Job Loss Distortions

catzmeow · #1 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Job loss distortions continue (9/7)
By Brendan Nyhan

Democrats continue to spin the number of jobs lost under President Bush.

John Kerry's campaign and the Democratic Party have frequently attacked the White House by taking the total number of net private sector jobs lost under Bush and presenting the figure as if it represents the total net job loss for his presidency. The actual figure for net job loss since January 2001 including both the private and public sectors is 913,000 jobs according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Sept. 4, which revised the figure down from 1.1 million in August. However, Democrats have repeatedly cited private sector job losses instead, which declined from approximately 1.8 million to 1.6 million when the new data were released, without noting the important qualifier.

For instance, before the announcement of the new data, Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, referred on August 31 to "1.8 million jobs gone." His campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, made a similar statement in advance of President Bush's convention speech on Sept. 2, saying, "The last four years have been an abject failure: almost 2 million lost jobs, 5 million more without health care coverage, health care and energy costs going through the roof and a mess in Iraq that has cost America over $200 billion."

The talking point was exaggerated still further by Congressman Frank Pallone, D-NJ, on CNN August 31. Pallone claimed that "if you look at it over the last four years, the number of jobs that have been lost is over two million jobs" and later added that "We lost over two million jobs in that four-year period."

Since the new figures came out, Kerry has cited the 1.6 million figure at least twice without clarification. In his radio address Saturday, Kerry claimed that "Over the past three years, we've lost 1.6 million jobs in the United States." And he repeated it in a statement released today.

These are part of a long pattern of Democratic trickery with net job loss figures that we have documented on our website and in our book. The media need to clarify the facts each and every time Kerry or his supporters make one of these deceptive claims.

Source: www.spinsanity.com

Catz

Mad-Donkey · #2 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 08:31 AM

Wait, wait, wait…..so the loss of jobs only matters if its in both the public and private sectors? If anything, that info is being spun to only include the most optimal numbers. The private sector job losses are only important when bound to the public sector? The way it looks, the private sector took the biggest hit by Bush. Which makes sense, since the public sector is still receiving equal funding. Whereas the private sector doesnt have that luxury.

And Kerry is being criticized for mis-stating numbers that have been released 4 days ago? I guess that falls right in line with Bush declaring victory over in Iraq back in May of 2003. And by gosh- we are still there!!!!!

catzmeow · #3 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 08:35 AM

Not a very effective dodge, dude.

Catz

Mad-Donkey · #4 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

Not a very effective dodge, dude.

Catz

No, Im being serious. How is it correct for one side to use the numbers in one way (i.e. using the combination job loss) and incorrect for the other side to use in the other way (i.e. 1 sector). Technically, they’re both right.

Just because you dont comprehend something, doesnt make it a dodge.

catzmeow · #5 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 10:05 AM

doesn't understand the numbers.

Catz

Mad-Donkey · #6 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow";p=&quot

doesn't understand the numbers.

Catz

No?

Correct me if I'm wrong:

A = Private sector job loss + public sector job loss
B = Private sector job loss

B>A

How is it incorrect to say you have lost B jobs? It is a change in job possession is it not?

Liberty · #7 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad-Donkey";p=&quot

How is it incorrect to say you have lost B jobs? It is a change in job possession is it not?

It's not incorrect--but that's also not what democrats are saying. Instead of saying X private sector jobs have been lost, and Y public sector jobs have been created, they are "taking the total number of net private sector jobs lost under Bush and presenting the figure as if it represents the total net job loss for his presidency.

If you want to play # games, technically speaking it is also correct to say that millions of people lost their jobs under Clinton. Who cares? What's most important is the net number of jobs lost/gain during the presidency, and the democrats are clearly spinning the truth.

f100supersabr · #8 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 01:00 PM

Job Loss figures are a distortion only to those who have not lost one. Until 1992 I a professional employee with an advanced degree thought that unemplyment was the fault of the lazy.

catzmeow · #9 (**permalink**) 09-08-2004, 01:03 PM

I'm guessing your advanced degree wasn't business/math related. You're introducing emotionalism into a debate about facts.

Thanks, Liberty. Forgot about this thread.

Catz

jimholcomb · #10 (**permalink**) 09-09-2004, 07:08 AM

When asked, Alan Greenspan stated that there is absolutely no evidence that the new jobs are paying less contrary to DNC ads.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode