Deinonychus antirrhopus

So, Steve, at this rate, is Dubya still the first Prez to have net job loss during his term? Somehow, I doubt it....

(And, if the expert is correct, the next line of defense, "they're McJobs!" may not apply, either.)

At this rate there will be 2.8 million jobs this year. I think you'll be right. Too bad for Krugman and his cat.

But gasoline prices have risen!

(My prediction for the next line of attack. Or will it be inflation? Rising interest rates?)

Interest rates, since the Fed jacked up their rate by a whopping 0.25% today.

"From historic lows, which have allowed both new home buyers and homeowners who have refinanced to save hundreds of dollars a month, the Bush Administration's irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy have led to soaring interest rates which will not only harm new home sales but will also devistate lower income households who are suffering under crushing credit card debts. New home sales, new car sales, and general connsumer spending will suffer catastrophic downturns in the 4th quarter. Our only hope for averting the impending interest rate crisis is to elect John F. Kerry in November."

Something like that.

There's always this take on this situation.

Any thoughts?

A quote from Tangoman's linked story:

The economic numbers show a persistent underutilization of America's greatest asset?its workforce. The addition of 1.4 million jobs in 10 months is paltry by historical standards, and given the size of today's potential workforce, it's anemic. All the happy talk in the world can't hide that.

The problem as I see it is that the author is comparing job participation rates that are a little below all time highs to times when job participation rates were lower (and presumably it was easier to find people you could encourage to work). Also, he neglects that most of the job growth occurred in the last few months not the last ten months.

Inflation might be a problem. I think the Fed will be restrained not only by the election, but also by the vast amount of new adjustable rate loans out there. As recently shown, the Dems will use oil price hikes. Sudden production declines (eg, due to terrorist activity or mere bad luck) coupled with a degree of inflation might hurt Bush.

Karl,

It's human nature to use as your benchmark the good times because people want those good times again.

There is a disconnect between the economic good news and people's moods. They're not matching on a linear metric.

Over 30% of those new jobs that have been created have gone to illegal immigrants. No wonder the man on the street isn't connecting with the good news.

I have no idea what portion of the jobs created are McJobs, but isn't it safe to infer that jobs that are taken by illegals are usually low wage?

Not that I doubt you, but... 30% going to illegals? Whence cometh that number? And please don't quote a Krugman link or the like. If you find something in the BLS that confirms it, then OK.

KE,

Here you go:

In the 12 months ending March 31, the economy added a net total of 1.3 million new jobs. Non-citizens captured 378,496 or 28.5 percent of those jobs. Employment growth for non-citizens was twice as fast as their population growth nationwide. The proportion of new jobs captured by non-citizens was also much larger than their share of overall employment (8.6 percent). Thus the political impact of job gains may be dampened by the fact that non-citizens, who do not vote, are benefiting disproportionately from the turn around in the labor market.

The picture is somewhat different in the 18 so-called battleground states that have been the targets of intense advertising campaigns by both major political parties and that are generally considered up for grabs by the news media. These states have taken most of the job gains, scoring nearly 75 percent of the increase. In these states, non-citizens accounted for 20.1 percent of the employment increase, which is small than their share nationwide. Moreover, the non-citizen working-age population is growing faster in these states, 26.1 percent a year, than nationwide, and the job gains did not keep up with population growth.

KE,

Here are the details in terms of the methodology for the study:

based its findings on an analysis of government surveys used to determine the unemployment rate. The study is the first to compare the job gains of citizens and noncitizens in the current economic recovery.

The underlying data used in the report do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. However, a large proportion of Latino workers who arrived recently are believed to be undocumented. An estimated 8 million to 12 million U.S. residents are illegal immigrants.

Perhaps this report didn't get the coverage it deserved because the BLS doesn't break out illegals from the job data. Imagine why they don't. I think many business reporters assume that illegals are not counted at all, so all of those jobs that are gained would accrue to American citizens. If BLS had a separate category for illegals, then that would be political dynamite.

T-man:

I think it REALLY depends on what business sector you're talking about. Software development relies heavily on foreign programmers, but most of those are legal.

Construction is much more mixed, and migrant labor for food, of course, relies heavily on illegals.

So basically, Tangoman, the data does not support your claim.

