This election will ruin the US

Here's the numbers and graph for unemployment rates.

Numbers

Check the Unemployment Rate box, 5th one down. You'll see the numbers for the last 10 years. At the top check the graph box, and change the years from 1976 - 2004.

By this you'll notice spikes in the unemployment rate, everytime first term of a new president. You'll also notice that every second term president takes the rates to a new low.

Now W Bush had to deal with 9-11 and the end of the dot com bust, and still had the lowest peak of any of the last 4 presidents(Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton).

[edit on 23-6-2004 by Darktalon]

Originally posted by RANT
The biggest problem I see with any unemployment debate is that people unemployed over a year literally fall off the chart. They compare NEW jobless claims to people that replace employment within the first year of the initial claim (even with a substandard job) and say so and so many new jobs created.

Well once the effects of downsizing or outsourcing or whatever are pretty much saturated, it's like those people don't matter any more.

The very county I'm in claimed some ridiculous "recovery" numbers recently about new jobless claims being down despite creating no jobs simply because the mill has been closed long enough that no one seeking employment can claim unemployment anymore. That's "recovery"?

I guess in a way it is. Out of site, out of mind. The homeless aren't technically unemployed either. Someone taking an 80% paycut to work at Wal-Mart so as not to starve isn't unemployed either. Entrepreneurs that lose everything aren't unemployed either.

BAH. I hate politicians throwing around meaningless numbers.

Rant, you notice on the link I gave above that they do have rates for people and the amount of time they were out of work. Here are the categories.

-Number Unemployed For Less Than 5 weeks - LNS13008396
-Number Unemployed For 5-14 Weeks - LNS13008756
-Number Unemployed For 15 Weeks & Over - LNS13008516
-Number Unemployed For 27 Weeks & Over - LNS13008636
-Average Weeks Unemployed - LNS13008275
-Median Weeks Unemployed - LNS13008276

It's also not a site with partisianship, so they don't care who's in office, the numbers are the numbers.

Bush claims to have created jobs, but they're most crappy McJobs and Walmart jobs. The "terrorists" are a fairy-tale. Bush is creating a police state. Read the book 1984.

DO NOT VOTE THIS YEAR!!

both (in my opinion) are ididots, also the U.S. has already been scrwed by Bush!!

Keep in mind, the house and senate run the country also. and don't forget corporations and citizens themselves. The list goes on and on. Everything is connected like a huge web. No president can take the credit or blame for everything, he and his cabinet are just cogs in the machine. True they help change the course a bit ... good or bad... but the economy has always had it's ups and downs, and always will, no matter what party is in office. There are so many factors that come into play that it is always many combinations of things that change our social and economic situation.

Originally posted by Darktalon
Rant, you notice on the link I gave above that they do have rates for people and the amount of time they were out of work. Here are the categories.

-Number Unemployed For Less Than 5 weeks - LNS13008396
-Number Unemployed For 5-14 Weeks - LNS13008756
-Number Unemployed For 15 Weeks & Over - LNS13008516
-Number Unemployed For 27 Weeks & Over - LNS13008636
-Average Weeks Unemployed - LNS13008275
-Median Weeks Unemployed - LNS13008276

It's also not a site with partisianship, so they don't care who's in office, the numbers are the numbers.

But after a year how are they counted? I'm saying they aren't. That's great detail up to 6 months, then what? Lost in the system? I can't even imagine a way to track people that either never qualify or no longer qualify for unemployment. I mean they just don't report into the stats.

I know people literally decimated since 9/11. Some going on three years. And I know even if they took a job loading docks or stocking shelves even part time while looking to get back earning the living wage they once had, they aren't counted as unemployed. That's what I was saying.

There's no underemployed index is there? There should be.

Originally posted by Karl_Hungus
Bush claims to have created jobs, but they're most crappy McJobs and Walmart jobs. The "terrorists" are a fairy-tale. Bush is creating a police state. Read the book 1984.

