low unemployment rate? walmart has been opening a lot of stores full of minimum wage jobs!

Matt, if the AP is so bias against Bush, why did they report this?

AP News 4/7/06, “Employers, in a springtime hiring burst, boosted payrolls by a sizable 211,000 in March and pushed the nation's unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent.

The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department on Friday, suggested that an accelerating economic expansion is putting companies in the hiring mood, brightening prospects for job seekers.

Hiring gains were fairly widespread. Construction, financial activities, education and health care and government were among the sectors posting payroll gains. That help to blunt job losses in manufacturing and in the transportation industries.

The unemployment rate, which dropped from February's 4.8 percent, ended up matching January's jobless rate, which was the lowest in 4 1/2 years.”

Go cherry-pick more evidence of MSM bias.

perhaps Barney should go cherry-pick more evidence of MSM objectivity.

Blarneystone

One has to wonder why Clinton's economy was so "great" and slathered over ad nauseum by the press and by little Clintoids like yourself.

Yet when this economy comes around it's constantly bashed and crapped on.

Why would that be the case, especially in light that Clinton's was based on a false Dot.Com bubble that blew up and this economy has no such issue like that.

War, how do you spin creating only 75,000 jobs when we need a minimum 200,000 just to keep pace with population growth as good news?

As I pointed out in my first post, AP more than praised the Bush administration based on the job growth in March. Creating 75,000 jobs is bad news.

Barney, the myth of the 200,000 jobs needed per month has been debunked time and again.

Second, these are initial numbers and typically they are revised upwards the following month. It is likely they will end up over 100,000.

Now, back to the original question that you totally ignored. Why was the Clinton economy treated one way and Bush economy another by the liberal press?

Don't be shy Blarney, take a crack at it.

"how do you spin creating only 75,000 jobs when we need a minimum 200,000 just to keep pace with population growth as good news?...Creating 75,000 jobs is bad news."

BarneyG(oofball): Your misunderstanding of economics is breathtaking. Let's accept your figure and assume that U.S. population grew by 200,000 last month due to natural increase (i.e., excess of births over deaths) and net immigration. Let's also assume that last month less than 75,000 people (net) entered the work force (a reasonable assumption since the unemployment rate declined). This means the economy created MORE jobs last month than the number of people who entered the work force.

I understand how this is "bad news" for the Democrats. But exactly how is this "bad news" for the economy?

Let me interject, the Dow Jones has been tanking recently. Juggle job numbers all you want, but Dow is a real indicator of confidence.

Hmmmm, Dow on March 1st 2003, 7,500. Dow on June 6th, 11,000. Talk about the Dow on fire! As every clear thinking individuals know when the market ramps up like it did for the last few months investors (such as myself) take profits. I wonder if ash is at all embarrassed by his ignorance?

“Now, back to the original question that you totally ignored. Why was the Clinton economy treated one way and Bush economy another by the liberal press?
Don't be shy Blarney, take a crack at it.”
Posted by: Warriornation

How many times do I have to point out my first post? The AP is creaming in their pants over the job numbers and the strong economy (in their view).

JPL, you forgot to factor in the number of persons that have exhausted their unemployment insurance, and are not counted in the unemployment figures.

Also, you need to look at the quality and pay of the work. In November 2001, non-supervisory wages were $14.70/hour. These increased to $16.61 in the latest report for an overall increase of 12.99%.

Over the same time, inflation increased from 177.4 to 201.5, or an increase of 13.58%. Therefore, since the beginning of this expansion, wages for 80% of the population have actually decreased .59%.

Just one word for this economy:

BOOM!

Better run for cover folks, this is just the start.

Just one word for this economy:

BOOM!

Better run for cover folks, this is just the start.

Chicken Littles have spoken again. What's it like to be you guys? Are you in the fetal positions sucking your thumbs and asking for mommy 24/7?

The life of lunatic liberal. Thank God I outgrew that stage when I got out of college. Thank GOD!

Ignoramus BarneyG wrote, "JPL, you forgot to factor in the number of persons that have exhausted their unemployment insurance, and are not counted in the unemployment figures."
How many times do I have to explain this?
Unemployment numbers are based on a survey done by BLS, not on unemployment compensation benefits which vary from State to State.
Wages overall have outpaced inflation since 2000. and my statistically challenged friend, you cannot add or subtract percentages from different comparatives.

"JPL, you forgot to factor in the number of persons that have exhausted their unemployment insurance, and are not counted in the unemployment figures."

No, BarneyG, it's you who forgot not to make things up. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics determines who's "employed," who's "unemployed," and who's not in the job force. Nowhere does the Bureau list "exhaustion of unemployment benefits" as relevant to ANYTHING:

"People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.

"People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

"The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. Those not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force."

SOURCE: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

So I repeat my earlier comment and question: The latest figures indicate that the economy created MORE jobs last month than the number of people who entered the work force. Obviously this is bad news for the Democrats. But how is it "bad news" for the economy?

OBJECTION Your Honor, that evidence makes my client look guilty!

Once again the folks who hail Mr. Bush's "No Millionaire Left Behind" economy fail to address the fact that the median household income has declined in each of the last four years (it hasn't done that since the great depression). That's why Bushco doesn't get any credit for the economy -- it sucks for average Americans.

You can spin it 'til you're blue in the face -- but Americans know when the numbers don't add up to an improvment in their family's quality of life -- that's why these guys are circling the drain.

I've already answered your nonsense in another thread. Don't you pay attention?
Sal,
Please cite your sources, according to the US Census Bureau median income calculated on two-year averages; the last full year being 2004, and the median unchanged from previous years; in 2000 the median (adjusted for inflation) was $45,560 +or- $116, for 2004 $44,436 +or- $160: Statistically the same. Median household income is based on household surveys, and anyone that claims to have 2005 numbers is blowing smoke, or at least is suspect. Oh, and you can thank the Clinton Recession of 2000-2001 for the drop in 2001-2002.

According to BLS, unemployment in Manufacturing is steady @ 4.9%, and wages in manufacturing have risen faster than other industries, and faster than inflation.

Are you still trying to make lemons out of lemonade?

CJ, No, I'm not the least embarrased. Money doesn't mean much to me. I get to laugh at money grubbers like yourself!

CJ:

DOW June 29.2001 = 10,502

DOW June 6, 2006 = 11,000

Fire? What fire?

My comment based on an obviously different interpretation of recently show:

June 02, 2006 = 11,207

June 06, 2006 = 11,000

Obviously investors are worried about Alfred E President blundering us into a war in Iran and Iran cutting us off. Good G*d. Three more years to ruin us!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you're not embarrassed, you should be; perhaps you’re just ignorant of how ignorant you are. Like Sal, 3eye, and axis you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics. Yet, that doesn’t stop any of you from popping off.

The subject is the unemployment/employment ratio, not the DJIA, not inflation, not median incomes, not who won the Apprentice.
“money grubbers” this is a typical of the losers in society that hate achievers and cannot understand why they cannot achieve themselves. Yes, three more years of unprecedented robust economic news! Get used to it.

Bane I consider you to be the loser in this society and one who's money grubbing ways are destroying my planet.

With 60 million Americans without health care, I suspect you'd best get used to being the minority party.

And get back to work you are my employee, boy.

Achieve? Depends on how you define it, bean boy. Can you identify 60 species of birds by their song? Can you see 75 shades of green in the forest? Or do you spend your little life counting beans?

Can you carry a 60 lb backpack 25 miles over 3 days? Do you know which tree bark smells like vanilla?

We all find different ways to define achievement. I once lived in the straight world. I was a topnotch photojournalist and won many awards and earned a good salary. But at some point in life you have to decide what is important to you. I don't consider counting beans or understanding the stock market very important.

You sir have no idea what real achievement is. But that does not stop you from popping off on the subject and defining it for others.

"As documented most extensively by the Economic Policy Institute with data from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Survey, real median incomes fell from 2000 to 2004, the year of the most recent survey.1 And income gains were garnered disproportionately by the highest income earners. In 2004, for instance, the real average income of the top 5% of the income distribution increased by 1.7%, while the four lowest quintiles (the bottom 80% of the distribution) suffered losses. The incomes of the lowest 20% declined slightly (-0.0%), the second quintile lost 0.5%, the middle quintile 0.7%, and the fourth 1.1%."

Ponderosa Pine, grows in great abundance around my house. .
I've spent the better part of my life in the backcountry. Fool.
At least I’m not spouting off about what a wonderful person I used to be, how many awards did you win before you became a loser?
I'm on vacation and I don't work for your State, so you have nothing whatever to do with my salary. So butt out.
Healthcare is not the subject, but as long as you brought it up; if you mean people without health insurance say so. Rich people don’t need insurance, so why would you care if they have it or not?

Keep reading, Balony!
You missed the part in the next section that shows "hourly earnings for non-supervisory workers rose a sharp 0.5%” then there's that whole section regarding rebounding in major metropolitan areas.

Like you have never gone off topic, fool. How do you know what state I live in. Are you stalking me? Have nothing better to do with your time?

I'm not the loser Bane. I am even a bigger winner now that I am no longer a part of your world. I only brought up my past because you accused me of being envious of the "achievers". I am achieving exactly what I want. And it will never include beans!

I don't know many folks without insurance getting adequate healthcare. So I use the terms interchangeably.

I thought you were a federal employee anyway. Even if I don't pay your state salary directly, we all lose when employees cheat their employers!!!!

Bane, but you forgot about the part where high gas prices have wiped out much of the April increase:

"Global Insight forecasts that wage gains in 2006 will be 3.6% (1.3% in real terms ), and in
2007 will be 3.3% (a 1.7% real rate). But a 50% gas price increase (as in from $2 to $3)
would displace 46% of projected wage gains for 2006."

"In real terms, adjusted for inflation, wage gains in both 2004 and 2005 were 1.7%. this represented a significant acceleration over 2001-2003, when the total wage gain was just 1.7% over the entire three years (Clinton Recession). In the last decade, 1990 -2000, compound annual wage growth was also 1.7%, though the second half of the decade achieved a yearly rate of 2.8%.

Let's see, wages grew faster than inflation, faster in the recent years than the entire 1990's. Thanks for the source, Baloney. You might want to read what you post next time.

Ash, you'rew in colorado, I work for the State of California, I said I was a fiscal analyst, not Federal.

"In real terms, adjusted for inflation, wage gains in both 2004 and 2005 were 1.7%. this represented a significant acceleration over 2001-2003, when the total wage gain was just 1.7% over the entire three years (Clinton Recession). In the last decade, 1990 -2000, compound annual wage growth was also 1.7%, though the second half of the decade achieved a yearly rate of 2.8%.

Let's see, wages grew faster than inflation, faster in the recent years than the entire 1990's. Thanks for the source, Baloney. You might want to read what you post next time.

Ash, you're in Colorado, I work for the State of California, I said I was a fiscal analyst, not Federal.

And this part Bane:
"This run-up in energy costs has taken a big bite out of earnings. As a fraction of all wage
and salary disbursements in 2005, energy expenditures equaled 9.0%, an increase of 1.5%
over 2004. Earnings themselves increased in 2005 by an average of 4.6%. Thus increased
energy expenditures wiped out almost one third of last year's earnings gain. The increased
cost of gasoline alone averaged 17% of the wage gain. The impact on spending is clear: as
households stretch their budgets to cover higher energy costs, they have fewer dollars left
for discretionary purchases."

Sorry Barney, I'm going to butt out here. You are doing a great job of dissing BaneBoy. I just dislike his pedantic self on a personal level, so enjoy rattling his cage.

Keep up the good work, Barney

Ash....you forgot to insert in your data a Recession inherited by Bush. The stock market when Clinton left office. This thing called 9/11. And all the corporate scandals that went on during the Clinton administration and were prosecuted (finally) by the Bush Administration (Tyco, Worldnet/MCI, Enron, etc).

I can't for the life of me figure out why you would have excluded those things from your list.

"I said I was a fiscal analyst, not Federal."

We still all lose when an employee cheats his employer.

Real problem with "Internal Server Errors here. I never know if I've been posted or not.

a displacement of 46% of the wage gains would still be a real gain of .92% after adjustement for inflation.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you Baloney?

On vacation, Ash-whole

Can someone please tell me why these Muslims in Canada hate Canada? It is so disturbing to me to hear this. Please someone answer this for us.

"can't for the life of me figure out why you would have excluded those things from your list."

Just pointing out how CJ selectively picked March 1st 2003 as a point of reference. I chose another one to put it in perspective.

And corporate scandals were Clintons fault. Isn't W. merely a buttboy for corporate interests?

Oh yeah. I've never seen you post during the day before. You must get a lot of vacation time, beanboy. The factory run out of beans?

Baloney,
You're still not reading your own posts,with all the factors you noted income still out paces inflation, real earnings continue to rise.

Hey beanboy,

Why not use some of your vacation time to go out in those ponderosa pines and smell the roses. You'd be a lot less uptight and judgemental methinks.

BTW, I'm down with good news in financial areas. Sheesh I have lots of dinero tied up in 401K's.

Improvements in the economy will hardly effect the coming elections. We both know Bush's legacy is based on the failure in Iraq. I am more interested in removing as many republicans from office as possible.

Better be careful what you wish for, some Democrats have talked about modifying the laws governing 401Ks and RETROACTIVELY taking taxes out of it.

Again..that would be DEMOCRATS looking to do that.

Bane, “a displacement of 46% of the wage gains would still be a real gain of .92% after adjustement for inflation.” Bane, you forgot that the projections of wage gains are highly skewed by the top 20% of earners. The remaining 80% saw negative or no growth, and in the report's conclusion:

“In 2004 and 2005 wage gains have at last matched those of previous economic expansions. However, the distribution of such gains is skewed Global Insight 6toward high income workers, and has not fully benefited all groups. Moreover, those lagging behind in income gains are now caught in a further budget squeeze as elevated energy prices dissipate a large chunk of their apparent gain in disposable income.

Also Bane, ““a displacement of 46% of the wage gains would still be a real gain of .92% after adjustement for inflation.”

The projection for ’06 was for gains of 1.3% (real). When you take off the 46% due to higher gas costs you are left with 0.7% gain (skewed to the top 20%) and not 0.92%.

Boy that is something to cheer about.

some Democrats

In the same vein, some Democrats are talking about retroctively reducing tax penalties for early withdrawal.

Baloney,
You're still not reading your own posts,with all the factors you noted income still out paces inflation, real earnings continue to rise.

Ash,
You're father should have practiced early withdrawal.

Ash....I'd love to see that happen on early withdrawls. Can you name or give me a source link where a Democrat has advocated that?

Thank you

"You're father should have practiced early withdrawal." - Bane of Everbody's Existence

First he insults a fellow poster's wife, and now he insults his father. Classy guy, you are.

And aren't you the same anal poster always inserting "sic" markers when you quote other people's comments, trying to show off your vastly superior grasp on grammar?

Typical liberal mentality!

AAR

More garbage in and garbage out from the AP. You have to look at real disposable personal income which has risen 13% since Bush took office. This is due to keeping tax rates low and a 2.1% inflation rate since 2003 (1.8% in 2001 and 2002). Compared to Clintune when taxes were high and inflation was 2.8%.

As far as the unemployment numbers, they are likely to be revised up. They can not run on this issue. Even the gas issue, more people are driving now than ever before. Forecasts for gas usage among U.S. Drivers are increasing, not decreasing.