via, Tim Blair. What liberal media? http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006086.php -- IT'S ALL RELATIVE Is 5.6 percent a low figure, or a high one? Depends. If only 5.6 percent of hamburgers are discovered to contain meat, that’s way low. But if 5.6 percent of teachers are using their students as drug mules in elaborate Asian heroin importing schemes, that’s sort of high. We’re comparing apples and oranges here. Or junkies and burgers. What if we compare similar or identical figures on the same subject, and from the same source? Here’s CNN in July 1996, as the Clinton-Dole election approached: Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990. So 5.6 percent is “already-low”. Now here’s CNN in December 2001: The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent in November - the highest in six years - as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy. Can you “jump” to a figure 0.1 percent above that already defined as “low”? More from CNN, this time in March 2002: The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent in February and businesses added jobs for the first time since last summer, the government said Friday, as the labor market began to recover from a downturn that led to more than a million job cuts in 2001. The jobless rate fell from 5.6 percent in January as employers added 66,000 jobs to payrolls ... That should read “fell from an already-low 5.6 percent in January”, surely. In January, CNN’s Mark Gongloff decided that an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent was bad news for Bush: Though the unemployment rate posted a surprising decline, and many economists believe the job market will improve in 2004, Friday's report probably will keep Fed policy-makers on hold and may put some political pressure on President Bush. A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches. Gongloff repeated his line about Bush’s election chances earlier this month when a familiar number appeared: The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent, the lowest level since January 2002, from 5.7 percent in December. A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches. Why? It didn’t for Clinton.
A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches. Why? It didn’t for Clinton. That's because there wasn't a bad job market under Clinton. There is under Bush. The 5.7% or whatever unemployment today is *very* different than that in the 1990's. Back then, tons more people were in the job market; today, a ton of people who have "given up" aren't counted. Most economists put the "real" unemployment today at the 9% range. It's the reason that in recent months we've seen the unemployment rate go down without new jobs being created (people leaving the "unemployed" ranks and going to the "given up" ranks), and why we are projected to see unemployment rise as jobs start coming up (people leaving the "given up" ranks and again trying to find a job). You can find people trying to rationalize things all you want, but the reality is that people are having a much harder time finding a job today than in the mid 1990's.
Major, the number of people who have 'given up' looking for jobs is a number that is very hard to quantify. For you to definitively state that it is higher now than it was under Clinton is nonsense.
Major, the number of people who have 'given up' looking for jobs is a number that is very hard to quantify. For you to definitively state that it is higher now than it was under Clinton is nonsense. There are lots of things that are hard to quantify, and yet not surprisingly, we can still tell if one is bigger than the other. We don't know how many gallons of water are in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, but I can clearly tell you that the Pacific has more. It's not hard to tell that the unemployment situation is worse if you choose to pull your head out of the sand. You could find out (as professionals do) by surveying American families on their job situation and if they want jobs. If that involves too much interacting with the common folk, then you cna also look at analyses of how long it takes for people to find a new job and other such measures and make inferences from there. There are plenty of decent ways to develop estimates of "real" unemployment for people who are actually interested in doing so. Beyond that distinction in unemployment levels, a "bad" job market is one that's getting worse or stagnant. In the mid 1990's, things were improving - people were finding jobs and every month, we were seeing more and more positive signs. Today, that's not the case. We just keep hearing "the jobs will come". That's nice, except that it doesn't actually feed more people.
So Major, what you are saying is that you selectively use statistics to fit your political motives. Nice. High integrity there. You made the statement that you believe there are more people who have given up looking for jobs today than under Clinton. Can you prove this statement? Or are you just recklessly throwing unsubstantiated statements out there and hoping that people believe you?
I have noticed that you take personal offense when you see Major put on the defensive. When you see him drowning in a failed argument, you get particularly testy.
