DC Tom Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I saw Kudlow speak yesterday, and he did say "Most analysts believe it will be about 150,000, and some think 200,000." He also said they think that the previous months numbers would be adjusted up, and they were adjusted down. 61614[/snapback] Interesting. That's entirely different from what I heard (in particular, I didn't hear anyone mention anything higher than 148k. I'm trying to locate the story right now...it seems to be buried in the deepest bowels of the internet at this point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I don't know the numbers but that would surprise me. I was under the impression that the baby boomers are starting to retire and would have thought those would generate big numbers. Maybe they aren't quite at that age yet. In general I agree with AD that the economy itself has to be generating the jobs. The best any president/government can do is (basically) get out of the way, or at least not cause problems. 61637[/snapback] There doesn't have to be any implication that it's Bush's fault; the fact is that voters are very sensitive to economic performance, and they typically tie that to whoever has been in office when it comes to election time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Interesting. That's entirely different from what I heard (in particular, I didn't hear anyone mention anything higher than 148k. I'm trying to locate the story right now...it seems to be buried in the deepest bowels of the internet at this point... 61652[/snapback] This if from the first line in the WSJ article this morning: "Employers added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'd heard yesterday they were projecting 144,000. So officially this makes a net loss of 1,000,000 jobs, the largest since Hoobert Heever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 This if from the first line in the WSJ article this morning:"Employers added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day. " 61687[/snapback] And I'm saying the stories I read yesterday were different. What'd the WSJ say yesterday? Jesus...reading comprehension is a forgotten art... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 And I'm saying the stories I read yesterday were different. What'd the WSJ say yesterday? Jesus...reading comprehension is a forgotten art... 61751[/snapback] I realize what you wrote. I posted that because I didn't think the WSJ would contradict itself from the previous day. It's certainly conceivable that the range of forecasts was what you heard, but the typical focus is on the "consensus" forecast, not the range. Hope you're feeling better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Funny thing is, what I heard yesterday morning was that Wall Street analysts expected an increase of somewhere between 10,000 and 148,000 (which is an atypically big spread), with a "consensus" of 70,000. But now that the report's out, the "consensus" is suddenly the high end of the range? Uhhh...yeah...right... 61600[/snapback] But you don't think that there is any change in the original assertion that the job numbers were disappointing do you? Does the number of gross jobs created being at the high end of a projection make it less dissapointing when not a single net job was created? I know that it disappoints me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Stop buying foreign products and stop increases in computerization and robotics. When I worked in process engineering in automotive, the skilled tradesmen used to stencil the names of fired employees onto the machines. Use no computers. Don't demand lettuce in January, well out of season. Don't waste your money with vacations out of town - spend your money in your own locality. It's up to you to curb your desires...if you can. If you can't, read Rifkin's book, "End of Work". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Stop buying foreign products and stop increases in computerization and robotics. When I worked in process engineering in automotive, the skilled tradesmen used to stencil the names of fired employees onto the machines. Use no computers. Don't demand lettuce in January, well out of season. Don't waste your money with vacations out of town - spend your money in your own locality. It's up to you to curb your desires...if you can. If you can't, read Rifkin's book, "End of Work". 61794[/snapback] Curbing one's desires is un-American. What would have happened if we never had Manifest Destiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Curbing one's desires is un-American. What would have happened if we never had Manifest Destiny? 61994[/snapback] Well...for starters, that guy in the Village People would have had to wear an authentic Indian headdress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Which companies are you referring to? 61603[/snapback] Probably any company that has executives that gave money to Bush. I'm sure his opinions on Global Crossing will remain a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Because people on the left believe one man actually has enough power to make companies around the country create jobs. Bill Clinton told them it was true on the campaign trail back in 1992 and the soundbyte has grown ever bigger along the way. 61490[/snapback] Yeah, because Clinton with the first politician to promise to "create jobs". It must be burdensome to be right all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 But if you include all of the jobs created in India the numbers look alot better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Yeah, because Clinton with the first politician to promise to "create jobs". It must be burdensome to be right all the time. 62014[/snapback] I never said he was. However, the media coupled with the internet has perpetuated the soundbyte into mythical proportions. "If a lie is repeated often enough..." I wouldn't call it burdensome. I sleep well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Well, the dems learned it from the master, Goebbels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Transcript from yesterday's MSNBC Hardball: Joining us from New York right now is Lawrence Kudlow, co-host of CNBC‘s “Kudlow & Cramer.” By the way, the Labor Department releases new job figures tomorrow for the month of September. Lawrence, thank you very much for joining us. It is a hot number, the number that comes out before the election. This is one of the last ones. In fact, this is last number on employment. What do you think it is going to tell us? LAWRENCE KUDLOW, CO-HOST, “KUDLOW & CRAMER”: Well, the consensus view on Wall Street, Chris, is about 150,000, which is a pretty good number, and people are speculating that prior months will be revised upward, so the actual number could be over 200,000. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6206085/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelissaInPhilly Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 So GWB did not actually fire those people from AT&T and Bank of America? 61512[/snapback] I am not an economist, but it's my understanding that the president be s/he Republican or Democrat, has little to do with job creation. Is this true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I am not an economist, but it's my understanding that the president be s/he Republican or Democrat, has little to do with job creation. Is this true? 62157[/snapback] Certainly. The very device we are communicating upon is a key reason for the reduction in the requirement for employing people. A while back, when I worked in auto manufacturing - process engineering, the skilled tradesmen stenciled the names of the workers let go on the robotics that were installed - their joke. As we continually buy foreign goods (the increase in that - the trade deficit - has been a steep geomretric curve since 1993 and shows no signs of stopping), what can we expect? Another fact is that as productivity, largely through technological reasons, increases, people are incrersingly not needed. It's chilling, for sure. A respected chap, Jeremy Rifkin, wrote a book titled "The End of Work" a few years back. He posited that by 2050, 10% of the world's population could provide all the needed goods and services. Tie in a societal abandonment of wisdom that comes with age (I personally know of several companies that canned their "oldsters" and fell apart because those oldies, considered as behind the times and a liability to the bottom line because of health problems that come with age, who got canned only for the company or corporation to discover that same were the ones that due to their long experience and work ethics, took care of the mundane but critical "small" things" of a business. They swept them away and few of the new crowd with their 4.0 GPA's would bother to stop trying to shine their own stars and so a thousand little cuts caused the companies to bleed to death. But a standing or aspiring President cannot mention such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 The world ecomomy is based on energy cost (oil) as third world countries enter the world of competion the demand for oil goes up and thats the way it is .The oil goes to the higest bidder.I forsee 75 dollars a barrel no matter who is the president and after that I see a servere oil shortage. There will not be a world leader that can do anything about it. On the other hand this is really what wars are fought for. ..get ready Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'd heard yesterday they were projecting 144,000. So officially this makes a net loss of 1,000,000 jobs, the largest since Hoobert Heever. 61729[/snapback] Funny how having planes flying into buildings and killing thousands of people and shutting down the entire US ...including our airlines and other forms of transportation that play such an huge role on the economy and, thus, employment...can have such a ripple effect, huh Blz. Jeezus...is it even possible for you to think more than one-dimensionally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts