Win the debate of low 5.4% unemployment with CON's

[SoCalDemocrat]

This all depends on how you measure the economy. The key to this argument is the employment population ratio. No matter what games the government plays to make unemployment figures look low, like changing how they count the unemployed or what constitutes a job (selling lemonaide!), this percentage tells you how many Americans are not working. The trend during the entire Bush administration is continuing straight down.

I measure it in terms of buying power. How much do average americans earn today vs. four years ago, how much are their essentials now vs. four years ago (medical costs, food, housing, gasoline). How much are jobs paying on average that are being created in the new econony.

All of those indicators are down and point towards a bad economy.

On the other hand if you want to measure economy by GDP and bow how much business profits are up or how much CEO's are enaring or the wealthiest Americans are making, then yes your Economy is doing just fine.

Yes the CPI is at 2.3% for the first half of 2004. That is not a measure of economic well being for the average person. It's primarily of use for Greenspan so he knows when to raise or lower interest rates to keep inflation in check. It just measures the change in cost of goods and services for urban households.

Unemployment is a bit of a dicey statistic. Just 62.4% of people over age 16 are employed. That's the employment population ratio. The household survey has not shown an increase in the proportion of the population that is employed. In fact, the employment-population ratio has declined since 2001: it was 64.3 percent at the start of the recession (March 2001) and 63.0 percent at the trough. The ratio declined further in 2002 and 2003.

I find that measure far more meaningful in understanding employment, as the government is constantly playing games with the way statistics are applied to come up with their magical unemployment figures.

The raw data shows that 37.6% of people over the age of 16 are not employed. That's an awful lot of people. Here is a graph that illustrates the trend during the Bush administration.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_t...ves/001212.html

Now please observe this graph, which is the historical data from 1970 through 2000. Overall it trends upward from 58% in 1970 to 64% in 2000.



Again notice that the first term of the Reagan presidency, and the Bush Sr. presidency both have a solid downward trend. The 2nd Reagan term however trended upwards, I'm guessing due to massive government/federal spending that he enacted during the Cold war.

[papau]

1. Excellent data - I liked 64% dropping to 62.4% employed during Bush growth

I doubt the public would understand -

Which is where Bush one liners are so good -

They only require a 6th grade education, and since lies are not corrected by the media, they are very effective.

Say "employment population ratio" and many folks will tune you out, unfortunately.

:-(

[Eric J in MN]

2. Shouldn't they take people 16-68 instead of including retired people?

nt

[papau]

5. Seems Bush redid the numbers for the election! surprise!-just a population

control change - so they say! :-)

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 66.6 66.6 66.5 66.5 66.6 66.4 66.4 66.6 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.7
1995 66.8 66.8 66.7 66.9 66.5 66.5 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.5 66.4
1996 66.4 66.6 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.9 66.7 66.9 67.0 67.0 67.0
1997 67.0 66.9 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2
1998 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.2
1999 67.2 67.2 67.0 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.1 67.1
2000 67.3 67.3 67.2 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 67.0 66.9 66.9 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.6 66.8 66.8 66.7 66.7
2002 66.4 66.7 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.8 66.6 66.4 66.4
2003 66.3 66.3 66.2 66.4 66.3 66.5 66.3 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.2 66.0
2004 66.1 65.9 65.9 65.9 65.9 66.0 66.2 66.0



As to not having Seniors - well Seniors are in both the numerator and the denominator of the fraction - but not many in either as they tend not to work! It causes few problems. :-)

[SoCalDemocrat]

11. you ran it wrong

I selected 16 years and over not in the labor force and I got the expected numbers. 62.7% is the value I was expecting for Aug 2004.

Series Id: LNU02300000Not Seasonally AdjustedSeries title: (Unadj) Employment-Population RatioLabor force status: Employment-population ratioType of data: PercentAge: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 61.2 61.5 61.6 61.9 62.6 63.0 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.2 63.2 63.1 62.5
1995 62.0 62.3 62.6 62.7 62.8 63.4 63.7 63.3 62.9 63.2 63.0 62.7 62.9
1996 61.7 62.1 62.5 62.7 63.1 63.7 64.1 63.8 63.4 63.8 63.6 63.4 63.2
1997 62.5 62.7 63.3 63.5 63.9 64.3 64.7 64.4 63.8 64.1 64.2 64.1 63.8
1998 63.1 63.3 63.6 63.9 64.2 64.5 64.7 64.3 64.1 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.1
1999 63.5 63.6 63.9 64.0 64.3 64.7 64.9 64.5 64.1 64.5 64.5 64.5 64.3
2000 63.8 64.0 64.2 64.6 64.4 64.9 64.8 64.5 64.2 64.4 64.4 64.5 64.4
2001 63.7 63.8 64.0 63.9 63.9 64.1 64.2 63.5 63.4 63.4 63.1 63.0 63.7
2002 62.0 62.5 62.5 62.6 62.9 63.1 63.2 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.5 62.4 62.7
2003 61.8 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.3 62.7 62.6 62.4 62.1 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3
2004 61.6 61.8 61.9 62.1 62.3 62.7 63.0 62.7

[papau]

12. Woops - you are correct - I did all rather than just over 16 - my error!

sorry

:-(

:-)

[SoCalDemocrat]

6. doesn't matter

This way they're consistent in their analysis over time. That way the measure is accurate. Retirement age varies with public policy over the decades. In today's economy in fact, far more seniors are forced to keep working past retirement age. That fact would tend to drive this ratio down, but it still going up under Bush!

How many seniors have you seen working fast food? I see them there all the time, sadly.

[FloridaPat]

3. One point that almost everyone doesn't mention - even though the

unemployment percentage doesn't change, the number unemployed does. That's because the job market keeps growing with all those new college and high school grads.

As for 37.6% of those over 16 not employed - lots of folks are in schools. Lots of women stay home and take care of the kids. Then there are the two income families who don't have a choice - both have to work. But no one is mentioing that.

There was an article that showed what 5.6% meant in terms of numbers. Basically the number of unemployed is way up under Bush then under Clinton because we have so many more in the work force.

[SoCalDemocrat]

7. work this line

Lots of folks were in school, and women were at home over the duration of these statistics. That's not a valid argument.

Work the Edwards slam on Cheney about the internet sales.

Under Bush, the percentage of employed Americans continues to drop each year, in spite of Cheney's push for lemonade and garage sales!

[ClassWarrior]

4. Nice research, but how do we win the debate?

Their arguement: "Unemployment is LOW. 5.4 percent." Simple, short, easy to grasp. Easy to defend with: "Is TOO!!"

Our arguement, on the other hand, would put Thomas Paine to sleep.

So how do we win the debate?

23.

[Eric J in MN]

8. answer, The real unemployment figure is much higher

because they're not counting people who stoppoed looking.

[SoCalDemocrat]

9. How do you know they stopped?

They're doing alot of things to make the unemployment figure appear lower. Last January they changed the definition of employment to include online business activities for example.

Discuss unemployment in terms of the total percentage of people that are not working and how that trend moves over time. They cannot squirm out from under this fact.

[FloridaPat]

10. They never have. I remember under Reagan it was believed the

unemployment rate was at least 20-25%. But no one could ever prove it.