Really where did you get the kind of jobs information from? Considering I know 200,000 jobs were industrial. Kerry hype, first it was about a bad economy, oops Bush fixed that, now it's about "jobs that don't pay as much as they did 3-4 years ago". Ya hello, DOT COM BUST, ofcourse average wages went down. But last I checked some kind of pay check is better then no paycheck at all. Know what your talking about before you flame.

And ofcourse always real intellegent to base your opinion on a fictional book. Written how many years ago?

Rant, they would still be in the "& Over" part of the survey. Though I do agree with you somewhat, and do think it hard to do. I'm not a surveior so I could tell you what the answer is.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by Darktalon]

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Who ever wins we lose. Bush will screw the economy but Kerry will screw our military. If Kerry reduces our military then terrorist will attack with out fear of reprsisal. If Bush wins well everybody hates him for a lot of reasons. I just wonder what happened to the good old days when we had good presidents. What will we do with these horrible leaders.

Uhh crap?

I've never seen such a dilluded person before, Bush will ruin our economy?

8% growth, lower taxes, increase in PRIVATE SECTOR jobs...how is he ruining it you horribly misinformed person?

You think back to Clinton and his creating jobs? I hate to burst your bubble, he didn't create jobs, he created PUBLIC jobs, that means the Government decided to hire people for crap...it has been proven to do nothing for the economy.

We have good presidents, what happened is our media has become so horrible that you have no freaking clue what you're talking about. It's not your fault, it's the media's fault, but Bush will not "ruin our economy" and there's no good reason to "hate him".

Seriously man...you gotta stop listening to people like Michael Moore and start researching the truth.

Originally posted by Karl_Hungus
Bush claims to have created jobs, but they're most crappy McJobs and Walmart jobs. The "terrorists" are a fairy-tale. Bush is creating a police state. Read the book 1984.

I have read it, and Orsen Wells would probably slap some sense into you if he were still alive.

Err...George Orwell *types too fast for his own good*...still can't edit.

Originally posted by Darktalon
Rant, they would still be in the "& Over" part of the survey. Though I do agree with you somewhat, and do think it hard to do. I'm not a surveior so I could tell you what the answer is.

I can't find their survey either (looking) but did find the methodology.

Source of data
Current Population Survey, a sample of 60,000 households; data are collected by personal and telephone interviews. Basic labor force data are gathered monthly; data on special topics are gathered in periodic supplements.

Which is great. Before I researched it, I thought they were just hawking the "new jobless claims" from the database that people are so fond of throwing around as "statistical proof" as something, which as an unemployed marketing research executive I can tell you is bunk. And though, as you said any paycheck is better than none, that's beginning to become more and more of hard sell to the grotesquely underemployed.

I know people like to think it's all just those greedy gen x techies that "got what they deserved" after the bubble popped, but it's much more widespread. Airlines, travel and tourism, hoteliers...and all their dependent support structures in advertising, marketing and research have suffered the brunt of of the post 9/11 economy meaning the average stats weigh most heavily on them.

But my particular beef with that is personal, so let me expand the issue to include the "average joe" here in the south. The mills are gone. There's no union at Wal-Mart. Whole towns went from making $15 an hour to having a resume in at Wal-Mart (along with everyone else) for $6 an hour. Again, no big deal over the whole of the "average US respondent" but when you're talking about a whole town or large chunks of southern states dying, it is a big deal.

Again stats are great, and reporting the averages and nets is a big part of what I do, so I'm not complaining....but as has been said by many before me...

When you are unemployed, the relative unemployment rate is 100%.

Originally posted by Karl_Hungus
Bush claims to have created jobs, but they're most crappy McJobs and Walmart jobs. The "terrorists" are a fairy-tale. Bush is creating a police state. Read the book 1984.

It's scary how some of that stuff from the book is starting to actually happening.

Darktalon thanks for the refreshing class in economics and Rant for you overview, the last time I took economics was back in the 80s.

One thing I have to say looking at the tables and looking at the data nobody can deny that our unemployment rate has gone up for the last ten years and now is the highest, I have not seen anything even close to a break in the unemployment pattern.

