Unemployment drops, jobs rebound

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Unemployment rate drops

Job growth rebounded in month of August as nation's unemployment rate dipped to 5.4 percent.

September 3, 2004: 9:51 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Job growth rebounded in the United States last month and the unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly, the government reported Friday, in one of the last big employment reports before the November election.

The Labor Department said the economy created 144,000 jobs in August, the strongest reading since May and up from a revised 73,000 jobs in a weak July report. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast 150,000 new jobs.

The unemployment rate dipped to 5.4 from 5.5 percent in July. Forecasts were for the unemployment rate to hold steady. The drop was mainly due to a decline in the labor force. The unemployment rate was at its lowest since September 2001, the month of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The job report, closely watched each month, could prove especially important to President Bush and John Kerry since it comes just two months before the Nov. 2 election. There is only one more job report due before election day, the September report due out Oct. 8, the morning of the second presidential debate.

The report could give a lift to the Bush campaign, coming just hours after the Republicans renominated him. The president and his advisers like to point to the nearly 1.7 million jobs created since August 2003.

But the Kerry campaign notes that despite the recent job gains, the economy has still lost 1 million jobs since Bush took office in early 2001, meaning Bush is likely to become the first president since the Depression era's Herbert Hoover to complete his term with an overall drop in U.S. payrolls.

Last month's job growth was the strongest since 208,000 in May, and the department also revised upward its readings for June and July. June job growth was revised to a gain of 96,000 jobs from an earlier reading of 78,000, while July was revised from an earlier reading of 32,000...

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/03/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[CCTAU 3,342]

But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, But, but, sKerry and Edwards promised me they would all drop and that president Bush personally fired everyone!

We would still be trying to get France's permission to protect our own country if sKerry wer pres. And remember, he is the biggest anti-gun/anti-hunting candidate in history.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, do you think by November there will be one net job created in the last four years?

[Tigermike 3,053]

For those in the know, what is the absolutely lowest that unemployment could be? Historically what is the lowest unemployment has ever been? It seems I remember from somewhere that 100% employment is unattainable for a number of reasons.

[CCTAU 3,342]

So, do you think by November there will be one net job created in the last four years?

You are falling onto the trap that sKerry is in. We, the american people, are smarter than you idiot demoncrats give us credit for. This nation has just undergone one of the most traumatic attacks coupled with a recession started on your watch in our history. The fact that he can't pull a rabbit out of a hat is not lost on the intelligent. Only you and other blind followers would still be asking that question. More poeple are willing to give him a chance to implement his programs without the unforeseen attacks.

This captain has taking you over the largest wave in the strorm. And now you want to change captains to a guy who will turn the ship around and try to ride that same wave until we land on the shore half dead. And then we'll have to come in and clean up again. It's time this idiotic cycle stop and you support YOUR president George W. Bush. He is and will continue to be president. There is no other option. It's time to continue toward the future, not "ride the wave."

[BamaGrad03 0]

So, do you think by November there will be one net job created in the last four years?

Do you think all the jobs created by the internet boom were good, solid jobs based on companies' price to earnings ratio?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Historically, economists have seen around 6% as "full employment", although that number has been revised downward in recent years to as low as 5.2%. The 4% unemployment rates we saw in late 1999-early 2000 isn't sustainable long term. That number was more a creation of the stock market and investment bubble. But I think if we can continue to thwart major terrorist attacks, get the price of oil back under control, and so on, you'll probably see unemployment numbers in the high 4% range again in the next year or so.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

So, do you think by November there will be one net job created in the last four years?

You are falling onto the trap that sKerry is in. We, the american people, are smarter than you idiot demoncrats give us credit for. This nation has just undergone one of the most traumatic attacks coupled with a recession started on your watch in our history. The fact that he can't pull a rabbit out of a hat is not lost on the intelligent. Only you and other blind followers would still be asking that question. More poeple are willing to give him a chance to implement his programs without the unforeseen attacks.

