Unemployment Rate Rises to 6.1%

[W*GS]

The unemployment rate jumped to 6.1 percent in August, its highest level in five years, as the erosion of the job market accelerated over the summer.

Continued at

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/economy/06econ.html

[Garcia Bronco]

6 percent is considered average, correct?

[elsid13]

6 percent is considered average, correct?

The average annual employment rate for the US since 1948 is 5.58%

So it slightly above average.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

When you get to the 4% to 4.5% then most economist fell you reached "full employment", because there will always be some slack in the labor pool.

[Play2win]

So, in an average year, roughly 1,525,340 more Americans would have jobs and be working. That says a lot.

[W*GS]

Some historical perspective over the last 50 years:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/unemployment.jpg

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/home.htm)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/jobcreation.jpg

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/home.htm)

[Denver Crush]

Pretty striking

[W*GS]

As if Presidents can magically make jobs appear or disappear.

Of course, anything to show how deep, abiding, and revolting LABF's love is for Bill Clinton...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Q: How do you make W*GS see red and foam at the mouth?

A: Give Clinton credit where due for something.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS would like you to believe that these striking disparities between the Bush I/Bush II years and the Clinton years are just a coincidence.

[Hotrod]

Looks like a pattern regardless of president since 1958 to me.

[DenverBrit]

The Clinton years were also the years when technology sky-rocketed and created jobs and wealth.
Microsoft's release of Win95 turbocharged the economy and played a vital role worldwide in triggering the dot-com boom.
They were some of my favorite years.

[W*GS]

W*GS would like you to believe that these striking disparities between the Bush I/Bush II years and the Clinton years are just a coincidence.

If the President was a dictator, you'd have more of a point. Believe it or not, there are events and factors in the economy over which the President has no control or direct influence.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Job creation and the economy generally are stronger under democrats...even in the middle of last century where not much seperated the two parties. Might be coincidence, but probably not

[W*GS]

Job creation and the economy generally are stronger under democrats...even in the middle of last century where not much seperated the two parties. Might be coincidence, but probably not

Democrat what? Presidents or Congresses? Both?

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Sorry, presidents

[Garcia Bronco]

Sorry, presidents

Job creation by expanding the Federal Governemnt. What a joke.

[W*GS]

Q: How do you make LABF get a chub?

A: Let him give Clinton credit for anything, factual or not.

[elsid13]

Looks like a pattern regardless of president since 1958 to me.

Thus the idea of the business cycle.

[Mr.Meanie]

Job creation by expanding the Federal Governemnt. What a joke.

Actually I agree with you and the idea conservatives have about limiting the size of government.

Unfortunately, the federal government has grown far more under the conservatives who controlled the presidency and congress than it has since the Lynden Johnson era.

You guys get too caught up in the Party platform, and stop seeing what's actually happening. The Republicans talk about being fiscally conservative, yet they expanded the government on a wild spending spree in the last 8 years. They talk about overturning Roe v. Wade, yet when they controlled all 3 branches of government they didn't even make an attempt at it. Why? Because then they would have nothing to energize their base.

It's all part of the game, and you guys who get so emotional over these issues are party to it.

Btw... this (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61509) is a fiscal conservative's take on Obama...

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Job creation by expanding the Federal Governemnt. What a joke.

Good analysis! tell that to Clinton

[TailgateNut]

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/jobcreation.jpg

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/home.htm)



We need a corporate profits chart!

[Garcia Bronco]

Actually I agree with you and the idea conservatives have about limiting the size of government.

Unfortunately, the federal government has grown far more under the conservatives who controlled the presidency and congress than it has since the Lynden Johnson era.

You guys get too caught up in the Party platform, and stop seeing what's actually happening. The Republicans talk about being fiscally conservative, yet they expanded the government on a wild spending spree in the last 8 years. They talk about overturning Roe v. Wade, yet when they controlled all 3 branches of government they didn't even make an attempt at it. Why? Because then they would have nothing to energize their base.

It's all part of the game, and you guys who get so emotional over these issues are party to it.

Btw... this (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61509) is a fiscal conservative's take on Obama...

The republican representation has been anything but conservative with regards to spending. McCain was right when he said that they have lost that trust.

