Comments on: When is 5.4% Unemployment better than 5.1%? http://bearingdrift.com/2008/04/13/when-is-54-unemployment-better-than-51/ Wed, 23 May 2012 13:26:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bob http://bearingdrift.com/2008/04/13/when-is-54-unemployment-better-than-51/#comment-1075 Bob Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:24:02 +0000 http://bearingdrift.com/?p=217#comment-1075 Rather than spin the numbers, I think it's important to note that in 1996 unemployment was on the way down - now it's on the way up. Unemployment for the year 1992 averaged 7.2%; 1996 averaged 5.4%; 2000 averaged 4.0%; 2007 averaged 4.6 % and the 2008 YTD average has been 5.3%. That's the difference. Rather than spin the numbers, I think it’s important to note that in 1996 unemployment was on the way down – now it’s on the way up. Unemployment for the year 1992 averaged 7.2%; 1996 averaged 5.4%; 2000 averaged 4.0%; 2007 averaged 4.6 % and the 2008 YTD average has been 5.3%. That’s the difference.

]]> By: Ragnar http://bearingdrift.com/2008/04/13/when-is-54-unemployment-better-than-51/#comment-1072 Ragnar Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:08:57 +0000 http://bearingdrift.com/?p=217#comment-1072 Part of this is the lie of the accuracy of the "unemployment rate" - which doesn't include those who have simply given up trying to find a job - include those folks and your number will jump. SW - of course you are probably correct, President Clinton's support for NAFTA very well may be partially responsible for the poor economic conditions our nation is suffering from - also, of course, you must recall that it was the GOP Senate that got NAFTA passed (as it is a treaty - something Bush may need to be reminded of if he tries to sign an agreement with Iraq w/o the "advice and consent of the Senate) - during the NAFTA debate you must also recall that many Dems were condemning Clinton as a Republican free-trader. Final point - if you want a quick summary of how bad our economy has gotten in objective, free-market terms, look no further than the weakness of our dollar. In 2001 $.65 bought you a Canadian dollar, now it takes $1.05 US for one Canadian dollar. Amazing what six years of strategery can accomplish. Part of this is the lie of the accuracy of the “unemployment rate” – which doesn’t include those who have simply given up trying to find a job – include those folks and your number will jump.

SW – of course you are probably correct, President Clinton’s support for NAFTA very well may be partially responsible for the poor economic conditions our nation is suffering from – also, of course, you must recall that it was the GOP Senate that got NAFTA passed (as it is a treaty – something Bush may need to be reminded of if he tries to sign an agreement with Iraq w/o the “advice and consent of the Senate) – during the NAFTA debate you must also recall that many Dems were condemning Clinton as a Republican free-trader.

Final point – if you want a quick summary of how bad our economy has gotten in objective, free-market terms, look no further than the weakness of our dollar. In 2001 $.65 bought you a Canadian dollar, now it takes $1.05 US for one Canadian dollar. Amazing what six years of strategery can accomplish.

]]> By: Spank That Donkey http://bearingdrift.com/2008/04/13/when-is-54-unemployment-better-than-51/#comment-1069 Spank That Donkey Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:13:49 +0000 http://bearingdrift.com/?p=217#comment-1069 Excellent observation. The MSM's arrogance has been their undoing. How many subscriptions lost and jobs cut at the NYT and WaPo to name just two? Excellent observation. The MSM’s arrogance has been their undoing. How many subscriptions lost and jobs cut at the NYT and WaPo to name just two?

]]> By: The Squeaky Wheel http://bearingdrift.com/2008/04/13/when-is-54-unemployment-better-than-51/#comment-1065 The Squeaky Wheel Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:55:34 +0000 http://bearingdrift.com/?p=217#comment-1065 I wonder if NAFTA had anything to do with it... Hmmm, I remember when Bush pushed for that and got that passed during his admin... wait.. what? I wonder if NAFTA had anything to do with it… Hmmm, I remember when Bush pushed for that and got that passed during his admin… wait.. what?

]]> By: Ragnar http://bearingdrift.com/2008/04/13/when-is-54-unemployment-better-than-51/#comment-1060 Ragnar Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:25:19 +0000 http://bearingdrift.com/?p=217#comment-1060 The economy is more than unemployment numbers. For one thing, did you know that the 2001-2007 expansion was the first time in recorded US economic history that the median income in constant dollars DECREASED? Not so good Mr. Bush. The economy is more than unemployment numbers. For one thing, did you know that the 2001-2007 expansion was the first time in recorded US economic history that the median income in constant dollars DECREASED?

Not so good Mr. Bush.

]]>