What is the real number of net jobs created?

[scottcsmith]

Right-wingers are saying that, during the Bush administration, 2.4 million net jobs have been created. The Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains a database of gross jobs created and gross jobs lost. If any DUers are proficient with math and statistics, any chance you can look at the data and tell us the real number? At least just a ballpark figure. Here's the link to the database:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bd

I believe the data goes as far as the second quarter for 2003.

If someone does undertake this project, please post the results here. I'd do it myself but my math skills can best be described as "non-existent."

[mikehiggins]

1. I believe the real number is zero. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

2. minus zero

[elperromagico]

3. 2.4 million jobs may have been created,

but a few million more have been lost.

I think they're just presenting one-half of the story.

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. I Subtracted The Seasonably Adjusted Gross Job Gains

From the seasonably adjusted job losses from 2001 to second quarter 2003, and got a net job loss of 4.1 million jobs.

Not sure that's too accurate, but that's one way of estimating.

on edit: I think the conservatives have been using the Household Survey, or some other data source that they used to have routinely dismissed because it didn't offer the type of statistics they wanted (higher unemployment and such). I think the "job gains" have been in the form of "self-employment".

[alcuno]

8. I think you're right; they're looking at the Household Survey.

If I began babysitting a couple of days a week, the Household Survey would count this as "self-employed."

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. You Got It

Apparently in January 2001, there were 144 million people working. Last month, there were 146.5 million people working, which adds to a "net gain" of 2.5 million jobs.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

That is if you don't mention how the employment population is supposed to grow anyways due to population growth, and since the U.S. population increased by at least five million since 2001, that "job growth" isn't compelling at all.

[welshTerrier2]

5. fun with statistics

the republicans can play any game they want to with the statistics but the bottom line is that more than 3 million americans have lost their jobs and many of those who still have jobs do not feel confident about them ...

and the jobs we're losing now are not low wage jobs either ... fortune magazine recently had an article that 27% of high tech jobs would be outsourced by 2007 ... currently, that figure is only 5% ...

and bush's plan for all this? more tax cuts? yeah, that will solve the problem ...

here's a part of a post i made earlier today ... Hillary got off a pretty good line about job statistics ...

last night, leading democrats and republicans attended a dinner together ...

When it was Hillary's turn to speak she said, and i paraphrase from memory:


in the spirit of cooperation, i would like to offer the republicans a way to put a positive spin on an issue they're having a lot of difficulty with ...

during the clinton administration, we liked to point out that we created over 22 million new jobs ... perhaps president bush could say that, since 1993, over 19 million new jobs have been created ...

i'm glad that vice president cheney is here tonight ... i know he's here because just as i was getting out of my car, he was getting out of justice scalia's car ...

[Maeve]

6. the generally agreed total is @ 2.3 million jobs lost

Since the "beginning" of the Bush* recession:

T"he nation has lost about 2.35 million jobs since March 2001, when the last recession began, marking the longest stretch of labor market weakness since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939. More than 700,000 of those jobs have disappeared since the recession ended in November 2001."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/economy/jobs/index.htm

[MrSoundAndVision]

7. Think about this....

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the US labor market must add at least 300,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force (due to aging teenagers, etc.)

[welshTerrier2]

9. and this too ...

last month, 21,000 new jobs were created ... all in the public sector ... no net private jobs were created ...

[struggle4progress]

11. All the numbers are bogus:

there's no thorough info collection, just some sampling. Under Reagan, govt introduced the idea that long-term unemployed folks were not looking for jobs and stopped counting them as unemployed. The "unemployed" made up about 2.99% of the "labor force" in 2000; up to about 4.85% now. To make real sense of any of it, you need to pay close attention to definitions. I've played with the numbers some, but without looking at anything very carefully, so take this as crude discussion.

On average, for the seven years 1993-2000, the labor force grew by about 1.9 million annually, while employment rose more than 2.3 million annually: we were adding jobs faster than workers. On average, for the two years 2000-2002, the labor force grew by about 1.1 million annually, while employment fell by about 0.2 million annually: we were adding workers but losing jobs.

I think a big part of the interesting story is who's unemployed. Over the last few years, folks only high school education or less have dropped significantly as a fraction of the unemployed, while folks with some college (or more) education have risen: in 2000, HS (or less) ed made up 58% of the unemployed, while some (or more) college ed were the rest; now HS (or less) ed make up 53% of the unemployed, while some (or more) college ed were the rest. There was a prior trend in the same direction but must less slower. Gloss: the only re-education mantra is becoming obsolete; outsourcing professional jobs may be the reason. Now you know why Bush wants to reclassify burger-flipping as manufacturing.