SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2093)12/9/2003 5:25:36 PM
From: Original Mad Dog  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
Ohio is a large job loss state and that does mean Bush is vulnerable, at any rate.

Where, exactly, are you getting that? I just looked it up, and it doesn't look that way to me:

bls.gov

(Dept. of Labor at a glance statistics for Ohio)

Unemployment rate, Ohio (statewide):

January 2001: 4.1%
July 2003: 6.3%
November 2003: 5.6%

Most economists view "full employment" as 4%, though some place that number at 5%.

Number of unemployed has declined from a high of 372,200
in June 2003) to a current level of 325,600.

And here is an interesting tidbit. In November 1995, when Clinton was gearing up for his reelection bid (at precisely the same point relative to the election that we are now in for 2004), Ohio's unemployment rate was 5.8%, and it had increased to that point from 4.8% a year earlier.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/laus.012496.news

Clinton managed to win Ohio and the Presidency, despite worse unemployment numbers at this point in the election cycle than Bush has in the state.

I can find no support whatsoever for your statement that Ohio is a "large job loss state." If you can cite to something valid that tells a different story than what the BLS is telling I'd love to see it.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext