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

 

[windchime]

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Another chart:

Civilian Employment  (Seasonally Adjusted)

Look at the left side of the table to Jan/Feb and down to rows marked 2001, 2002,  2003 and 2004.  In February 2001 the figure is 137,581,000.  In February 2004 the figure is 138,301,000.  The current numbers would indicate that there are now 720,000 more jobs than there were in February of President Bush's first year.

Only numbers derogatory to President Bush are being reported by the media.  Why are the numbers we're finding not being used as rebuttal to the dems and negative media???

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id:           LNS12000000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status:  Employed Type of data:        Number in thousands Age:                 16 years and over
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1994	121966	122086	121930	122290	122864	122634	122706	123342	123687	124112	124516	124721
1995	124663	124928	124955	124945	124421	124522	124816	124852	125133	125388	125188	125088
1996	125125	125639	125862	125994	126244	126602	126947	127172	127536	127890	127771	127860
1997	128298	128298	128891	129143	129464	129412	129822	130010	130019	130179	130653	130679
1998	130726	130807	130814	131209	131325	131244	131329	131390	131986	131999	132280	132602
1999	133027	132856	132947	132955	133311	133378	133414	133591	133707	133993	134309	134523
2000	136561(1)	136599	136668	137264	136611	136923	136516	136701	136908	137124	137316	137632
2001	137790	137581	137738	137275	137063	136842	137091	136314	136869	136447	136234	136078
2002	135715	136362	136106	136096	136505	136353	136478	136811	137337	137079	136545	136459
2003	137447(1)	137318	137300	137578	137505	137673	137604	137693	137644	138095	138533	138479
2004	138566(1)	138301
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000, January 2003 and January 2004

 

[windchime]

These articles are illustrative of the media's manipulation of information.  The Economic Times article is long, but worth the read.

Particularly revealing was the last paragraph in the Economic Times article:

"It is clearly implied that only those who can pay are worthy of the kind of "economic literacy" (in The Economist's words) that's lacking on the TV show."

Lou Dobbs Jabs 'Chronically Liberal Media' for Attacking 'Bush Bonanza'

US's Mr anti-BPO is actually pro-BPO Economic Times- Lou Dobbs  3-2-04

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

(((Hugs))) to you!

[xzins]

You are exactly correct. The seasonally adjusted chart is another illustration demonstrating that the total number of jobs is UP, not down. Combined with the extremely low unemployment rate it is says that the low unemployment rate is not just a statistical anomaly.

[xzins]

"Investors," wrote Dobbs, "often misled by the chronically liberal media, are making a huge mistake right now. They are underestimating the good that George Bush is doing for the economy….

This is clear evidence to me that CNN has a "no good news policy" that is articulated privately to those on air. More than that, they have a "create bad news" policy in that it's a way to advance ones credentials in some way.

Other evidence of this was a thread yesterday which documents that in the early 90's CNN called a 5.6 unemployment rate "extremely low," but are now calling the same rate an "economic drag."

[blackie]

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

[MEG33]

FYI

[MEG33]

FYI

[faithincowboys]

Why didn't they go after Reagan in 84 if he had many fewer jobs that Carter? This is total bunk! I suspect there is some fraud in these numbers. During Dem Presidencies they under-report, during GOP presidencies they over-report.

[MEG33]

FYI

[faithincowboys]

Does anybody believe the last year of Clinton only had 4% unemployed? These numbers are total bs.

[xzins]

Look at the chart again in the basic article. The numbers of jobs are links with the heading "avg # of jobs". Reagan had more jobs than Carter, not less.

Reagan had a higher unemployment than Carter in his first term because the economy had entered a recession due to Carter's record hyper-inflation. If you look at Reagan's 2nd term, you'll see that that is when the unemployment rate began to improve ALL THE WAY through Clinton and into Pres. Bush2.

[faithincowboys]

But the percentage-- he had a higher unemployment rate, which is what these jerks are harping on!

[TXBSAFH]

So, when you replace a $20 an hour job with a $10 McJob you are employed but not doing any better.

[MEG33]

Can you show me the source for that figure or is it a feeling?

[TXBSAFH]

I have been looking myself. I have been in the same position for almost two years and have obtained more education. There are few jobs posted ( I check 5 different websites daily.) for my skill set (Systems admin). The majority of these that are out there have less wages and benefits then they did two or three years ago. I was openly told by one contraction company that they were trying to make the benefits package unattractive to job seekers so they did not have to pay it. Further more he said that with all the jobs going to India we do not have to pay as well as we did. This is a problem.

[olliemb]

please explain to me where the democrats get their data about the 3.3 million jobs lost and the worst unemployment since Hoover? You are the second freeper that reports these remarkable numbers so why do the democrats say what they say?

[xzins]

Reagan had a higher unemployment rate, but at that time everyone KNEW that a recession and hyper-inflation had begun under Carter. They had to give him time to pull out of it....which he did...in spades.

[RightWhale]

That's what I thought, too. Just a tad high. An unemployment rate of 5% is supposed to be healthy for the economy. If it gets below 5% wages start to inflate. If it gets above 5% people are out of work and wages may fall.