FOMC Sees `Large Margins of Unemployed Labor' Until Late 2005- Bush loses

[papau]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=amO5pfZ9sASk&refer=news_index

FOMC Sees `Large Margins of Unemployed Labor' Until Late 2005
Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Members of the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee cited lagging job creation as a central risk to the strengthening expansion, minutes of the October 28 meeting show.

``Members generally anticipated that an economic performance in line with their expectations would not entirely eliminate currently large margins of unemployed labor and other resources until perhaps the later part of 2005 or even later,'' the minutes said.<snip>

...continuing business efforts to respond to growing demand by improving productivity rather than hiring new workers,'' the minutes said. <snip>


http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGADRMZ93OD.html

Fed Policy-Makers Spoke of Concerns That Job Market Might Not Fully Recover Until at Least 2005
By Jeannine Aversa Associated Press Writer
Published: Dec 11, 2003



WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve policy-makers expressed concerns at their October meeting that the battered job market might not fully recover until at least 2005 even if the economic recovery grew stronger, according to minutes released Thursday of the discussion.

[leftyandproud]

1. between 5 and 6%

94-95% of the population working is not catostrophic for him

[Lisa0825]

2. true, but.....

a large portion of the recently re-employed are very much UNDER-employed, and still p.o'd. With employment still stagnant, and people settliing for less, losing homes, etc, the anger will fester.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. That's not really an accurate figure....

It's more like 9 percent when you count the number of people who are no longer qualified for benefits or the people who have given up.

If you take into account the percentage of people who have taken "survival employment" (meaning jobs that barely pay the rent in order to barely survive), that number of voters becomes even higher.

[papau]

6. Job loss is catostrophic for Bush - IMHO :-)

Stats from the Bush admin as to rosy senario - like our newly revised GDP results since 1929, or the new seasonal adjustments for the Unemployment rate - if trusted by our whore media, may indeed give Bush a bit of Teflon. We will have 12 months coming up of GDP growth, productivity growth, huge trade deficit but folks saying no inability to export, and job losses that are always small increases over the revised last week.

But it is hard to get around 2.3 million jobs lost since he took office - worst since Hoover - with just BS if our media has any honesty left. And with a GOP Congress saying screw you to extending the extension to unemployment benefits that runs out the end of this December, the PR just might be negative.

I can always hope the whore media will become truth telling - that guilt from their parents can't be totally bought/hidden by a pay-check. But you may be correct, and Bush will skate on the economy, the way he skates on telling lies, in our media.

:-)

[grannylib]

4. They just said much the same thing on the market report I was just

watching; the jobless numbers are continuing to come in higher than predicted (and of course, higher than the Gov't has been reporting) and they anticipate this lasting well into next year and past the election.
Not great news for me and the other unemployed/underemployed folks out there, but hey...if it helps get the son of a bitch outta office, I'll continue to sit around on unemployment for a while longer...

[CaptainClark23]

5. What I want to know is

What do they anticipate being different by 2005 that would engender a healthy and acceptable number for unemployed?

Is this crystal ball time?

What metrics do they use to make such a prediction? What are their assumptions? Or are they just saying: "Maybe next year..."

apologies in advance for any inadvertant dumb questions
from one somewhat new to this particular arena...

[papau]

7. "Maybe next year..." is answer as there MUST be some good in huge deficit

They do not factor in the fact that much of the deficit is rip-off, and not job producing within the US borders.

2005 is a turn around only if a Dem is elected, just like 2001 was a disaster only if a tax cut for the rich GOP'er was put into office.

[CaptainClark23]

8. Pretty much what I figured

just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Maybe I was subconciously hoping that the FOMC actually had a fecking clue.

silly me.

Thanks for the confirmation, tho'...