On Jan. 9 the U.S. government announced the most recent national unemployment figures. The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 5.7 percent but there was no encouragement in this tiny change since it occurred because 300,000 fewer people gave up looking for work.
But, whether the published figure rises or falls slightly is relatively meaningless because the total only serves as a smoke screen hiding the true state of unemployment in Maine and the nation.
Officially, the jobless rate dropped to 5.7 percent in December. By historical standards this does not appear high. But this conceals the true unemployment rate which is now in the range of 10 percent or more.
Nationally, many economists agree that the official U.S. unemployment rate is highly misleading.
One huge factor is the fact that anyone who works even a hour a week is counted as being "employed." We start out with 8.7 million workers who are counted as "unemployed." But there are an additional, uncounted 4.9 million workers who are counted as employed and who are working part time. These workers say they would rather be working full time but can't find full time work. This is the highest number of dissatisfied part time workers in ten years.
There are also more than 1.5 million workers who are out of work but are not counted as "unemployed" because they have stopped looking for work. Most of this group say they have stopped looking for work because they became depressed at the difficulty, if not impossibility of finding work. These uncounted unemployed are called "discouraged workers." Their number has increased 20 percent in the last year and rose again in December.
Put these three groups together and the unemployment rate in the United States jumps to 9.7 percent - a far cry from the close to 6 percent rate of unemployment likely to be the focus of the forecasts and arguments in the months ahead. The continuing political debate simply cannot erase the fact that more three million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. Of these lost jobs 2.5 million where in manufacturing.
Not even the most optimistic forecaster has been able to look into his crystal ball for 2004 and see anything except a net job loss for Bush's first term. This has not happened to any American president since Herbert Hoover who was defeated in 1932 and left office as the nation moved into the Great Depression.
Not only are the hard numbers of unemployed discouraging but also the total time workers are out of work when they lose a job is also bad. The average length of unemployment has risen to 19 weeks -
I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence?
Consumer confidence could be better. The spin on the "horrible job situation" surely isn't helping, as unemployment peceptions are tied closely to that. Way to go Dems? Putting their party politics ahead of the country by painting such a bad light on unemployment? What do you think might happen to consumer confidence if people were told that the unemployment rates (traditional indicator) were dropping instead of numbers shell games the Dems are pushing?
Quote:
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.
Apparently August 2003 was some sort of turning point. Thats where I found most of the articles talking about it. They all read about the same as this:
During Bush 1 they stopped counting people who had given up looking for work. So the unemplyment rate got a nice drop out of that... and it's true that every President since has in a small way benefitted from that since.
But you can't compare Reagans number with Bush II. They were counted differently. Unless you adjust for those that stopped looking for work.
Hey Naples like how they ignore the request for how the Dems are going to stimulate economic growth? Its all just "but the GROWTH is slower than it should be". Finger pointing no solutions, typical Deflectocrat thinking.
And why exactly is growth (albeit slow) bad after something like 9/11 and recession? Apparently the Dems could have done better is that it?
Seems a little arrogant to be so anti-dems when you don't even know what their plans for change are. \ Shouldn't it be your responsibility to know this stuff if you plan on arguing against it
ah well, no harm, if everyone does some reading, I know there are a lot of policies(both democratic and republican) I don't know much about.
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
The guy's talking about the environment, and you come up with the islamists taken over the world? Nah, you're not being extremist at all. I've been searching, but I can't find any signs of islamists invading other countries. Come on Naples.
So for the third time Naples...if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep. then what are you?
Quote:
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
Well, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem Naples. I praise you for doing just that.
The guy's talking about the environment, and you come up with the islamists taken over the world? Nah, you're not being extremist at all. I've been searching, but I can't find any signs of islamists invading other countries. Come on Naples.
yeah, that jump did confuse me a bit, too bad he didn't have anything else to say apparently. \
Seems a little arrogant to be so anti-dems when you don't even know what their plans for change are. \ Shouldn't it be your responsibility to know this stuff if you plan on arguing against it
ah well, no harm, if everyone does some reading, I know there are a lot of policies(both democratic and republican) I don't know much about.
Not really. All of my posts so far have been *defensive* against what I see as blatent Dem spin and finger pointing.
