CNN spinning the unemployment numbers?

[alchemize]

Stolen from fark.

well, is 5.6 high or low?

July 96:

Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent.

Dec 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.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Stolen from fark.

Heh, I saw that on another blog yesterday. Interesting, eh?

 

[dmcowen674]

Naw, there is no unemployment, their isn't millions out of work and according to the AT experts they are supposed to be out of work.

So effectively this is the new zero unemployment number.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Naw, there is no unemployment, their isn't millions out of work and according to the AT experts they are supposed to be out of work.

So effectively this is the new zero unemployment number.

Ever heard of frictional unemployment?

 

[jahawkin]

5.6 percent can be both high and low relative to previous unemployment rates.

Look Here

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
5.6 percent can be both high and low relative to previous unemployment.

:beer:

 

[tnitsuj]

It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

A person I know just went on unemployment. He said they told him at the unemployment office that 2-3 years ago they had roughly 500-600 available jobs in that office. Now they have 80. It is foolish for folks to put a spin on the job market. Now you have folks saying that as a country we're "under educated". Yea ok

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

A person I know just went on unemployment. He said they told him at the unemployment office that 2-3 years ago they had roughly 500-600 available jobs in that office. Now they have 80. It is foolish for folks to put a spin on the job market. Now you have folks saying that as a country we're "under educated". Yea ok

Hmm 2-3 years ago, peak of an economic bubble......

 

[sandorski]

The Unemployment rate dropped in Dec despite the lack of new jobs. The rate doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Unemployment rate dropped in Dec despite the lack of new jobs. The rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Yes considering the household survery is showing large employment growth and the business survey is not....

 

[SuperTool]

Spin This

5.6% in 1996 is low compared to 7.5 in 1992 before Clinton took office.
5.6% in 2004 is high compared to 4.2 in 2000 before Bush took office.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Spin This

5.6% in 1996 is low compared to 7.5 in 1992 before Clinton took office.
5.6% in 2004 is high compared to 4.2 in 2000 before Bush took office.

That would be an honest statement.

However it is also in the same respect honest to say that 5.6 is low compared to 7.5 peak of the last recession and 6.4 peak of this recession.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Spin This

5.6% in 1996 is low compared to 7.5 in 1992 before Clinton took office.
5.6% in 2004 is high compared to 4.2 in 2000 before Bush took office.

No spin necessary.

Bubble burst -> Recession

CkG

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: classy

A person I know just went on unemployment. He said they told him at the unemployment office that 2-3 years ago they had roughly 500-600 available jobs in that office. Now they have 80. It is foolish for folks to put a spin on the job market. Now you have folks saying that as a country we're "under educated". Yea ok

roflmao... just look around the internet. Presumably the more intelligent population with the brains to use new technology and yet there are morons everywhere.
For more indications of idiocy, look to the local high school.
For the ultimate in idiocy, look to high school students' parents.

 

[kylebisme]

a freind of mine lost his job and went on unimployment a while back, i know he dug around on the internet a lot but had a hell of a time finding anything at all. now he is working for a call center doing tech support for dial up users, by no means what he wants to be doing but it pays the bills. i suppose there might be more jobs open in big cities but in a town with a population of 100k there is hardly much for work. hell our local paper's help wanted section is just a page these days were it was 3 pages long when i moved here about 8 years ago.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Spin This

5.6% in 1996 is low compared to 7.5 in 1992 before Clinton took office.
5.6% in 2004 is high compared to 4.2 in 2000 before Bush took office.

No spin necessary.

Bubble burst -> Recession

CkG

Supertool is mad because all of his friends lost their jobs at www.computersfordogs.com.

Ahhh, there was nothing like the bubble years. During my junior year in college, corporations were giving out BMW 3-series to CS grads. Now those grads are having their jobs outsourced to India. Yet, it's all Bush's fault for not keeping the people at www.computersfordogs.com and other idiotic firms employed.

By the way, nice graph, Cad. It shows that once efficiency(productivity) has run its course, firms will be forced to hire workers to keep up with demand.

 

[Drphibes]

New Orleans cant handel 40 new Engineering graduates a year. Thats pretty damn bad when you think about the fact we have northrop grumman and the second biggest drydock in the world. We also have lockheed martin making the space shuttle external tank of course alot of jobs will go with that when we revert back to 1960's space technology because bush said so. Along with being the 29th largest portby volume in the world . Us engineers are having a harder and harder time finding work. We may not be the biggest city in the country but were up there and like i said our city cant handle jobs for 40 of us when we graduate.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

A person I know just went on unemployment. He said they told him at the unemployment office that 2-3 years ago they had roughly 500-600 available jobs in that office. Now they have 80. It is foolish for folks to put a spin on the job market. Now you have folks saying that as a country we're "under educated". Yea ok

The Rich will say and do anything to change the subject to take off the heat.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

A person I know just went on unemployment. He said they told him at the unemployment office that 2-3 years ago they had roughly 500-600 available jobs in that office. Now they have 80. It is foolish for folks to put a spin on the job market. Now you have folks saying that as a country we're "under educated". Yea ok

The Rich will say and do anything to change the subject to take off the heat.

And the bleaters will twist better or good numbers into worse or bad ones.

CkG

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

A person I know just went on unemployment. He said they told him at the unemployment office that 2-3 years ago they had roughly 500-600 available jobs in that office. Now they have 80. It is foolish for folks to put a spin on the job market. Now you have folks saying that as a country we're "under educated". Yea ok

The Rich will say and do anything to change the subject to take off the heat.

On no! One person that he knows went on unemployment Our economy sucks because one person is unemployed. WHY THE FVCK CAN THE ONE PERSON NOT FIND A JOB???????? IT'S THE RICH PEOPLE'S FAULT! It's a conspiracy to keep that one person out of work. Dave, maybe you should get an education (or even a JOB???) rather than sitting at home everyday in your boxers posting on these forums.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

A person I know just went on unemployment. He said they told him at the unemployment office that 2-3 years ago they had roughly 500-600 available jobs in that office. Now they have 80. It is foolish for folks to put a spin on the job market. Now you have folks saying that as a country we're "under educated". Yea ok

The Rich will say and do anything to change the subject to take off the heat.

On no! One person that he knows went on unemployment Our economy sucks because one person is unemployed. WHY THE FVCK CAN THE ONE PERSON NOT FIND A JOB???????? IT'S THE RICH PEOPLE'S FAULT! It's a conspiracy to keep that one person out of work. Dave, maybe you should get an education (or even a JOB???) rather than sitting at home everyday in your boxers posting on these forums.

You missed the whole point. The point is that the unemployment office 2-3 years ago had 500-600 available jobs to now 80. So for anyone to put a spin on the job market is a bit silly.

 

[EXman]

CNN should be outsoursed to Haiti:beer:

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
It's all relative. 5.6 was very low compared to the rates in the 80's.

5.6 is historically and low and very near a theortical low of what unemployment can be. It has been lower than 5% but that is not level than can be sustained long term. 5.6% unemployment is not a sign of a bad job market.

You are correct, sir. There was a time when we considered the proverbial 'Natural Rate of Unemployment' to hover around 5.6%; however, given gains in productivity/technology/efficiency, we now tend to think the sustainable level is closer to 4 - 4.5% today. After the elections, if unemployment were to continue declining to, say, 4.x% and inflationary pressures increased more than slightly, you can rest assured that Al and Co. will jack rates by a .25% during the next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)