----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Productivity Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
> At 01:02 PM 9/26/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >Let me give a few numbers. In the 15 years from the first quarter of '60 > >to the first quarter of '75, jobs increased by 41.4%. Over the last 15 > >years of data that I had (last data point Q3, 2003), jobs increased by > >22.0%. The numbers come from the BLS, so I know they are _very_ good. :-) > >If you go from Q1, 1980 to Q3, 2003, you you would find an increase of only > >43.0%, over alsmot 24 years, compared to the 41.4% increase over 15 years. > > O.k., I probably stated this a bit unclearly in my earlier post - but a key > consideration has to be rising female labor force participation rates > during the 60's and 70's, which leveled off by the 1990's. The economy > simply *had* to create more jobs as more women entered the work force. Are you arguing that the rate of job creation that I cited was wrong? I'm quoting statistics from your own bureau. Are they wrong? I admit that I could make a division mistake...so let me give my numbers for the first comparison. According to BLS, we have the following employment numbers. Q1 '60 54.5 million Q1 '75 76.5 million Q3 '80 90.7 million Q3 '88 106.6 million Q3 '03 130.0 million I just rechecked my division and it still looks fine, but please tell me if I made a mistake. > >I sincerely tried not to cherry pick years, but tried to compare about what > >I said. I admit that I referenced data I gathered a few months ago, I can > >get the last few months data if you think it will change things greatly. > >I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. > > Off the top of my head, I would point out that your second group includes > three recessions - 1981, 1990, and 2001. I don't think that your 60-75 > series includes nearly as many. I went and looked at: http://quinnell.us/politics/knowledge/recessions.html I origionally compared Q1 '60 to Q1 '75 and Q3 '88 to Q3 '03. Three recessions are recorded in the former period, while only two were recorded in the latter period. There were four recessions during the period Q1 '80 to Q3 '03. So, to be as fair as possible, lets cut out the recession in the first two quarters of '80, by selecting Q3 '80 to Q3 '03. The rise in employment is larger, 43.3% vs. 43%. But, to be fair, we should really consider the rate of recessions: Between Q1 '60 and Q1 '75, there were three recessions in 15 years. One recession for every 5 years. Between Q3 '80 and Q3 '03 there were three recessions in 23 years, or one recession every 7.67 years...even less than the rate of 2 recessions over the last 15 years...so the recession rate favors the last few years....not the initial years I favored. Indeed, I'll let you cherry pick 15 consecuative years from '80 on, and you will not find > Of course, the lack of growth in the *total* jobs number for the last three > years is probably one of the most interesting problems in labor economics > of the day - especially since other data, particularly the unemployment > rate and the total employment rate show a comparatively more positive jobs > picture. Part of the problem is certainly that the US achieved a fairly > significant level of overemployment during the late 1990's as the US > economy overheated. But, by traditional standards, there was no indication of overemployment. Hourly wages, although they went up, were still below the mid-70s level. There was little inflation, which is indicative of an overheated ecconomy. Unemployment was still higher than the best number in the '60s, etc. The only indication of overheating was a speculative stock market. This is consistent with an overabundance of investment cash, but to that, shouldn't we look at who's hands the cash is in? > JDG - Waiting for the post that says that the primary difference is that > Republicans don't create jobs.... because you know its coming..... Out of curiosity, if fiscal policy (government tax and spending) makes no difference, how could one judge Bush's tax cut as being good for the economy...since it makes no difference to the economy by your standards? If it can make a difference, then doesn't You keep on referring to a bubble economy under Clinton. But, didn't productivity grow tremendously during that time. Doesn't productivity growth of X and a population/workforce growth of Y allow for a non-inflationary (1+X)*(1+Y)-1 growth? There was a market bubble, I won't argue with that. But, the GDP growth was supported by the productivity growth. If it wasn't then why wasn't there inflation during the '90s? That's the classic sign of an overheated economy, isn't it? If you look at job growth, the '90s were not better than the '60s, yet Nixon presided over an increase in jobs, while Bush will preside over a decrease in jobs. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
