Skip to comments.
Pres Bush: LOWEST 1st Term Unemploy. Rate Since Eisenhower! 3.2 Million More Jobs than EVER!
Bureau of Labor Statistics ^
| 5 Mar 04
| BLS
Posted on 03/07/2004 4:19:45 AM PST by xzins
|
U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics |
|
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data |
|
|
Change Output Options: |
From: |
|
To: |
|
|
|
|
include graphs NEW! |
|
|
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 |
|
|
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: attack; bubble; bush43; bushrecovery; economy; employment; jobmarket; market; mutual; rate; taxes; unemployment; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 last
To: olliemb
They report only the numbers of jobs that no longer exist. They don't report those that have been gained.
Let's say IBM canceled 5000 jobs and Ford canceled 5000 jobs in factory production during the recession. That's a running total of 10000 jobs that were lost. Now let's say that IBM & Ford, now that the recession is over, each hire 6000 people in automated technology/design.
You and I would talk about the net gain of 2000 jobs.
A democrat would say that you lost 10000 jobs.
It's like ONLY reporting the run scored by your opponent during a baseball game.
Those keeping a running total of lost jobs would say that we
81
posted on
03/08/2004 9:43:11 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
To: olliemb
They report only the numbers of jobs that no longer exist. They don't report those that have been gained.
Let's say IBM canceled 5000 jobs and Ford canceled 5000 jobs in factory production during the recession. That's a running total of 10000 jobs that were lost. Now let's say that IBM & Ford, now that the recession is over, each hire 6000 people in automated technology/design.
You and I would talk about the net gain of 2000 jobs.
A democrat would say that you lost 10000 jobs.
It's like ONLY reporting the runs scored by your opponent during a baseball game.
You and I would both wonder how many runs our team scored.
82
posted on
03/08/2004 9:44:32 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
To: xzins
Thanks for great explanation. Why don't the Bushes explain like this and why don't the pundits understand how you understand it so that it can be explained simply.
83
posted on
03/08/2004 9:52:15 AM PST
by
olliemb
To: xzins
I won't believe it until Tommy Daschle tells me it is true!
84
posted on
03/08/2004 9:55:14 AM PST
by
wjcsux
(3rd Party Voters; stupid is as stupid does.)
To: xzins; My2Cents
This article is interesting, isn't it?
CNN - 5.6% Unemployment is 'low' (1996), 5.6% Unemlpoyment is high (Today)
CNN ^
Posted on 02/27/2004 10:01:49 PM EST by Phisher
July 5, 1996 Web posted at: 5:50 p.m. EDT
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.
The Labor Department said Friday that businesses added 239,000 workers to their payrolls during June. The vast majority of the jobs added were in the service industry, including restaurants, bars, and agencies that place temporary workers.
Analysts said preparations for the Summer Olympics in Atlanta also helped boost the total.
Even the average wage rose for June, up 9 cents to $11.82 an hour. It was the biggest one-month wage increase on record, and indicates that not only are more people working, but they are being paid more for their work.
Economists noted that the boost in average hourly earnings, a key indicator of wage pressures, jumped 0.8 percent, the biggest monthly increase on record.
In January, analysts were concerned that growth was so anemic that the nation was in danger of a recession. But five straight months of strong job gains now have analysts worried more about inflation.
85
posted on
03/08/2004 9:56:28 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Charter Member of the Incredible Interlocking Institutional Power!!!!)
To: Howlin
See my #66.
The CNN article comparison is an ABSOLUTELY GREAT find. Thanks.
86
posted on
03/08/2004 10:02:01 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
To: wjcsux
Little Tommy's goin' down.
I don't live in SD, but I might just send Thune some money.
87
posted on
03/08/2004 10:02:56 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
To: xzins; Phisher
88
posted on
03/08/2004 10:03:29 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Charter Member of the Incredible Interlocking Institutional Power!!!!)
To: Howlin
BTW, where do I get my member card for the IIIP (incredible interlocking institutional power)?
89
posted on
03/08/2004 10:07:57 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
To: xzins
If you are a member in good standing of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I believe you are grandfathered in!
90
posted on
03/08/2004 10:11:46 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Charter Member of the Incredible Interlocking Institutional Power!!!!)
To: Howlin
Great quotes. 5.6% is high for GW and low for Clinton. Never ceases to amaze...
To: xzins
"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."
Bump!
92
posted on
03/08/2004 4:16:02 PM PST
by
windchime
(Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson