Flexicurity

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
19,705
6,780
136
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/flexicurity.html

When asked how to help workers affected by globalization, economists often recite the stock phrase "education and retraining." But the evidence on the effectiveness of job retraining programs is mixed and it's hard to push strongly for costly job retraining programs without demonstrable benefits. One place to look for evidence of benefits from job retraining programs is Denmark. In the Danish system, workers are protected, but jobs are not. Danish workers are among the most easily laid off workers anywhere, but only one in ten workers expresses concern over job security:

For the Danish, A Job Loss Can Be Learning Experience, by Marcus Walker, WSJ: After graduating from high school, Susanne Olsen spent 10 years at the local slaughterhouse... It was arduous, unskilled work that left her ill-equipped for most other jobs. Then the slaughterhouse closed down last year, leaving 500 people without jobs... But unlike ... laid-off workers in similar circumstances elsewhere in Europe, Ms. Olsen was sure she was going to find a new job. Now she's an apprentice golf landscaper, with her salary subsidized by the state while she takes four years of training paid for by the government and her new employer...

Most of Western Europe is fighting to hold on to its traditionally strong job protections... Denmark has gone the other way. The government allows liberal hiring and firing as in the U.S. And it has imposed limits on the duration of its high unemployment benefits. But it also invests more than any other country, as a percentage of its gross domestic product, in retraining the jobless -- a combination it calls "flexicurity." Its unusual mix of the free market and big government has helped Denmark cut its unemployment rate in half, from about 10% in the early 1990s to U.S.-style levels of under 5% now. The economy has been relatively robust, growing 3.4% last year. Meanwhile, France and Germany are at or above the Danish jobless rate of a decade ago.

Even though Danes are among the most easily laid-off workers in Europe, polls show the country's workers are the most secure about their future. ... Danes change jobs more frequently than any workers in the developed world except Americans and Australians... But fewer than 10% say they're concerned about job security, compared with nearly 40% in Germany and more than 60% in Spain. Most Danes believe they can always find work... In the interim, they get security from a dole that replaces up to nine-tenths of their last wage, the highest level in Europe.

Critics say the experiment might not be easy to replicate. For one thing, Denmark is small, with just 5.4 million people. And close-knit Scandinavian countries historically have had a higher tolerance for taxes. The system isn't cheap: Denmark spends about 4.4% of its GDP every year on supporting and retraining the jobless, the most expensive labor-market policy in the world. ...

Kirsten Thomsen prepares the "bottleneck analysis" that makes Denmark's peculiar hybrid possible... Every three months, Ms. Thomsen has the ... polling firm Gallup survey employers ... on what jobs they will need in coming years, and uses the feedback to identify the next labor shortages. ... The consultants who deal directly with unemployed people use her reports in picking training courses for individuals. "In our system, we can make supply and demand match," Ms. Thomsen says.

The true test is how the system deals with low-skilled, manual laborers in declining industries. ... Finding new work for the 500 laid off at Hjørring ... was a double challenge. Most of the workers didn't want to leave their home town. ... In addition, the meatpackers weren't qualified for new employment, says Jim Jensen, ... Despite Hjorring's spate of large-scale factory closures, new vacancies keep appearing in Denmark's flexible labor market. ... Where qualifications are lacking, the state pays for courses at vocational colleges, often sharing the cost with a new employer...

Ten months after the slaughterhouse closed, some 300 ex-workers have found new professions in addition to the 80 who got other jobs as meatpackers. Others from Hjørring are in full-time education, or chose retirement... Today, only 60 of the 500 laid-off workers from Hjørring are still on unemployment benefits.

I don't know if it's well known in the US and if would work at all, but I find the theory quite interesting.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
19,705
6,780
136
It was also most to show another ways of reducing unemployment and giving a more secure existence for those loosing their job.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.
The problem is underemployment. People taking low wage, low skill jobs out of desperation

 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.

It's a nice way to do it so people don't starve.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.
The problem is underemployment. People taking low wage, low skill jobs out of desperation

Please, this is a line of crap the left has made up to justify them whining about low unemployment in this country.

It's a nice way to do it so people don't starve.

Lots of starving people in the US eh?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.
The problem is underemployment. People taking low wage, low skill jobs out of desperation

Please, this is a line of crap the left has made up to justify them whining about low unemployment in this country.

It's a nice way to do it so people don't starve.

Lots of starving people in the US eh?
Under Clinton the unemployment rate was far lower than it is now. And Clinton didn't have to double the deficit to do it. Interestingly I posted on this a while back. Despite huge government borrowing, spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.
Which is why American workers have seen NEGATIVE growth in real earnings.
You shouldn't post on issues that show how BADLY your idol Bush has done as President.


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.
The problem is underemployment. People taking low wage, low skill jobs out of desperation

Please, this is a line of crap the left has made up to justify them whining about low unemployment in this country.

It's a nice way to do it so people don't starve.

Lots of starving people in the US eh?
Under Clinton the unemployment rate was far lower than it is now. And Clinton didn't have to double the deficit to do it. Interestingly I posted on this a while back. Despite huge government borrowing, spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.
Which is why American workers have seen NEGATIVE growth in real earnings.
You shouldn't post on issues that show how BADLY your idol Bush has done as President.

Have you even bothered to research that subject? Go grab the unemployment rates for both presidents and let us know how that works out. At the rate we have been at for over 12 months we are considered full employment.

btw I agree with you that govt spending increases doesnt help the economy. I think we should halt govt expansion.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,539
1,106
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.
The problem is underemployment. People taking low wage, low skill jobs out of desperation

Please, this is a line of crap the left has made up to justify them whining about low unemployment in this country.

It's a nice way to do it so people don't starve.

Lots of starving people in the US eh?
Under Clinton the unemployment rate was far lower than it is now. And Clinton didn't have to double the deficit to do it. Interestingly I posted on this a while back. Despite huge government borrowing, spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.
Which is why American workers have seen NEGATIVE growth in real earnings.
You shouldn't post on issues that show how BADLY your idol Bush has done as President.


Negative. Clintons best unemployment numbers were 4.2% at the hieght of the dot com boom.

Clinton didnt have tax cuts, but he had two things that are very negative, 1. a huge economic bubble. 2. rampant corporate corruption(remember Enrons corruption began in 1996/7, as did most others). Clintons 4.2% unemployment came at a the peak of the dot.com bubble. Bush's 4.4% comes at a time that is fairly weak economically.

Both are regarded to close to or under the natural rate of unemployment. If unemployment goes down more, interest rates will spike. Id rather have ~5% unemployment than 8-10% interest rates.

And yeah there has been an overall decline in wages from compared to 1996-2000. But taking account the bubble and the inflated wages, there isnt really any wage decline, but wages are overall stagnent. One has to remember pre-dot.com bubble wages werent keeping up with inflation either.

People want to continue to compare Bush's economy which had major issues(Dot.Com Bubble Burst, Corporate corruption being exposed with companies tanking, and 9/11) to Clintons whos economy was grossly inflated by the dot.com bubble. Clinton tookover on an uptick, Bush tookover on a downtick. You really cant fairly compare the too. But keep trying, you guys just keep making total fools out of yourselves.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,539
1,106
126
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.


Like I said we had an inflated economy due to the dot.com bubble.

Third I am not a republican, I am a moderate. I voted straight Dem in Texas this past election(well I abstained from the Senators race).
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Uh it is 4.2, not 4.02.

Second like I said we had an inflated economy due to the dot.com bubble.

Third I am not a republican, I am a moderate. I voted straight Dem in Texas this past election(well I abstained from the Senators race).
Uh, no.
4.02
And the money for the dot.com bubble came from private investors who obviously had the money to invest. A sign of a good economy.

 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,539
1,106
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Uh it is 4.2, not 4.02.

Second like I said we had an inflated economy due to the dot.com bubble.

Third I am not a republican, I am a moderate. I voted straight Dem in Texas this past election(well I abstained from the Senators race).
Uh, no.
4.02
And the money for the dot.com bubble came from private investors who obviously had the money to invest. A sign of a good economy.

Yeah and you know how much money was lost because of the dot.com bubble? Here is a hint. A LOT.

Yeah, I your right, 4.02 was Dec 2000 unemployment rate. Funny thing, we hit a recession March 2001. Why? Because the dot.com bubble burst and the interest rates were through the roof.

Keep blaming Bush and glossing over/misrepresenting facts about Clintons economy.

Also I will just add this little factoid.

The overall avg rate of unemployment for Clintons 8 years in is much higher than Bushs avg unemployment through 6. Don't forget to remember Bush had 9/11, an economic bubble burst(about to be two economic bubbles burst, dot.com and housing), and all the collapsing companies from the corruption of the late 1990s.


But irregardless of Bush economy vs Clintons economy. There is a thing called the natural rate of unemployment, and going below it causes economic problems. We dont want under 4% unemployment. Some economists would argue at 4.4 we are under the natural rate, others say we are right at it. Hope none of you are stupid enough to have ARMs next year is going to be fun if you do...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Douchebag you said and I quote spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.


Shame on you.

Your own numbers show Clinton's numbers in 1998 which is Bush's 2006 are 4.53%, worse than Bush's current 4.4%. Why dont you link upto the most recent year?

You are helping to prove what a joke our media has become when they parade around the BS about unemployment being horrible under Bush but great under Clinton.

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Douchebag you said and I quote spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.


Shame on you.

Your own numbers show Clinton's numbers in 1998 which is Bush's 2006 are 4.53%, worse than Bush's current 4.4%. Why dont you link upto the most recent year?

You are helping to prove what a joke our media has become when they parade around the BS about unemployment being horrible under Bush but great under Clinton.
Your're calling me a douchebag? When Clintons best number was 4.02 and Bushes was 4.4? Which is a huge advantage to Clinton.
You need to learn how to read and shut your trap.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Douchebag you said and I quote spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.


Shame on you.

Your own numbers show Clinton's numbers in 1998 which is Bush's 2006 are 4.53%, worse than Bush's current 4.4%. Why dont you link upto the most recent year?

You are helping to prove what a joke our media has become when they parade around the BS about unemployment being horrible under Bush but great under Clinton.
Your're calling me a douchebag? When Clintons best number was 4.02 and Bushes was 4.4? Which is a huge advantage to Clinton.
You need to learn how to read and shut your trap.

You said

spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.

You dont think 4.4% is close to 4.02%? Lets not forget that 4.02% was in Clintons last year.

Shame on you for blatent misrepresentation of the facts.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Douchebag you said and I quote spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.


Shame on you.

Your own numbers show Clinton's numbers in 1998 which is Bush's 2006 are 4.53%, worse than Bush's current 4.4%. Why dont you link upto the most recent year?

You are helping to prove what a joke our media has become when they parade around the BS about unemployment being horrible under Bush but great under Clinton.
Your're calling me a douchebag? When Clintons best number was 4.02 and Bushes was 4.4? Which is a huge advantage to Clinton.
You need to learn how to read and shut your trap.

You said

spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.

You dont think 4.4% is close to 4.02%? Lets not forget that 4.02% was in Clintons last year.

Shame on you for blatent misrepresentation of the facts.
So you admit you completely misrepresented the numbers to try and prove your point?
I rest my case as to your bias and blindness when it comes to your your leader, Bush.
And, yeah, getting to 4.02 as Clinton did, when he became President it was 7.59, and having a budget surplus is FAR greater an achievement than Bush, who despite HHHUUUGGEE deficts still can't get close to Clintons unemployment rate.
By the way, don't you think you deserve a vacation, calling someone douchebag? Especially when you were completely wrong?

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Douchebag you said and I quote spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.


Shame on you.

Your own numbers show Clinton's numbers in 1998 which is Bush's 2006 are 4.53%, worse than Bush's current 4.4%. Why dont you link upto the most recent year?

You are helping to prove what a joke our media has become when they parade around the BS about unemployment being horrible under Bush but great under Clinton.
Your're calling me a douchebag? When Clintons best number was 4.02 and Bushes was 4.4? Which is a huge advantage to Clinton.
You need to learn how to read and shut your trap.

You said

spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.

You dont think 4.4% is close to 4.02%? Lets not forget that 4.02% was in Clintons last year.

Shame on you for blatent misrepresentation of the facts.
So you admit you completely misrepresented the numbers to try and prove your point?
I rest my case as to your bias and blindness when it comes to your your leader, Bush.
And, yeah, getting to 4.02 as Clinton did, when he became President it was 7.59, and having a budget surplus is FAR greater an achievement than Bush, who despite HHHUUUGGEE deficts still can't get close to Clintons unemployment rate.
By the way, don't you think you deserve a vacation, calling someone douchebag? Especially when you were completely wrong?

Huh Hello this is earth have we met? I know you have problems with simple concepts like compounding interest but this takes a new low. You parade the numbers around and I call you on it. When you present the numbers they prove you wrong and now I am misrepresenting the numbers? Can we say strawman?

Get us the numbers for the entire bush presidency so we can compare how close Bush wasnt to Clinton, come on, I dare you!
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Douchebag you said and I quote spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.


Shame on you.

Your own numbers show Clinton's numbers in 1998 which is Bush's 2006 are 4.53%, worse than Bush's current 4.4%. Why dont you link upto the most recent year?

You are helping to prove what a joke our media has become when they parade around the BS about unemployment being horrible under Bush but great under Clinton.
Your're calling me a douchebag? When Clintons best number was 4.02 and Bushes was 4.4? Which is a huge advantage to Clinton.
You need to learn how to read and shut your trap.

You said

spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.

You dont think 4.4% is close to 4.02%? Lets not forget that 4.02% was in Clintons last year.

Shame on you for blatent misrepresentation of the facts.
So you admit you completely misrepresented the numbers to try and prove your point?
I rest my case as to your bias and blindness when it comes to your your leader, Bush.
And, yeah, getting to 4.02 as Clinton did, when he became President it was 7.59, and having a budget surplus is FAR greater an achievement than Bush, who despite HHHUUUGGEE deficts still can't get close to Clintons unemployment rate.
By the way, don't you think you deserve a vacation, calling someone douchebag? Especially when you were completely wrong?

Huh Hello this is earth have we met? I know you have problems with simple concepts like compounding interest but this takes a new low. You parade the numbers around and I call you on it. When you present the numbers they prove you wrong and now I am misrepresenting the numbers? Can we say strawman?

Get us the numbers for the entire bush presidency so we can compare how close Bush wasnt to Clinton, come on, I dare you!

You must be intellectually challenged to bring up "compound interest" in a thread about unemployment statistics. And here ya go. Game, set and match to PROVE my point.
Now take a hike.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/unrate

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-01-09-unemployment_x.htm

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazine...US_UNEMPLOYMENT_RATE_DIPS_TO______.asp

http://www.rte.ie/business/2003/1205/US.html
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: techs
Here ya go:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/umprate-annual

Unemployment rate when Clinton took office:
7.49

Unemployment rate when Clinton left office (a year we had a budget surplus):
4.02

And now we have a month with 4.4 unemployment rate and a huge deficit and the Republican propagandists try to spin it as a good thing.
Shame on you.

Douchebag you said and I quote spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.


Shame on you.

Your own numbers show Clinton's numbers in 1998 which is Bush's 2006 are 4.53%, worse than Bush's current 4.4%. Why dont you link upto the most recent year?

