Question about job's

[warrior1]

Are they not reported or keeping track of the % of job loss in this country? I don't seem to be hearing the quarterly results, etc.

Thanks

[SweetLeftFoot]

1. Apostrophe use

It's just "jobs" mate. No wonder the American economy is tanking. I should go there and make money teaching English.

[enid602]

6. English

I think you mean 'no wonder the DIRECTION the American economy is taking, or perhaps 'no wonder the American economy is TANKING.' You must be from Manchester.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. No, this information is buried.

That said, a little googling can find you the information you seek. I saw one report that had jobs, for Chimpy's entire term, down .05% from Clinton's levels.

Bureau of Labor Statistics has the unemployment numbers in their reports. Pay attention to the U6 number. That is the real number. The U3 number, the one reported every week, is designed to obscure.

[warrior1]

4. Thanks

I haven't been watching MSM for months, so I'm wondering what America is hearing.

Everything bush has touched has gone to hell.

[Birthmark]

8. In addition to the U-6

You should checkout the "Not in Labor Force" category. People are dropped from the U-6 if they haven't looked for a job in the last 12 months. The Not in Labor Force Category grew by a phenomenal 6 million in Bush's first four years. That is more than 2 million more than any other President in history!

(Note: Not in Labor Force covers a lot of other people as well, so don't think that the entire 6 million increase are "unemployed." But I wouldn't be surprised if 2-3 million of them were.)

[Birthmark]

3. I've looked at some numbers.

They tell a fascinating tale that I've yet to hear or read, probably because I researched it myself a couple of months ago. What follows is a comparison of the growth in population to the growth in the number of people employed. The increases cover the preceding four year period.

Increase in Civilian Nonistitutional Population/Increase in Employed
1972 -- 12098/ 6233 = 1.94 population growth for each new worker
1976 -- 12024/ 6599 = 1.82
1980 -- 11595/10551 = 1.10
1984 -- 8638/ 5702 = 1.51
1988 -- 8230/ 9963 = 0.83
1992 -- 8192/ 3524 = 2.32
1996 -- 7786/ 8216 = 0.95
2000 -- 11986/10183 = 1.18
2004 -- 10780/ 2361 = 4.67

Under Bush the population has grown 4.67x as fast as the increase in workers. This is more than twice as bad as his dad, the previous record holder! But everything is hunky-dory, dontcha know?

[warrior1]

5. They don't report the bad news.

Doesn't mean no news is good news.

[AllegroRondo]

7. This discussion has some good links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=114&topic_id=16007

It shows that job creation under * is the worst since we started keeping records in 1939.

[warrior1]

9. bookmarked

for later reading.

thanks