Unemployment falls to lowest level since May 2001

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I wonder if there is now net job growth during Bush's presidency as a whole. During his first term, he was, IIRC, only the second President since Hoover (his father was the first) to see a net loss in jobs during a 4-year term.

I am not sure how many other presidents inherited an employment situation that was basically full. It is kind of like the whole stock market argument. If Bush left office tomorrow with a 4.4% unemployment rate and our economy slowed shedding that unrealistic rate, should we blame the next president because there is a net loss of jobs during a slow down of the economy?

When you reach the ~4-5% range you are at a basic full employment and this actually hurts the economy.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fitzov
You are an ignorant fool if you really believe that. How does a crackbaby, for example, create their own opportunity; or someone born with down syndrome?

They use the opportunity to better themselves by the good will of others - Charity, the church and family. With this guidance they can create their opportunity.

This is the land of opportunity ya know.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I wonder if there is now net job growth during Bush's presidency as a whole. During his first term, he was, IIRC, only the second President since Hoover (his father was the first) to see a net loss in jobs during a 4-year term.

We've added something in the range of 3 million jobs since 2003 I believe. So I would think he is on the positive side. I believe has was nearly on the positive side before the 2004 election, only missed it by a few months.

I am sure the numbers would be easy to find with a little work.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I really hope we're not getting past full employment. That means inflation numbers will really start to pick up and the Fed will have to take a contractionary monetary policy which would probably grind the economy to a halt.

 

[fitzov]

We've added something in the range of 3 million jobs since 2003 I believe.

And how many jobs were lost? You have to use basic arithmetic here.

 

[ntdz]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15914221.htm

The unemployment rate sank to a five-year low of 4.4 percent and workers' wages grew solidly last month, flashing a picture of a jobs market on firm footing as voters go to the polls.

Worker wages grew solidly as well, another key libbie argument against the economy that is shot down.

Workers, many of whom have seen their wages whittled by inflation, saw solid gains last month. Their hourly earnings climbed to $16.91, up 0.4 percent from September. Over the past 12 months, wages have grown by 3.9 percent.

Also, they revised August and September's job numbers up 139,000, a significant increase from the first estimates.

 

[LegendKiller]

Employment at that low of a level actually is bad for several reasons. Foremost among them is inflation. If you knew more about economics and less about trolling you might know why.

 

[Engineer]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1953905&enterthread=y

 

[Slew Foot]

low unemployment and wages up 4%, prepare for the fed to raise rates.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
low unemployment and wages up 4%, prepare for the fed to raise rates.

Oh come on, those are HORRIBLE numbers with no reason to act like it's positive. Just ask the libs.

 

[senseamp]

Too bad between Kerry, Reverend Homo, and Saddam verdict, no time for GOP to talk about the economy. Oh well.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Employment at that low of a level actually is bad for several reasons. Foremost among them is inflation. If you knew more about economics and less about trolling you might know why.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Our country hasn't had an inflation problem in 20 years, and yet our unemployment has hovered around there for awhile. Our unemployment doesn't affect inflation like it used to in the global economy, where most of our goods are produced outside our country and independent of our employment.

I'll take 4.4% unemployment and tame inflation over 6% unemployment and almost no inflation.

 

[conjur]

Yet again, ntdz shows his ignorance of economic stats.


No surprise here.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yet again, ntdz shows his ignorance of economic stats.


No surprise here.

Enlighten me (and I don't mean you posting your rabble about how the unemployment rate doesn't matter -- and yet conveniently it does matter when it's not looking so well)

 

[fstime]

Simple economics can explain to you why a low unemployment is not always a good thing.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Yet again, ntdz shows his ignorance of economic stats.


No surprise here.

Enlighten me (and I don't mean you posting your rabble about how the unemployment rate doesn't matter -- and yet conveniently it does matter when it's not looking so well)

I've tried. Countless times.

Ain't nuthin' getting through to you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Simple economics can explain to you why a low unemployment is not always a good thing.

And this unemployment rate is total BS.

