[FoRK] ... more hiring ...

johnhall johnhall at isomedia.com
Thu Mar 18 19:48:08 PST 2004

1. I comment on a reason for companies not to hire.
2. Iraq Regime change as US policy, shame on Greg.
3. Total nonfarm employment from BLS.


I snipped two sentences below.  I'd just like to point out that one
reason a company has for limiting its work force is that many government
regulations kick in when the company gets bigger.

Those limits are adopted to reduce the burdens on small business, but
they also act as burdens on a business growing.

> From: "Joseph S. Barrera III" <joe at barrera.org>

> This article might address the "why" of the Jobless Recovery...
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [IP] The Economy Summed Up: Pay Any Price, Bear Any
> to Avoid Creating Jobs
> Date:     Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:03:11 -0500
> I know of plenty of companies, large and small, as well as foundations
> and nonprofits where the stock price is not an issue, that are
> obsessed with limiting the "headcount" in just this way.

> Third, the Cook paragraph shows that we must do something about the
> that prevent American businesses from hiring. 

> From: Gregory Alan Bolcer
> To: Geege; fork at xent.com
> Subject: RE: [FoRK] Pentagon insider tells all
> What about under Clinton when it was passed?
> Greg
> 	From: Geege [mailto:geege4 at bellsouth.net]

> 	under bush, "regime change" is a euphemism for war.

Not fair Greg.  Everyone knew Clinton didn't mean it.

> I still can't figure out where the "job debacle" is in all this; the
> situation is better than I expected.  The unemployment rate is low,
> people can find jobs, and it doesn't require magic math to get this
> result.
> j. andrew rogers

At 5.6%, the unemployment rate is not a lot different than the 5.5% in
1996.  Considering that 1996 was after the collapse of the Soviets and
2004 is after 9/11 that particular unemployment rate is rather

> Total nonfarm
> payroll employment during Dubya's term in office has famously dropped
> by about a couple million jobs -- something that hasn't happened
> during any Presidential term since Hoover.  

Year (Jan)
1994  1125 
1995  1164
1996  1182
1997  1212
1998  1246
1999  1275
2000  1307
2001  1324
2002  1305
2003  1302
2004  1301

The Jan numbers are in 100,000 employed units and rounded.

I'm told employment is a lagging indicator, and it actually peaked Mar
2001 from the bubble.  The recession started Nov/Dec 2000, and between
that and the losses of 9/11 employment returned to about what it was at
the start of 2000.

Hardly seems something to hyperventilate about.

More information about the FoRK mailing list