[Garcia Bronco]

Good analysis! tell that to Clinton

It's the only way a President or government can create jobs. Businesses create jobs and free markets inspite of government influence. Government needs to get out of the way.

[Mr.Meanie]

It's the only way a President or government can create jobs. Businesses create jobs and free markets inspite of government influence. Government needs to get out of the way.

That's just not true. Economics 101:

Consumerism drives capitalism. When people have money to spend, they buy houses and cars and tvs and swimming pools for their kids. When people are spending money, companies create jobs and hire people, invest in new technologies, which in turn helps create more jobs and hire more people. Those people, in turn spend money... etc. etc. etc.

It's an upward spiral that slows down only when money is not changing hands as fast. Here is where the biggest problems with cutting taxes for only the very elite of the elite comes in. There is such a small percentage of those people that these tax breaks apply to, there is no way they stimulate the economy with their spending.

Bush and the Republicans know this too, even though they say otherwise. You can tell because both times Bush wanted to spur the economy, he gave out billions in tax rebates to the poor and middle class people. THAT is what spurs capitalism, not this "trickle down" economic bull****.

[TailgateNut]

That's just not true. Economics 101:

Consumerism drives capitalism. When people have money to spend, they buy houses and cars and tvs and swimming pools for their kids. When people are spending money, companies create jobs and hire people, invest in new technologies, which in turn helps create more jobs and hire more people. Those people, in turn spend money... etc. etc. etc.

It's an upward spiral that slows down only when money is not changing hands as fast. Here is where the biggest problems with cutting taxes for only the very elite of the elite comes in. There is such a small percentage of those people that these tax breaks apply to, there is no way they stimulate the economy with their spending.

Bush and the Republicans know this too, even though they say otherwise. You can tell because both times Bush wanted to spur the economy, he gave out billions in tax rebates to the poor and middle class people. THAT is what spurs capitalism, not this "trickle down" economic bull****.


That's why it's called "TRICKLE" down. It doesn't get enough momentum to flow.

[Play2win]

Or you could call it voodoo economics...

[Orange_Beard]

It's all in your head.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

That's just not true. Economics 101:

Consumerism drives capitalism. When people have money to spend, they buy houses and cars and tvs and swimming pools for their kids. When people are spending money, companies create jobs and hire people, invest in new technologies, which in turn helps create more jobs and hire more people. Those people, in turn spend money... etc. etc. etc.

It's an upward spiral that slows down only when money is not changing hands as fast. Here is where the biggest problems with cutting taxes for only the very elite of the elite comes in. There is such a small percentage of those people that these tax breaks apply to, there is no way they stimulate the economy with their spending.

Bush and the Republicans know this too, even though they say otherwise. You can tell because both times Bush wanted to spur the economy, he gave out billions in tax rebates to the poor and middle class people. THAT is what spurs capitalism, not this "trickle down" economic bull****.


Good post. Also, this BS that if you cut taxes, youll cut innovation has proven to be horse**** too. The history of america has proven otherwise.

[Bronco Bob]

Job creation by expanding the Federal Governemnt. What a joke.

If it weren't for hiring by the federal government in this same time period,
the unemployment rate would be even higher.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's just not true. Economics 101:

Consumerism drives capitalism. When people have money to spend, they buy houses and cars and tvs and swimming pools for their kids. When people are spending money, companies create jobs and hire people, invest in new technologies, which in turn helps create more jobs and hire more people. Those people, in turn spend money... etc. etc. etc.

It's an upward spiral that slows down only when money is not changing hands as fast. Here is where the biggest problems with cutting taxes for only the very elite of the elite comes in. There is such a small percentage of those people that these tax breaks apply to, there is no way they stimulate the economy with their spending.

Bush and the Republicans know this too, even though they say otherwise. You can tell because both times Bush wanted to spur the economy, he gave out billions in tax rebates to the poor and middle class people. THAT is what spurs capitalism, not this "trickle down" economic bull****.

QFT.

I said the same thing (bolded part) when BushCo first floated the idea of the "stimulus" checks, i.e., that this gesture was essentially a tacit admission that trickle-down economics didn't work.

(Not that those of us who remember the Red Ink Reagan era had forgotten this.)