Here's the proof

No way unemployment can keep going down if the # of jobs created each month is at or below the equilibrium level. 3 of the 10 months of this year have been above it, the rest have been well below, on average.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well lets talk about all of those new jobs. What sector were they created in? I'll tell you which one, the service sector. Low paying, little to no benefits and a high turn over rate. All of the good paying jobs are being shipped overseas. These large corporations are also importing tech workers under the H1B visa program and paying them less than american workers further depressing wages. Yep the current economy is a real winner. Thank you W for such a rosy economy.

PS those troops dying in Iraqistan are just a figment of your imagination.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Employment at that low of a level actually is bad for several reasons. Foremost among them is inflation. If you knew more about economics and less about trolling you might know why.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Our country hasn't had an inflation problem in 20 years, and yet our unemployment has hovered around there for awhile. Our unemployment doesn't affect inflation like it used to in the global economy, where most of our goods are produced outside our country and independent of our employment.

I'll take 4.4% unemployment and tame inflation over 6% unemployment and almost no inflation.

4.4% inflation is still higher than what is targeted. Utilizing past inflation to justify future or present is stupid, entirely different environment. If it's higher than targeted and outstrips what can be considered "acceptable", it is a problem. Unemployment beyond the frictional unemployment boundary is actually bad for the economy, as it leads to rampant inflation.

Of course, you could care less, as long as your ignorant outlook gets propagated by the president. Of course, I am sure you will ignore my post and everybody else's, because nobody knows anything but you. Perhaps you should learn a bit more before you post so stupidly.

 

[umbrella39]

:laugh: I am surprised it took so long in the day before someone blew this sunshine up our asses. On cue..

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Employment at that low of a level actually is bad for several reasons. Foremost among them is inflation. If you knew more about economics and less about trolling you might know why.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Our country hasn't had an inflation problem in 20 years, and yet our unemployment has hovered around there for awhile. Our unemployment doesn't affect inflation like it used to in the global economy, where most of our goods are produced outside our country and independent of our employment.

I'll take 4.4% unemployment and tame inflation over 6% unemployment and almost no inflation.

4.4% inflation is still higher than what is targeted. Utilizing past inflation to justify future or present is stupid, entirely different environment. If it's higher than targeted and outstrips what can be considered "acceptable", it is a problem. Unemployment beyond the frictional unemployment boundary is actually bad for the economy, as it leads to rampant inflation.

Of course, you could care less, as long as your ignorant outlook gets propagated by the president. Of course, I am sure you will ignore my post and everybody else's, because nobody knows anything but you. Perhaps you should learn a bit more before you post so stupidly.

4.4% inflation? The CPI says that in the last 12 months, prices are up 2%. Low unemployment and low inflation, together. Economists' heads around the world are exploding!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Simple economics can explain to you why a low unemployment is not always a good thing.

And this unemployment rate is total BS.

Here's the proof

No way unemployment can keep going down if the # of jobs created each month is at or below the equilibrium level. 3 of the 10 months of this year have been above it, the rest have been well below, on average.

You're kidding, right? The running average is above the required line for 75% of the graph, thus reducing the unemployment rate.

 

[fitzov]

Isn't this a repost?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Well lets talk about all of those new jobs. What sector were they created in? I'll tell you which one, the service sector. Low paying, little to no benefits and a high turn over rate. All of the good paying jobs are being shipped overseas. These large corporations are also importing tech workers under the H1B visa program and paying them less than american workers further depressing wages. Yep the current economy is a real winner. Thank you W for such a rosy economy.

PS those troops dying in Iraqistan are just a figment of your imagination.

Hey brainiac you do realize the service industry makes up 80% of the private workforce?
Service jobs include anything from the guy flipping burgers to accountants, lawyers, and doctors.

The idea service job is a low paying no benefit job is ignorant.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: fitzov

We've added something in the range of 3 million jobs since 2003 I believe.

And how many jobs were lost? You have to use basic arithmetic here.

Fox said that we now have "record" number of people employed. Which I would understand to mean that more people are working than ever before. And therefore Bush has added more jobs than he as lost.

Another great stat. The average unemployment under Bush is now 5.3, and under Clinton it was 5.2 so Bush is closing in on Clinton's record for unemployment, and baring a drastic increase in unemployment should pass him in another month or two.

Meanwhile, Nanci Pelosi had this to say ""The President has the worst jobs record since the Great Depression..."