"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.e3173c7804238f91ecc7925a91375559@108 0916509.nulluser.com...
NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.


Do you even read what gets you excited before you post it?






The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in
the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the
upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said,
the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected
on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low
of 5.6
percent seen in January and February.


Unemployment rate is up - again.

BLS calls it "no change".





Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to
the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the
Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their
current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute
at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000
increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.



The rise in payrolls is due mostly to the return of 72,000 strikers?
And you think that is a gain in jobs?

308k-72k=236,000

The rise in payrolls of 236,000 jobs is a pretty significant gain in jobs.
Regardless, when those guys went on strike, it counted *against* employment
numbers...and the Dems had no problem counting them among the "unemployed"
at that time. Now that they're back to work, you guys say that they
shouldn't count!?!?

The economy has been expanding for over a year...and jobs have been
increasing for 7 straight months. Half a million jobs have been gained this
year. Spin all you want, but that's terricific economic news.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.e3173c7804238f91ecc7925a91375559@108 0916509.nulluser.com...
NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned
after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.


Do you even read what gets you excited before you post it?






The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to
President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in
the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the
upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said,
the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected
on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low
of 5.6
percent seen in January and February.


Unemployment rate is up - again.

BLS calls it "no change".





Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to
the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the
Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their
current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute
at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers.
The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000
increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.



The rise in payrolls is due mostly to the return of 72,000 strikers?
And you think that is a gain in jobs?

308k-72k=236,000

The rise in payrolls of 236,000 jobs is a pretty significant gain in jobs.
Regardless, when those guys went on strike, it counted *against*
employment
numbers...and the Dems had no problem counting them among the "unemployed"
at that time. Now that they're back to work, you guys say that they
shouldn't count!?!?

The economy has been expanding for over a year...and jobs have been
increasing for 7 straight months. Half a million jobs have been gained
this
year. Spin all you want, but that's terricific economic news.




Kerry downplayed the unemployment rate when it was 5.6% saying that the
number of jobs created was more important.

I will guarantee that we can expect Mr. Waffle to change his tune now and
concentrate on the unemployment rate. Flip-flop.

Even at 5.7% it is still lower than the average rates in the '70's, '80's
and 90's. An most economists don't put much faith in the numbers as they
are now calculated.

from http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

"While it would seem odd that the unemployment rate rose despite a jump in
payrolls, the two numbers are generated by separate surveys. The
unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which found that
179,000 people entered the labor force in March, resulting in a higher
unemployment rate.

Still, most economists believe the survey of businesses, which is much
broader, is a more accurate measure of the health of the labor market."

"jim--" wrote in message
news
"While it would seem odd that the unemployment rate rose despite a jump in
payrolls, the two numbers are generated by separate surveys. The
unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which found that
179,000 people entered the labor force in March, resulting in a higher
unemployment rate.

But Harry told us this on March 7th:

"The fact is that virtually no one of consequence takes the "home survey" as
a measure of employment or unemployment seriously, and that includes the BLS
and Alan Greenspan."

What's he saying now?

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000

G Bush = H Hoover

bb

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000


Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?

NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



You're working really hard to rationalize this...it's fun to watch you
shovel the bull****.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to
average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



You're working really hard to rationalize this...it's fun to watch you
shovel the bull****.


Hey! I already used that argument against *you*. Try to be a little more
original next time.

NOYB wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



Seehttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040403/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716

Extract
The average monthly gain in jobs in the past eight months
has been about 95,000 — far below the 150,000 to 200,000
jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force,
Sohn said. Like last month, the unemployment rate could rise
in coming months as workers decide to resume their job
searches.

"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to
average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?




Seehttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040403/ap_on_bi_go_ec
_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716

Extract
The average monthly gain in jobs in the past eight months
has been about 95,000 — far below the 150,000 to 200,000
jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force,
Sohn said. Like last month, the unemployment rate could rise
in coming months as workers decide to resume their job
searches.

You Dem's are pretty confused. Last month, you guys were telling me that
the Unemployment Rate (since it is based off of the Household Survey Data)
is meaningless and unreliable. Now, you're telling me that the net gain of
308,000 in the employment numbers (based on the Payroll Survey Data) is
meaningless.

Maybe you guys should all get your heads together, get your stories
straight, and actually come up with some issues that don't require massive
spin and lies to resonate positively with the American people.