Consumer Confidence Hits 7-Month Low Tuesday October 26, 12:04 PM EDT By Eric Burroughs NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. consumers turned gloomier in October, beset by soaring energy costs, relentless violence in Iraq, sluggish hiring and an increasingly bitter presidential campaign. The Conference Board's gauge of consumer confidence fell to 92.8 in October, the lowest in seven months, from 96.7 in September, the private business group said on Tuesday. The reading was below economists' expectations for a dip to 94.0. The main index was dragged down mainly by the consumer expectations component, which tumbled to 92.0 from 97.7. The current conditions index slipped to 94.2 from 95.3. "Consumers are more concerned about the future than they are about current conditions and I think that has a lot to do with the high oil prices we're seeing and probably some of the election rhetoric," said Gary Thayer, chief economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons in St. Louis. In one slightly positive sign, 27.8 percent of consumers surveyed said jobs were "hard to get," down a touch from 28.0 percent a month before. Nearly 34 percent had said employment was hard to find a year ago. Despite strong economic growth, businesses are cautious about hiring workers while faced with record oil prices and steep health care costs. "While consumers' assessment of the labor market showed a moderate improvement, the gain was not sufficient to ease concerns about job growth in the months ahead," Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center, said in a statement. Analysts and traders scrutinize consumer confidence gauges for hints on the outlook for spending, which drives two-thirds of the U.S. economy. Households have consistently shopped for homes, cars and other goods despite worries over the economy, with low interest rates fueling borrowing, but some economists worry that weak hiring could undermine spending by debt-laden consumers. Low mortgage rates helped boost existing home sales 3.1 percent in September to the third-highest pace on record, according to a report on Monday. Two reports on Tuesday showed retail sales at U.S. chain stores slipping in the latest week but still up between 3 percent and 4 percent compared to the same period a year ago. "We are watching the consumer with an eagle eye right now, looking for cracks in the armor. But chain store sales so far this month have been, if anything, slightly above plan," said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Connecticut. "There is little to suggest that household spending is on the verge of a collapse," he said. Markets mostly ignored the confidence data, with stock indexes gaining on a retreat in crude oil prices below $55 a barrel. ©2004 Reuters Limited.
Jobless Claims Up More Than Expected Thursday October 28, 9:26 AM EDT By Nancy Waitz WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose 20,000 last week, the government said on Thursday in a report that continued to be somewhat inflated by hurricane-related claims. First-time claims for state unemployment insurance aid rose to 350,000 in the week ended Oct. 23 from an upwardly revised 330,000 in the prior week, the Labor Department said. "The claims report shows that we are still not growing jobs like we should, given the (economic) recovery that we are in," said Brian Taylor of Manufacturers and Traders Bank in Buffalo, New York. The rise in claims was larger than Wall Street economists' expectations for a rise to 338,000 from the prior week's original measure of 329,000. The price of U.S. Treasury bonds prices showed little reaction to report, with the benchmark 10-year note down 3/32 in price to yield 4.199 percent. A department analyst noted there were still some hurricane-related claims embedded in the data, though the impact was lessening, but noted no specific reason for the weekly increase. Four hurricanes struck Florida and other southern states in August and September, throwing many people out of work. Despite the increase in new claims, the four-week moving average fell for the second straight week to its lowest since mid-September, slipping to 343,250 from 348,750 in the prior period. Economists view the moving average as a more accurate measure of employment trends because it smooths out weekly volatility. "The moving average for claims is consistent with an economy that has slowed a bit from what we saw in the previous three quarters," said David Berson, chief economist for Fannie Mae. Total benefit rolls rose by 38,000 to reach 2.82 million in the week ended Oct. 16, the latest period for which those figures are available. A more comprehensive snapshot of the economy is likely to emerge with the Labor Department's Nov. 5 release of the October employment report, which is expected to show a rise by 150,000 in payroll jobs from 96,000 last month. ©2004 Reuters Limited.
The GDP number comes in tomorrow...if it is less than expected than Sen. Kerry could tap into the "Wall St" vote.
Where's TJ, Bigtexx and Bama? . Maybe they are already going into a post defeat depression. Let me try to answer for them. Don't you know the the president has no effect whatsoever on the economy? However, if the economic news is positive then it is a very valid reason to reelect President Bush.
If the economy is slowing, then Greenspan must be a moron. He's raised rates, what 3/4 of a point already? It's starting to look like he will do the same in December? If the economy is slowing, why do people decide to blame things on Bush while giving the man who controls access to capital a free pass?
why do people decide to blame things on Bush tax cuts will generate 5.6 million jobs, but we are still in net negative job growth land.
Though it is not fair and accuate, presidents gets way too much blame and way too much credit for all and every thing that goes good or bad. It is politics and I understand this. There are also certain situations where presidents can make great and remarkable impacts by certain significant moves they make ala Clinton and the spirit of prosperity and hope he (not single handed) created.
This whole "negative job growth land" is a bunch of garbage that is not put into historical perspective. The late 1990s had some of the most amazing job growth in our history. Probably the most amazing job growth. And before you go slapping yourselves on the back and saying Clinton should get the credit, keep in mind that congress passes all appropriation bills. In fact many argue that we had the growth despite having Clinton in office, but I'll save that for another thread. We had a bunch of artificial wealth created and a bunch of jobs that were unsustainable and frankly not adding value to the economy. Most of these were in the IT industry. The recession began as Clinton exited, then 9/11 hit. All those unnecessary jobs were wiped out, and should never be replaced. Hence that is where your "million job deficit" or whatever you lefties are calling it comes from. The job growth that Bush has recently created has been excellent, and the GDP growth has been outstanding.
link? btw, aren't these the same unnecessary IT jobs that are being offshored to India? or are those a different set?
Sorry texxxy, you are dead wrong. If you think 100 k job growth per month for the last 4 months is "excellent", you're either lying or you failed to comprehend that 135-150k jobs per month is a break even month. (For fun, check out how many of the jobs that have been created in the last four years have been in the public sector -- yeah, big government rules!) Likewise, you screwed up the basic theory that underlies your "losing jobs is great!" approach, you're supposed to say "it frees up capital for more productive use due to investment and that willcreate better jobs and , blah blah blah" Of course, this theory in the context of trade has taken a beating lately from Samuelson and others, but you didn't even get it right so its no use debating that.
Keep making excuses for the lack of job growth if you want, but remember other administrations had them too. Other administrations created job even with the GREAT DEPRESSION. Is that less of a harship than the 9/11 on the economy? They've dealt with Viet Nam, WWII, The Korean War, Oil Crisis, Vietnam, etc. and all managed to have a net job growth. These pitiful excuses that are being made for Bush just don't stack up. I won't give all the credit to Clinton for the previous boom, and I will even give some of the credit to Bush's father. But notice that the economic turn around happened after Bush's father RAISED TAXES. Bush's plan to cut taxes no matter what hasn't helped us.
should we post every economic number every month here? here are some from today Chicago PMI 68.5 vs 59.0 consensus Michigan Sentiment- rev 91.7 vs 88.0 consensus Chain Deflator +1.3% vs +1.6% consensus Employment Cost Index +0.9% vs +1.0% consensus GDP- Adv. +3.7% vs. +4.3% consensus
Battleground economies suffer disproportionately by Tom Schaller Fri Oct 29th, 2004 at 13:35:57 GMT Why are polls showing Kerry doing better in battleground states than the rest of the country? The answer may be found in this fact: The economies in the states that will decide who wins on Tuesday are doing worse than the rest of the country. Let's take a look at the 12 remaining battleground states: For fun, and as a sign of positive thinking, I've added Arkansas to Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Now, consider statewide performance relative to national trends on three economic measures: 1. Statewide job growth rate between January 2001 and June 2004, which declined nationally by 0.8 percent (National Journal, July 25, 2004 special issue). 2. Statewide median household income change between January 2001 and June 2004, which grew nationally at a rate of +11.0, a rate which essentially keeps pace with inflation (same source). 3. Statewide increase in percentage of people without health insurance between 1999-2000 two-year average and 2002-2003 two-year average, which increased nationally by 1.0 percent, from 14.0 percent to 15.4 percent between 99-00 and 02-03. (U.S. Census Bureau, compiled by Senate Joint Economic Committee). What do we find? 1. On statewide job growth rates, only Iowa (at -0.4, still negative, but not as bad at -0.8) has done better than the national average. The other 11 states did worse. 2. On statewide income change, only New Mexico (16.1 income growth between 1/01 and 6/04) has done better than the national average. The other 11 states did worse. 3. And, on statewide share of persons without health insurance, only three states - Florida (-0.2) Minnesota (+0.5), and New Mexico (-2.8) - have done better than the national average. The other nine states did worse. Taken together, that means that only one of the 12 battleground states (NM) has done better than the national average on two of these three measures, while three others (IA, FL, MN) have done better than the national average on one of the three. The remaining eight of the 12 states did worse on all three. Obviously, these trends are interrelated: People who lose jobs see their household incomes drop and their insurance disappear. But the point is, whether one thinks the economy is improving or not, and whether one believes this president (or presidents generally) deserve credit or blame for the economy, because these figures are relative - they're benchmarked against the national averages -- the fact is that the battleground states have struggled disproportionately to the rest of the nation. Iraq and the war on terror may be swamping economics in voters' calculus. But the president had better hope that economics does not serve as a tiebreaker for swing voters in swing states. Because, to voters in those states, "W" stands for "worse." http://dailykos.com/
