Pres Bush: LOWEST 1st Term Unemploy. Rate Since Eisenhower! 3.2 Million More Jobs than EVER!

Bureau of Labor Statistics ^ | 5 Mar 04 | BLS

[xzins]

	U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
	Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

	www.bls.gov		Search | A-Z Index
BLS Home | Programs & Surveys | Get Detailed Statistics | Glossary | What's New | Find It! In DOL

	Change Output Options:	From:		To:
	include graphs NEW!

Data extracted on: March 5, 2004 (9:58:02 AM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id:           LNU04000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Unadj) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Annual
1948	3.8
1949	5.9
1950	5.3
1951	3.3
1952	3.0	Truman AVG 2nd term = 4.4
1953	2.9
1954	5.5
1955	4.4
1956	4.1	Eisenhower AVG 1st term = 4.2
1957	4.3
1958	6.8
1959	5.5
1960	5.5	Eisenhower AVG 2nd term = 5.5
1961	6.7
1962	5.5	Kennedy AVG 1st term = 6.1
1963	5.7
1964	5.2	Johnson AVG 1st term = 5.5
1965	4.5
1966	3.8
1967	3.8
1968	3.6	Johnson AVG 2nd term = 3.9
1969	3.5
1970	4.9	No. of Jobs Link = 78,678,000
1971	5.9
1972	5.6	Nixon 1st	Nixon AVG 1st term = 5.8
1973	4.9
1974	5.6	Nixon 2nd	Nixon AVG 2nd term = 5.3
1975	8.5
1976	7.7	Ford 1st	Ford AVG 1st term = 8.1
1977	7.1
1978	6.1
1979	5.8
1980	7.1	Carter 1st	Carter AVG 1st term = 6.5	No. of Jobs Link = 99,303,000
1981	7.6
1982	9.7
1983	9.6
1984	7.5	Reagan 1st	Reagan AVG 1st term = 8.6
1985	7.2	No. of Jobs Link = 107,150,000
1986	7.0
1987	6.2
1988	5.5	Reagan 2nd	Reagan AVG 2nd term = 6.5
1989	5.3
1990	5.6	No. of Jobs Link = 118,793,000
1991	6.8
1992	7.5	GHWBush 1st	GHWBush AVG 1st term = 6.3	No. of Jobs Link = 118,492,000
1993	6.9	No. of Jobs Link = 120,259,000
1994	6.1	No. of Jobs Link = 123,060,000
1995	5.6	No. of Jobs Link = 124,900,000
1996	5.4	Clinton 1st	Clinton AVG 1st term = 6.0	No. of Jobs Link = 126,707,000
1997	4.9	No. of Jobs Link = 130,785,000
1998	4.5	No. of Jobs Link = 131,463,000
1999	4.2	No. of Jobs Link = 133,488,000
2000	4.0	Clinton 2nd	Clinton AVG 2nd term = 4.4	No. of Jobs Link = 135,208,000
2001	4.7	No. of Jobs Link = 136,933,000
2002	5.8	No. of Jobs Link = 136,486,000
2003	6.0	No. of Jobs Link = 138,479,000
2004 to date	5.6	GWBush 1st	GWBush AVG 1st term = 5.5	No. of Jobs Link (2 mo. avg to date) = 138,434,000

 

[xzins]

Drawing a divide between the 2 is very possible. The Repub. Congress set the groundwork for prosperity. It truly was the work of the administration (Clinton) to create the over-exuberant speculation. It was that realization toward the end of the Clinton years, that many of those internet businesses had no means of cashing in on their products, of generating income, that caused the both the crashed markets and the recession. (and the mutual funds scandal by derivation.)

So, yes. I can have my cake and eat it too.

[xzins]

LOL!

[Edit35]

Amazing how the libs, their friends in journalism, some trial attorneys, corporate socialist good ole boys and a few Democrats can control the minds of a nation.

Unfortunately it's also the better journalists/media personalities, such as Tony Snow and Chris Wallace, and even many talk show hosts who constantly use terms such as "jobless recovery," and "dismal economy," and such when referring to what is obviously a booming economy.

It seems to me that job hiring might be lacking in the high tech industry compared to the late 1990s, but nearly every other industry including real estate, retail, commodities, is way up.

The problem lies, I think, with the fact that many of these talking heads are too close to the cutting edge high tech industries, and therefore have a narrow view of what is happening.

I've said it before on FR. My two kids had absolutely no problem getting good paying jobs in late 2003/early 2004. The checkout lines at local businesses and department stores are out the door and I can't get a contractor to do a job because they are all booked weeks if not months in advance.

Slow economy?? Baloney.

For some reason, GOP pundits will not point to the Household Survey job numbers instead of the 12-month laggard Payroll Survey (which only counts jobs in large companies) then the left will continue to score points in what should be a slam dunk by President Bush.

And it's driving me nuts.

[sully777]

Joesbucks, the conservative talk show I listened to (Rush Limbaugh) said the GOP controlled House and Senate saved the country from going into the typical tax-induced recession, which would have been a very deep recession with the 1999-2000 crash of the tech sector. They slightly reformed gov't and stopped huge tax increases. Rush stated over and over that the country needed a GOP prez to begin serious tax cuts that would really change the economy for good. Tada! Three years after the Bush tax cut the economy has rebound significantly, despite all the Clinton-era Wall St. scandals, and Clinton-era speculative bubble bursts, and even the worst attack on US in its history.

