing I was refering to. Even in a declining population, the demographics make up of that population will not be stagnant. A stagnant economy will have fewer resources available to alter course in order to service that population. One of Europes big problems is that their productivity level will not sustain them in the expected future. Unless they can develop ways for fewer and fewer workers to support more and more non workers, they will have a crisis on their hands. We have a similar problem. Although, we have an expected continuation of immigrant growth to help alleviate it quite a bit. The only way for a population to be stagnant is for it to be dead. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/49 "2004-06-30T06:14:04Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Although, we have an expected continuation of immigrant growth to help alleviate it quite a bit. Are you saying Europe doesn’t? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/50 "2004-06-30T06:39:12Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Are you saying Europe doesn’t? Yes. In some studies I have seen they project negative population growth over the coming century. I understand that such things are not certain. But that is what I have read. [Here is a cite.](http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Other_articles/January-March_20011/UN_Raises_World_Population_Projections;_AIDS_Continues_to_Devastate_Sub-Saharan_Africa1.htm) it contains this paragraph: > [@](#): > > _All of the projected world population growth [between 2001 and 2050]is expected to be in the less developed countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Oceania. As a group, the more developed countries (North America, Europe, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand) are projected to remain nearly the same size by 2050 in the medium variant. In fact, the populations of 39 more developed countries are expected to shrink by 2050, because of historically low levels of fertility. Significant population growth is anticipated, however, for several more developed countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. But this growth will be offset by losses in other more developed countries._ This sort of projection is what **BrainGlutton** was refering to if I am not mistaken. * * * BTW, I really love this place. I was going to leave my response without the cite. But somehow that did not seem dignified enough for this board. SDMB ROCKS! ---
**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:** [July 1, 2004, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/51 "2004-07-01T01:01:25Z")
[Reuters: More U.S. jobs seen in June, buoying Bush](http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=5556775) > [@](#): > > U.S. employment likely surged again in June, taking gains this year to some 1.4 million jobs and bolstering President George W. Bush’s economic record ahead of the November election, analysts said on Wednesday. > … > Economists believe 250,000 jobs were created this month, virtually matching May’s jump of 248,000, though the unemployment rate probably will not budge from 5.6 percent because newly hopeful job-seekers are returning to the job market. > … > The creation of **nearly a million jobs in the last three months** ended years of worry about the slow recovery from the 2001 recession and has prompted the Federal Reserve to begin raising interest rates to head off inflation. > … > > “I think the gains will be quite widespread again, and as we saw in April and May, **we are likely to create slightly more higher-paying than lower-paying positions** ,” said Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Banc of America Securities. > … > **Friday’s report is also expected to show a sixth straight monthly rise in hourly earnings** , though the workweek will likely be unchanged at 33.8 hours, according to a Reuters survey of economists. > > Longer hours and fatter paychecks are seen by experts as evidence **the economy is on the threshold of even stronger job gains in the months ahead**. The Democrats had better hope that Iraq is a disaster, because the Bush campaign is going to be all over the economic news. This isn’t just good job creation - it’s GREAT job creation. A million jobs in 100 days, or almost half of what was lost in the previous three years. And the numbers are getting stronger, not worse. The data shows that the jobs are NOT low paying ‘McJobs’, but that more high paying jobs are being created than low paying jobs. And not only are jobs being created, but wages overall are on the rise. Also mentioned was that even though the job creation numbers are outstanding, the unemployment rate hasn’t changed because people who had given up looking for work before are now looking again. This also does not bode well for the Democrats, because it shows that confidence in the recovery is trickling down even tho the unemployed. Consumer confidence is near record highs as well. The fed raised rates today .25 percent because the economy is heating up so fast that there are fears of inflation. By November, all the economic talk is going to be, “How much stronger can the economy possibly get?” There are also some hidden factors in here that could push the economy even harder. For instance, productivity has increased almost 30 percent in the last four years, largely due to transformations in manufacturing processes due to the intranet, internet, and process technologies that were supposed to come along in the dot-com boom. Well, they’re here now, and they are making us a lot more efficient. Productivity gains start out by showing up on the bottom line in corporate profit statements - it’s a leading indicator. But as profits go up, competition forces expansion, hiring, and pay increases. So we’re in the middle of a big boom, but this boom is driven by fundamentals. The last boom was partly fundamental driven, but was also partly due to a bubble. There are no bubbles this time - just a lot of pent-up demand and productivity gains. This could be the start of an expansion like the one we saw start during the Reagan years. That is not good news for John Kerry. The latest polls show a modest gain for Bush, due mostly to increasing numbers of people saying he’s doing a good job on the economy. By November, that’s going to be a big boost. And if Iraq drops off the news, Kerry is in big trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/52 "2004-07-01T01:14:40Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > That is not good news for John Kerry. The latest polls show a modest gain for Bush, due mostly to increasing numbers of people saying he’s doing a good job on the economy. By November, that’s going to be a big boost. > > And if Iraq drops off the news, Kerry is in big trouble. So, when Bush loses in November, it won’t be because of the economy, and it won’t be because of Iraq. It will be because America has decided we just don’t like _him_. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/53 "2004-07-01T01:32:01Z")
Is Iraq scheduled to drop off the face of the planet by November or something? Or some kind of mass amnesia gas to be released? In any case, I don’t put much value in the economy’s resurgence. I think that has more to do with natural market flunctuations than Bush’s administrative genius (ditto with Clinton) ---
**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:** [July 1, 2004, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/54 "2004-07-01T01:39:13Z")
But when it wasn’t doing well, it was all his fault? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/55 "2004-07-01T01:40:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > But when it wasn’t doing well, it was all his fault? Not to me. It was because of the market collapsing into itself when the tech bubble burst. It inflated, burst, and is levelling back off, just like I said it would in 1998. I will, however, credit Mr. Bush for putting us even more into debt. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/56 "2004-07-01T07:06:33Z")
…and with any luck, by November 2004 we’ll have almost as many jobs as we did in January 2001! Spin it all you like, **Sam,** but the simple truth is that the only economic news we’re getting is “it sucks less now!” Short of divine intervention, job creation under George W. Bush will be embarassingly pathetic. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2004, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/57 "2004-07-01T07:36:07Z")
You’re the one applying spin. I just reported on what the data says. It doesn’t say “It sucks less now”, it says, “The economy is roaring”. ---
**Author:** ![LuckySevens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@LuckySevens](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LuckySevens)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/58 "2004-07-01T10:03:48Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Typical Pubbie reply. > > “Something is wrong with you, not the system.” Maybe its true? Hundreds of millions of americans can find work, why is this guy so special that the system has singled him out? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![LuckySevens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@LuckySevens](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LuckySevens)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/59 "2004-07-01T10:07:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 Why don’t they consider an unemployment rate of **zero** to be even healthier? How are they defining “healthy”? Because the economy expands and contracts. Also seasonal jobs, cyclical cycles, and all this comes into account. Then theres the grandaddy of them all; inflation. Inflation at 0% unemployment would be through the roof, thus interest rates would be high, thus the economy would slow yadda yadda yadda. 4-5% is a nice stabiliser. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657/60 "2004-07-01T17:59:15Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > It doesn’t say “It sucks less now”, it says, “The economy is roaring”. Three years of job losses + several months of job gains = It sucks less now. Really, **Sam,** it’s not as if the universe didn’t exist before 2004… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-bush-favor-unemployment/252657.md?page=4)