Which was worse: The '92 or '04 U.S. economy?

[ALago1]

Ok, I was only 10 in '92 but conventional wisdom suggests the sluggish Bush I economy was a large reason for Clinton's victory.

However, I do feel the effects of this economy firsthand as I have just graduated from college and am having a very tough time finding employment.

I scoured Google looking for specific '92 indices such as unemployment, inflation, GDP, interest rates, etc.

Personal accounts, as well as statistical knowledge is welcome.

[mhr]

1. Search ON The Posts Made By TahitiNut

He Shows that from a labor perspective that this downturn is worse since fewer jobs have been created.

[Ruby Romaine]

2. from today's NYT

Recent Layoff Rate Was Highest Since Early 1980's
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

Published: August 2, 2004

Layoffs occurred at the second-fastest rate on record during the first three years of the Bush administration, a government report has found.

In the government's latest survey of how frequently workers are permanently dismissed from their jobs, the layoff rate reached 8.7 percent of all adult jobholders, or 11.4 million men and women age 20 or older. That is nearly equal to the 9 percent rate for the 1981-1983 period, which included the steepest contraction in the American economy since the Great Depression.

Recession and weak economic growth characterized most of the period from 2001 to 2003, and millions of jobs disappeared. But while layoffs normally rise in hard times and fall in prosperous years, the new survey published Friday by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics added to the statistical evidence that layoffs are more frequent now, in both good times and bad, than they were in similar cycles a decade ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/business/02jobs.html?ei=1&en=e2ac8af4175a8ebc&ex=1092450202&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1091456222-vCpOES7+MAG2abYoL+dTVg

[ALago1]

4. Wow. Staggering.

[gasperc]

3. I have a pretty secure job right now, so I feel '92's was worse

I graduated in '90 and it was hellish to try and find a job. Eventually I took an hourly job even though I had a college degree in engineering. By '92 I was doing better, but the economy was by and large pretty bad, inflation was low but interest rates were around 10%. Good paying jobs were hard to come by and the huge deficit was blamed for retarding growth. Perot helped keep the campaign talking about economic issues. Clinton was hammered hard by Bush on the tax issue and personal smears. I went door to door for Clinton. His message broke through and won handily in '92.

In alot of ways this economy is very bad and feels like it is getting worse than '92. Statistically, '04 isn't as bad as '92 but my gut tells me alot of people have taken jobs they wouldn't have taken before just to survive. The terrorism thing is bad, the tax cuts extracted alot of wealth from the middle class to the upper class so by many, many measures the country is clearly going in the wrong direction.
I think if I was out of work right now and was having a hard time finding another job I would for sure be saying that this economy is worse.

[Ruby Romaine]

5. having lived through Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 etc

I think now is the worst

[proud patriot]

6. in 92 we had had 12 years of "trickle down"

it felt worse , however I believe now is worse
it just hit so fast that we are still yet to see
or feel some of the consequences of todays actions .

[BillZBubb]

7. Now is worse, but not for obvious reasons.

Then we had a good prospect of rehiring laid off workers in this country. Now, lost jobs are lost overseas for good. So, the unemployment rate is somewhat misleading although it was higher then. This economy is producing McJobs primarily.

Then, while the deficits were bad, there was still 30 years til the start of the baby boomer retirements. With good economic management we could start get back on track. Unfortuately, the country has a debt bomb that will blow up. Look at the US debt numbers.

Even GDP growth, which supposedly is pretty good right now is deceptive. Most of the growth is coming from deficit spending and military spending. Both of those are unsustainable.

The low interest rates the that Fed has used to prop up Bush* will have to rise for many reasons. They'll do what they can to keep them low until after the election.

In essence, what we've got is an economy puffed up short term (for the election) on borrowed money, unrealistically low interest rates, and a weak dollar. Each of these will come back and bite us in the ass soon enough.

[Strelnikov_]

8. I Agree, In 92 We Had Reached Bottom

Whereas 03-04 is a temporary plateau propped up by record deficit spending (the miracle deficit spending economy) and low interest rates (the real estate economy), both of which are not sustainable. And as you correctly pointed out, we are 12 yrs. closer to the 'debt bomb' detonation, and have done nothing to defuse it (if anything, we have piled more debt on the pile).

Regarding GDP numbers, I have seen passing mention that the number is lower than advertised because manufactured components from Asia that pass through U.S. ports on their way to assembly in Mexico have been counted in the GDP estimate. I have not found any hard data on this, but the economy sure has not felt like the 4-8% GDP growth the administration is flogging (since the productivity measure is GDP divided by workforce, it can also be effected by the above).

[hippiegranny]

9. it will come back to bite us

just as president kerry inherits the mess.... sigh...