Based on the morning I wasted arguing with all you AO monkeys I'm beginning to wonder how much AppleInsider contributes to the unemployment rate!! DAMN YOU APPLEINSIDER AND YOUR INSIDIOUS TIME WASTING IDEALS!
Based on the morning I wasted arguing with all you AO monkeys I'm beginning to wonder how much AppleInsider contributes to the unemployment rate!! DAMN YOU APPLEINSIDER AND YOUR INSIDIOUS TIME WASTING IDEALS!
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see where that number comes from. It is my understanding that the President has presided over the first net jobs loss since Hoover. Perhaps a certain number of jobs were created during the President's tenure, but enough to counteract the unemployment rate rise?
Well, the numbers I posted were from BLS's website. There are millions more employed today than in 2001. It's a fact.
All the data is right there. I'm thinking that maybe this 2,000,000 lost jobs number is figured by adding up estimated job losses over the past three years while NOT taking new jobs into account. I'm not sure what else it could be. The numbers are black and white.
All the data is right there. I'm thinking that maybe this 2,000,000 lost jobs number is figured by adding up estimated job losses over the past three years while NOT taking new jobs into account. I'm not sure what else it could be. The numbers are black and white.
It could be that most of us aren't economists. I'm not. I don't know if you are. Shawn isn't. And if there's one thing I know, macroeconomics is really, really, realllllly complex.
I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence? Why would some one trying to increase confidence keep harping on what threats exist to the nation, FDR didn't do it?
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.
Also, ShawnJ and SDW2001, I went to the bls.gov website and found some interesting things... Jobs have been created yes, at the same time about 3 M people lost their jobs and weren't rehired, meaning the people taking the new jobs are previously non-employed persons. Also of note is that I was right in saying the total number of the workforce has increased by about 5.4 M.
I don't care how you try and spin it. We have not lost jobs. It's completely false.
Comments
http://www.bangornews.com/editorialn...sconcealf_.cfm
Statistics conceal full truth on joblessness
On Jan. 9 the U.S. government announced the most recent national unemployment figures. The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 5.7 percent but there was no encouragement in this tiny change since it occurred because 300,000 fewer people gave up looking for work.
But, whether the published figure rises or falls slightly is relatively meaningless because the total only serves as a smoke screen hiding the true state of unemployment in Maine and the nation.
Officially, the jobless rate dropped to 5.7 percent in December. By historical standards this does not appear high. But this conceals the true unemployment rate which is now in the range of 10 percent or more.
Nationally, many economists agree that the official U.S. unemployment rate is highly misleading.
One huge factor is the fact that anyone who works even a hour a week is counted as being "employed." We start out with 8.7 million workers who are counted as "unemployed." But there are an additional, uncounted 4.9 million workers who are counted as employed and who are working part time. These workers say they would rather be working full time but can't find full time work. This is the highest number of dissatisfied part time workers in ten years.
There are also more than 1.5 million workers who are out of work but are not counted as "unemployed" because they have stopped looking for work. Most of this group say they have stopped looking for work because they became depressed at the difficulty, if not impossibility of finding work. These uncounted unemployed are called "discouraged workers." Their number has increased 20 percent in the last year and rose again in December.
Put these three groups together and the unemployment rate in the United States jumps to 9.7 percent - a far cry from the close to 6 percent rate of unemployment likely to be the focus of the forecasts and arguments in the months ahead. The continuing political debate simply cannot erase the fact that more three million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. Of these lost jobs 2.5 million where in manufacturing.
Not even the most optimistic forecaster has been able to look into his crystal ball for 2004 and see anything except a net job loss for Bush's first term. This has not happened to any American president since Herbert Hoover who was defeated in 1932 and left office as the nation moved into the Great Depression.
Not only are the hard numbers of unemployed discouraging but also the total time workers are out of work when they lose a job is also bad. The average length of unemployment has risen to 19 weeks -
the highest level in 20 years.
CONT.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence?
Consumer confidence could be better. The spin on the "horrible job situation" surely isn't helping, as unemployment peceptions are tied closely to that. Way to go Dems? Putting their party politics ahead of the country by painting such a bad light on unemployment? What do you think might happen to consumer confidence if people were told that the unemployment rates (traditional indicator) were dropping instead of numbers shell games the Dems are pushing?
