Posted on 03/22/2004 1:55:12 PM PST by shrinkermd
Jobless claims have fallen to their lowest level in more than three years, according to numbers released by the Labor Department on Thursday.
Americans requesting unemployment benefits dropped to 336,000 last week, the lowest level since January 13, 2001. This was less than a week before President George W. Bush took office.
The job market has continued to show signs of improvement with three straight weeks of decline in jobless claims, despite projections of increases.
Talon News reported on Wednesday that a new Manpower survey found nearly one-third of American companies will be hiring new employees in the second quarter to meet the demand for goods and services by the American consumer.
This is the third quarter in a row that hiring projections have increased. In fact, more than 366,000 new jobs have been added to the American workforce over the past six months and the survey found that jobs will continue to be created over the next six months.
Manpower concluded this is the most anticipated quarter for job growth since the first quarter of 2001.
Also, jobless claims are about 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and have continued to fall.
This is not good news for likely Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) who has attempted to use the issue of jobs as the centerpiece of his campaign to defeat Bush.
Meanwhile, Bush is confident that new jobs will be added to the economy because of his effective economic policies, including the tax cuts he got passed through Congress.
Although Kerry has blamed what he describes as "tax cuts for the rich" on the unemployment rate, joblessness has steadily fallen nearly one full percentage point in less than a year with the rate continuing to drop.
Unemployment has fallen from a high of 6.4 percent in June 2003 to 5.6 percent in February 2004.
The current unemployment rate is nearly identical to what former President Bill Clinton had when he ran for reelection in 1996. Unemployment stood at 5.5 percent in February 1996.
Actually, the 5.6 unemployment rate is lower than the 7.3 percent average in the 1980s and the 5.8 percent average in the 1990s.
Interestingly, the number of Americans in the workforce has now reached a record-shattering 138.5 million, the most ever in the history of the U.S.
Economic analysts have been surprised by the prospects for unemployment to continue to fall and predict that jobs will continue to be created for the remainder of 2004.
Dole camp unimpressed Despite the fact that the United States is now in the third-longest peace-time expansion in history, the campaign staff of Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole said the jobs numbers probably would not help Clinton's campaign that much.Republicans say a slow-growth economy has made workers anxious, and 20 percent of new jobs have gone to people taking a second job to pay their bills.
So who was right in 96? Was 5.6 good or not?
Hmmmm, it is remarkable how little this -- historical record jobs in the USA under W -- has been mentioned amid all the 'negative, hostile, nasty' DemoKerry snarls about 'record job losses'. Perhaps the White House could urge this on to all its friends in the lamestream press ....
Hmmmm, it is remarkable how little this -- historical record jobs in the USA under W -- has been mentioned amid all the 'negative, hostile, nasty' DemoKerry snarls about 'record job losses'. Perhaps the White House could urge this on to all its friends in the lamestream press ....
The fact that bush-bashers have decided that 5.6 in '96 is lower than 5.6 now, is not surprising. The number of people working doesn't matter to a Kerry or Buchanan fan. Likewise, it won't matter how many people are out of work if they get their way.
The part I can't figure out is why they stop at saying 3 million jobs are lost. Why don't they say 30 million, or 300 million?
Household survey says about 136.9 million jobs when he took office. Not the figure you gave.
Household survey says about 136.9 million jobs when he took office. Not the figure you gave.
But what is the theoritical (natural) minimum? Isn't it around 3.5%? Wouldn't that then make 4.2% extremely low and hard to sustain?
-PJ
Exactly! That's the context behind the numbers that always seems to get left out for some reason. Clinton had no problem claiming a growing job base because the long-term numbers supported him. Bush will have a tougher job than Clinton did, even though the absolute unemployment number is the same now as it was in '96. Though unemployment has been coming down for the past few months, the Democrats are going to make the comparison to the 2000 numbers, when Bush took office. Whichever side makes the more compelling argument (Dems-long term decline vs. GOP-short term improvement & turning around) probably wins the election.
Nice try, but it seems 138.5M is record employment even if 'shattery' is rather subjective.
Now, do tell why you would yelp as if MORE JOBS and the SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE with W & Beelzebubba is a bad thing. Do you wish to cover for the DemoKerrys whilst they screech about 'record job losses'?
What's Your NIGHTMARISH angle??
I keep thinking that we're beginning to see a shift from employment to inflation as the proof of miserable failure. But now it seems that even when employment goes below 5 percent and the expansion slows because of a labor shortage, the bush-bashers will still be belly-aching for more welfare and protection.
The craving for government assistance has no limits.
Series Id: LNS12000000 |
|||||||||||||
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1992 | 117978 | 117753 | 118144 | 118426 | 118375 | 118419 | 118713 | 118826 | 118720 | 118628 | 118876 | 118997 | |
1993 | 119075 | 119275 | 119542 | 119474 | 120115 | 120290 | 120467 | 120856 | 120554 | 120823 | 121169 | 121464 | |
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. |
Yes, I do understand what are properly called secular trends in the work force and, more critically, their statistical foundations. However, you would do well to lecture the DemoKerrys as to their fetish for claiming 'record job losses under Bush' in that they refer to absolute numbers rather than rates. Yet you seem to endorse their wingeing him by one standard and absolving themselves by another -- more liberal, of course -- standard.
You do understand about comparing 'apples to apples', right?
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.