Was Clinton wrong?

[Eroberer]

I'd vote Republican if I didn't feel so badly that our President was stripping us of our Constitutional rights. I want Bush impeached, and I'm willing to take an (unlikely) tax hit to do it.

[RGBVideo]

8.9/10. Plenty of catches.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Labor Department released its September jobs report on Friday, and some wags are calling it the "whoops" report. The "whoops" is a reference to the upward revision of 810,000 previously undetected jobs that Labor now says were created in the U.S. economy in the 12 months through March 2006.

So instead of 5.8 million new jobs over the past three years, the U.S. economy has created 6.6 million. That's a lot more than a rounding error, more than the number of workers in the entire state of New Hampshire. What's going on here?

Our hypothesis has been that, due to the changing nature of the U.S. economy, the Labor Department's business establishment survey has been undercounting job creation from small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs. That job growth has been better captured in Labor's companion household survey, which reported 271,000 new jobs in September after 250,000 new jobs in August, and a very healthy total of 2.54 million new jobs in the past year.

The household survey is what is used to determine the unemployment rate, which fell in September to 4.6%, the lowest level in five years. The establishment survey, meanwhile, is used to announce the monthly "new jobs" numbers. Every year the Labor Department revises its job estimates from the previous year, in essence reconciling the figures from the two surveys, and the missing 810,000 jobs was the result through March 2006.

Getting out of the statistical weeds, the news here is that the U.S. has a very tight labor market -- which is now translating into significant wage gains. Over the past 12 months wages have climbed by 4%, which is the biggest gain since 2001 and which economist Brian Wesbury points out is higher than the 3.3% average annual wage growth of the last 25 years.

Most of the media has ignored all this and instead focused on the disappointing 51,000 "new jobs" number from the establishment survey for September. But even in that survey, the jobs number for August was revised upward by 62,000 and the U.S. jobs machine continues to roll out an average of about 150,000 additional hires each month. Even the loss of residential construction jobs in September, due to the housing market slowdown, was nearly matched by payroll gains in commercial construction.

This boom in employment started in August of 2003, roughly coincident with the economy's growth acceleration in the wake of the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and in the top marginal income rate on the highest earners. Yet on the same day that the Labor Department discovered 810,000 new jobs, Nancy Pelosi promised that if she becomes Madam Speaker next year, within 100 hours of taking the gavel the House will vote to repeal those tax cuts and raise the minimum wage. Never underestimate the ways that Washington politicians can do economic harm.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116034633519486238-lMyQjAxMDE2NjAwOTMwNDk2Wj.html

Emphasis added.

[Kontiki]

Clinton was wrong to bang Lewinski when I'm sure he could have had someone more attractive.

[Drake Tungsten]

Smartest post in the thread so far. Kudos, sir.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The Labor Department released its September jobs report on Friday, and some wags are calling it the "whoops" report. The "whoops" is a reference to the upward revision of 810,000 previously undetected jobs that Labor now says were created in the U.S. economy in the 12 months through March 2006.

So instead of 5.8 million new jobs over the past three years, the U.S. economy has created 6.6 million. That's a lot more than a rounding error, more than the number of workers in the entire state of New Hampshire. What's going on here?

Our hypothesis has been that, due to the changing nature of the U.S. economy, the Labor Department's business establishment survey has been undercounting job creation from small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs. That job growth has been better captured in Labor's companion household survey, which reported 271,000 new jobs in September after 250,000 new jobs in August, and a very healthy total of 2.54 million new jobs in the past year.

The household survey is what is used to determine the unemployment rate, which fell in September to 4.6%, the lowest level in five years. The establishment survey, meanwhile, is used to announce the monthly "new jobs" numbers. Every year the Labor Department revises its job estimates from the previous year, in essence reconciling the figures from the two surveys, and the missing 810,000 jobs was the result through March 2006.

Getting out of the statistical weeds, the news here is that the U.S. has a very tight labor market -- which is now translating into significant wage gains. Over the past 12 months wages have climbed by 4%, which is the biggest gain since 2001 and which economist Brian Wesbury points out is higher than the 3.3% average annual wage growth of the last 25 years.

Most of the media has ignored all this and instead focused on the disappointing 51,000 "new jobs" number from the establishment survey for September. But even in that survey, the jobs number for August was revised upward by 62,000 and the U.S. jobs machine continues to roll out an average of about 150,000 additional hires each month. Even the loss of residential construction jobs in September, due to the housing market slowdown, was nearly matched by payroll gains in commercial construction.

This boom in employment started in August of 2003, roughly coincident with the economy's growth acceleration in the wake of the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and in the top marginal income rate on the highest earners. Yet on the same day that the Labor Department discovered 810,000 new jobs, Nancy Pelosi promised that if she becomes Madam Speaker next year, within 100 hours of taking the gavel the House will vote to repeal those tax cuts and raise the minimum wage. Never underestimate the ways that Washington politicians can do economic harm.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116034633519486238-lMyQjAxMDE2NjAwOTMwNDk2Wj.html

Emphasis added.

is this similar to the revision in what defines terrorist attacks?

tax cuts are weak

[Odin]

It's still the economy, Stupid


(Stupid = Drake)

[Drake Tungsten]

It's still the economy, Stupid

If that's true, then why is the GOP having such problems?

[-Jrabbit]

Clinton was elected, then re-elected. Ergo, Clinton was right.

But the key difference is that Clinton made it the key issue, and the electorate was willing to "vote your pocketbook" at a time when few people felt they were doing well. Bush I compounded the problem by being pathetically out of touch. He was viewed as elitist and pro-business -- at thexpense of the common folk.

Fast forward to today and we have a very different situation. No comparison. The Republicans have spent a ton of political capital promoting their agenda of post-911 fear. They do not have the wherewithall to suddenly turn around and say, "No, really, you should be voting your pocketbook."

It's really apples and oranges. 9/11 changed the landscape, the Republicans decided to make it their bellwether issue. After 5 years of being told that further attacks are being foiled, terror level colors being used to drive opinion polls, supporting our troops while ignoring off-the-books war spending, and taking off their shoes at the airport -- the Republicans have to lie in the bed they made. I'm not saying this was wrong, but I am saying that after making an 8-year administration all about national security and family values, they can't change horses now.

People do tend to build their pocketbooks, but it's just too late for the Republicans to tell the voters to make it their key issue for the midterms. They can only hope that historical truth saves their butts.

[Drake Tungsten]

Good answer. Thanks.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Good answer. Thanks.

Do I get some kind of award for this?

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm from Nebraska, so I don't have much to offer. Want a cow?

[MRT144]

recently i saw an insurance claim where a guy was being paid for damages after tripping over a cow...

what
the
****

[Drake Tungsten]

No ****. How do you trip over a cow? Was it a real cow?

[MRT144]

aparently there was heavy dust in the location. still, the dude is being paid for tripping over a cow.