'02 - '04 US productivity best for over 50 years

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS

Who ever said that payroll employment figures show a rise of 2.3 million since 2000? It certainly wasn't me.

You use the BLS's payroll employment figures when you make your claims about employment growth, they show a rise of 2.3m in employment since 2000.

Originally posted by DanS
Rather, the big deal was made about a couple million new jobs since August, 2003, when the job market began to grow.

Seeing as GDP has grown by an average of 3.7% since 2002 (3% in 2003 and 4.4% in 2004) how can you square rising employment with a reported productivity growth rate of 4.2% - if the data for productivity is using the the same employment figures that you like to quote then employment should have fallen by 1% since 2002 shouldn't it?

The employment data used for the productivity figures shows a rise of 1.2% since Q3 2002, whereas the payroll employment figures you like to quote show a rise of 2.4% - that means that the 218,000-a-month rise in employment since Q3 2002 that you make such a 'big deal' about is only 110,000 if the productivity data that you also trumpet is correct.


So either you are guilty of not knowing the difference between the measures (because you have not pointed it out to anyone) or you are deliberately picking the statistics that favour your political views - which is called 'torturing the data until it confesses'

[DanS]

You use the BLS's payroll employment figures when you make your claims, they show a rise of 2.3m in employment since 2000.

That link points to the household figures, not the establishment payroll figures. Who uses the household figures when talking about job growth?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
The "pretty big" deficit has turned the corner, so the deficit isn't getting worse. (See NIPA Table 3.1, Line 39).

On ABCNews, last night, they said the opposite, and that the government's own predictions show the deficit increasing to $860 billion in the next four years. I don't think that warrents the phrase, "Turning the corner." I don't know how you'd say that anyway, since this year's deficit is bigger than last year's.

[child of Thor]

and hows the supply of chocolate? I think our ration in the uk has risen to a new all time high this last quarter, about 12% and riseing

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
That link points to the household figures, not the establishment payroll figures.

Aha, so you are saying that one is 'wrong' then?

You can't have a 1.7% rise in employment and an 8.7% rise in productivity since 2001 if your output has grown by only 7.6% - the maths just doesn't add up does it?

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS


That link points to the household figures, not the establishment payroll figures. Who uses the household figures when talking about job growth?

You do when you quote the rise in employment listed at their Home page, the figures you have been repeatedly trumpeting have been the one's listed there.

[DanS]

Who ever said that there was a rise in employment since 2001? Really, this is getting tiresome.

the figures you have been repeatedly trumpeting have been the one's listed there.

No they aren't.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
Who ever said that there was a rise in employment since 2001? Really, this is getting tiresome.

It will continue to be tiresome until you stop cherry-picking data that only flatters your point of view.

[DanS]

ef: Do a search on my posts and find me one where I trumpeted household survey employment, you nitwit.

[child of Thor]

but what about the damn chocolate! Its important - what with our soldiers dying so we can enjoy it and all. I really hope they didnt overlook that as well as the exit strategy+wmd

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
ef: Do a search on my posts and find me one where I trumpeted household survey employment, you nitwit.

I remember checking the figures and they tallyed.

So if the productivity data is correct then employment growth has only been around 1% since August 2002, that's not very fast now is it - certainly not something to crow about.

[DanS]

I remember checking the figures and they tallyed.

Here is a representative thread. Show me where I used household survey data.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124895

[Whoha]

Yea sorry to rain on your parade DanS but Zkribbler is right, wages have to go up with productivity increases for there to be a living standard increase. That is just not the case. As far as the unemployment numbers, both surveys reflect quite well on the president historically, actual jobs isn't the problem for Bush, It is the fact that they are either mcJobs, or lower paying jobs:
"High-Tech Industry Becomes a Lower Wage Industry
Alan Tonelson
Tuesday, January 11, 2005

U.S. Wage Trends

Change in median income for technology professionals, 2002-2003: -1.49 percent

Last time this figure declined: 1972

Change in inflation-adjusted median income for technology professionals, 2002-2003: -3.68 percent

Last time this figure declined: 1988




Source: “Incomes of Technical Professionals Decline, IEEE-USA Salary Survey Reveals,” IEEE-USA, December 22, 2004, http://www.ieeeusa.org/communication...4/122204pr.asp "

http://www.tradealert.us/View_art.asp?Prod_ID=1231

[DanS]

Whoha: You're using a median income growth figure that has been negative once since '72 to bolster Zkribbler's contention that the average worker is no better off now than then.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by child of Thor
How does the huge(and growing so we're told on BBC tv news) budget deficit factor into these things? Does it have any effect on peoples standard of living? And in the world economy, how and who decides when its too high?

Bush's deficits mean that every American who borrows money (meaning just about everyone) pays a higher interest rate.