Unemployment down to 5.4%

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

No he wont...you know why? Because hes gonna be re-elected and hell be positive for jobs by 2008. Muhahhaha.

 

[Red Dawn]

See sig!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize
| <-----Nail

[] <---- Kerry's coffin

PFt.

You got the nail part correct but the coffin is wrong. These numbers are terrible for Bush and he has fallen WELL short of the 3 million jobs he PROMISED.

The fat lady is warming her voice up.

lol, youre kidding right? This is just more momentum for Bush, it gives him something to talk about...Kerry is done dude, I know you cant believe it, but hes gonna be down 5 points when the polls start coming out

Yawn. Yep, let's hear Bush talk about the economy some more! Can't wait to hear him boast about it during the debates. Stick a fork in your boy, he is done. As much as I would like to be eloquent like you and end my post with a Muhahaha, I'll let the pwnage wait until November.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Job growth was a modest 144,000 in August, enough to absorb the increase in working-age population but, in the long-term, too small to actually lower unemployment (unless the labor force shrinks again, as it did last month). August's job growth follows two months of very weak growth of 73,000 in July and 96,000 in June and is substantially slower than the 295,000 jobs created monthly (on average) in March, April, and May. This pace of job creation is far slower than what the Bush Administration said would follow as a result of its 2003 tax cuts.

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Too bad that site doesn't give a line chart for jobs for each month - I guess then we'd see the real trend of net job increase.

I think the saddest thing is that the libs are rooting for a loss in jobs to further their agenda. USA!

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33

Job growth was a modest 144,000 in August, enough to absorb the increase in working-age population but, in the long-term, too small to actually lower unemployment (unless the labor force shrinks again, as it did last month). August's job growth follows two months of very weak growth of 73,000 in July and 96,000 in June and is substantially slower than the 295,000 jobs created monthly (on average) in March, April, and May. This pace of job creation is far slower than what the Bush Administration said would follow as a result of its 2003 tax cuts.

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Too bad that site doesn't give a line chart for jobs for each month - I guess then we'd see the real trend of net job increase.

I think the saddest thing is that the libs are rooting for a loss in jobs to further their agenda. USA!

Thats why I said this was good news for America.

 

[ciba]

Tech bubble
9/11
CEO fraud

Are all of these Bush's fault?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I think the saddest thing is that the libs are rooting for a loss in jobs to further their agenda. USA!

How right you are; these people want the economy to tank and more bodies bag to arrive simply because of their partisan hate. We are not alone, sir. The American public knows this and will vote accordingly.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I think the saddest thing is that the libs are rooting for a loss in jobs to further their agenda. USA!

How right you are; these people want the economy to tank and more bodies bag to arrive simply because of their partisan hate. We are not alone, sir. The American public knows this and will vote accordingly.

Nice try. Only the dumbed down Americans think like you do. The American public WILL indeed vote accordingly.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: misle
Wow, now we have less unemployment than Clinton when he was running for his second term!

According to this unemployment was down to 5.3 in July of 1996, but Clinton ran on the 5.6% unemployment numbers.

Wrong again. Typical conservative spouting misinformation. :roll:

Not Seasonally adjusted. Link1

Seasonally adjusted. Link2

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Bush will be the first President to oversee a destruction of American jobs since Hoover.

Pathetic.

What should he have done differently? Do you have any specifics that you would like to share?

Do you have anything specific you would like to share about what Bush has done in the past 3 years to address this? Instead of asking what he should have done differently, you should be asking what has been done PERIOD.

Why did you turn this around? Could it be because you are just using a standard political line that has no substantial backing? If you look at my first post about wanting to know plans, you'll see I wanted to see what GWB's plans are too.

So, as I asked you... What would you have done differently as president to prevent the "destruction of American jobs?"

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Too bad that site doesn't give a line chart for jobs for each month - I guess then we'd see the real trend of net job increase.

I think the saddest thing is that the libs are rooting for a loss in jobs to further their agenda. USA!

Thats why I said this was good news for America.

and what the hell agenda would that be, take the Country back from the brink of an abyss???

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: dullard
From original posters link:

"The unemployment rate in August fell as the labor force shrank by 152,000 from the previous month"

So if the labor force shrinks to zero can we claim 0% unemployment? The US's method of not counting people who can't find jobs after X months is the stupidest method I can think of. Why not count the number of unemployeed, and divide by the number who want jobs?

Correct.


Also don't forget they don't count UNDERemployed. I have a college degree and I am making $8.60 a hour now.

BUT if you are a republican... "Its a job..." :roll:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: misle
Wow, now we have less unemployment than Clinton when he was running for his second term!

According to this unemployment was down to 5.3 in July of 1996, but Clinton ran on the 5.6% unemployment numbers.

"July 5, 1996
Web posted at: 5:50 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/

Only you forgot to mention Clinton started his first term with 7.3% unemployment and brought it DOWN to 5.6%. GWB started with 3.9% and brought it UP to 5.3%.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Only you forgot to mention Clinton started his first term with 7.3% unemployment and brought it DOWN to 5.6%. GWB started with 3.9% and brought it UP to 5.3%.

Did it go from 5.6% to 3.9% on midnight of 1/20/2001?

 

[Genx87]

I think everyone understands the economy hit a recession when Bush took over. However, his policies only inflicted more harm on our economy. Tax cuts are fine, but when you have the kind of reckless spending that this adminstration does it only increases the deficit. I also love how Republicans love to talk about the costs of the war on terror. Guess what, extract all the cost from the war on terror and were still seeing the biggest deficit in 75 years. This president has shown that he has no clue or idea on how to fix our economy, and I don't think he's somehow magically figured it out with two months to go.

Probably as soon and people realize the recession was set in motion in April of 2000 when oil prices sky rocketed to 30 bucks a barrel from about 15-20. It took about 9 months but it caught upto us. Also the fantasy land called the dotcom explosion came tumbling down in a big heap of poop.

Neither of which Bush had much control over and in fact I dont even blame Clinton for this. What caused the slow down of our economy was pretty much out of the presidents hands.

It was a culmination of a great growth spurt. It had to come to an end eventually.

High interest rates + High oil prices + dot com implosion == recession. Tack on 9-11 and it is really quit amazing we saw 4.6% GDP growth in 2003 and will probably push 5% this year.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: dullard
From original posters link:

"The unemployment rate in August fell as the labor force shrank by 152,000 from the previous month"

So if the labor force shrinks to zero can we claim 0% unemployment? The US's method of not counting people who can't find jobs after X months is the stupidest method I can think of. Why not count the number of unemployeed, and divide by the number who want jobs?

Correct.


Also don't forget they don't count UNDERemployed. I have a college degree and I am making $8.60 a hour now.

BUT if you are a republican... "Its a job..." :roll:

What did you get your degree in? Your career choice is not the fault of the Republican party.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think everyone understands the economy hit a recession when Bush took over. However, his policies only inflicted more harm on our economy. Tax cuts are fine, but when you have the kind of reckless spending that this adminstration does it only increases the deficit. I also love how Republicans love to talk about the costs of the war on terror. Guess what, extract all the cost from the war on terror and were still seeing the biggest deficit in 75 years. This president has shown that he has no clue or idea on how to fix our economy, and I don't think he's somehow magically figured it out with two months to go.

Probably as soon and people realize the recession was set in motion in April of 2000 when oil prices sky rocketed to 30 bucks a barrel from about 15-20. It took about 9 months but it caught upto us. Also the fantasy land called the dotcom explosion came tumbling down in a big heap of poop.

Neither of which Bush had much control over and in fact I dont even blame Clinton for this. What caused the slow down of our economy was pretty much out of the presidents hands.

It was a culmination of a great growth spurt. It had to come to an end eventually.

High interest rates + High oil prices + dot com implosion == recession. Tack on 9-11 and it is really quit amazing we saw 4.6% GDP growth in 2003 and will probably push 5% this year.

Very well said. 95% of economics is out of the hands of the president. The fact that Bush stopped the problems short with the means available is pretty impressive, IMO.

 

[sandorski]

More interesting, Employment Data 1940-2003

Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: dullard
From original posters link:

"The unemployment rate in August fell as the labor force shrank by 152,000 from the previous month"

So if the labor force shrinks to zero can we claim 0% unemployment? The US's method of not counting people who can't find jobs after X months is the stupidest method I can think of. Why not count the number of unemployeed, and divide by the number who want jobs?

