A Tale Of Two Economies In The Headlines: MSM Bias UNDENIABLE (unemployment rate, suspect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now remember, the media/Left were hitting Bush on jobs when we were CLOSE to FULL EMPLOYMENT, when we were creating jobs. They complained mightily about the "underemployment", the rate was still not good enough, even though it was at 5.7%
Truly amazing to see their unmistakable bias with these sample headlines.
They do this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME. The way they slant and portray a story, a lie, a scandal.
New York Times, 08/08/03: Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, and job growth in August and September was stronger than the government initially estimated, the Labor Department reported yesterday. It was the greatest job growth over three months since late 2000. Still, the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long term and are far smaller than the average gain over the last 50 years when the economy was growing as rapidly as it has been recently. The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time.
San Francisco Chronicle, 04/03/04: Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the biggest monthly gain since March 2000, when the air was just beginning to rush out of the Internet bubble. Still, some experts cautioned that one month of roaring payroll growth doesn’t mean that the labor market has been restored to full health. "It’s a bit too early to celebrate," said Wells Fargo economist Sung Won Sohn. "If you look at the average for the last eight months, it’s been only 95, 000 jobs per month. That’s far below the 150,000 to 200,000 we need to absorb the new entrants to the labor force."
Washington Post, 09/04/04: Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. The nation needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, according to economists.
Los Angeles Times, 09/04/04: U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4%. Employers need to add 125,000 to 150,000 net new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, economists estimate. It would take even more growth to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, which climbed from 3.8% in April 2000 to a post-recession peak of 6.3% in June 2003.
The Boston Globe, 01/08/05: US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, and just enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.
Now remember, the media/Left were hitting Bush on jobs when we were CLOSE to FULL EMPLOYMENT, when we were creating jobs. They complained mightily about the "underemployment", the rate was still not good enough, even though it was at 5.7%
Truly amazing to see their unmistakable bias with these sample headlines.
They do this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME. The way they slant and portray a story, a lie, a scandal.
We were never coming close to full employment under Bush. Lie, Sanrene. Unemployment was lower than it is now, but the U6 unemployment rate was still around 10%. Right now it's around 15%. Still far too far.
You really think that Obama is getting an "easy" ride on the economy? Sure, if you only read what you want to read. For example, if you want to see media bias, you'll skip over the stories that disprove your thesis.
Thats not even close to a lie.. Unemployment saturation point is reached around 5% which happened through much of the Bush years.
Actually about 3%-5%. It kind of varies depending on a number of other factors, but no, less than 3% is neither achievable nor desirable.
You always want unemployment. Why? Simple, you want people to have so much confidence in the economy that they are willing to quit their job to spend 40 hours a week at home searching for their dream job (and having the confidence they'll find it in 3-9 months).
And yes, for those who just don't get it, there are people who actually do that, but I suspect it would be traumatic for the little people who wouldn't have enough money for their dope and beer money for the weekends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by db108108
We were never coming close to full employment under Bush. Lie, Sanrene. Unemployment was lower than it is now, but the U6 unemployment rate was still around 10%. Right now it's around 15%. Still far too far.
It was 11.8% under Blow Job Bill.
That was right after he changed the unemployment formula to hide the growing unemployment rate so he wouldn't lose the 1996 Election.
Actually about 3%-5%. It kind of varies depending on a number of other factors, but no, less than 3% is neither achievable nor desirable.
You always want unemployment. Why? Simple, you want people to have so much confidence in the economy that they are willing to quit their job to spend 40 hours a week at home searching for their dream job (and having the confidence they'll find it in 3-9 months).
And yes, for those who just don't get it, there are people who actually do that, but I suspect it would be traumatic for the little people who wouldn't have enough money for their dope and beer money for the weekends. (i.e tech boom)
It was 11.8% under Blow Job Bill.
That was right after he changed the unemployment formula to hide the growing unemployment rate so he wouldn't lose the 1996 Election.
So what's your point?
Correct. Full employment is around 4%. If it goes too low there is a labor shortgage and employers end up paying too much for the available workers because there are too few available in some sectors and that stifles businesses that want to grow.
Another ridiculously skewed thread from a rightwinger. Those headlines are a snap shot in time. I have seen plenty of bad headlines about Obama's "jobless recovery". The headlines are catiously optimistic right now because things are looking up ... slightly.
New York Times, 08/08/03: Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, and job growth in August and September was stronger than the government initially estimated, the Labor Department reported yesterday. It was the greatest job growth over three months since late 2000. Still, the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long term and are far smaller than the average gain over the last 50 years when the economy was growing as rapidly as it has been recently. The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time.
San Francisco Chronicle, 04/03/04: Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the biggest monthly gain since March 2000, when the air was just beginning to rush out of the Internet bubble. Still, some experts cautioned that one month of roaring payroll growth doesn’t mean that the labor market has been restored to full health. "It’s a bit too early to celebrate," said Wells Fargo economist Sung Won Sohn. "If you look at the average for the last eight months, it’s been only 95, 000 jobs per month. That’s far below the 150,000 to 200,000 we need to absorb the new entrants to the labor force."
Washington Post, 09/04/04: Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. The nation needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, according to economists.
Los Angeles Times, 09/04/04: U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4%. Employers need to add 125,000 to 150,000 net new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, economists estimate. It would take even more growth to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, which climbed from 3.8% in April 2000 to a post-recession peak of 6.3% in June 2003.
The Boston Globe, 01/08/05: US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, and just enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.
Allow me to use an instant classic of an argument, as it would apply to any topic like this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
I could go on and on and on, but not much point, since you all see only what you want to see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
