CNN - 5.6% Unemployment is 'low' (1996), 5.6% Unemlpoyment is high (Today)

CNN ^

[Phisher]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.

[Bon mots]

Great Find!!! Bravo!

[Phisher]

keep it going...

[sixmil]

Media bias and fudging the numbers aside, things are relative. Post bubble, 4% unemployment is what people want to see. 5.6% isn't as 'relatively' good as it used to be. Personally, I would like to see the bar pushed even higher this time like 3% or so. At the rate we are letting people into the country, that might take a while.

[michaelt]

The chart is the unemployment rate straight from the BLS website. I doubt the unemployment will get to 3% for any sustained period of time. But at least to the naked eyeball, there seems to be a pattern in the data....

[Tempest]

bump.

[Dad was my hero]

BTTT

Good post.

[bray]

During the great BJ economic BOOM, the GNP was running at 2.5% and now 4.5% is the worst economy since Hoover...maybe Hoover and BJ are the same Prez??? PravdABDNC is becoming less and less relevant.

Pray for W and The Truth

[Daus]

When I was in college, I was taught 'frictional unemployment', or the normal, everyday, movement of people moving between jobs, SHOULD be 5% in a normal economy. Anything less would be detrimental. But, of course, that was college, and I might have been drunk. :)

[capitan_refugio]

bobo - you're cracking me up, man. George Gobel was a great American comic who died in 1991. He used to be on the old, original Hollywood Squares.

You probably mean Paul Goebbels, the NAZI propagandist. He died by suicide in 1945. He was the author of the "Big Lie" technique. The Democrats have studied his ways.

[bobo1]

You probably mean Paul Goebbels,

Yep, that is who I was thinking of, with my brain disengaged, evidently while typing.

blessings, bobo

[Jotmo]

BUMP.

Everyone needs to see this and take action!

Email anyone you can think of!

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've been getting my butt kicked around all over this forum for pointing this out.

If the 1990's were considered to be a period of economic boom because the market was over $10,000, unemployment averaged @5.5% for the decade, and the Feds had a whole ton of our money, and congratulated themselves over their "surplus", then why is a $10,000+ market, a 5.6% unemployment rate, and us having our money back an economic disaster today?

We're running a deficit?

We always run a deficit during wartime.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We need to turn the corner on a notion.

We are a wealthy country, and need to rethink our work week.

Instead of seeking higher wages, I want a shorter work week for the same pay.

That would increase employment nationally.

I say we lobby for a 30 hour work week, and rely on American worker productivity.

[Jotmo]

I sure hope you forgot your /sarcasm tag on that post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No sarcasm intended.

American productivity, coupled with technological prowess can bring about a shortened work week with undiminished output.

[Jotmo]

And you can't see any potential problems with that plan?

You're on the wrong web sight.

The folks a DU must be wondering where you went.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"And you can't see any potential problems with that plan?"

Why don't you actually try verbalizing ideas over throwing out insults?

If you can make the same weekly wages in 30 hours that you would in 40, which would you prefer?

And why wouldn't the logical goal be less working hours and higher earnings?

[Jotmo]

What, are you a 10 year old?

That is a serious question. Are you older than 10?

Because if you are older than 10, and you can't see the problem with FORCING companies to have a 30 hour work week, there's no point in me trying to explain it to you. It's just so basic on so many levels, I'm stunned that you don't get it.

And I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you since it would involve starting with the simplest concepts of freedom, the free market, private property, and economics, (to name a few) all for what would be a fruitless effort, as the ignorance you've displayed indicates that you are beyond all hope.

It would be like finding a High School senior who couldn't recognize a single letter or number, and someone asking you to bring him up to speed by summer so he could go to engineering school. If you haven't got it by now, there's just no point.

No thanks, not worth my time.

(I'm sorry if you feel I'm insulting you, I'm seriously not trying to, but there's just no way to describe such ignorance without it sounding derogatory.)

[1Old Pro]

LOL, I'll bet there are literally thousands of examples of CNN's liberal bias.

[muleskinner]

Posted to the "comments@foxnews.com"