All Job Growth Under BushAdmin Due to Gov't Spending!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

An EPI study has shown that there has been no increase in the no. of jobs under Bush once you omit government-funded jobs.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/31/1655/62525
So apparently the tax cuts have done nada to create jobs.

How's that for the state of our acrimony?

dlw

[Xavier]

Funny numbers when your estimate overshoots the actual number of jobs made...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

They are reconcilable since the jobs funded by the gov't is clearly larger than the total number of jobs made. Ie., non-govt jobs have declined.

dlw

[Epoetker]

In other words...the smart thing is to get a government job!

(Epo, Army 68W, 'Health Care Specialist.' Uncle Sam pays off college loans, makes me a certified EMT, and offers $8,000 bonus besides. And this is even before the GI Bill is considered.)

I wonder if businesses ever create more jobs than are people. As long as unemployment is down to around 1-3%, I'm not too concerned about the number of new NET jobs created as I am about job growth keeping pace with population, even if a large number are government jobs that act as a buffer for the workforce until real growth happens. Since the largest number of these jobs are in the rather highly selective Defense department, this is actually providing quite a few opportunities for the not-as-talented people who have to fill the jobs these guys WOULD have taken. So get thou to work, sluggards!

In any case, if we really are having trouble with too few jobs, we COULD simply provide a few new jobs AND reduce the supply of labor competing for those jobs by actually enforcing our immigration laws. But I suppose scoring points off of Bush is the only politically feasible solution on the Democratic side of the aisle. Like they're ever going to say anything bad about illegal immigration.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

My Epo, that sounds sorta liberal, gov't providing workfare.

I think there are limits to the extent one can crack down on illegal immigration. One way to do it, would be to enforce minimum wage laws better.

The point is that the main justification for the seriously deep tax-cuts was a supply-side argument, but if the "growth" thus spurred doesn't produce jobs then it's harder to say that the rising tide really is raising very many people's boats. Perhaps too many people's boats are too leaky? Who knows.

dlw

[Pilgrim]

well, government jobs and the fact that flipping burgers has been re classified as "production" now.

[Epoetker]

My Epo, that sounds sorta liberal, gov't providing workfare.

The only government job a liberal hates is in the military. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't count under 'workfare', given how it's the type of work that usually demands your presence seven days a week, strips you of most of the normal rights common to civilians, and may in fact require you to go into situations altogether too hazardous for the common man.

'Indentured servitude' might be a better term for it, although it's a pretty weak term for a very proud tradition.

[bandecoot]

The only government job a liberal hates is in the military. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't count under 'workfare', given how it's the type of work that usually demands your presence seven days a week, strips you of most of the normal rights common to civilians, and may in fact require you to go into situations altogether too hazardous for the common man.

'Indentured servitude' might be a better term for it, although it's a pretty weak term for a very proud tradition.

Oh you finally Joined up! Good for you.

I had 18 years in. You might finally get to understand what you are gibbering about now. Or you will insult a Muslim in the sandbox and get killed. Either way its a net win for the human race.

[$cirisme]

An EPI study has shown that there has been no increase in the no. of jobs under Bush once you omit government-funded jobs.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/31/1655/62525
So apparently the tax cuts have done nada to create jobs.

How's that for the state of our acrimony?

dlw

No net change in private jobs is impressive given how bad some sad the economy was in the last election...

[Pilgrim]

Yeah, not net change because suddenly every pimple faced kid in fast food joint is considered a production job employee.

[$cirisme]

Yeah, not net change because suddenly every pimple faced kid in fast food joint is considered a production job employee.

Did this only look at production jobs? (whatever that means)

If so, then I think this "study" is completely invalid, as you'd need to look at all jobs for good comparison.

[Pilgrim]

I'm sure it looked at more than production jobs but I remember last year the criticism that the biggest addition to the work force was caused by reclassifying jobs that were never included before.

Fair enough, those jobs should be counted, but they can't be said to have made a total net increase in all jobs.

[$cirisme]

Fair enough, those jobs should be counted, but they can't be said to have made a total net increase in all jobs.

They're comparing 2001 # of jobs with 2006 number of jobs. If these jobs were included in 2001, then for the sake of a real comparison, they should be included in the 2006 number of jobs. Likewise, if they were discluded from 2001, they ought to be discluded from 2006. If they discluded these jobs from one year but not the other, then you can't conclude anything about the overall net-jobs.

[Pilgrim]

Yes, I would agree with that. And as I understand it, that is one of the over all criticisms: that jobs not included in past considerations have been re-classified to count in current ones, specifically, the re-classification of fast food type jobs.

[$cirisme]

Yes, I would agree with that. And as I understand it, that is one of the over all criticisms: that jobs not included in past considerations have been re-classified to count in current ones, specifically, the re-classification of fast food type jobs.

Well, in this specific case, one would have to ask EPI how they classified jobs, etc. If they did their legwork and ignored the classification of jobs, then the admin's maneuvering is irrelevant.

The conclusion is fine all-things-being-equal, based purely on the number of jobs between then and now, the tax cuts produced no change in the number of jobs when you exclude Government jobs. However, this is an overly simplistic view. When you consider that all things are not equal, especially given that there was a recession in there (and if you believe the hype from some politicians, it was one of our worst evet) then there are at least two possible conclusions: (A) the tax cuts had no effect or (B) they evened the recession out and made it not so bad.

There are so many variables to factor in (recession, massive government spending, terrorist attacks, two huge and costly wars overseas, huge natural disasters, etc) that neither answer is very satisfying. Clearly they're all too simplistic, but it's a start.