| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: US unemployment rate 4.5% |
 |
|
4.5 %
Isn't that about the same as the Clinton years?
Remember when Bus was criticized for all the lost jobs . Well it is about the same as it was during the Clinton years.
The Stockmarket has is at new highs at least the DOW is.
I got a deal for you I won't give Bush credit for any of it if you al stop blaming Bush for the economic troubles before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:02 am Post subject: Re: US unemployment rate 4.5% |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
4.5 %
Isn't that about the same as the Clinton years?
Remember when Bus was criticized for all the lost jobs . Well it is about the same as it was during the Clinton years.
The Stockmarket has is at new highs at least the DOW is.
I got a deal for you I won't give Bush credit for any of it if you al stop blaming Bush for the economic troubles before. |
Wow. I thought illegal immigrants and out sourcing were destroying American jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't Clinton do it while cutting the deficit?
Spending money a government doesn't have during a period where citizens are not asked to make sacrifices themselves is no accomplishment.
Last edited by Kuros on Thu May 10, 2007 7:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: Re: US unemployment rate 4.5% |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
4.5 %
Isn't that about the same as the Clinton years?
|
Close, but not quite.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1.html
| Quote: |
| The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969. The unemployment rate was 4.1 percent in December bringing the average unemployment rate for 1999 to 4.2 percent -- the lowest since 1969. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row. It has remained below 5 percent for 30 months in a row. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent -- the lowest since 1953. |
Anyways, the unemployment rate is a flawed statistic. It only counts those looking for work. More important is jobs created.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000112_1.html
| Quote: |
| 20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration. Since 1993, the economy has added 20.4 million new jobs. That�s the most jobs ever created under a single Administration � and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 245,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/
| Quote: |
| Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures � 88,000 Jobs Created In April. Since August 2003, more than 7.8 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.8 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in April. Our economy has now added jobs for 44 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent. |
(yes, I realize it's not his entire administration, but I assume they're cherry picking the best stats) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Measuring employment/unemployment vary greatly from country to country. Most unemployment stats are fully useless. I'm fond of employment stats myself, but even they are manipulated.
But Joo, I don't think this has much to do with Bush at all.
The Fed has pumped the economy full of credit...Aggregate demand is high while China keeps inflation low. It is quite a wonderful time to be an American consumer/worker now. I do hope that Bernake can keep a lid on inflation in the near future. He has indicated that an inflation target is the policy goal, which leads me to believe the fun will continue for a while.
Normally, you print money and it enters the economy causing both demand and inflation. The way things are now, you print money which lifts demand but China sits on the T-bills thus keeping away the inflation.
China needs to sit on that money, and any decline in the dollar would be a decline in the value of their reserves. They won't allow it to depreciate or cause the dollar to collapse, as some of the more conspiratorial minded would have us believe.
The point is that Bush has quite little to do with unemployment changes. In the end, the FED and international markets makes most of the big decisions in times of normalcy (which we are solidly in).
Generally.
He would do well to stop creating so much damned debt and return to a balanced budget.. All this spending will have to be paid for somehow. All those IOU's.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: Re: US unemployment rate 4.5% |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
4.5 %
Isn't that about the same as the Clinton years?
Remember when Bus was criticized for all the lost jobs . Well it is about the same as it was during the Clinton years.
The Stockmarket has is at new highs at least the DOW is.
I got a deal for you I won't give Bush credit for any of it if you al stop blaming Bush for the economic troubles before. |
Wow. I thought illegal immigrants and out sourcing were destroying American jobs. |
Not exactly. It also has to do with downsizing, bankruptcy and mandatory lay-offs. Sometimes mandatory lay-offs are a good thing, especially for members of strong unions (i.e. auto manufacturers). They can be layed off for many months or even years with full pay and benefits. There are also many seasonal jobs such as H&R Block where the employees only work about four to five months out of the year. The rest of the year, they are on unemployment compensation along with any other type of supplimental work they can obtain. Many construction companies have contract work where the builders must take a mandatory lay off between contracts. Registered unemployment rates are not something people should look at to determine the stability of a country. The unregistered unemployed are not counted and those statistics are very hard to come by. These people are the very poor who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and now live by whatever means possible to survive. Now with gas prices going over $3.00 a gallon and in somes states over $4.00 a gallon, they will have it even harder. Gas prices affect the US economy in a big way. You can definately blame Bush for those prices. Before he was in office, I was paying less than a dollar a gallon. The year he took office I started, seeing record high gas hikes and this never leveled off to what I was paying when Clinton was president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can you say FULL EMPLOYMENT? Every person that wants a job has a job. Those who don't are not employable for various reasons, most of which are self inflicted. I have friends who need workers, but if they can pass a pi$$ test or make it to work on time or have no work ethic, they won't be hired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Measuring employment/unemployment vary greatly from country to country. Most unemployment stats are fully useless. I'm fond of employment stats myself, but even they are manipulated.
But Joo, I don't think this has much to do with Bush at all.
The Fed has pumped the economy full of credit...Aggregate demand is high while China keeps inflation low. It is quite a wonderful time to be an American consumer/worker now. I do hope that Bernake can keep a lid on inflation in the near future. He has indicated that an inflation target is the policy goal, which leads me to believe the fun will continue for a while.
Normally, you print money and it enters the economy causing both demand and inflation. The way things are now, you print money which lifts demand but China sits on the T-bills thus keeping away the inflation.
China needs to sit on that money, and any decline in the dollar would be a decline in the value of their reserves. They won't allow it to depreciate or cause the dollar to collapse, as some of the more conspiratorial minded would have us believe.
The point is that Bush has quite little to do with unemployment changes. In the end, the FED and international markets makes most of the big decisions in times of normalcy (which we are solidly in).
Generally.
He would do well to stop creating so much damned debt and return to a balanced budget.. All this spending will have to be paid for somehow. All those IOU's.... |
I won't give Bush credit for it all if you don't blame him for all that is gone wrong with the economy.
Vicissitude
| Quote: |
Gas prices affect the US economy in a big way. You can definately blame Bush for those prices. Before he was in office, I was paying less than a dollar a gallon. The year he took office I started, seeing record high gas hikes and this never leveled off to what I was paying when Clinton was president. |
I would say the main reason for high oil prices is increased demand from China and India. and also that it is getting harder to find oil that is easily recoverable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Measuring employment/unemployment vary greatly from country to country. Most unemployment stats are fully useless. I'm fond of employment stats myself, but even they are manipulated. |
How so? Aren't these stats used by institutional investors? If the stats were so suspect wouldn't institutional investors either simply ignore the government stats or demand they not be "manipulated"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And let's not forget that fewer and fewer jobs are temporary or short of full-time jobs, which are not accompanied by benefits, health care in particular. This, of course, began even before the Clinton years (years in which my friends and I were all flush, incidentally) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
And he only needed how many trillion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
|
And he only needed how many trillion? |
what do you mean?
Should Bush be charged with the entire cost of 9-11 even though it was being planned before he got into office?
Ought Bush be blamed for all the damage that high oil prices did to the US economy , even though the biggest reasons for high oil prices are that China and India use more and that it is getting harder and harder to find easy to obtain oil?
Ought Bush be blamed a reccession that strated before he came to office?
Reccessions = less tax revenue. Agree?
Or a stock market meltdown that started before he was president? Stock market meltdowns = less tax revenue . Agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
what do you mean?
Should Bush be charged with the entire cost of 9-11 even though it was being planned before he got into office?
|
Well as tasteless as this seems, could I then ask "Should Bush be able to claim responsibility for the benefits that 9-11 had on the economy (ie. the money he threw into America) even though it was planned before he got into office"?
The simple fact is, inject that much money into an economy and you'd be an idiot to not expect growth; as hollow as it may be.
| Quote: |
| Ought Bush be blamed for all the damage that high oil prices did to the US economy , even though the biggest reasons for high oil prices are that China and India use more and that it is getting harder and harder to find easy to obtain oil? |
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Are you saying that in the LAST 3 years, suddenly all he oil is just "gone" because of China and india?
Do you SERIOUSLY think that jeopardizing the safety of the most oil rich regions of the world did NOT have an impact on oil prices?
| Quote: |
Ought Bush be blamed a reccession that strated before he came to office?
Reccessions = less tax revenue. Agree? |
so what: Cut tax revenue EVEN FURTHER? Does that make sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Measuring employment/unemployment vary greatly from country to country. Most unemployment stats are fully useless. I'm fond of employment stats myself, but even they are manipulated. |
How so? Aren't these stats used by institutional investors? If the stats were so suspect wouldn't institutional investors either simply ignore the government stats or demand they not be "manipulated"? |
They are generally biased in a consistent manner. Which makes them generally comparable for changes over time within a single country. Somethings will distort the numbers though, such as war. International comparisons are rather useless, unless you can access the raw data and determine what exactly is being measured.
Analysts will also examine the unemployment reports and occassionally make adjustments to their analyses based upon these findings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Measuring employment/unemployment vary greatly from country to country. Most unemployment stats are fully useless. I'm fond of employment stats myself, but even they are manipulated. |
How so? Aren't these stats used by institutional investors? If the stats were so suspect wouldn't institutional investors either simply ignore the government stats or demand they not be "manipulated"? |
They are generally biased in a consistent manner. Which makes them generally comparable for changes over time within a single country. Somethings will distort the numbers though, such as war. International comparisons are rather useless, unless you can access the raw data and determine what exactly is being measured.
Analysts will also examine the unemployment reports and occassionally make adjustments to their analyses based upon these findings. |
Right. That's what I hoping to elicit with my line of questioning. Unemployment rates are not a 100% accurate and definitive measure. But as a relative measure, I'm not sure there's an over arching problem.
Is the 4.5% rate from 2007 largely the same relative measure as the 4.5% rate from 1999? The uncounted from 1999 remain proportional to the uncounted from 2007. I'm just wondering is there any justification for making an argument like "the rate doesn't count such 'n' such therefore the figure is useless and we need to throw it out or discount it."
For example, the temperature doesn't take into account wind chill. We do not throw out F or C because it fails to fully answer "how cold is it?"
Last edited by mindmetoo on Thu May 10, 2007 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
