Economists predict little job growth in 2004

[CMT]

I have no link. I got this from the Madison, Wisconsin State Journal this morning. It is from a AP report by Martin Crutsinger titled,
4.5 PERCENT ECONOMIC GROWTH PREDICTED IN '04

"The US economy, primed by tax cuts and low interest rates, should grow next year at the fastest pace in two decades, but that will do little to decrease unemployment, top economists predicted Monday.

The National Association of Business Economics said the vigorious growth will continue to be accompanied by strong increases in productivity, as corporations under competitive pressues find more ways to expand output WITHOUT hiring new workers.

The projection is for an average unemployment rate of 5.8% in 2004, down from 6.0% today. The forcast was for payroll employment to rise by 1.1 percent, or about 1.3 million workers, not enough to replace the 2.3 million jobs lost since Bush took office in 2004.

The 4.5% growth rate is projected to be the fastest growth rate in 20 years since the economy surged 7.3% in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was running for re-election.

So a stronger economy, but without strong job growth is predicted for 2004. Democrats can still run on the issue that Bush is the only president since Hoover to see job losses during his term. The unemployment rate when Bush took office was 4.2%.

[joefree1]

1. It's the jobs stupid

Forecasters see strong economic growth in 2004
Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 12:00 AM
Martin Crutsinger THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. economy, primed by tax cuts and low interest rates, should grow next year at the fastest pace in two decades, but that will do little to decrease unemployment, top economic forecasters predicted Monday.

The National Association for Business Economics said the vigorous economic growth will continue to be accompanied by continued strong increases inproductivity, as corporations under competitive pressures find more ways to expand output without hiring new workers.

That could present a political headache for President Bush in his re-election bid because the unemployment rate is a far more sensitive political barometer than productivity numbers.

But unemployment is seen headed in the right direction, at least, with a NABE forecasting panel predicting the jobless rate will average 5.8 percent in 2004, down from 6 percent currently.

The forecasting panel saw payroll employment rising by 1.1 percent, or about 1.3 million workers, not enough to replace the 2.3 million jobs that have been lost since Bush took office in January 2001.
More ...
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7157

I was in India where the local papers constantly boasted about all the American jobs coming there.

[cosmicdot]

4. India papers boasting of our jobs coming there

... that would make for a nice campaign visual to show during stump speeches ...

[cosmicdot]

5. The National Association for Business Economics - who they?

let me guess ... a tax-exempt, non-partisan blah blah blah ...

"NABE® is an association of professionals who have an interest in business economics and who want to use the latest economic data and trends to enhance their ability to make sound business decisions. There are approximately 3,000 members representing more than 1,500 businesses and other organizations from around the world. Since its founding in 1959, NABE® has continued to attract the attention of the most influential and prestigious economic leaders in business. Past Presidents have included several former Federal Reserve Governors, the current Chairman of the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, and other senior business leaders."

http://www.nabe.com/publib/fellow.htm

Volker and Greenspan are "fellows"

[trogdor]

2. Don't forget military spending.

"The US economy, primed by tax cuts and low interest rates, should grow next year at the fastest pace in two decades, but that will do little to decrease unemployment, top economists predicted Monday.

What was the rate of growth in military spending from 2000-2003? How could you NOT have 'robust' economic growth while spending such gigantic amounts of money on the military?

Answer, growth in military spending is offsetting (in large part) the fundamental weakness in the economy.

[sandnsea]

6. deficit military spending

Just like in the 80's. If people lived through that and don't see the repeat, there's just no hope.

[durutti]

3. Thing is...

It's really too early to tell. How can anyone be seriously expected to predict the growth rate for the entire year of 2004 right now? There are just too many variables.

Growth can't be sustained without increased consumer spending. Because of all the services cuts and the starving of the states, any gains from tax cuts will be largely negated for most people.

The deficit is widening again. People are working more for less. And there will be no more mortgage refinancing boom.

I'm very skeptical of this claim.

[oasis]

7. "Corporations find more ways to expand output without hiring new workers"

The whoremedia puts all the emphasis on the "economic growth".