March 06, 2004
The latest US job figures.
They're even worse than they appeared at first. The fact that only 21,000 jobs were created in February — instead of the 125,000 predicted, or the 300,000-plus needed to meet the administration's 2004 job target — all of the new jobs in February were government jobs. You got it: the private sector didn't create any jobs at all last month.
But there's more: The feds also revised the December and January figures. According to the new numbers, there were 23,000 fewer jobs created than had been reported earlier. Given that the previously reported increase for December was only 1,000 jobs, these new figures are particularly bad news.
If Dubya plans to win the election in November, it certainly looks like he won't be able to base that victory on the performance of the economy.
More: While we were writing that post, we somehow managed to miss the headline on this NY Times story:
Job Data Provides Ammunition for Two Sides in Presidential Race
How any reporter or editor with even half a brain could find any ambiguity in the new job figures totally escapes this magpie. (Thanks to Atrios and Josh Marshall for pointing to the headline.)
Posted by Magpie at March 6, 2004 05:02 PM | TrackBackGood point on the source of the job "growth." The GOP Congressman representing the Rockford, Illinois area said something to the effect of, "the last thing we need is a bunch of new bureaucrats in Washington."
I posted at my place last night, on a Lehrer show interview with two economists who eventually admitted they have no idea what's going on. "Baffled" and "mystery" were the terms used, I believe. My favorite part was when, having earlier explained his prediction failure by saying that all the leading indicators led him to believe job growth would be better, he referenced those SAME indicators to predict better times ahead.
Sigh.
Posted by: Torridjoe on March 6, 2004 07:04 PM