Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bernanke just now: "Between 5%-6% unemployment is what we consider to be "Full Employment"
cnbc,various | 6-19-13 | Tcrlaf

Posted on 06/19/2013 12:08:47 PM PDT by tcrlaf

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: tcrlaf

Interesting! Just a few short years ago Bush’s 4.7% unemployment rate was considered the “worst economy since Herbert Hoover”. In fact, it was the mantra of Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid who finally won control of Congress in 2006.


21 posted on 06/19/2013 12:24:33 PM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

The metric by which it is measured has changed.


22 posted on 06/19/2013 12:24:36 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
LBJ declared war on poverty. Obama declared unconditional surrender
23 posted on 06/19/2013 12:26:14 PM PDT by csmusaret (Will remove Obama-Biden bumperstickers for $10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Gee, I wonder how many discouraged unemployed who are “no longer seeking employment” are counted in that stat? How many folks who are underemployed?

Given the state of things, stats from this administration and its minions are worthless.


24 posted on 06/19/2013 12:27:03 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it gettingthe so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

I don’t see it ever getting down to 5% or 6% under this regime. Of course, with the Department of Labor working the stats, anything is possible I guess.


25 posted on 06/19/2013 12:27:13 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (23,116,441 households on Food Stamps! Now that's what I call HISTORICAL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

They now include welfare recipients as employed and they didn’t years ago.

Welfare leaches aren’t in the labor pool so it doesn’t make any difference.

Under 6% and there is a shortage of employees available.


26 posted on 06/19/2013 12:28:44 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
"Between 5%-6% unemployment is what we consider to be "Full Employment"

"REAL" unemployment statistics, or made up ones from the 0bama Regime's propaganda machine?

27 posted on 06/19/2013 12:29:25 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Jesus, Please Save America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

I was referring to the use of U6 versus U3.


28 posted on 06/19/2013 12:30:25 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

The huge proliferation of “29ers” is going to help the unemployment rate a fair amount. Basically replacing 3 full timers with 4 part timers.

Many of the schools here are moving their non-degreed staff to “29er” status to avoid Obamacare.


29 posted on 06/19/2013 12:30:36 PM PDT by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

By whose standard?

“Full employment” has changed quite a bit that I recall.


30 posted on 06/19/2013 12:31:12 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

America’s future is looking pretty grim.


31 posted on 06/19/2013 12:32:31 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (23,116,441 households on Food Stamps! Now that's what I call HISTORICAL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
I remember Pelosi's statement.

However, and going on the 'Blind Squirrel / Stopped Clock' theory, Bernake sounds like he might be about right. 5% of the population is just plain unemployable.

My standards are higher, I'd argue that it's a lot more.

32 posted on 06/19/2013 12:33:03 PM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

We’ll limp along until the markets stop swallowing an unlimited number of Baraqqi/Bernanke/Lew minibucks.

When that day comes and the entitlements choke off, big trouble.


33 posted on 06/19/2013 12:34:06 PM PDT by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

I think I may have screwed this up. I’m looking to see if I did. Sorry if I did.


34 posted on 06/19/2013 12:34:12 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

there is more then 14% unemployement.


35 posted on 06/19/2013 12:35:15 PM PDT by ncfool (Obama's aMeriKa 2012 can we make it until 2016?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

0% unemployment is full employment. Liberals, Free Trade Communists, and other America Haters think that unemployment is full employment


36 posted on 06/19/2013 12:36:53 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (Don't Blame Me For La Raza Rubio....I Voted For Alex Snitker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd
4% used to be considered full employment

Yup, that was what I learned when I got my econ degree in 1972.

Gee, how times change....... (sarc)

37 posted on 06/19/2013 12:36:58 PM PDT by llevrok (We are in a new Cold War. At home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
"Between 5% and 6% unemployment is what we consider to be "Full Employment"".

The unemployment rate under Bush was as low as 4.4%.Sounds like he is giving up.

US Unemployment Rate Chart

US Unemployment Rate data by YCharts

38 posted on 06/19/2013 12:38:18 PM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I don’t see it ever getting down to 5% or 6% under this regime.

Me either, but I wouldn't put it past them to manipulate the statistics to hit whatever number they want.

Look at the weekly UE figures. FR was paying attention to them for awhile (before everyone realized they were useless). Prior week's stats were *always* revised upwards. 51 out of 52 weeks, for one stretch, for example.

Now, I'm no statistician, but I'd expect them to be on the money a small percentage of the time, and be over / under the rest of the time, at a fairly even distribution. 40% over/ 40% under / 20% correct, plus or minus a couple of points either way, for instance.

But for the administration to be wrong - in their favor - nearly every single time, says to me that someone was jiggering with the numbers. Flip a coin, and see how long it takes you to get 51 out of 52 to come up heads.

39 posted on 06/19/2013 12:42:35 PM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

The S&P 500 stock index dropped about 1% as soon as Bernanke opened his mouth. What a coincidence.


40 posted on 06/19/2013 12:48:29 PM PDT by forgotten man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson