The gulf between 5.6 and 5.7

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:07 pm

According to CNN:

1996
During Clinton's re-election campaign vs. Dole:
"Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/

2004
During Bush's re-election bid unemployment stands at 5.7 percent and we get this:
"A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches. We are a long way from getting back the jobs lost since President Bush took office," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/

So, in 1996, 5.6% unemployment was considered "already-low", but in 2004, 5.7% is considered horrific?

Fascinating.

Edit: actually the unemployment rate was 5.7 in December and is currently 5.6% ... the same it was in 1996.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:01 pm

The difference is under Bush more of the unemployed are democrat congressmen and governors

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:15 am

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:23 am

I think after years of denial (and plenty of complaints about conservative talk radio), even the predominatly liberal media now admits to being predominantly liberal. The spin in so much news these days is both subtle and insidious. Case in point this week is all the scare tactics being used to dissuade folks from seeing The Passion, such as terms like *grisly crucifixion* as opposed to what? The feel-good crucifixion of the season?

The inconsistent portrayals of San Francisco's mayor as a champion of civil rights and the Alabama judge as a right-wing whacko also comes to mind.

In a different time even the relatively benign term *spin* would be recognized for what it actually is: propaganda. Unfortunately for the spin doctors, their impatience to change America more toward their liking has led to an abundance of easily recognizable distortions and hypocrisies resulting in widespread skepticism and contempt for all things claiming to be objective.

A postive trend, however, is more readers are learning to once again rely on themselves for their opinions rather than take the lazy way out. Blogs, independent media, the Web and Google are scaring the crap out of journalists because now ordinary citizens have almost the same access to information as the journalists do. Whereas once you had to take it on faith that what you were reading was true, now we all have to power to be fact checkers.

I would expect to see some sort of ethical revival within the media as it becomes more clear to that industry that its abuses of the public's trust are now glaringly apparent to your average Joe on the street. Regaining its credibility as an objective and value-added source of information is imperative if it is to survive in the Internet age.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:38 am

Funny thing is, I don't consider myself a Democrat. I won't align myself to anything so corrupt, as ALL politicians are, but I noticed something on this board. Seems like the Republicans on this board spend more time blaming the liberal press, bias, clinton, hillary, wesley clark, botox, elian gonzalez, than they do worrying about the issue at hand. Now, that is NOT exclusive to you conservatives so dont get huffy.

You guys just ever stop and wonder if it ISNT a conspiracy against you??

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:29 am

What's really funny is you always assume everyone complaining is a Republican, and then you try to demonstrate how "enlightened" you are by not aligning yourself with the Democratic party. You sound like Rican, just with better spelling ;)

But anyway, if you want to talk "media bias", all you have to do is find anyone who's ever picketed at an abortion clinic or been involved in a March for Life and watched the news coverage. The news always managed to base their footage of the thousands of pro-life marchers (2/3 women) on one or two shots of some old guy holding a Bible and a crucifix, and they always managed to base their footage of the pro-choice people across the street (2 dozen, swearing and flipping off little kids) on the one well-dressed female lawyer. Selective coverage, with a heavily liberal slant... now, I can't tell you if that happens on every issue, but I can tell you it was remarkably obvious on that one issue, and I have no reason to believe it would be otherwise on others.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 10:36 am

Zuruck forget about all our whining and blame for a minute and just ask yourself this:

Why did CNN report such a different slant on the same levels of unemployment?

Which is just another version of the initial question posed by index_html:
"So, in 1996, 5.6% unemployment was considered "already-low", but in 2004, 5.7% is considered horrific?

All other issues aside, why do YOU think they have reported the implications of the same figures to be so different?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:35 am

Two things:

First:
BOTH sides (liberal and conservative media) try to spin their message. Anyone who says different is deluding themselves. The fact that everyone does it doesn't make it right. I am just saying no one holds a patent on "fair and balanced" coverage.

Second:
Maybe the perceived disparity between the reported unemployment numbers is caused by the context surrounding them. I don't recall what the numbers in the 3 years leading up to the Clinton campaign were. Were they trending up or down? The numbers leading up to the current campaign were a lot lower than they are now. They have been trending up for a while.

I am not saying that this is the cause of the differing coverage because I honestly don't know. I am just saying it is a possibility.

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:23 pm

Save your questions for someone who might respond, Will, Zuruck's a rock star.