Just to be in the good side, It used to be call economics I don't know if have been change brake down into categories now these days.


[Edited on 23-6-2004 by marg6043]

I've sliced and diced that US DEPT OF LABOR statistics survey every meaningful way I can think of to see who's benefitting under Bush. By education, by race, etc...and I'm just not seeing it.

data.bls.gov...

Is is clear that Bush has "enjoyed" the 10 year low (1994 to 2004) in nearly every category with the unemployment lows being reported almost across the board in December year ending 2000. That's well post the dot.com bubble pop and months before 9/11 though unemployment started trending upward immediately after Bush took office (not post 9/11).

With this robust an inheritance, I can certainly understand Bush apologists wanting to caveat the 2000 numbers as unrealistic or an otherwise anomoly in no way credited to Clinton, so as to use Carter or Reagen numbers for comparison but I'm not interested in playing that game.

Why not just talk about what Bush has accomplished since 2000 as this election is a referendum on those 4 years...yes?

So where are you four years later?

If you're college educated (most of the middle class) the chances of being unemployed are nearly doubled since Bush took office. (1.5 to 2.9) Another view of this group shows that Clinton reduced their relative unemployment in his second term from 2.4 to 1.5.

Tech bubble related? Somewhat, plus GWB approved corporate outsourcing loopholes...didn't know that tax break would cost you your job did you? So what about everyone else taking the college educated out of the mix?

The percent discrepency of jobs lost does get better the less education you have (i.e. McJobs) though still more likely overall to be unemployed since Bush took office (compared to college educated).

Using year ending 2000 to present for all unemployment...
Some college (2.7 to 4.0)
High School only (3.5 to 5.0)
Less than HS (5.9 to 8.8)

So if the big relative spike in unemployment under Bush is among college educated, but the less educated aren't fairing much better...where are the "new jobs" going?

Not white people (3.5 to 5.0)
Not black people (7.4 to 9.9)
And not hispanics (5.7 to 7.0)

I'm seriously stumped. Where are the new jobs? Besides China and India.

Is there a Halliburton employee index I'm missing?

Theres to many qoutes on this page allready sooooo....

They do not take into account the people who can not receive anymore unemployment benefits. My Ex-Mother-in-laws ran out last year, she still can not find a job, at least one that you can actually live off of. So say 100,000 peoples benefits run out, they are not accounted for, so with the minus of benefits and not being counted, it raises the "New Job" count. Think about it. And this is not just durimg the Bush Admin. It has been throughout.

Already said that Trickmaster so I was digging into the Federal Survey that's supposed to account for everyone.

That's where I got my figures. Monthly sample of 60,000 HH's.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT
Already said that Trickmaster

so I was digging into the Federal Survey that's supposed to account for everyone.

That's where I got my figures.

See thats what happens when I see Quote after quote, and just post what I have to say....I still do not think the numbers are even close to where they should be. I think it is Much higher. IMHO

Oh I do too TM. :up

The sampling error is obvious. Even calling 60,000 households a month, you KNOW people unemployed over a year don't answer the phone anymore.

I can tell you that from personal experience. You screen EVERY call for credit collections and aren't about to fall for that "survey" trick.

So you're dead on. The unemployed are undercounted.

Originally posted by Darktalon
There are many things I don't like about Bush and his administration, one is the fact that religion plays to much into his administration, and I believe that to be wrong. But come on say something about the guy that atleast is the truth. He has done a great job getting the economy back up, and didn't make it drop in the first place. Now talk about stem-cell research and I'm against him, talk about abortion and I'm against him. But I'ld rather have him, and disagree about those things, then watch my friends die because Kerry cuts defense programs.

Everything you said was right on. As far as I'm concerned everyone that lives in the US should read this. I think so many people get wrapped up trying to find faults they become blind to fact.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Orsen Wells would probably slap some sense into you if he were still alive.

65.24.81.11...

Rosebud................