You are helping to prove what a joke our media has become when they parade around the BS about unemployment being horrible under Bush but great under Clinton.
Your're calling me a douchebag? When Clintons best number was 4.02 and Bushes was 4.4? Which is a huge advantage to Clinton.
You need to learn how to read and shut your trap.

You said

spending and tax cuts Bush can't even get close to the unemployment rate under Clinton.

You dont think 4.4% is close to 4.02%? Lets not forget that 4.02% was in Clintons last year.

Shame on you for blatent misrepresentation of the facts.
So you admit you completely misrepresented the numbers to try and prove your point?
I rest my case as to your bias and blindness when it comes to your your leader, Bush.
And, yeah, getting to 4.02 as Clinton did, when he became President it was 7.59, and having a budget surplus is FAR greater an achievement than Bush, who despite HHHUUUGGEE deficts still can't get close to Clintons unemployment rate.
By the way, don't you think you deserve a vacation, calling someone douchebag? Especially when you were completely wrong?

Huh Hello this is earth have we met? I know you have problems with simple concepts like compounding interest but this takes a new low. You parade the numbers around and I call you on it. When you present the numbers they prove you wrong and now I am misrepresenting the numbers? Can we say strawman?

Get us the numbers for the entire bush presidency so we can compare how close Bush wasnt to Clinton, come on, I dare you!

You must be intellectually challenged to bring up "compound interest" in a thread about unemployment statistics. And here ya go. Game, set and match to PROVE my point.
Now take a hike.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-01-09-unemployment_x.htm

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazine...US_UNEMPLOYMENT_RATE_DIPS_TO______.asp

http://www.rte.ie/business/2003/1205/US.html

Wow just wow you didnt understand my little jab at you on the compounding interest? And I am the one intellectually challenged? Thank you for the comedy today.

Lets compare by years to get an idea if Bush is "close", somehting you claimed he wasnt.

Clinton
1993 6.91%
1994 6.1%
1995 5.59%
1996 5.41%
1997 4.94%
1998 4.51%
1999 4.23%
2000 4.02%

Bush
2001 5.7%
2002 6.0%
2003 5.7%
2004 5.4%
2005 4.9%
2006 ~4.4%
2007 ?
2008 ?

So let me see who wins by year within their administrations
1. Bush
2. Bush
3. Clinton
4. Tie
5. Tie
6. Bush
7. ?
8. ?

So let me get this straight you claim Bush cant even get close to Clintons unemployment numbers yet Bush wins 3 years and ties two others?

Clintons avg unemployment rate was 5.2 over 8 years while Bush's is 5.3% in 6 years? In Clintons's first 6 years his avg unemployment rate was 5.6%.
Sounds to me like they are very "close", something you claimed untrue.

Please dont act like this is a chess match because we all know you lack the attention span to win such a match.


 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The true test is how the system deals with low-skilled, manual laborers in declining industries. ... Finding new work for the 500 laid off at Hjørring ... was a double challenge. Most of the workers didn't want to leave their home town. ... In addition, the meatpackers weren't qualified for new employment, says Jim Jensen, ... Despite Hjorring's spate of large-scale factory closures, new vacancies keep appearing in Denmark's flexible labor market. ... Where qualifications are lacking, the state pays for courses at vocational colleges, often sharing the cost with a new employer...

Ten months after the slaughterhouse closed, some 300 ex-workers have found new professions in addition to the 80 who got other jobs as meatpackers.

Others from Hjørring are in full-time education, or chose retirement...

Today, only 60 of the 500 laid-off workers from Hjørring are still on unemployment benefits.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess I have to ask are we trying to cut the unemployment from 4.4% to 2.2%? :D

Lets not try to fix something that is obviously not broken yet.

Well either you can prepare the cows for hamburger or cook the hamburgers according to Genx Republicans without health benefits or retirement and have that considered as gainfully employed.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Gotta love a thread going back and forth over a USELESS %!

The unemployment rate calculation was greatly modified under Clinton. It's a meaningless stat anymore.