This captain has taking you over the largest wave in the strorm. And now you want to change captains to a guy who will turn the ship around and try to ride that same wave until we land on the shore half dead. And then we'll have to come in and clean up again. It's time this idiotic cycle stop and you support YOUR president George W. Bush. He is and will continue to be president. There is no other option. It's time to continue toward the future, not "ride the wave."

Even if you go with the numbers the Democrats agree with, the recession started less than two months into Bush's term (March 2001), long before any policy of his would have had ANY effect on things. The tax cut didn't come until 3 months later. Three months after that 9/11 happened, making a weak economy even worse. The Democrats don't want to admit that those factors were extraordinary and had a devastating effect on things, but it's the truth.

The point is, the economy is on the right track. The momentum is in our favor...12 straight months of job growth averaging around 145,000 added a month and over 200,000 a month over the last 6 months. No matter how you slice it, that's an economy headed in the right direction.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

This captain has taking you over the largest wave in the storm. And now you want to change captains to a guy who will turn the ship around and try to ride that same wave until we land on the shore half dead. And then we'll have to come in and clean up again. It's time this idiotic cycle stop and you support YOUR president George W. Bush. He is and will continue to be president. There is no other option. It's time to continue toward the future, not "ride the wave."

Nicely put, CCTAU.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, do you think by November there will be one net job created in the last four years?

You are falling onto the trap that sKerry is in. We, the american people, are smarter than you idiot demoncrats give us credit for. This nation has just undergone one of the most traumatic attacks coupled with a recession started on your watch in our history. The fact that he can't pull a rabbit out of a hat is not lost on the intelligent. Only you and other blind followers would still be asking that question. More poeple are willing to give him a chance to implement his programs without the unforeseen attacks.

This captain has taking you over the largest wave in the strorm. And now you want to change captains to a guy who will turn the ship around and try to ride that same wave until we land on the shore half dead. And then we'll have to come in and clean up again. It's time this idiotic cycle stop and you support YOUR president George W. Bush. He is and will continue to be president. There is no other option. It's time to continue toward the future, not "ride the wave."

Even if you go with the numbers the Democrats agree with, the recession started less than two months into Bush's term (March 2001), long before any policy of his would have had ANY effect on things. The tax cut didn't come until 3 months later. Three months after that 9/11 happened, making a weak economy even worse. The Democrats don't want to admit that those factors were extraordinary and had a devastating effect on things, but it's the truth.

The point is, the economy is on the right track. The momentum is in our favor...12 straight months of job growth averaging around 145,000 added a month and over 200,000 a month over the last 6 months. No matter how you slice it, that's an economy headed in the right direction.

According to you guys, it wasn't Clinton at all who was responsible for the good economy but the republican controlled Congress. If that's the case, how can it be called "Clinton's recession?" Wouldn't the recession be the result of the same republican economic policies that brought about prosperity? Furthermore, the Congress stayed in republican hands since then so are you saying that when Bush came in they suddenly got stupid and realized that massive deficits were the way to go? That higher unemployment was a good thing?

[BamaGrad03 0]

No...Overly zealous Venture Capatilists and the internet boom created the sick economic numbers of the late 90s. Not congress..not clinton.

[Weagle98 119]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Clinton run in 1996 on unemployment numbers of 5.6 percent? And this was tremendous.

By the way the unemployment in Germany in arount 10 to 11%.

[rexbo 104]

So, do you think by November there will be one net job created in the last four years?

Sounds like an 'economic girlie-man' question.

[Tiger Al 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Clinton run in 1996 on unemployment numbers of 5.6 percent? And this was tremendous.

By the way the unemployment in Germany in arount 10 to 11%.

Those numbers were tremendously high (8-9%???) when he took over and were dropping and continued to drop overall. Bush took over at around 4.5%.

