experts, in other words, people who are getting paid good money just to come up with opinions (unlike us, who get paid a pittance for the same work), predict that jobs will be plentiful in 2004. as skippy's dear departed mother-in-law used to say "from their mouths to god's ears." the
asspress says:
companies are expected to step up hiring in 2004 after a year in which household spending boosted the economy more than business investment, according to a group of economists surveyed by the wall street journal.
the 54 economists surveyed for the journal's 2004 economic-forecast report said they thought the unemployment rate could fall to 5.5 percent by november.
hiring fueled by increasing corporate profits and economic growth could lead to as many as 1.5 million new jobs, the journal said.
however, we were listening to a debate on cnbc this morning. of course, the repubbb sky box millionaire pundits were hailing the economy as being on a roll, and the current drop in unemployment figures as indications that prosperity is just around the corner.
but the democratic pundit (we didn't catch her name; maybe we really should start paying more attention to cable news...nah!) pointed out the obvious:
even at a 5.5% unemployment rate, it would take 150,000 new jobs a month just to break even with the new people entering the job market. don't even think about helping the 3 million or so jobs lost already under awol. reuters says:
most of the signs of a solid u.s. economic revival seem to be falling into place entering 2004, but federal reserve governor mark olson warns it is too soon yet to pop any champagne corks.
in an interview with reuters this week, olson noted that corporate america appears reluctant to join the party by boosting investment, something the fed considers vital to maintaining spending momentum, carried almost wholly by consumers since the 2001 recession...
the economy has crawled back to a relatively healthy state after a weak recovery from the mild 2001 recession, though it is not vigorous enough to make a dent in the two million jobs lost since the start of 2001.
[ed. note: emphasis, use of bold key, and amazement at the self-deluding abilities of repubbblicans, ours].
and let's remember just where all these new jobs are showing up. msnbc reminds us
recruiters caution that hiring efforts are in their infancy, with most new jobs being temporary positions. and they concede that the fear of technology jobs continuing to be outsourced to countries overseas is real.
it seems to us that getting a temporary job is like kissing your sister...not really satisfying, and neither one gets you health benefits (don't worry, we don't understand that last remark, either).
unlike what the repubbbs would have you believe, we are definately not hoping that jobs stay scarce. we'd love to see new jobs created in the economy, no matter who's in the white house. (remember, we love barney the scottie dog!)
but it just seems to us that all through 2002, the official party line mantra was "things'll get great in 2003!" then in early 2003, all we heard was "things will turn around in the second half of the year!" then in the summer of 2003, we heard "things will take off in the 4th quarter!"
so forgive us if we take the "jobs will be plentiful in 2004" with a pound of salt.
we'll believe it when we see manufacturing jobs, and jobs with benefits, and white collar jobs come back.
cross-posted at our own blog.