[lelio]

If you're going to nearly copy all of Rush's WSJ article at least give him credit, as he brought up all the same points you did. And its NASDAQ!

As for the unemployment rate being higher in the 70's, I'm inclined to think it was for a couple of reasons:
a) cheaper to live back then. A husband could be the sole wage earner for a family. If he's out of work and his wife takes a job, does only him being out of work count to UI? Perhaps, as women working might not of been factored into how unemployment was calculated.
b) people worked for larger companies and it was easier to figure out unemployment rates. Nowadays with so many independant contractors how do you measure it? Do they have to be without a gig for a month? Who knows.

[MJY1288]

I don't listen to Rush or visit his webpage so I guess we remember things as they were back then. As far as the unemployment rate, it was calculated by the number of those who lost their jobs, just as it's done today.

And yes! I mispelled NASDAQ, thanks for pointing it out

[JNB]

When it comes to economcis, I have come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is about as clueless as they come. Maybe he does know better, but he comes across as being little more than a cheerleader.