Anyone hear this about the 21,000 jobs created last month?

[SalParadise]

At this blog yesterday(scroll down a little - I got there via calpundit who has more on this) he says he heard ABC radio report that of the 21,000 jobs created last month - all of them were GOVERNMENT jobs - anyone else hear this - I looked on the ABC news site & couldn't find this anywhere - if it's true it'd be pretty durn sad.

[MikeG]

1. If only they could all be special prosecutors.

[brainshrub]

2. I would love a link to the raw data about that.

[buycitgo]

3. will this do?

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/8428479p-9357809c.html

calling all dems, if any of them have generated spine enough to start fighting back, start shouting out the truth about this sorry junta

At the start of a general election campaign in which voters have identified the economy as their top concern, the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were uniformly bad for Bush.

All of the 21,000 new jobs last month were government jobs, with none in the private sector. And manufacturing firms lost 3,000 jobs, the 43rd straight month of decline - a contraction that began in July 2000, six months before Bush took office.

Adding to the gloomy news, the Labor Department report revised downward the job growth for January, from 113,000 to 97,000.

The President's Council of Economic Advisers last month forecast the creation of 2.6 million new jobs this year, a prediction from which Bush quickly backed away, saying, "I'm not a statistician."

The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent in February, economists explained, only because nearly 400,000 people stopped looking for work and were not counted as part of the national job pool.

[zbird]

5. Remember the numbers have been revised DOWNWARD the last...

few months. I'm curious that when the revised numbers come out next month there will have been a NET LOSS of jobs in February.

[fearnobush]

9. Last I heard, Dec was revised up from 1000 to 16,000...

Has that been changed again? let me know.

[brainshrub]

6. Yup

:D

[fearnobush]

8. So, lets do some math. 97,000 + 21,000 = 118,000 jobs for the

first 2 months of 2004. At this rate, Bush would gain 708,000 new jobs for 2004. Thats only .7 of his projected 2.6 million. 126,000 jobs (conservative estimate) is needed to keep up with population growth. Bush is 804,000 below the annual number needed based off of Jan and Feb. So as it stands now, Jan Feb, Bush is - 134,000 jobs below the needed amount created to keep up with population growth. Even more staggering is the 588,000 people the government says, took themselves out of the job hunt this month. These are the untouchables in unemployment stats. They, like your votes, are not counted. What a sham!!!

[scottcsmith]

4. It gets worse

Yes, only 21,000 jobs were created last month.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4456505/

BUT

Economic forecasters were expecting 128,000 jobs to be created in February!

The Bush economy in all of its glory, folks.

If you want to see for yourself just how bad job growth has been under Bush's watch, head over to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and take a look at the numbers. You can do a search on jobs lost or a search on jobs created. You can even get a graph! Plus, it's fun to pull up the numbers during the Clinton administration and compare them to the numbers of the Bush administration.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bd

[humble truth]

7. I does not appear to be true, but

These stats come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Government jobs accounted for a 21,000 net gain. Temporary employment, another misleading category, added 32,000 jobs.

Those gains were offset by loses in construction and a few other areas to equal a net gain of 21,000. More here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

[davsand]

10. That was on CNN last night.

An economic analyst reported those numbers along with other stats that range from bad to REALLY bad.

Her numbers showed that 66% of the able labor force is working--that means a large percentage of those able to work are not. She said it is the highest that has been in 15 years.

It is BAD and there is no way to spin it.

Laura

[rasputin1952]

11. The majority of those jobs were government jobs, and 1/3 of them...

are temporary.

bush is the first pres since Hoover to have a net job loss, there's something he can run on.

O8)

[seemslikeadream]

12. CORRECTED: Job Growth Anemic in February

The details in the report were uniformly bleak. Private-sector employment showed no gains. Government hiring was the only reason the nonfarm payroll count rose.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040305/ts_nm/economy_dc_41

[avenueb]

13. they posted it

Here