Wow, 5.1 Unemployment

Annie

Annie

Not So Junior Member
Who could have thunk?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020225.php

"Pink Slip Nation"

That's how the Minneapolis Star Tribune headlined its story on last month's decline in payroll jobs in its print edition:

It's no longer a question of recession or not. Now it's how deep and how long. Workers' pink slips stacked ever higher in March as jittery employers slashed 80,000 jobs, the most in five years, and the national unemployment rate climbed to 5.1 percent. ***

The grim picture described by the Labor Department on Friday provided stark evidence of just how much the jobs market has buckled under the weight of the housing, credit and financial crises.

I'm sorry to see unemployment climb to 5.1%, but by historic standards, that's not exactly a "grim picture." For example, nothing like the unemployment rates that, along with runaway inflation, propelled Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980. But I wondered about a more recent comparison. Do you remember 1996, when Bill Clinton swept to an easy re-election victory over Bob Dole, on the basis of what pretty much everyone in the press considered a near-perfect economy? No "pink slip nation" in 1996!

Actually, though, the unemployment rate in November 1996, when Clinton rode a soaring economy to victory, was 5.4%. That's right--three tenths of a percent higher than the "grim picture" of a "pink slip nation" painted by this month's unemployment report.​

To be fair, the unemployment rate in November 1996, while higher than the current rate, was essentially flat, while March's 5.1% unemployment represented an increase over the extraordinarily low rates that have characterized George Bush's presidency. Still, it makes you wonder: is the current hysterical treatment of economic news the product of a rational evaluation of the data, or is it just one more sign of the media's desire to put a Democrat in the White House in 2009?

PAUL adds: Maybe the Star Tribune was thinking about all the pink slips it has handed out recently.
Click to expand...
 
Ummm, 5% is regarded by most economists as "full employment". If it goes below 5%, it becomes very difficult to find someone to hire who meets whatever qualifications you have.

The Star Trib must be having serious circulation problems if they headline a story about 5.1% unemployment as "Pink Slip Nation". Just another bunch of dreamy liberals living in their own strange world, looks like.
 
Last edited:
lol, as has already been stated economists consider 5% unemployment, a rating of 'full employment'

That said, we are sliding, but did any journalists take any basic economics classes in school? Recession talk, which is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, we havn't had one, 'pink slip nation' when we are a whopping .10% off 'full employment'

Ah but the catcher is it's all Bush's fault, even though the economy was fine until the Dims took over the Congress.
 
Unemployment rates are irrelevant. What is the QUALITY of those jobs? Can a person SURVIVE without having four of them? It's quality that matters, not quantity.

Keep your stupidity on the other board, Kathianne.
 
we have a 10 million workforce in this country that is not calculated also....the illegals....wonder if they are being laid off too?
 
"Ah but the catcher is it's all Bush's fault, even though the economy was fine until the Dims took over the Congress."

Can you describe for us, in as much detail as you can, exactly what Bush's economic policy has been?
 
Little-Acorn said:
Ummm, 5% is regarded by most economists as "full employment". If it goes below 5%, it becomes very difficult to find someone to hire who meets whatever qualifications you have.

The Star Trib must be having serious circulation problems if they headline a story about 5.1% unemployment as "Pink Slip Nation". Just another bunch of dreamy liberals living in their own strange world, looks like.
Click to expand...

Except that the Department of labor refuses to count those who have stopped looking for work as "Unemployed." The real figure is closer to 8%.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Unemployment rates are irrelevant. What is the QUALITY of those jobs? Can a person SURVIVE without having four of them? It's quality that matters, not quantity.

Keep your stupidity on the other board, Kathianne.
Click to expand...

:BKick: I don't need your permission.

As for the jobs, I don't know anyone that has lost their job yet. I know of no one, other than college kids working 4, all part time for their schedules. Do you know people unable to keep their housing, etc., without working 4 jobs? :shock:
 
WRL said:
lol, as has already been stated economists consider 5% unemployment, a rating of 'full employment'

That said, we are sliding, but did any journalists take any basic economics classes in school? Recession talk, which is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, we havn't had one, 'pink slip nation' when we are a whopping .10% off 'full employment'

Ah but the catcher is it's all Bush's fault, even though the economy was fine until the Dims took over the Congress.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with you partisans like you, little dick and Desh, your completely incapable of objectivity.

