Unemployment is higher than gov. figures show??

[strk]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
You gotta stop strk.  I'm freaking laughing so hard my tears...are...streaming!

FYI: I was homeless at age 18. Where were you? In college wit a silver spoon in your mouth?

Oh now your mascara is running!

At 18 I was in college.  At 19 I was enlisted in the US Navy serving as a corpsmen with the USMC.  

How about you cupcake?

[strk]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, without changing the baseline, (like you'd prefer to do strk, I'm still wiping my eyes dry!) here is the average annual unemployment rates for each President since Eisenhower:

--- historic average 5.64% ---
Johnson - 4.17
Eisenhower - 4.89
Nixon - 5.09
Clinton - 5.21
Bush II - 5.51
Kennedy - 5.97
Bush I - 6.30
Carter - 6.54
Reagan - 7.54
Ford - 8.13

Keep trying coffeecake! I'm sure theres plenty of mud to throw before election time! (And 4 more years after that!)

Well I found this, which shows your numbers are screwy.
http://nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm#annl

Why dont you post your link?

tired of defending boy king yet?

[Mini D]

What would be really neet is to see someone blaming the rise in unemployment on bush actually explain how that is possible.  Just what exactly has bush done that caused those numbers to rise so drastically?

Did he start taxing corperations heavier?  Did he raise taxes?  Did he raise operations costs?  Did he add beurocracy to restrict growth?  Did he force companies to outsource?  What was it that he, as the president, did to cause this?

MiniD

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Mini D
What would be really neet is to see someone blaming the rise in unemployment on bush actually explain how that is possible.  Just what exactly has bush done that caused those numbers to rise so drastically?

Did he start taxing corperations heavier?  Did he raise taxes?  Did he raise operations costs?  Did he add beurocracy to restrict growth?  Did he force companies to outsource?  What was it that he, as the president, did to cause this?

MiniD

It doesnt matter, Mini, stop clouding the issue.  Lets just vote Dean in.  Dean will give us all jobs.

Only racists, sexists, and unemployment figure liars will vote for Bush.

[lasersailor184]

"Unemployment measures understate job slack
The number of unemployed workers (currently 8.2 million) and the national unemployment rate of 5.6% in February 2004 do not adequately convey the true labor slack in the economy for several reasons. One major understatement is that the unemployment rate does not reflect the uniquely large 1.2% decline in labor force participation that has occurred since the current recession began in early 2001. This decline represents a stark contrast to the past three business cycles, when labor force participation actually grew by an average of 0.4% of the working-age population over similar lengths of time. Consequently, there is what can be called a "missing labor force" of 2,808,000 workers who might otherwise be in the actual labor force but have either dropped out entirely or failed to enter the labor market because of the lack of jobs. If the unemployment rate in February 2004 took into account this missing labor force, the unemployment rate would have been 7.4%, or 1.8% greater than the official rate of 5.6% (see chart below)."

Wow, you'd think that the people at the Economics Institute would have taken economics.

Either that or their Bias is showing.



For an unemployment figure, you don't count the part of the labour force that has stopped looking for jobs.

So either these guys have never taken economics, or they are trying to show that the U/E number is a lot worse then what it really is.