unemployment is at 4.5 %

rob · #21 (**permalink**) 01-13-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RASTAMAN

Anyone can cook the numbers to make it appear how you want them too. Were the numbers you gave taken into consideration whether good paying white collar jobs were replaced with low paying service oriented jobs. How many previous workers who had one job outsourced now work 2 or 2.5 jobs just to make ends meet.

Sounds mis-leading at best, Catsmeow made good points as well.

I agree that numbers can be rigged. I just wonder how to go about getting accurate numbers on the unemployment in this country. Before my wife went to work, she was a domestic goddess and therefore didn't consider herself unemployed.

There are many people that are earning money babysitting for people getting paid cash and that doesn't get reported.

Roman · #22 (**permalink**) 01-13-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Notes about the figures...

This may be irrelevent if they haven't changed the method. If they use the same method they did 30 years, the fact still remains in relation to those times.

Skinny Fatts · #23 (**permalink**) 01-14-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdfather02

Amazing....

I noticed this sometime ago. When Clinton was the president, employment figures such as this were considered an all time low....

Figures reported such as this under Bush, they are considered high.

Let's have a little common sense here, either the figures are good or they are bad, but they can't be both.

You've hit the nail on the head here. These numbers (whatever they may be) are now bad because an "R" is in the WH. The low numbers will be tied with low paying or minimum wage jobs being created. Now when a "D" assumes office these very same numbers will be portrayed as "the lowest and best ever" and tied with great new jobs being created. The numbers have the ability to "change overnight".

Roman · #24 (**permalink**) 01-14-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdfather02

Amazing....

I noticed this sometime ago. When Clinton was the president, employment figures such as this were considered an all time low....

Figures reported such as this under Bush, they are considered high.

Let's have a little common sense here, either the figures are good or they are bad, but they can't be both.

I can objectively settle this: In economics they teach you that unemployment should stay within 4-7%, in order for our economy to grow. If everyone had a job there would be not enough skilled or unskilled labor for new jobs which causes our economy to grow. So without this small amount of unemployment our economy would stagnate and possible eventually collaspe.