Unemployment rate drops in August.

[Tirayana]

Headline says it all. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.4%, down 0.1% from July.

Now, let's just wait to see each political campaign spin the numbers and make it work in their favor.

The unemployment rate has been fluctuating all year. We started at 5.6% in January, jumped to 5.7% in March, and has stayed at 5.6% from April to June. In July it was 5.5%, and now 5.4% for August.

I think, over Bush's 4-year term as President, I've seen no defining changes in the unemployment rate. Yes, he's making more jobs, but not enough. I think it's pretty funny that he's paying more attention to it NOW than he did in his previous 3 years. Looking at the statistics, I see all kinds of drops and rises over the past 4 years, which leads me to believe that there's no real direction that the administration is going in in terms of job creation. This is a real contrast, I think, compared to the numbers Clinton pulled in, consistently dropping the unemployment rate over his 8 years as President.

CNN's coverage: http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/03/news/economy/jobless_august/index.htm

~Tirayana

[Bobmuhthol]

So instead of 1,000,000 people being unemployed, it's now 970,000. Quite an accomplishment.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It is an election year. Perhaps he isn't paying more attention to it now, but it's getting more attention?

In your clearly expert opinion, "Looking at the statistics, I see all kinds of drops and rises over the past 4 years, which leads me to believe that there's no real direction that the administration is going in in terms of job creation.", what influencing factors did you normalize for?

9/11? War in Iraq? Anything? Or are you just looking at the data and drawing a conclusion without any information at all, other than the pretty pictures they drew for you?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oh that's right, you are the one that wants "proof" that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. Nevermind. I withdraw my questions.

Please continue.

[Tirayana]

I'm drawing a conclusion based on a comparison to the data while Clinton was in office. A sharp contrast.

~Tirayana

Edited to add: I never said I was an expert. :P

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by Tirayana]

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by Tirayana]

[Tirayana]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Oh that's right, you are the one that wants "proof" that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. Nevermind. I withdraw my questions.

Please continue.

Last time I checked this thread was labeled "Unemployment rate drops in August", not "Stupid idiots spouting irrelevant bullshit."

[Bobmuhthol]

The President doesn't make jobs. Employers make jobs.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Tirayana

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Oh that's right, you are the one that wants "proof" that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. Nevermind. I withdraw my questions.

Please continue.

Last time I checked this thread was labeled "Unemployment rate drops in August", not "Stupid idiots spouting irrelevant bullshit."

You should change your title then, to appropriately cover your spouting :)

[Hulkein]

Ya but the president plays a large role in setting economic conditions that are condusive for job growth.

[Bobmuhthol]

New post, with teh factz.

As of July 2004, 195,948,689 people live in the United States that are eligible for employment (15-64 years old). 5.5% of them being unemployed: 10777178. 5.4% of them being unemployed: 10581229. Difference: 195949. Seems like enough in a month to me.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
The President doesn't make jobs. Employers make jobs. Bob wins.

[Ilvane]

I'd like to see a comprehensive report of what kind of jobs people are getting. It would be interesting to see a study that showed if they were full time jobs, if they had benefits, what the rate of pay was, or if they were stable or contract jobs. I am completely curious.

I think it's slow or even with unemployment, and I'm sure there are people who have given up looking too.

-A

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why?

It won't change your already venomous anti-Bush sentiments, so why? So you can tell us how much the data is wrong if it doesn't support you, or how right you are, if it does?

I want to see a comprehensive report too, but I'd like to see one on how comprehensive reports change or don't change opinions of the far left / far right.

[Ilvane]

I don't have venomous anti-Bush sentiments. I merely disagree with just about everything he stands for.

I want to see something comprehensive just to know, not for any other reason than that.;)

I think my posts are pretty tame, and polite, even when I disagree.

Thanks.

-A

[Jazuela]

The part of the statistic they don't show you:

The unemployment rate is based on the data presented by the Labor Department. They get THEIR data from the state labor departments, who count all the people who are collecting unemployment.

They do NOT count the people who have run out of benefits and are still out of work, but simply not collecting benefits anymore.

I'd like to see the REAL numbers. How many people are actually UNEMPLOYED - rather than - how many people are collecting unemployment?

The government won't tell you this information, in part because they have no way to count it. Also in part to create spin for whoever is using the information to boost their chances for this, that, and the other thing. Bush will use it, Kerry will use it, lobbyists for outsourcing will use it, those numbers are fair game for everyone. And those numbers mean diddly shit in the world of reality.

[Drew]

On the other hand, the jobs created by home businesses aren't counted in the main Federal unemployment indices, leaving a significant number of people out the picture.

Also, depending on who you ask, about 4% to 6% is considered "full employment" as there are a certain number of people who are simply unemployable or do not want to work. Even during the heady days of the internet bubble employment never dropped below 4.5% and that was actually detrimental to our economy, some of the effects of which we are feeling today.


PS: 5.4% is lower than what Clinton had when he was re-elected in 1996.

[Scott]

I'd like to see the number of people who can work, can get a job, and just choose not to because they are lazy bitches. I bet that number is higher then the number of people who actually can't find work.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
I'd like to see the number of people who can work, can get a job, and just choose not to because they are lazy bitches. I bet that number is higher then the number of people who actually can't find work.

That's what "full employment" refers to. When wages were exorbinately high during the internet boom you saw unemployment drop below 5% which is historically very unusual. That's because for a number of people it finally came to the point where potential wages outweighed the benefits of laziness.

[Jazuela]

And then there are the people who can work, but don't want to because they don't have to. You know - like people who prefer to stay at home and care for their children while their spouse works to pay the bills. Or people who inherited family estates and simply don't have any need for an income.

Not all people who "can" work are lazy bitches. My grandmother never worked a day in her life at a paying job, but she was a housewife of means, who was involved in dozens of charity organizations throughout her life, and wrote plays that were performed at local theatres, raised three daughters, took care of my grandfather's finances, made all the investments for the family, played golf 3 times a week until her body just stopped being able to play anymore, and did tons of other stuff that kept her busy and contributing to society.

[Warriorbird]

And then there's the people who couldn't find anything appropriate... so they quit looking or settled into a cycle of dead end jobs they hate. Yay, employment!

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And then there's the people who couldn't find anything appropriate... so they quit looking or settled into a cycle of dead end jobs they hate. Yay, employment!

Heh Warriorbird that sounds like me! Going to college for 4 years wasn't an option in my family. The option was *which* college I'd go to. Picked all kinds of writing and english classes, got a degree, a major and a minor, took advanced and graduate studies, blah blah blah...

And it got me - a good education. That's it. No job, no prospects, no nuttin. It took me almost 20 years after I graduated to finally accept that I'm just not cut out for the corporate world, and I'm finally happy taking those dead end minimum wage jobs. Thankfully I can afford it because hubby pays the bills. My check pays the groceries and gas for the car.

In another 12 years I'll be able to step away from the work world for good. And lemme tell ya - I can't wait.

[Shari]

My friend Sheila just got done obtaining her masters at Pratt in NYC.

She works at Starbucks now.

[Ilvane]

Yeah, that's the high quality jobs that are being created nowadays. Starbucks isn't bad as it could be though, they do give benefits to employees.

-A

[Psykos]

Tirayana,

Go get an education before you comment on stories you have no idea the meaning.

Kthx

Going to college doesn't always get you a good job.

Doing well and picking a relevant major does help. Anyone who gets a master's in "Art History" deserves to work in McDonald's.

- Arkans

[Psykos]

Arkans,

Art history is an amazing field of research, and if people didn't major in it who the fuck would take care of... Art History?

Nutsack.


:blndwhip: