Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TopQuark
The statistic you cite moves parallel to the unemployment reported.

You evade. That would be the answer to the question "In what direction does the total unemployment/underemployment rate move"?, a question neither you nor I asked.

You have not addressed your reliance on only counting those receiving UI benefits as unemployed. How do you account for those who are looking for work, but receive no benefits? By what terminology do you designate them?

Keep in mind also that "civilian work force" includes people not looking for a job....

You are again mistaken. From the report:

The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.
Are you going to post a leading business media report of a mass factory hiring to show us what has been selectively ignored, or will you ignore that suggestion?
93 posted on 09/25/2003 12:50:31 PM PDT by Starwind (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: Starwind
Are you going to post a leading business media report of a mass factory hiring No. I do not follow very closely these statistics, and they are made more difficult to come by because they press does not cover them.

In the last few days, on a similar thread, someone did post a compilation of hirings, but I did not copy it.

to show us what has been selectively ignored, or will you ignore that suggestion? I may not be giving you the answer you want to hear, but I am certainly not ignorign the question. You are not being fair.

I am not going to split hairs about the statistics (read the previous post where that has been addressed). The point remains valid: the times we live in are not good only in comparison to the 1990s, which were abnormally good. The current press does not reflect that. The posts on FR, icluding this thread, give a distorted picture as well. Finally, management and the "rich" are singled out as the culprits of all evil. All of this is wrong, whether the unemployement is 6.1% of 6.5%.

100 posted on 09/25/2003 1:08:56 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

We were doing better before "free trade"

Year Ann Avg
1948 3.8
1949 5.9
1950 5.3
1951 3.3
1952 3.0
1953 2.9
1954 5.5
1955 4.4
1956 4.1
1957 4.3
1958 6.8
1959 5.5
1960 5.5
1961 6.7
1962 5.5
1963 5.7
1964 5.2
1965 4.5
1966 3.8
1967 3.8
1968 3.6
1969 3.5
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8

 

103 posted on 09/25/2003 1:17:49 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson