Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

248,000 jobs created in US last month; 947,000 in last 3

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 12
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 template Next
  • #91
    Originally posted by GePap


    Any of you gents care to challenge the fact that payrolls are lowet today than at the end of 2000?
    I'm trying to find overall payroll figures (I'm assuming you mean the aggregate paid out in salary and/or benefits by all US businesses and governments, correct?)and I can't. However, it can be extrapolated somewhat, but I'd be more confident with a cite...

    Employment today is 131,224,000. The average hourly compensation for all US employees in 2002 is $17.18 (warning: URL might not work due to it being an applet and my losing the original page from the bls.gov site. Sorry. ) and with the ECI increasing since then, average wages have not decreased since then. Regardless, assuming wages have been unchanged since 2002, this gives us an aggregate payroll cost of $2.25 billion per hour, or $4.51 trillion a year.

    In March 2000, we had 1.275 million more people employed for a total employment of 132,507,000 with an average wage of $15.80. This comes out to an hourly payroll of $2.095 billion and a yearly payroll of $4.187 trillion.

    Therefore, despite his assertion, payrolls have gone up in the Bush years, both in terms of cost per worker (including wages) and aggregate. However, I would prefer an official cite (not one from Faux News or the Internationale Workers Press or something) to my reasoning. Since GePap made the declaration, I'm sure you would be delighted to provide us with a link to the original source of payroll data. Thanks, man.
    Last edited by JohnT; June 4, 2004, 16:16.

    Comment

    • #92
      Yay, it worked!

      Comment

      • #93
        So would this be the first time that something you tried, worked, JohnT?
        A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

        Comment

        • #94
          Looks like he may well successfully do that. Which means, of course, that we're having massive job gains.

          There's a rhetorical symmetry here.


          Ahem, not if the trend continues.

          The job growth seems to be 250K a month. That means, if we take JohnT's latest March 2000 number that it will take 5 months of this very growth to return to March 2000 payrolls. So in the end, after 4 years, bush will have, if this pace continues, presided over the net creation of about 200K jobs (I am even asuuming he gets a bit more than 250K each month), even though the US population GREW by several million in the same 4 years.

          Notice that the unemployment rate stayed the same.
          If you don't like reality, change it! me
          "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
          "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
          "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

          Comment

          • #95
            not if the trend continues
            Yes, if the trend continues, those job losses will be erased. As massive as the losses were, the gains are as massive.
            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

            Comment

            • #96
              Originally posted by MrFun
              So would this be the first time that something you tried, worked, JohnT?
              Perhaps I was wrong about it being a link to a Java page.

              Comment

              • #97
                It seems a bit disingenuous to compare the number of jobs created to the overall popuation of the US -- it's not like we're putting newborns to work or anything...
                <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

                Comment

                • #98
                  Once the query times out, the link will be hosed.
                  I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                  Comment

                  • #99
                    Originally posted by JohnT


                    Perhaps I was wrong about it being a link to a Java page.


                    You -- wrong about something?
                    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                    Comment

                    • #100
                      Originally posted by loinburger
                      It seems a bit disingenuous to compare the number of jobs created to the overall popuation of the US -- it's not like we're putting newborns to work or anything...
                      Yes, but each year several hundread thousand college students get out of college. The fact is that the economy needs to create hundreads of thousands of jobs yearly simply to keep up with an increasing workforce, becuase more people join that drop out (retire or die that is)
                      If you don't like reality, change it! me
                      "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                      "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                      "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                      Comment

                      • #101
                        It seems a bit disingenuous to compare the number of jobs created to the overall popuation of the US -- it's not like we're putting newborns to work or anything...
                        It's very convenient if your aim is to make the economy look like it is doing poorly for partisan political purposes.
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment

                        • #102
                          Originally posted by DanS


                          Yes, if the trend continues, those job losses will be erased. As massive as the losses were, the gains are as massive.
                          Well, the problem is DanS- it is hard to jump around and gain huge political capital by saying "we are finally back to where we stared 4 years ago! see how much growth I have brought!"
                          If you don't like reality, change it! me
                          "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                          "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                          "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                          Comment

                          • #103
                            Employment today is 131,224,000. The average hourly compensation for all US employees in 2002 is $17.18 (warning: URL might not work due to it being an applet and my losing the original page from the bls.gov site. Sorry. ) and with the ECI increasing since then, average wages have not decreased since then. Regardless, assuming wages have been unchanged since 2002, this gives us an aggregate payroll cost of $2.25 billion per hour, or $4.51 trillion a year.

                            In March 2000, we had 1.275 million more people employed for a total employment of 132,507,000 with an average wage of $15.80. This comes out to an hourly payroll of $2.095 billion and a yearly payroll of $4.187 trillion.
                            Are those wages real?
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment

                            • #104
                              Originally posted by DanS


                              It's very convenient if your aim is to make the economy look like it is doing poorly for partisan political purposes.
                              Learn some basic dmeographics, why don;t you?
                              If you don't like reality, change it! me
                              "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                              "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                              "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                              Comment

                              • #105
                                Originally posted by loinburger
                                It seems a bit disingenuous to compare the number of jobs created to the overall popuation of the US -- it's not like we're putting newborns to work or anything...
                                No, but it isn't when you compare the numbers of the people in the workforce - GePap is (almost) right: there are 3,500,000 more people in the workforce now than there was at this time in 2001.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 template Next
                                Working...
                                X