About 100,000 new jobs per month is likely later next year (AP quote)

[papau]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA1NULEMMD.html

Jobs Missing in Economic Recovery, but Could Bounce Back in '04 to Help Bush
By Leigh Strope The Associated Press

....October's employment report, to be released Friday, is expected to produce modest job growth for a second month, with gains of at least 50,000, economists say. But the growth isn't strong enough to knock down the jobless rate, which probably will stay at 6.1 percent, with layoffs in manufacturing, retail and transportation offsetting gains elsewhere, economists said. <snip>


"The most likely scenario is we'll get enough jobs so it won't be the issue Democrats need to oust the president," Zandi said. About 100,000 new jobs per month is likely later next year, he said. Hoover aside, Bush may well be running on a Ronald Reagan economy instead of his father's, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis...."I suspect a declining jobless rate should help President Bush in 2004," Sohn said. <snip>

"Demand will translate into jobs very soon, and in fact I think it's happening now," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services Inc. "But that's still largely a hope, not a certainty." <snip>

(Reasons jobs have not increase to date)-High productivity. Existing workers are asked to work longer and harder, avoiding the need for new hires. Businesses also have boosted productivity with technology. -Global outsourcing. U.S. companies are relying more on overseas producers to manufacture goods and services that are reimported. <snip>

[Beetwasher]

1. US October Layoffs Surge 125%

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=37929.4167939815-809414361&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&

The economists in the article you linked must be on crack...

[cosmicdot]

2. Meanwhile ... survey: job cuts more than double in October

Survey: Job Cuts More Than Double in Oct.

November 4, 2003 02:00 PM EST


NEW YORK - Job cuts announced by U.S. companies more than doubled in
October from the previous month, providing more evidence that the
nation's economy is in a period of jobless expansion, according to a
report from an outplacement firm.

Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said Tuesday that in
October companies announced plans to eliminate 171,874 positions,
compared with 76,506 jobs in September. It was the highest monthly
level since October 2002, when 176,010 job cuts were announced.

The surge in October ended a streak of five months when job
reductions fell below 100,000 per month. The lowest figure during
that time was in June, with 59,715 jobs cut.

Hardest-hit was the automotive industry, which announced plans to
eliminate 28,363 jobs in October. That was followed by the retail
sector, which plans to cut 21,169 positions, and the
telecommunications industry, which said it would slash 21,030 jobs.

~snip~

Eleven percent of those polled said that there would be no hiring
rebound at all in 2004.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=1&aid=D7UJVEEG0_story

[Gloria]

10. Retail cutting over 21,000 jobs with the holiday

season starting up?? Consumer spending down in September? What does this bode for holiday sales....and retail profits for the year, which have been make or break during the holiday season ?

Doesn't seem like a very good scenario to start 2004 with...

[GainesT1958]

3. He'll have to have a better per-quarter GDP than the third quarter report

A LOT BETTER, and for three quarters, to even APPROACH the luck Ronnie had in '84. Employment won't pick up, so I've seen in reports, for at least another 19 months following this kind of sluggishness, so I just don't see anything like Dub running on Ronnie's economy...that's wishful thinking, at best! :eyes:

The economy WON'T be an issue Dub can use in his favor next year, and may well still be one he'll have to run AWAY from!

B-)

[HFishbine]

4. Interesting

That the report does not say that the economy will have produced modest job growth but that the "employment report" is expected to produce job growth. How does a report produce job growth? The only way a report can, on paper. Of course, reality might make that difficult:
----------------------

Job cuts announced by U.S. corporations more than double in October

Associated Press
Tuesday November 4, 2:09 pm ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- Job cuts announced by U.S. companies more than doubled in October from the previous month, providing more evidence that the nation's economy is in a period of jobless expansion, according to a report from an outplacement firm.

Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said Tuesday that in October companies announced plans to eliminate 171,874 positions, compared with 76,506 jobs in September. It was the highest monthly level since October 2002, when 176,010 job cuts were announced.

The surge in October ended a streak of five months when job reductions fell below 100,000 per month. The lowest figure during that time was in June, with 59,715 jobs cut.

more: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/031104/na_fin_eco_us_job_cuts_2.html

[CMT]

5. ok, average of 100,000 jobs added to economy

in a year that is 1.2 million jobs compared to the 3.2 million lost under Bush--still a net loss of 2 million jobs--not that terrific in my book.

[kayleybeth]

6. I'll believe it when I see it

and even if that happens, jobs lost will still be greater than jobs created under this nightmare of an administration.

[Brotherjohn]

7. Big deal! Clinton AVERAGED 225,000 per month through 8 years!

According to Paul Krugman:
"Just for the record, the average rate of job creation during the whole of the Clinton administration was about 225,000 jobs a month. Mr. Clinton presided over the creation of 11 million jobs during each of his two terms."

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/102403.html

But I guess that was all due to Reagan's policies, right? I mean, Reagan came into office a full TWENTY YEARS before Clinton left office. His initial economic plans were being implemented MORE THAN A DECADE before Clinton was inaugurated. So it only makes sense that it was all due to Reagan, right?!?

(/SARCASM) Of course, if we are to follow that reasoning, any success Bush has on the job front today or in the future is due to Clinton's policies.

[swinney]

11. Clinton average on jobs

242,000 in first term and 235,000 second term. Per month.

His archives shows 22.8 Million over 96 months. 237,000 per month.

[grannylib]

8. Yeah, and they predicted 200,000 a month later THIS year recently....

[Bluzmann57]

9. Well there are jobs...

and then there are REAL MONEY jobs. Here in this town, a new Wal-Mart just opened, creating quite a few new low wage jobs, and there is a new grocery store opening about a half mile from here, creating some more low wage jobs. And of course, a major supermarket chain, which had good paying Unionized jobs just went under, so not a great deal of growth. In fact, in my book, its actually a loss, because none of the jobs created will offset the loss of the Union jobs. To borrow from someone else, Cheap conservative labor.

[ramapo]

12. Welcome to our future

I'd wager that a significant number of new jobs are the low wage variety. A perfect political play. The new job numbers don't reflect quality, just quantity.

[mhr]

13. www.jobwatch.org to Track BFEEs Failure At Job Creation

eom