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.
Apparently August 2003 was some sort of turning point. Thats where I found most of the articles talking about it. They all read about the same as this:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/30/ne..._consume.shtml
Also even in Jimmac's CNN Money article they mention wage growth which is a positive effect on consumer spending as well.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
What's ironic is that there is spin in this statement.
Spin != lies
at least, not totally. and that's the whole point.
a lie is simply not telling the truth, plain and simple, cut and dry.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
What's ironic is that there is spin in this statement.
Spin != lies
at least, not totally. and that's the whole point.
a lie is simply not telling the truth, plain and simple, cut and dry.
Tell yourself that if you must.
There are absolutes in this world.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Tell yourself that if you must.
There are absolutes in this world.
no, everything is relative
But you can't compare Reagans number with Bush II. They were counted differently. Unless you adjust for those that stopped looking for work.
So who's spinning?
And why exactly is growth (albeit slow) bad after something like 9/11 and recession? Apparently the Dems could have done better is that it?
*cough* HOW? *cough*
This is a plan. Even says so in the Headline.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/relea...2003_0828.html
This is a plan. Even says so in the Headline.
About time! Damn you would post that right before I need to go to lunch. Bah! Guess I'll read it later this afternoon...
ah well, no harm, if everyone does some reading, I know there are a lot of policies(both democratic and republican) I don't know much about.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.
The guy's talking about the environment, and you come up with the islamists taken over the world? Nah, you're not being extremist at all.
So for the third time Naples...if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep. then what are you?
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
Well, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem Naples. I praise you for doing just that.
Originally posted by Gilsch
The guy's talking about the environment, and you come up with the islamists taken over the world? Nah, you're not being extremist at all.
yeah, that jump did confuse me a bit, too bad he didn't have anything else to say apparently.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Seems a little arrogant to be so anti-dems when you don't even know what their plans for change are.
ah well, no harm, if everyone does some reading, I know there are a lot of policies(both democratic and republican) I don't know much about.
Not really. All of my posts so far have been *defensive* against what I see as blatent Dem spin and finger pointing.
Originally posted by dviant
Based on the morning I wasted arguing with all you AO monkeys I'm beginning to wonder how much AppleInsider contributes to the unemployment rate!! DAMN YOU APPLEINSIDER AND YOUR INSIDIOUS TIME WASTING IDEALS!
hehehe
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see where that number comes from. It is my understanding that the President has presided over the first net jobs loss since Hoover. Perhaps a certain number of jobs were created during the President's tenure, but enough to counteract the unemployment rate rise?
Well, the numbers I posted were from BLS's website. There are millions more employed today than in 2001. It's a fact.
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm
All the data is right there. I'm thinking that maybe this 2,000,000 lost jobs number is figured by adding up estimated job losses over the past three years while NOT taking new jobs into account. I'm not sure what else it could be. The numbers are black and white.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, the numbers I posted were from BLS's website. There are millions more employed today than in 2001. It's a fact.
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm
All the data is right there. I'm thinking that maybe this 2,000,000 lost jobs number is figured by adding up estimated job losses over the past three years while NOT taking new jobs into account. I'm not sure what else it could be. The numbers are black and white.
It could be that most of us aren't economists. I'm not. I don't know if you are. Shawn isn't. And if there's one thing I know, macroeconomics is really, really, realllllly complex.
Originally posted by jimmac
Here's a little something on this subject that SDW and the rest can chew on : http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news...jobs/index.htm
It doesn't exactly sound like the economy is just fine to me. It looks kind of grim if you're one of those people looking for work.
Also CNN doesn't have conservative ads plastered all over it.
oh look, another jimmac CNNMoney link. Imagine that. The overall economy is very strong. Job growth could be better. It's one indicator.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence? Why would some one trying to increase confidence keep harping on what threats exist to the nation, FDR didn't do it?
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.
Also, ShawnJ and SDW2001, I went to the bls.gov website and found some interesting things... Jobs have been created yes, at the same time about 3 M people lost their jobs and weren't rehired, meaning the people taking the new jobs are previously non-employed persons. Also of note is that I was right in saying the total number of the workforce has increased by about 5.4 M.
I don't care how you try and spin it. We have not lost jobs. It's completely false.