Also, I recall Pro-Apple Limbaugh specifically targeting Clinton's attack on Microsoft. This is just one of the many indicators in the late 1990's to the tech crash. Gov't was making a statement which caused an adverse reaction in the market.

Further, uberDem Warren Buffet was instrumental in the SE Asia bubble economy fiasco (Asia was tech-heavy); he and his buds transferred speculation from Asia to Silicon Valley (tech-heavy). Now Joe, you can't say the GOP caused the tech-spec problem with an honest face.

In hindsight, the GOP controlled legislature actually pushed Clinton into a more conservative ideology (have you forgotten all the expensive programs Clinton proposed daily that if implimented would have destroyed the economy? He was stopped by the GOP). Wished the GOP had the same foresight concerning Prescription Drugs, but that's another topic for another time. Our country's semi-free market economy (saved from the Clintonista's socialist designs) weathered the global recession much better than European and Asian economies.

Just my memory for what it's worth. Bush and Co. are doing a fine job. Just wish they'd stop pretending to be U-Boat Teddy's friend.

[LS]

If and when there is another attack---likely, in my view, a "dirty bomb"---the economic impact is going to dwarf the figures I have seen on 9/11.

[B4Ranch]

You need to give him a pat on the back for getting all the illegal aliens jobs, with free mediclal care, educating their anchor babies with those free school lunches and liguistic teachers. Doing all that and not having to contribute to Social Security for the few who do pay taxes and still cost us $5000 a year is amazing.

Now put your wallet on the bench, bend over all the way for his second term. Grab a good hold of your ankles for the next 25 million aliens who are screaming over the border.

[Montfort]

Does anyone remember what event initially popped the dotcom bubble (which would have had to be popped anyway, I guess)?

Think of Janet Reno, David Boies, and Bill Gates. It was the big verdict against Microsoft with an opinion showing so much anger against MS on the part of the judge that it helped MS's position on appeal. Many tech stocks dropped dramatically and immediately after the announcement, and this was the beginning of the dotcom bust. Do not expect Katie Coruic or Dan Rather to remind the public of this. But investors in tech stocks should remember that day.

I owned none, but worked for a dotcom around that time I think.

[RussianConservative]

What I do not see, when at all times I read this statistic, what is median income of created jobs? What is median income of peoples of nation? What is median debt to earnings ratio? What is median debt of nation in comparison and what is tax ratio on income....to show simply that all are employed...well in that case Soviet Union best country ever to exist in world: officially it had 0% unemployment, reality was about 1-2%....was it economically viable? What is percent in US of workers who work for government as opposed to private (government is always wrong way to go for economy) in comparison of year? Why that never shown as statistic?

[B4Ranch]

My other question is are these job on American soil?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Good post thanks. The RATmedia cannot allow this to be spread widely.

[Carolinamom]

BUMP!

[CyberAnt]

Am I reading this right ..?? Do we have over 2 mil more jobs now than we did a year ago ..??

If so .. how can the dems say we have lost 3 mil jobs.

Hope somebody can explain in non-economist language.

[xzins]

bump to article (stats) and to #1

[xzins]

The bottom line is the historical data on job growth. You can see that the jobs MUST grow....if you think about it, each year we ADD more people to the work force (and we retire people from the work force but more slowly.)

Therefore, it's probably better to think in terms of job CHANGES than of loss. Assume that a lot of jobs were lost by the dot.coms when they crashed. All the while the economy is producing jobs. However, let's say that 1 millions jobs stopped because of the dot.com crash.

The democrats will put that on a list that says, "# of jobs lost." They'll add to that the # of jobs lost in the airline industry after 911.

They ignore the fact that the total number of jobs increased over those years. In short, they aren't giving the total picture. They're only giving you a list of the ones that were lost. The total jobs number does the math. It adds those gained and subtracts those lost for the total number. The total number shows an increase, doesn't it.

Let's say you were to get the baseball news for your favorite team and they reported: "The Yanks/Reds/Braves/? gave up 5 runs today." (With sports news reported that way, you'd probably be depressed and think you lost.)

But what should be your first question?

Wouldn't it be, "Yeah, but how many did my team score?" You can't tell if you lost until you compare the runs scored and the runs yielded... and then you arrive at the totals....and the won/loss.

Since the inception of his presidency, President Bush has won by over 3 million jobs.

And he has the lowest unemployment rate since Eisenhower....about 50 years ago.

[america-rules]

[CyberAnt]

How do we get this info out there, instead of the negative 3 mil loss the dems are using ..??

[MeekOneGOP]

Thank you ! Good work here ...

[CyberAnt]

How do we get this info out there, instead of the negative 3 mil loss the dems are using ..??

And .. thank you for making it so understandable. Now I believe I can explain it with some knowledge.

[PhilDragoo]

Once again, Jean-Fraud Kerry gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

While Heinz has 22 American factories, it has fifty-seven (57) foreign factories.

That giant sucking sound is Jean-Fraud Kerry.

[Eva]

I have noticed that columnists in the Seattle PI have started writing columns about unemployed people and how they are suffering. Yesterday there was even what sounded like a phony letter to some advice columnist from some guy who said that he was a small business employer and wanted to know how to handle the coming lay offs. It was so bogus that it was disgusting. Then I went to the local mall and it was packed with people waiting in line at registers and dressing rooms. You would have thought it was Christmas. The economy must be roaring.