MehYam · Post by **MehYam** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:21 pm

You get the news you want.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:42 am

Thanks bash for calling me a rock star. I like the ring of that.

As for a response for Will, it's simply politics. I dont believe it, I KNOW both sides do it, I just made an observation that the instant anything is said it becomes a clear blame on the liberal media. Has Bush's tenure not in fact lost 2.2 million jobs? Is that spin? Did he rescind on his campaign promise to cut greenhouse gases then change his mind about carbon dioxide being a G.H.G? Or was THAT liberal spit as well? I only ask questions because I'm sick and tired of the same old thing. Politics, it's terrible. This government as a whole, terrible. I love my country, but something's amiss...what to do?

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 5:00 pm

Maybe the perceived disparity between the reported unemployment numbers is caused by the context surrounding them. I don't recall what the numbers in the 3 years leading up to the Clinton campaign were. Were they trending up or down? The numbers leading up to the current campaign were a lot lower than they are now. They have been trending up for a while.

Dedman makes a good point. For what its worth, here is what I found. I'll leave the interpretation to someone else.

The unemployment rate was trending down leading up to the '96 Clinton campaign from a high of 7.8% in 6/92 to the 5.6% figure given in the article.

The unemployment rate was trending up since 10/00 until reaching a high of 6.1% in 6/03. Since then it has been going down to the current rate of 5.7%

Linkage...

http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/UNRATE.htm

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:32 pm

What you may NOT be considering is that changes in the way your social welfare systems works might not reflect the "true" number of unemployed.

For example, in NZ, the rate is around 3.2% (IIRC - may be wrong) - but that doesn't include people who are on a "Sickness Benefit", on "Domestic Purposes Benefit" (Get paid to have babies and stay at home looking after them), in prison, on "ACC" (Accident Compensation Corporation - get paid 80% of your salary/wage by the govt. when you get hurt in an accident) or "employed part time".

So - the "REAL" rate of unemployment is MUCH higher than the official rate.

It's very common for governments to re-arrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, in order for the unemployment figures to look better. I imagine the USA is no different to NZ in this regard.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:46 pm

bull frog mobius.
in america it's real simple. candidates take credit for the positives and blame the negatives on the previous administration.

the truth is that the economy "eb and flows" in a cycle that has nothing to do with the political election process. but the average american is so dim they actually consider it a "topic"... when it is not. the amount of time a president has to affect the economy (8 years max) is not enough time to really change the face of things as we know it.

so if you want to blame bill clinton or george bush... you are seeking a target. they are puppets... and you are deer in the headlights of the clown ass process.

enjoy yourself debating forever when your ass is being raped.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:43 pm

Zuruck wrote:...it's simply politics. I dont believe it, I KNOW both sides do it,...

Just so we're clear.
You're assigning the subject of our discussion, CNN, as a member of one of 'the sides', the democrat side...to which I say:

You are right, CNN is playing politics! Glad you got it!

and Cops, I don't mind when the parties play politics, that's expected but when the press wears objectivity as a badge of honor all the while holding the dagger behind their back like Brutus sneaking up on Caesar, well...

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:49 pm

ya mobi here in OZ you are considered employed (in the official figures) if you work only 1 HOUR during a 6 week period.

as a result the REAL unemployment figures are way higher than the official figures.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:41 pm

The main reason why a 5.6% unemployment rate seems so astoundingly high while a 5.6% unemployment rate in 96 seemed amazingly low was because there was a time between said years where there was near negative figures of unemployement... at least in the bay area. If you subtract the 2 or so percent of people that aren't working by their own means you would have had a figure in the 1% or less range in the bay area for employment. When the unemployment rate went back up to the level it was previously at, it seemed worse than it was. People lost their jobs at an incredibly fast rate, yet these were all jobs CREATED out of nothing within that time period. And if a lot of people lose their jobs in a short amount of time... regardless the unemployment rate... it still seems a lot worse than it actually is. Even if the unemployment rate is 0.000001%, if you're unemployed it might as well be 100%

It all reflects on how the economy IS and how it SHOULD BE. During the time frame between 199x and 200x (dunno precise numbers) the economy boomed to a level that it really SHOULDN'T have been at. People were investing money into companies that by nature couldn't POSSIBLY grow in size or value, and with the influx of revenue, more jobs were created. However, it wasn't supply/demand driven... more "he's making a lot of money doing this, I can too". The economy naturally realized this over time and since there were more tech jobs in circulation than there was market for, the natural and inevitable reaction is for the market to dive accordingly.

There was just simply more money on paper in the market than there actually should have been. The market just ebbed to compensate.

I hope that makes sense. It's not entirely an administrations fault... people are more similar to sheep than we would like to admit.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:08 am

Let me dangle my appendages into this topic if I may.
First off the very nature of looking at the unemployment percentage is like looking at the proverbial glass of water as being have empty. Lets say, instead of 5.6% unemploment, that there is 94.4% employment. Kinda gives a different ring to it now doesn't it. Looks more like, everybody that wants to work...is working.
Zurucks assertions that Bush (and the dems, and the liberii press) has lost jobs to the degree they would like to portray, is a game of mirrors. Lumped into the job loss catagory are married working women that have children and decided to drop out of working to stay at home, school age and college students that drop out of temporary employment to go back to school and I suspect seasonal workers on green card status that go back to their country of origin. So lets be careful on how we massage the data.
As to the slanting of the news by the press, my biggest concern is the McCain/Feingold bill and when it kicks in. At that point all political ads are to stop...and leaves the press as the only organ (besides the internet) that will present the election news. It will be interesting to see how the news is handled then.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:25 am

woodchip, answer me this question.

Has Bush not lost 2.2 million jobs?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:25 am

Zuruck wrote: Has Bush not lost 2.2 million jobs?

Has Bush personally? Probably not. You have to take into account the cyclical flow of the economy through good times and bad times. This, and corporations are increasingly moving their operations overseas and using cheap foreign labor in an effort to appease all of those thrifty Wal-Mart shoppers who expect inexpensive goods.

So no, Bush has not lost 2.2 million jobs. Should his adminsitration have done more to curb the tide? Yes. But he is not solely negligent. To claim he is would be to seek an easy scapegoat and reduce a complex issue down to immature fingerpointing. Furthermore, it's easy to kick and yell at Bush for losing 2.2 million jobs, but how does a government make jobs anyway? Do you honestly think the government has direct influence over multinational corporations? That they are soem kind of machine that can create jobs on a whim and Bush is merely too inept to realize this? Doubtful.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:47 am

*How many of those jobs would have been saved if a democrat had been in power?
[spoiler]Not many and at what cost?[/spoiler]
*How many of those jobs would have been saved if Ralph Nader had been in power?
[spoiler]Not many since Ralph still has to deal with the 2 party congress.[/spoiler]
*How many Al Queda jobs would have been saved and new positions filled if Bush hadn't been in power?
[spoiler]Many...cost benefit analysis on their elimination pending...[/spoiler]

Seek a balance not a soundbite.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:04 am

Zuruck, Bush lost squat in the jobs department. You forget the recession was already set in motion by Clinton and the Dot.com bubble bursting. Bin Ladens destruction of the twin towers furthered the recession along. The questions you have to ask is:

1) If Clinton would have taken Bin Laden when the Sudan offered him up...how many fewer jobs would have been lost

2) If Clinton would have moved on Afganistan as Bush did, instead of lobbing a couple of cruise missle in the desert...how many fewer jobs would have been lost.

3) If Clinton didn't cut and run from Mogadishu, thus showing Bin Laden America will cut and run when a few of its troops die...how many fewer jobs would have been lost.

If it looks like I'm laying the blame for the 2.2 million jobs lost...well, I am. Bush now has the thankless job of trying to clean up the spots on the fabric of America that Clinton left.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:57 am

so that's it...every single thing negative about Bush you just dumped onto Clinton? How about the current mess in Iraq? If daddy Bush had finished we wouldn't have had Iraq / Al Qaeda / Ansr Al Islam, none of them.
http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm

I suppose in a land where you actually have to have due process, they felt Bin Laden could not be tried. I guess Clinton felt that you can't just throw someone in a Navy brig in South Carolina for the rest of their life with no charges or court. Isnt that what they did in the Soviet Union?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:39 am

Zuruck, you've got it exactly backwards. I didn't dump anything, instead I mearly put the blame where the process was originally started.
Now for you're next assignment, read up on the Church Committee (no it's not a religious topic) and maybe you'll understand why no one saw 911 coming.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:54 am

How do you feel about holding people with no charges, no courts, no nothing for as long as they see fit? What if it was you? And they made a mistake but didnt know?

The gulf between 5.6 and 5.7

The gulf between 5.6 and 5.7

lol @ Zuruck