digerati

From another site.

Is 5.6 percent a low figure, or a high one? Depends. If only 5.6 percent of hamburgers are discovered to contain meat, that’s way low. But if 5.6 percent of teachers are using their students as drug mules in elaborate Asian heroin importing schemes, that’s sort of high.

We’re comparing apples and oranges here. Or junkies and burgers. What if we compare similar or identical figures on the same subject, and from the same source?

Source: http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/
Here’s CNN in July 1996, as the Clinton-Dole election approached:

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. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/07/economy/economy/
So 5.6 percent is “already-low”. Now here’s CNN in December 2001:

The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent in November - the highest in six years - as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/economy/economy/
Can you “jump” to a figure 0.1 percent above that already defined as “low”? More from CNN, this time in March 2002:

The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent in February and businesses added jobs for the first time since last summer, the government said Friday, as the labor market began to recover from a downturn that led to more than a million job cuts in 2001.

The jobless rate fell from 5.6 percent in January as employers added 66,000 jobs to payrolls ...

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/09/news/economy/jobs/
That should read “fell from an already-low 5.6 percent in January”, surely. In January, CNN’s Mark Gongloff decided that an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent was bad news for Bush:

Though the unemployment rate posted a surprising decline, and many economists believe the job market will improve in 2004, Friday's report probably will keep Fed policy-makers on hold and may put some political pressure on President Bush.

A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/
Gongloff repeated his line about Bush’s election chances earlier this month when a familiar number appeared:

The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent, the lowest level since January 2002, from 5.7 percent in December.

A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches.

Why? It didn’t for Clinton.

Guidoo

The main differance was that during the 90's most of the growth was in the technology and manufacturing sectors, even some of the japanese auto makers opened plants in this country. As opposed to today where it appears most jobs that are being created are in the service sector. Not exactly high paying , support your family,own your own home-american dream jobs. Coupled with the attention paid to offshoring of jobs, making it appear that corporate america cares only about the bottom line and not about their employees or communities. Offshoring would not be drawing near the attention it is if more high end jobs were being created for the US job seeker. A case of the "have" and " have nots" is developing in this country. One doesnt even need to read a paper or watch the news to devlop that opinion. The company I work for has laid off about 10,000 people over the last 18-24 months yet our CEO quadrupled his salary/bonus package. It's easy to see why there are a lot of people who are upset with our current situation.

As for the media being liberal.......well lets just say that most of the political talk shows on today are conservative aka Rush and the like, and alll the major media outlets such as CNN(time-warner) ABC(disney) ...I think you get the idea....all are major corporations.....so are you saying that corporate america is left wing ???

digerati

The main difference may be that, but he isn't comparing that, he's just going by unemployment rate. That's the only statiscits he's using, not how much the rest of the people are getting paid. I definitely see a problem with coorporate greed and the big guy stepping on the little guy but that isn't being discussed, just the left wing distorting one simple thing.

Well CNN is where this came from, ABC I believe is conservative (I may be wrong on that.) and Fox is conservative.

bird chest

they are corporations they do not have morals or political views that they hold up to. All they do is one thing, make a profit if the profit is liberal tv they will.

Why are service sector jobs worse? They are not all walmart jobs!

The biggest misconception I see in peoples economics right now is that the gap in poor and rich is widening. It maybe temporarily but you already answered you own question. This is a service economy it can not stay a float with low paid workers. The economy of the 1900's which not in here but other places I have heard it compared to is totally different!! Those big big businesses could do what they did first cause it was socialy exceptable, second cause there were no laws against it, and third and in my opinion most important they were making capital goods things factories buy not people factories. They did these things off of steel, oil, and railroads. Just keep in mind that this is a service economy.

The one thing I really agree with you on is the technology part. But I would take it a step further don't worry about jobs leaving the country worry about making new ones through technology. We won't be able to stop corporations from leaving so don't.

Guidoo

Interestlingly enough CNN had a segment discussing the "then vs now" employment figuires. cnn interview

You'll need to go to the bottom quuater of the page, look for the name JOHN PODHORETZ. He is a columnist with the New York Post.

The point I'm trying to make with this is that I can paint the media to look liberal , conservative or whatever by picking and choosing what to make my argument with. Your right about the media having no moral guideline and it being all about money. But if the media is truly "liberal" isnt that a bit of a paradox....since more corps back conservative over liberal candidates ??


****BTW...the right is just as guilty of distortion as the left......************

digerati

Of course it is. But not everyone thinks so. Some people don't like to believe their precious Bush killing people could be distorting. Works the same way for Bush nuts against Kerry.

bird chest

So why do you start a thread called how the left distorts? When you admit it it is by both.

digerati

Cause I only had left evidence. Simple enough for ya?

bird chest

No apologize now.