Dean,

No dispute on your point. I'm not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to judge to tempo of the moment, but I recall that blood was boiling a while back about H-1 workers. How many are still left in the US?

I have seen reports that looked at the rise of African American incomes over the last generation and they concluded that much of that had to do with AA job penetration into the manufacturing sector. The steady job loss in manufacturing has taken a disporportionate toll on the AA community. The rapid increase of illegals is putting downward pressure on wages and affecting the AA as well.

The illegal penetration into legitimate job markets is surprising.

I think that this all may partially explain why there is a disconnect between the public mood and the job statistics.

Don't forget jobs in landscaping, restaurants, hotels, catering, janitorial, home care, elder care, and on and on. Illegals are increasing in numbers. There are plenty of low skill Americans who can do these jobs but are being underbid.

Illegals aren't just out on the farms these day.

Robin, can't you read?

Yes, I can. While you stated that more than 30% of new jobs went to illegal immigrants, the data said less than 30% went to all non-citizens. You yourself bolded the caveat that illegal immigrants were not broken out of the data.

I think the issue is your reading abilities. Not mine.

There is a difference between data and analysis.

The reports said they used BLS data. BLS itself takes the data and prepares higher level analysis for release. I bolded the relevent info so KE could look at it immediately if he had concerns with the methodology.

I was close enough in recalling a figure of 28.5% as 30% based on a report from a few weeks ago.

Chill out and go see Fahrenheit 9/11 without your blood pressure pills.

It's human nature to use as your benchmark the good times because people want those good times again.

Well they aren't just "good times", but some of the best times since the BLS has been collecting data. If we do use the best of times, then even Clinton's Presidency, in terms of the unemployment rate, is a failure in that there were two periods since WWII where the unemployment rate was lower. Nevermind that they were rather short lived. Nevermind that the same can be said for Clinton's Presidency.

Non-citizens captured 378,496 or 28.5 percent of those jobs.

As everybody has been saying, non-citizen does not equal illegal. My step-mother for example is a non-citizen, but she is a legal resident.

Perhaps this report didn't get the coverage it deserved because the BLS doesn't break out illegals from the job data.

Probably because they can't do it reliably. If alot of this data is self-reported, then asking about citizenship is a tricky thing let alone asking about legal residence. While it maybe illegal to use such information for INS purposes, the respondent might decide not to take the chance.

Illegals aren't just out on the farms these day.

Granted, but we still don't know what percentage illegals make up of that 30%. Could be 10% or it could be 75%. We don't know and have little to go on in terms of forming an educated guess.

If we do use the best of times, then even Clinton's Presidency, in terms of the unemployment rate,

I'm not bringing this up to bash Bush. I'm referring to the psychology of it. Those great times are still a recent memory for most people. They're not going to remember precisely how they were feeling on Sept 1, 2000. They're probably looking back on memories that span a few years and forming their recollections on that period of time and comparing things to today.

As the boom recedes in memory then normality becomes more of the benchmark. I'll venture people's expectations 4 years hence will be, if the economy stays stable, centered on the jobs and economic situation of today.

Bush isn't getting traction, fairly or unfairly, with the jobs and economics reports. Things could cut in his favor, but that's my take on the moment.

I'm not inclined at the moment to do a big data hunt, so maybe you know off the top of your head what the total number of employees are and how many illegals there are in the country. Something like 140 million and 20 million? Am I off. What do umemployed illegals do? What benefits do they get? Is it safe to assume a good portion of them are working?

And here I thought the assertion was how many newly created jobs went to illegals? Silly me, I'll let go of the goal post so you can move it.

Nobody has any good idea of how many illegals there are in this country. It is like asking how many criminal acts were committed last week. We might know how many crimes were reported, but the number of crimes remains an unknown. We can guess, maybe even make an educated guess, but the number is largely uknown.

Non-citizen does not = illegal alien. That might skew your idea a bit. Just a bit.

KE, yeah, you're right. Nevertheless, it's citizen's that vote. It's citizens who are polled on their views on the economy and the President's performance. The principle of the reporting still applies.

What's unresolved is how many jobs that true illegals are taking and the impact that has on the above board economy and job creation. Absorbing a million illegals a year into the economy seems to either outpace legitimate job growth in the slow periods, and turns into a sizable portion of jobs when the economy is humming along.

Wow, on only the fourth try or so.