Does it matter if there is a 4.7% unemployment rate?
That's a lower number than under Reagan, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton's first term, etc.
Or does that statistic not mean much these days?
2007-12-03 02:00:56 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If high unemployment numbers do then how could low ones not?
2007-12-03 02:17:00 · answer #1 · answered by boiledcrabs 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Part of the problem with trusting numbers is that unemployment stats don't include those whose benefits have run out, The ability to make statistics sing and dance is a bureaucrats wet dream. These people don't live in the same world you do. When the polls for who is leading in the presidential race are seen what you aren't seeing is who is being polled, or the number of people being polled. Don't ever trust the opinions of 500 people to be the will of the people
2007-12-03 02:12:17 · answer #2 · answered by Stephen C 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unemployment figure mean nothing. They have been manipulated to no longer include the long term unemployed. So if you can't find a job in 6 months you are no longer counted. That's why Bush's numbers have been so low. They don't include the chronically unemployed like 40 - 50 year old who can't get a job because they're over-qualified or too old for entry positions. I know plenty of these not unemployed people.
BTW, Clinton's lowest figure was 3.9%
2007-12-03 02:08:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what is causing the low unemployment. If the government statistics are not inclusive by not counting all those people who are discouraged workers, then the unemployment number is a fiction (this is occurring now). And another reason low unemployment is bad is when massive amounts of debt are used to pay for growth in the economy. This inevitably means lower growth at some future time to pay off the accumulated debt. We also have this ($36 trillion in debt in all sectors government, state, private and household) now. Both of these are the result of economic mismanagement from President Bush all the way back to President Johnson (Clinton gets kudos for balancing the budget, though).
Our financial system is now imperiled by creative financing that moved much of the debt creation off the books of the banks and into hedge funds. This means the Federal Reserve is no longer able to influence the economy as much as they could in the past. This was a regulatory failure of President Bush's.
But the Bush administration is trying to stop their second recession under his watch as we spea....er uh...type.
"Paulson Crafts Subprime Deal to Prevent Second Bush Recession" (1)
Our nation is now facing bankruptcy.
2007-12-03 02:03:58 · answer #4 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it still means a lot. It means the economy isn't growing and that many people are out of a job. This also means that they can be losing their homes and becoming homeless, losing health insurance possibly, and enrolling on state welfate systems.
States usually compare unemployment rates to the national average. Which for the last 8 years have pretty much had the same numbers.
2007-12-03 02:04:47 · answer #5 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The government is nothing but lies anymore.
You could ask the same question about real inflation, or the real value of education, or the real quality of our healthcare system.
Also, lots of the newly unemployed in housing are contruction jobs - these are done by illegals so they don't show up.
Bush is an economic failure...the one thing I will say is for GW that Clinton and Bush Sr. laid the ground work for our failed trade policy.
America is toast. In their hearts, everyone knows it. Unless you are the elite, your kids will resent you for bringing them into a world were they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Productivity gains now buy yachts for the elite/ investor class.
2007-12-03 02:32:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do the numbers truly reflect the unemployment rate or did a lot of people run out of unemployment benifits thus keeping the rate low
2007-12-03 02:10:56 · answer #7 · answered by gwshark2169 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All statistics can be misleading, since they reflect what has happened in the past, since they take time to compile. They can't tell you what is happening right now, nor can they predict the future with great certainty. If you're going to cite statistics, don't just pick out those that fit your opinions.
2007-12-03 02:36:08 · answer #8 · answered by Mike W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. It means that people with one or more degrees hanging on the wall are accepting jobs paying far less than they need for their accustomed lifestyle.
It means that people who have been laid off or have lost their jobs to outsourcing (which Bush BRAGS about, by the way) have accepted anything they could find - just to have a job!
It means that a higher percentage of Americans are holding down TWO JOBS just to meet basic living expenses because wages are stagnant under BUSH and have NOT kept up with the rising cost of living.
What you are seeing is larger numbers of people with crappy jobs. Yes, they "have jobs" but it's not good news.
2007-12-03 02:03:20 · answer #9 · answered by LaDeeDa 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Unemployment was lower under Clinton, FDR, and LBJ.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
The unemployment rate is still higher then it was when Bush Jr first stepped into office.
Is that supposed to be a good thing?
2007-12-03 02:07:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