22,000 new jobs in Maine?

Employment in Maine

Resident employment includes wage and salary workers, the self-employed and unpaid family members. Maine residents employed by out-of-state companies are also included.

Meanwhile, the Consensus Economic Forecasting Commission says Maine lost 200 jobs in 2005 compared to 2004.
A different yard stick.

Wow, I didn't realize that so many Mainers travel to Mass and NH to work!

I am sure, like just about everything else the Baldacci cabal issues, that the stats are cooked.

Are they possibly including those who are full time military and residents of Maine but stationed elsewhere?

Remember the "off budget" items fiasco? Beware the numbers.

1 plus 1 equals 2. 2 plus 1 equals 4. 4 plus 1 equals 8. And dat folks, is Baldacci math.
It is time to call him and ask how he does his math.
The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.

2003 and 2004 had to be great years in Maine if you believe the Baldacci cabal. We gained 200 jobs in 2005 according to Colgan's group. That means we averaged job growth of 11,000 per year in 2003 and 2004.

All those that believe that, raise your hands.

It is interesting that Baldacci would switch to a new measure of job growth. If you think about it - the real measure--used by the state for years is not good. That is the one that almost all of the state's "investments" and activities are focused. --- TIF's , BETR, Tax credits, and on and on and on.

I believe Baldacci is now using numbers that involve people who have essentially given up on Maine and are now forging their own way--or using Maine as a bedroom.

It is strange that he would focus on those numbers for growth--they are almost anti-state government numbers.

It would be interesting to get someone who could figure all this out.

As Mel posted earlier...

The real indicator of prosperity is income growth. This job chatter is just that.

You are right Bob.

But it is weird to switch to those numbers.

Agreed.

Income growth is down in the US.
So if that's the measure we choose, then GWB and GOP Congress take the heat.

This jobs measure sounds similar to the "household survey" numbers the Labor Department issues to go along with its usual jobs reporting (federal level). The household survey relies not on reporting from employers, but from people in their homes. So it captures people who work for themselves or do not otherwise show up in the work-place numbers.

Incidentally, the household survey numbers always show bigger job growth in the US than the traditional workplace survey, which is why the Dems in DC do not embrace the household survey, but the GOP does.

So, while I'm not saying Johnny B is using the household survey numbers here, it sounds like the same idea.
Glad he is embracing GWB's approach to measuring employment.

Do 2 part-time jobs count twice as much as 1 full time job?

Tom C-

Probably not. It counts as 2 jobs. If some people have to work 3 part-time jobs, that counts as 3 jobs(I assume).

Ok, here's the deal on this.

The 5,000 number comes from the non-farm wage and salary report. ( note: I sent a LTTE to BDN that pointed out that 30% of those 5,000 were state and local government jobs several days ago )

The 22,000 number comes from the estimated unemployment report ( note: final figures for this aren't available until the summer ). 2002 we averaged 654,500 a month, 2005 we averaged 676,125. So there are your 22,000 jobs. But let's put that in persepctive, if this is the report Baldacci's crew wants to hang their hats on.

Civilian labor force 2005 averaged 710675 a month, 2002 averaged 684,700 a month - 26,000 more people in the labor force for 22,000 more jobs meaning 4,000 more people than jobs created leaving a remarkable 15% gap between the number of people joining the labor force and the number of jobs created. 15% of the new people in the labor just could not find a job because there was no job created for them to find.

Unemployment rate reflects the above. Average unemployment rate for 2002 was 4.4%, average unemployment rate for 2005 was 4.85 ( 4.8583333 ).

So if Baldaci wants to hang his job creation hat on this report he really did us a favor. "Yes, Yes, John, you created 22,000 jobs, but the unemployment rate went up nearly half a percent. You call that success?"

I strongly urge candidates for the house and senate to look at these unemployment reports. Several area, like Lincoln, lost jobs ( 100 for Lincoln ). You'll have to calculate the yearly average on the 2005 report yourself but in certain localities Baldacci and the incumbent state house critter can be beaten up on job numbers.

2002 report

2005 Report missing year end averages

If Baldacci wants to use 22,000 jobs created let him, just make sure he gets rightly hung with it.

This is where we outright lost jobs lost year

Camden -100 Jobs
Dover-Foxcroft -178 jobs
Lincoln -100 jobs
Madawaska -309 jobs
Millinocket -785 jobs
Maine portion of Portsmouth NH-ME -8 jobs
Maine portion of Dover-NH-ME -134 Jobs
Pittsfield -35 jobs
Sanford -127 jobs

David, this is excellent. Any chance you could add a brief description to each line, which jobs were lost? ie, mill jobs, MBNA jobs, etc.
Thanks if possible!

I was hoping people herewould shed some light on that! :) Only so much I can do and my memory about what job loses came from where is only so good. People closer to the situation would be better aware than I.

A 4.4 % unemloyment rate is a myth and anyone with an ounce of gray matter knows it. This does not include the amount of people that have had there unemployment run out.

If you want to get a fairer number on the unemployment rate in Maine, a candidate for governor should add those souls back into the 4.4 % number and then add in all the people that are of working age that are on welfare.

If you wanted to get real creative as the governor does, you could add in all the half jobs that people are working and count them as a half a person unemployed. These people are the ones that are working that are in subsidized housing. Lots of times their benifits add up to most if not all of an unemployment check.

I have not done the exercise but am thinking that the number rises to well over 25%. This is just one of the drums that should be being drummed on in the up coming elections. Baldacci's numbers are not just off, they are fraudulent.

Remember a few years ago when Portland was reported to have an unemployment rate of ZERO ? It was based upon the result of phone calls made and everyone that was called had a job. Therefore they concluded that no-one was un-employed.
I notice that often the government calls it job creation when in fact all they have done is create work that needs to be done. Thet repaired the steps at the town library. It took one guy almost one day to complete. No extra job was created. The guy simply worked it into his schedule. Whether you are busy or things are rather slow, the work expands to fit the time available.

D