Correct.


Also don't forget they don't count UNDERemployed. I have a college degree and I am making $8.60 a hour now.

BUT if you are a republican... "Its a job..." :roll:

What did you get your degree in? Your career choice is not the fault of the Republican party.

University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Bachelor of Science Degree, Business Administration
Concentration in Business Management 2003
Concentration in Information Systems 2002



yea just like a republican, blame the unemployed people, not the lack of jobs or choices by the republicans :roll:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
More interesting, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt">Employment Data 1940-2003</a>

Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.

And the current unemployment rate is below the 50 year average. These are not bad times...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Bachelor of Science Degree, Business Administration
Concentration in Business Management 2003
Concentration in Information Systems 2002



yea just like a republican, blame the unemployed people, not the lack of jobs or choices by the republicans :roll:

MIS/CIS people have flooded the market - electing Kerry won't change that. It's the designer degree of choice for people who don't know what they want to do, which is a large chunk of the population. I'm not trying to belittle your degree by any stretch, but that's how it is in my experience.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: dullard
From original posters link:

"The unemployment rate in August fell as the labor force shrank by 152,000 from the previous month"

So if the labor force shrinks to zero can we claim 0% unemployment? The US's method of not counting people who can't find jobs after X months is the stupidest method I can think of. Why not count the number of unemployeed, and divide by the number who want jobs?

Correct.


Also don't forget they don't count UNDERemployed. I have a college degree and I am making $8.60 a hour now.

BUT if you are a republican... "Its a job..." :roll:

What did you get your degree in? Your career choice is not the fault of the Republican party.

University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Bachelor of Science Degree, Business Administration
Concentration in Business Management 2003
Concentration in Information Systems 2002



yea just like a republican, blame the unemployed people, not the lack of jobs or choices by the republicans :roll:

You unfortunatly picked a bad time to graduate with an IT degree. Have any related experience to beef up the degree with?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Bachelor of Science Degree, Business Administration
Concentration in Business Management 2003
Concentration in Information Systems 2002



yea just like a republican, blame the unemployed people, not the lack of jobs or choices by the republicans :roll:

MIS/CIS people have flooded the market - electing Kerry won't change that. It's the designer degree of choice for people who don't know what they want to do, which is a large chunk of the population. I'm not trying to belittle your degree by any stretch, but that's how it is in my experience.

I don?t want to do IT/Tech work; I rather do administration, managerial, finance, etc? I only got the IS concentration to make my resume stand out from all the other MGT people. That is one thing most place look for is someone that can mage a department, field, etc... AND knows how to use access, excel, etc? All of which I can do better then 99% of JUST management majors.


But even then I know people that are still working a dead end job for over 2 years now that also have college degrees. It is NOT getting better; I and they know it as we are looking EVERYWHERE.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski
More interesting, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt">Employment Data 1940-2003</a>

Note that Clinton's second term had the highest rate of Employment recorded. Also note that the Rate of Employment actually grew to its' highest point in Bush's first year. Then note that the next 3 years of Bush's term how it falls off for every year.

And the current unemployment rate is below the 50 year average. These are not bad times...

The Unemployment Rate keeps dropping, that is true. However, so is the amount of Persons Employed. IOW, the people dropping out are lowering the Unemployment Rate. Where they're going is another question.

 

[her209]

( R ) Eisenhower -0.4 5.25
1953 5.9
1954 5.5
1955 4.4
1956 4.1
1957 4.3
1958 6.8
1959 5.5
1960 5.5

( D ) Kennedy -1.2 6.1
1961 6.7
1962 5.5

( D ) Johnson -2.1 4.433333333
1963 5.7
1964 5.2
1965 4.5
1966 3.8
1967 3.8
1968 3.6

( R ) Nixon 1.4 4.96
1969 3.5
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9

( R ) Ford 2.1 7.266666667
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7

( D ) Carter 0.0 6.525
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1

( R ) Reagan -2.1 7.5375
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5

( R ) Bush 2.2 6.3
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5

( D ) Clinton -2.9 5.2
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0

( R ) Bush 1.3 5.5
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0

Using the data found here, I've compiled the delta in unemployment rate and the average unemployment rate per president since Eisenhower.

Where's my ?