VT Unemployment rate 8/04 3.4%

VT Unemployment rate 9/03 5.0%

U.S. unemployment rate 8/04 5.4%

Yes. Vermont's unemployment rate is lower than the U.S. But this is nothing new since our rate has been lower for over 25 years.[2] So how can Jim Douglas take credit for it?

Furthermore, Burlington's unemployment rate is lower than the state's (3.1% vs. 3.4% [3]). You can't have it both ways Jim.

VT Total employment 8/04 342,500

VT Total employment 9/03 334,400

A little misdirection here. Total employment doesn't really measure "jobs" because it includes self-employment (SE). While SE works for some people, it offers no security, no employer assisted health care, and requires payment of 13% for FICA. In addition, Census data shows that 31% of self-employed Vermonters earn less than a livable wage.[4]

In any case, the growth of total employment under Jim Douglas is below the average for the same 20 month period going back to 1978-79 (6,600 vs. 7,700).[5]

More importantly, there are only 2,900 more jobs today than when Jim Douglas took office (301,400 today vs. 298,500 in 1/03). This is also well below the average for the same 20 month period going back to 1990-91 (2,900 vs. 4,900).[6]

And why didn't the GOP show total employment from Jan. 2003 when he took office? Perhaps because the numbers wouldn't look as good. That's called selective use of the data.

The methodology used to arrive at this conclusion is fatally flawed. First, the authors used hourly wages rather than annual wages by industry.[7] Annual wages reflect actual hours worked, which is important because so many jobs are part-time and others include overtime.

Second, by only using hourly wages for "production and non-supervisory workers", they assumed no managers have been hired or fired. This is just not realistic.

Example: The average hourly wage for production workers in durable manufacturing is $14.96.[8] At FT hours, this equals $31,117. But the average annual wage for durable manufacturing is $47,773[9], which obviously reflects the influence of manager's salaries and line worker's overtime.

Finally, as we've shown, the idea that their analysis is unimpeachable is demonstrably false. And the idea that they alone are objective and that any other claim is necessarily biased is absurd.

Burl. total employment, 1989 31,597

Burl. total employment, 2003 31,823

Burl. net job creation, '89-'03 226

Burl. percentage change, '89-'03 1%

VT total employment, 1989 255,931

VT total employment, 2003 294,288

VT net job creation, '89-'03 38,357

VT percentage change, '89-'03 15%

Burl. manuf. decline, '89-'03 30%

VT manuf. decline, '89-'03 17%

The GOP is not comparing apples to apples.

Note: The GOP figures are not total employment. They are jobs.

First, unlike Vermont - which has thousands of acres of undeveloped land - Burlington is limited by geography with little space for large developments. Indeed, over the years, a number of businesses that started in Burlington outgrew their space and expanded in nearby towns.

Second, the state gained about 10% in population during the period 1989 - 2003, while Burlington has virtually the same population today as 1989. Therefore, statewide job growth adjusted for population growth is really quite modest.

Third, Burlington's manufacturing decline is due almost entirely to cutbacks at General Electric (now General Dynamics). The end of the Cold War led to a drop in Pentagon procurement and the company downsized. The Mayor can hardly be held responsible for that. If so, Jim Douglas must take responsibility for structural changes in worldwide chip manufacturing and job cuts at IBM. Once again, the Governor can't have it both ways.

In fact, the real story is how Burlington responded to those devastating cuts at GE (over 1,800 new jobs since the mid-90s). Moreover, Burlington actually gained jobs from 2001 - 2003 (including a recession), while the state lost jobs (+2% vs. -1.3%).[10]

Burlington per capita income growth, '89-'03 37%

VT per capita income growth, '89-'03 52%

More misdirection here. The GOP is using the wrong data. Per capita income = total income divided by population. Total income includes capital gains, interest and dividends, while most Vermonters live on wages. Per capita income tells us nothing about average wages or how the income is distributed.

In fact, the average annual wage in Burlington is $5,650 higher than the statewide average wage.[11] I wonder why the GOP didn't mention this?