April 16, 2004

Where are those Three million?

For my Democrat friends who have trouble telling President Bush's 5.7% unemployment depression from President Hoover's, here's an interesting story.

Marketplace, Public Radio International's "business news for those who think profit and commerce are evil" surprised me by pointing out the following incongruity :
After reminding viewers that three million manufacturing jobs have been lost, even Marketplace wondered where these workers are. It seems that hiring managers cannot find them.

From New York: More than forty-percent of the manufacturers the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia surveyed said they had trouble filling open positions, for lack of qualified applicants. More than half said the skill gap had grown since five years ago.

In an interview, it was made clear that "qualified" referred to basic literacy and numeracy. There are jobs for those who can read and add. That is not the impression I get from listening to Senator Kerry...

Posted by jk at April 16, 2004 12:11 PM
Comments

5.7 percent? I thought it was 5.6 percent. At any rate, not much different than in 1996 under Clinton, 5.5 percent. (From March 19 blog: http://www.berkeleysquarejazz.com/blog/archives/000699.html)

Posted by: johngalt at April 18, 2004 12:59 PM

What's a tenth of one percent among friends?

Last week's Weekly Standard had a great article by James Piereson that predicts incumbent re-elections based on economic factors. Those figures say that W is looking good.

Of course, there are other factors and reelection is not guaranteed. But it does seem to show that the economy is unlikely to elect President Kerry.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/003/954xwmuf.asp

Posted by: jk at April 18, 2004 06:43 PM

Your link requires subscription. No matter though, this only paints a positive portrait for W because Kerry '04 hasn't invented the "new presidential economics index" yet. Give them a little time... they're still patting each other on the back for the "new misery index," (where a higher rating is LESS miserable!) They should have called it the anti-misery index. Or, better yet, the anti-misery uber-concoction.

Posted by: johngalt at April 18, 2004 11:53 PM
| What do you think? [3]