It's well known that the Bush administrations DOL stubornly refuses to count those who have dropped out of the labor force completely due to lack of opportunity and frustration. The actual unemployment figure is significantly higher than what DOL is admiting. More like 8%.....so who needs an economic course?
 
Mottleydude said:
That's the problem with you partisans like you, little dick and Desh, your completely incapable of objectivity.

It's well known that the Bush administrations DOL stubornly refuses to count those who have dropped out of the labor force completely due to lack of opportunity and frustration. The actual unemployment figure is significantly higher than what DOL is admiting. More like 8%.....so who needs an economic course?
Click to expand...

clearly you do...
 
WRL, you insufferable hack. Bush has been the worst steward of the economy in my lifetime. I noticed that you ignored my question, and for good reason: the man had NO economic policy. And the economy was not "good" until the "Dims" took Congress; it was lackluster, and propped up entirely by overinflated home values & over-extended credit. It's a plain fact that wages are NOT keeping up with the cost of living - healthcare, energy, college, housing, etc.

It's a recipe for disaster - people falling behind, borrowing more against overinflated home values, falling deeper into debt until the housing market crashes & they have to foreclose. That's exactly what's been happening now, while Bush - aside from his intense focus on Iraq - has been absent on not just the economy but every issue.

Your blind, undying support & love for the worst President in history makes me sick.
 
There is only so much a President can do, and anything he wants to do he has to go through the Congress to get done, hence the point of my post. What Bush has proposed, many pro growth policies, aimed at simulating small business start ups and productivity, and lowering the tax burden on all Americans giving us more money to pump into our economy which is 60 to 70% consumer driven... Course that was years ago, and since the dims took over Congress, we havn't seen anything done, they've given a new meaning to the phrase 'do nothing Congress'
 
"There is only so much a President can do"

Uh huh; and you have no problem saying Clinton "sqandered the tech boom."

You're a hack's hack. Bush is the worst President in modern times, and probably in history. He will probably always retain that title, because I don't think Americans will ever again elect such an unqualified, incompetent human being to the highest office in the land.

It's pathetic when you try to defend him w/ this kind of hackery.
 
Clinton brought the largest peace time tax increase in US history, higher taxes not lower taxes. No polices to stimulate the economy even as we cruised into the 2001 recession when the tech boom we helped pioneer went bust in just a few short years, difference was Bush saw the recession, and got some pro growth policies past Congress, and we saw years of growth out of it. Clinton was worrying about the V chip, which to this day I still haven't used...
 
The tax cuts never produced as promised, and they have done little more than create a deficit that our children will have to pay off. Bush has fiddled while Rome is burning; he hasn't had a clue about the economy, and his policies have made us worse off in the long run.
 
Care4all said:
we have a 10 million workforce in this country that is not calculated also....the illegals....wonder if they are being laid off too?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, but for another reason.
Those who depend on migrant labor are now talking of getting prisoners to work for them and such...

Price of fruits and veggies are going up.
 
WRL said:
Clinton brought the largest peace time tax increase in US history, higher taxes not lower taxes. No polices to stimulate the economy even as we cruised into the 2001 recession when the tech boom we helped pioneer went bust in just a few short years, difference was Bush saw the recession, and got some pro growth policies past Congress, and we saw years of growth out of it. Clinton was worrying about the V chip, which to this day I still haven't used...
Click to expand...

You are just jealous becuse Clowntoon took the record away from Reagan.
 
uscitizen said:
Pretty much, but for another reason.
Those who depend on migrant labor are now talking of getting prisoners to work for them and such...

Price of fruits and veggies are going up.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm, that makes me wonder if Prisoners are left out of the unemployment numbers altogether?

With Prison populations growing so rapidly and all...?

bet those number of people not employed do not include them! :D

care
 
WRL said:
lol, as has already been stated economists consider 5% unemployment, a rating of 'full employment'

That said, we are sliding, but did any journalists take any basic economics classes in school? Recession talk, which is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, we havn't had one, 'pink slip nation' when we are a whopping .10% off 'full employment'

Ah but the catcher is it's all Bush's fault, even though the economy was fine until the Dims took over the Congress.
Click to expand...
The purest evidence yet that you are a purely partisan hack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top