Do you want to speak German, too?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

According to you guys, it wasn't Clinton at all who was responsible for the good economy but the republican controlled Congress. If that's the case, how can it be called "Clinton's recession?" Wouldn't the recession be the result of the same republican economic policies that brought about prosperity? Furthermore, the Congress stayed in republican hands since then so are you saying that when Bush came in they suddenly got stupid and realized that massive deficits were the way to go? That higher unemployment was a good thing?

I don't think I've ever used the term "Clinton recession" unless it was to be a smart-ass in response to someone blaming Bush for it. My contention all along has been that regardless of who or what was at fault for the recession, blaming Bush simply makes no sense. He hadn't been in office long enough to have caused it.

[clantontiger 0]

I don't think I've ever used the term "Clinton recession" unless it was to be a smart-ass in response to someone blaming Bush for it. My contention all along has been that regardless of who or what was at fault for the recession, blaming Bush simply makes no sense. He hadn't been in office long enough to have caused it.

Let's not forget Bush's budget did not take effect until October 2001.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Clinton run in 1996 on unemployment numbers of 5.6 percent?  And this was tremendous.

By the way the unemployment in Germany in arount 10 to 11%.

Those numbers were tremendously high (8-9%???) when he took over and were dropping and continued to drop overall. Bush took over at around 4.5%.

Do you want to speak German, too?

The unemployment rate was 7.3% when Clinton took office in January 1993 and it had been trending downward for six straight months. The recession had officially ended in 1991, but unemployment tends to lag the economic indicators that determine recessions.

1992-06-01  7.8

1992-07-01  7.7

1992-08-01  7.6

1992-09-01  7.6

1992-10-01  7.3

1992-11-01  7.4

1992-12-01  7.4

1993-01-01  7.3

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

[Tigermike 3,053]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Clinton run in 1996 on unemployment numbers of 5.6 percent?  And this was tremendous.

By the way the unemployment in Germany in arount 10 to 11%.

Those numbers were tremendously high (8-9%???) when he took over and were dropping and continued to drop overall. Bush took over at around 4.5%.

Do you want to speak German, too?

The unemployment rate was 7.3% when Clinton took office in January 1993 and it had been trending downward for six straight months. The recession had officially ended in 1991, but unemployment tends to lag the economic indicators that determine recessions.

1992-06-01   7.8

1992-07-01   7.7

1992-08-01   7.6

1992-09-01   7.6

1992-10-01   7.3

1992-11-01   7.4

1992-12-01   7.4

1993-01-01   7.3

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

It seems you are busted Al. Do you just pull those figures out of your buttt or from a Democrat Revisionists web site?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

No need to assume the worst...he was just estimating from memory. It's happened to me before.

[Tiger Al 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Clinton run in 1996 on unemployment numbers of 5.6 percent?  And this was tremendous.

By the way the unemployment in Germany in arount 10 to 11%.

Those numbers were tremendously high (8-9%???) when he took over and were dropping and continued to drop overall. Bush took over at around 4.5%.

Do you want to speak German, too?

The unemployment rate was 7.3% when Clinton took office in January 1993 and it had been trending downward for six straight months. The recession had officially ended in 1991, but unemployment tends to lag the economic indicators that determine recessions.

1992-06-01   7.8

1992-07-01   7.7

1992-08-01   7.6

1992-09-01   7.6

1992-10-01   7.3

1992-11-01   7.4

1992-12-01   7.4

1993-01-01   7.3

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

It seems you are busted Al. Do you just pull those figures out of your buttt or from a Democrat Revisionists web site?

No, Tigermike, from memory. Hence the question marks (???). I got as close as .6%. Not too bad.

[Tigermike 3,053]

OK Al, in the parentheses and in the dark shaded area I missed the ???????

So I will let you slide this time.

[Tiger Al 0]

OK Al, in the parentheses and in the dark shaded area I missed the ???????

So I will let you slide this time.

No sweat!