Re: unemployment rates

[CapstoneStan]

Re: unemployment rates

I have been hearing and reading for some time that the rate of 5.6% unemployment that exists thru April is the same as when the Clinton presidency concluded. This puzzled me because I had distinctly remembered 3.9% as the figure I recalled near the end of that administration. FWIW, I usually remember numbers for some reason. Anyway I did a little looking this AM. I found this site and I have no clue as to its credentials, but it confirms the number that I recalled throughout the 4th quarter of 2000.

I have hopes of confirming these figures thru the US Dept. of Labor, but as yet have not located them and may not have time today. Someone else might have time. The point of this is a lot of 'facts' are often bandied about without regard to sources. Call me a cynic. I am skeptical of all information in this age of the information superhighway. Including this link.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

 

[CapstoneStan]

OK, I found this chart on the DOL site. It confirms the other.

Do you accept Dept. of Labor numbers as true rates? If so, where is the information coming from that says unemployment rates are equal to those at the end of 2000? They have been quoted as facts. What are the facts? Just curious.

Might try a link instead.
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

[This message has been edited by CapstoneStan (edited 05-19-2004).]

 

[CapstoneStan]

In graph form this is a clear picture of a disturbing trend.

Let's see if it will link here.

http://data.bls.gov/labjava/servlets/graphics/generated_graphs/LNS14000000_66781_1084967209739.gif

[This message has been edited by CapstoneStan (edited 05-19-2004).]

[This message has been edited by CapstoneStan (edited 05-19-2004).]

 

[Chukker Veteran]

For some reason I'm not seeing the pics you are posting.
Another aspect of this unemployment rate shell game has bothered me. I understand the Bush administration has reclassified what constitutes a "manufacturing" job. Hamburger flippers at fastfood restaurants are now holding down a "manufacturing" job, when that type work wasn't included in that category before.
So according to Bush's thinking, a person can lose a factory job that had good pay and benefits, and go work at McDonalds, and nothing's lost. He simply jumped from one manufacturing job to another.

 

[CapstoneStan]

There seems to be a problem linking to DOL. Try right clicking the x and then clicking on properties. Copy properties into the address bar. I think you'll see the chart then. You may have to request the graph from there. I'm not sure why it's not working. I didn't see anything I did wrong.

 

[CapstoneStan]

OK, I can see the graph and the link to the chart works.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

The low dips in the graph during the end of the nineties brings back good times. Robust economy, business booming everywhere.
This "economic recovery" touted by Bush has been a little relief for investors and stockholders. As far as the working man, we're still waiting to see the recovery.

 

[ValuJet]

Chukker - I made a pledge to stop responding to your posts because of your obstinance and blind party loyalty, but I'll do it once more for old time's sake:

That robust economy you referred to in the 90's, and before you chastize me for Clinton-bashing (you brought it up in your own minced-word way), were go-go years for the stock market fueled by corporate greed, accounting scandals, and oh my, the trade deficit grew during that period which meant - *gasp* - jobs were going overseas! But it's only on Bush's watch that all hell has come crashing down.

Hopefully you will see what I mean by blind party loyalty. You see a silver lining where there's really not one.

I didn't complain about the go-go years of 30% stock market gains - I was along for the ride like everyone else. Nor did I complain when the markets sank just as fast - it has cyclical ups and downs. The fact of the matter is that our bloated federal bureaucracy broke down also in the 90's when they should have been awake.

 

[Mamacalled]

Capstonestan,
I believe that you are referring to my post about the unemployment numbers. You are correct inatating that the 5.6% doesn't match the numbers when Clinton left office but in my post I was referring to the numbers in 1996. In 1996 the unemployment rates dropped to 5.6% and it was held by all that those numbers were incredible. Today we are back down to 5.6% and the left is crying that we are in nothing but gloom times. The fact that is left out is that the numbers are coming down and are at numbers that always has been accepted as remarkable. Look at the averages from the 70, 80 & 90's and they are below those averages. The job market is heating up and revenues from taxes has increased by 100 billion dollars because of it. Forcasters are predicting that trend to continue.
Take care and did you check into that position here in Cobb?