Unemployment facts show Unemployment at virtually same leve as Feb 1996

Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor ^ | 3/10/04 | John Knight

[MNJohnnie]

http://65.54.246.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=08a2160b4c9755f15c02a02da59de858&lat=1078952563&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fdata%2ebls%2egov%2fservlet%2fSurveyOutputServlet%3frequest_action%3dwh%26graph_name%3dLN_cpsbref3

Sorry for the lousy link. Isn't this intresting. The current Unemployment rate is withing .02 percet of where it was in March 1996! Hmm, wounder if we were hearing all this fearmongering and hysteria about Jobs in our "Objective News Media" in 1996? Perhaps a Feeper who is more technically proficent then I can email me with this graph reproduced in an Email. I am going to find a way to put this in a body of an email and sent it to every single news editor, publisher and TV News producer asking why this information is not being covered in their "News" reports

[The G Man]

Shocking stuff (not).

Of more interest is the survey of households they do that shows an astronomical amount of new jobs having been created compared to the survey of payrolls. I can't help but wonder that with the internet, eBay, etc, that more and more people aren't just running their own home based businesses over the internet and that these jobs are being captured in the payroll survey.

[MNJohnnie]

I figured out a better way to link to the graph. Adminstrato, can you delete this posting in favor of my edited post which links directly to the US Department of Labor

[Peach]

The official government unemployment survey is the Household SUrvey and it shows a 5.6% unemployment rate.

The unofficial survey but used by economists and businesses for various purposes is the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey and that survey shows a much higher unemployment rate. Naturally, it is this survey the Democrats are quoting.

[The G Man]

You sure about that Peach?

[BlackRazor]

Of course, you've failed to put the numbers in the context of the prior years. It's the trend that matters. In Feb. 1992, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, so a 5.6% in Feb. 1996 was relatively good. In Feb. 2000, the unemployment rate was 4.1%, so a 5.6% in Feb. 2004 is relatively bad.

[NC28203]

I believe you are referring to the payroll figures that come from the business survey. It doesn't provide an unemployment rate, but instead provides data on the number of people on non-farm payrolls. This is where the "2 million lost jobs" comes from.

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[Peach]

Just got home and don't have time right now to find the articles, but several economists and the guy from CNBC, Larry ? have mentioned this. Sorry - mind just isn't working right now.

[Peach]

Here is one article.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052328/posts

[Peach]

Here's another article by Larry Kudlow:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092038/posts

[#3Fan]

Of course, you've failed to put the numbers in the context of the prior years.

Of course you fail to mention that it is going down from where it was a few months ago.

[GOPJ]

Great find. Now see if you can find all the ads Clinton ran about the Oklahoma City bombing. You know, the ones the press didn't object to...

[Tall_Texan]

If the Democrats and the media had no trouble selling the "worst economy in the last 50 years" lie during the 1992 election, why should they change their tune now?

I remember all throughout the 1980s, the libs and the media made a huge deal about AIDS and homelessness. Story after story. Lie after lie. All the fault of Reagan and Bush, they said.

Then Clinton got elected and you didn't hear one word about either for the next eight years even though Clinton did NOTHING to stem AIDS or homelessness. They were just issues to browbeat Republicans and give the lemmings reasons to think Republicans were uncaring and judgemental.

[The G Man]

Peach:

Thanks for the links. Interesting reading.

G