More On How to Reconcile Bush's Job Stats with Clinton's. Actual Unemployment is 8.25%

Friday we heard that Bush's great jobs number come in a 4.4 percent which looks wonderful.

Lets all support giving our jobs away via "Guest Worker".

 (Freedom Folks takes my statement above and runs away with it.  And I mean that in the best possible manner.  Great picture, Jake.)

But I've found a new statistic to use to compare Bush's jobs numbers with Clinton's.

A report dated October 2004 from the Economic Policy Institute shows that 1.7 percent of women  dropped out of the job seeking market between 2001 when Bush came into office and the time of the report. 

That is the first decrease in 53 years in the percent of US resident women in the job market. 

A census.gov report notes that in the 1990s the percentage of women to men in the work force was about 50-50 so lets use that number.

Excerpt census report:

By 1997 women constituted nearly half of the labor force (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998).

An earlier article in the New York Times reported that 12% of working age men have dropped out of the job market, some due to lower wages than they are willing to accept.  This compares with 6% of similar males under similar economic circumstances during Clinton's tenure. 

 Now we take half of the women's loss or .85% and add both numbers until we have 3.85% fewer jobs seekers than we should have during the Bush administration due to working age drop outs.

So we can tack 3.85% onto Bush's proclaimed 4.4% for 8.25% actual unemployment rate.  This is not another number called the actual unemployment-underemployment rate that is available via the DOL which has usually been even higher and which the media usually ignore.

But don't worry about all that because (as I've previously reported) a New York Post economic reporter told us in May 2004 that new modeling installed in the DOL jobs situation data just in time for Bush's reelection year creates imaginary jobs skewing the numbers in the Bush administration's favor anyway .  (Did I mention that was done just in time to make Bush's job numbers look better for his re-election year?)

 Link in the paragraph above goes to usenet copy of report.  Though the link in the usenet copy now goes to a page at the Post that proclaims that the article does not exist at NY Post, a search of the archives on "WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING AT THE LABOR DEPT.?"  will find you this page offering to sell you the John Crudele article which does exist at the New York Post so maybe the Post is using a bit of skullduggery as well. 

In the light of Crudele's report 8.25% is a generous estimate of Bush's true unemployment rate. 

Addendum:

I have found my original post on the NY Times article I mentioned above :"Clue to the Low Unemloyment Rate? 12% of men in prime work years not working or looking for work ".  At that post you can find the link to the NY Times abstract and chance to buy the article.  (I'll look for a usenet copy for ya.)  

Here  it is:  A usenet copy of the NY Times article referenced above about 12% of men dropping out of the workforce because of low wages .

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit