Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H-Man who wrote (12699)	4/6/2004 5:50:17 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

OK, I'll buy your factual correction since you have gov't data. Here are your numbers for the Clinton years: 2.7 4.0 2.5 3.7 4.5 4.2 4.5 3.7 0.5 2.2 3.1 ======== bls.gov I don't know if you can see that but try doing this graphically for 1993-end Seasonally adjusted, checked everything in the righthand column under TOTAL, chose formatting options, the date range and graphs. Actually, I believe that both the unemployment figures and the unemployment rate in particular are incomplete and inaccurate. The unemployment figures, as I understand it, don't include those who have lost their benefits. They just fall off the rolls. If I'm reading this correctly, if you add in just those who stopped looking for a job in the last month to those considered unemployed, that brings the number to 10m. Of those 308,000 jobs, 13000 of those came from workers on strike returning to the job and 71,000 came from construction. I don't know how many of those 71,000 were weather related. What is the quality of the jobs created and why did the ranks of those getting part time work because they couldn't find full time work going up? Do you think the job recession is a myth?