You made the statement that you believe there are more people who have given up looking for jobs today than under Clinton. Can you prove this statement? Or are you just recklessly throwing unsubstantiated statements out there and hoping that people believe you? Let's see... 20 seconds on Google came up with: http://truthout.org/docs_03/010104C.shtml (a CBS News story) This part discusses part-time vs. full-time, and uses those surveys that would involve you actually interacting with real people: <I> The Los Angeles Times reports that while the nation's unemployment rate of 5.9 percent is relatively low, it fails to include the 4.9 million people who want full-time positions but are working part-time jobs. The figure also omits 1.5 million people who have stopped looking for work. Taken together, the total number of jobless reaches 15.1 million — or 9.7 percent, up from 9.4 percent a year ago, the Times reports. </I> and then if you actually are able use your brain, you can read this part: <I>And in a significant change from past downturns, workers who lost their jobs have stayed unemployed far longer. The proportion of unemployed workers who have been without a job for more than six months hit 24 percent in November, a 20-year high</I> And realize that people who are out of work the longest tend to be more likely to give up. I promise it really would only take a little tiny bit of brainpower to make the connection. Or, we can look here... http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/02/news/economy/jobs_walkup/ <I>And the unemployment rate, though relatively low by historical standards, may actually understate the labor market's woes. For one thing, many unemployed people have simply quit looking for work, meaning they are not counted as part of the "labor force" and thus are not counted in the Labor Department's calculation of the unemployment rate. If the economy improves, many of these "discouraged" workers -- 482,000, by the department's last count -- will likely start looking for work again, and the unemployment rate will rise. Meanwhile, 1.9 million people have been unemployed 27 weeks or more, meaning many of them have exhausted their unemployment benefits. According to research by Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One Investment Advisors, 43.2 percent of all unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits -- the highest rate in more than three decades. "Despite the fact that the unemployment rate remains low relative to prior economic downturns, the burden on the unemployed population has been the most severe, by one measure, since at least 1972," Chan said. </I> If you need more proof, find it on your own. If you prefer to stay delusional, that's your choice too.
Like I said, just because you're unable to comprehend that people can come up with these numbers and understand real unemployment, it doesn't mean that reasonably intelligent people can't do so.
So the best you can do is claim that if people are unemployed for a long time, then they give up? Some proof that is. Sigh. Like I stated, the number is hard to quantify, so for you to be *definitively* declaring that it is higher today than it was under Clinton is simply wrong. Your bias, as well as the media bias, is on display for all to see. Nice try, as usual, but you just don't make the cut.
Sam, you will most likely take pleasure in hearing that I STEAMROLLED a partner at a *very prestigious* law firm today on a large conference call. For all I know, it was your boss. Wait, on second thought, the law firm was presitigious. Couldn't be your boss.
I'm glad you steamrolled one of my oppressors. However, your claims of steamrollership are pretty suspect given your sitzkrieg declarations of victory in the past.
I truely hope you and your fellow bobbleheads continue to believe that the jobless recovery is a myth...it only will guide more people to vote against a person and a party so out of touch with reality 760,000 JOBLESS DENIED AID — AND COUNTING Large Numbers of Unemployed Go Without Aid As Administration Remains Silent on Whether to Restart Federal Assistance Program From late December, when the federal program designed to help the long-term unemployed began phasing out, through the end of February, an estimated 760,000 jobless workers will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving additional aid, according to new projections by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This suggests both that the job market continues to be soft and that the federal unemployment program should be restarted. “Last week the Administration backed off its own optimistic job-growth projections for the rest of the year," said Isaac Shapiro, senior fellow at the Center. “Now that it has begun to recognize the hard realities of the current labor market, the Administration also needs to recognize that the federal unemployment program was switched off too soon and should be resumed.” The 760,000 figure is based on previously released data for December, just-released data for January, and a Center estimate for February. New Labor Department data for January show that about 350,000 individuals exhausted their regular unemployment benefits last month and received no further unemployment assistance. In no other month on record, with data available back to 1971, have there been so many “exhaustees." (The attached table provides state-by-state data on the number of exhaustees in January.) Nevertheless, legislation to restart the federal unemployment benefits program is languishing in Congress. The House recently passed a measure to restart the program, but the Senate leadership has yet to permit a vote on the matter. The Administration has remained non-committal on whether the program should resume. “Despite his repeated expressions of concern for the unemployed, President Bush has so far ignored the plight of three-quarters of a million individuals who have gone without unemployment aid," continued Shapiro. “If the President were to end his silence and express support for resuming federal aid to the unemployed, it is likely Congress would soon reinstate these benefits.” End of Federal Program Means More Workers Going Without Help Each Week The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program was created in March 2002 to provide additional weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits to jobless workers who have run out of regular, state-funded unemployment benefits but have not found a job. Congress has created similar temporary programs during other periods of labor-market weakness in recognition of the fact that it takes longer to find jobs during such periods. TEUC provided up to 13 weeks of benefits to most workers who participated in it. After being extended twice, it began phasing out in late December. Individuals who exhaust their regular unemployment benefits after December 20 are not eligible for TEUC aid. From December 20 through the end of February, an estimated 786,000 individuals will exhaust their regular unemployment benefits. About 26,000 of them will qualify for additional unemployment aid through the permanent, but quite limited, federal/state "extended benefits" unemployment program. The remaining 760,000 individuals will not qualify for additional aid. As a result, Congress’s failure to extend TEUC will have harmed about 760,000 jobless workers by the end of February, a figure that will rise each week thereafter. Record Number of Exhaustees in January The just-released Labor Department data for January 2004 are striking. In January: Some 365,000 individuals exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. An estimated 14,000 of these individuals then qualified for additional aid under the “extended benefits" program. (Four states qualified for extended benefits at the beginning of the month. Only Alaska qualified by the end of the month.) Thus, about 350,0000 individuals exhausted their regular benefits and did not qualify for more unemployment aid. In no other month on record have so many of the unemployed exhausted regular benefits and not qualified for further assistance. (This finding holds even if the number of exhaustees in previous years is adjusted upward to reflect the growth in the labor force since then.) These results are consistent with a prediction made in a recent Center report, Unmet Need Hits Record Level for the Unemployed. The report forecast that exhaustions in January would set a monthly record. Actual exhaustions in January, though slightly (six percent) lower than the report projected, still were larger than in any other month on record. The January data also support the report’s prediction that the first half of 2004 will see record numbers of exhaustions.[1] Would It Be Better Just to Wait for Jobs to Come Back? Congressional resistance to resuming the TEUC program has largely been based on the argument that the program is no longer needed because the labor market is improving. A related argument is that providing federal benefits prolongs unemployment spells by reducing unemployed workers’ incentive to find a new job. The Administration has sidestepped the issue, refusing to take a position on whether federal unemployment benefits should be continued. Its rhetoric has focused on job creation, with President Bush and others consistently saying they will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job has one. There is no question that, at some point, the labor market will have recovered sufficiently that the temporary federal benefits program will no longer be needed. That point, however, has not yet been reached. There are 2.4 million fewer jobs in the economy than when the recession began. Even at double the pace of job growth in January, when 112,000 jobs were created, it would take until the end of the year for this jobs deficit to be closed. “Everyone — especially the unemployed themselves — agree that a new job is the best response to unemployment," said Shapiro. “But the cold truth is that it will take some time before enough jobs are created that long-term unemployment returns to normal levels." Further, if the existence of federal unemployment benefits had been the main reason the unemployed were not finding jobs, the number of workers exhausting their regular unemployment benefits should not have been exceptionally large in January, since the federal program was no longer open to these workers. In fact, exhaustions hit a record high level in January. “Those who suggest that federal unemployment benefits will cause large numbers of the unemployed not to search hard enough for work misunderstand both current labor market conditions and the unemployed," concluded Shapiro. “Long-term unemployment remains pervasive because there are not enough jobs, not because of the modest government aid that some of the unemployed receive.” http://www.cbpp.org/2-25-04ui-pr.htm
Of course, he used numbers and data rather than the ... nothing ... that you presented. I guess that in your twisted reality, baseless conjecture overrules data, statistics, and hard numbers.
I don't have to look too far to find the anecdotal evidence that the job market is very, very tight. I've got very quailified friends and family looking for work. But I don't quite see how this pro-business administration can be blamed for it. Heck they have pumped liquidity into the ecomomy like no liberal administration would have the nerve to, reduced regulatory influence whereever possible, allowed companies to underfund their pensions in favor of investment and allowed the bubble of irrational exuberence to re-inflate the stock market. I'm not sure what else they could do to create jobs other than put people on the government payroll. It seems the real culprit for American jobs is .1 the giant leap in productivity provided by the information revolution. We just don't need secretaries, bank tellers, travel agents, file clerks etc. like we used to. And 2. The giant leap in telecommunications that allows for free trade to be truly world wide. As much as I'd like to lay the blame on the Bush Aministration (like they like to lay it on Clinton). I think the jobs situation in the US is a revolutionary leap (buzz word: paradigm) not politics. And other than starting a worldwide war of protectionism , I don't see any political solution. What can Kerry propose as an alternative course?
I don't know that Kerry would propose anything along these lines, but I think a starting place might be linking access to the huge, desirable U.S. market to labor/environmental conditions in other countries. This would be a leveled system, where the better a country's labor and environmental policies the greater/freer access they would have to the U.S. market. This would accomplish several things- 1. U.S workers/firms would be at less of a competitive disadvantage to foreign workers/firms 2. It would encourage better labor and environmental policies in other countries 3. Greater buying power by workers in other countries could lead to greater demand for U.S. goods 4. Better working condition and pay would lead to more stable societies in Third World countries (see Haiti).
A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches. Why? It didn’t for Clinton. [/QUOTE] I think the thing is whether Bush can convince people it isn't as bad as it seems...To blame Bush for the weak market is ridiculous...Again, it doesn't happen overnight and this all started during Clinton's reign...Bush is at least trying to forge forward with a plan, which again, won't work overnight...
Not going to happen. No country is going to want to adopt our byzantine regulatory monster and watch jobs and prosperity be destroyed in the resulting melee. If anything, that would worsen the plight of third world folks. What they need is the rule of law and more capitalism, not more govt. regulation. Such an idea of forcing other countries by fiat to adopt our sometimes assinine regulatory "Nurse Ratchet" state would be tantamount to a tarriff. Oh, and I forgot to mention, great post, Gene.
Please list the countries with a higher standard of living and less labor and environmental regulation than the U.S.
