Unemployment Rate Lowest in 5 1/2 Years [BUMPED UP FROM 2006] (1 Viewer)

[HouDat]

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-JOBS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Fri Nov 3, 2006 9:23am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to its lowest in nearly 5-1/2 years during October as 92,000 more jobs were added and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up, a government report on Friday showed.

(MORE)


------------

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/03/news/economy/jobs_october/index.htm?postversion=2006110308

Unemployment at 5-year low

Unemployment rate falls unexpectedly to lowest point since May 2001.

November 3 2006: 9:13 AM EST
<!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!-- CONTENT --><!--endclickprintexclude-->NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Employers added fewer jobs in October, but the unemployment rate fell to a five-year low.
The unemployment rate fell sharply to 4.4 percent, from the 4.6 percent rate posted in September. It was the lowest rate since May of 2001. Economists had forecast the unemployment rate would remain unchanged at 4.6 percent.

(MORE)

 

[RebSaint]

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic..._RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-JOBS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
(MORE)


------------

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/03/news/economy/jobs_october/index.htm?postversion=2006110308

(MORE)

Surely the liberal media wouldn't report any good news which might help the incumbents.

I think a lot of this growth has to do with lower gas prices.

 

[saintfan-n-alex]

dont forget that you are not unemployed is you dont work and arent looking for work, unemployment stats only apply to those not working and actively looking for a job

 

[tomwaits]

Let me tell everyone what the Democrat response will be. "Yeah, but the jobs people have today are lower paying than the jobs during the Clinton administration (dot com boom)."

 

[blackadder]

Let me tell everyone what the Democrat response will be. "Yeah, but the jobs people have today are lower paying than the jobs during the Clinton administration (dot com boom)."

No President deserves as much credit or blame as they get for the economy.

Our 11 $trillion (up to 15 yet?) economy is not subject to micromanagement to anyone in the Oval office. It is a misperception.

Voters blame the President when things are going poorly. President's take credit when times are good, or at least not bad.

It should be neither.

 

[tomwaits]

No President deserves as much credit or blame as they get for the economy.

Our $trillion economy is not subject to micromanagement to anyone in the Oval office. It is a misperception.

Voters blame the President when things are going poorly. President's take credit when times are good, or at least not bad.

It should be neither.

I agree 100%. Too bad the voters don't know this.

 

[TPS]

>>Let me tell everyone what the Democrat response will be. "Yeah, but the jobs people have today are lower paying than the jobs during the Clinton administration (dot com boom)."

And hopefully people won't believe that just because a "Democrat" or somenoe otherwise parrots that. But instead of putting up that shield, let's look at real wages (not necessarily the dot com boom where people tended to make big money in the stock and options markets).

This article was posted by someone, but the key point is that wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the GDP since they started keeping statistics on it. This probably has something to do with the hyper-inflated value of real estate (which IMHO has sustained the economy and borrowing through the last 4-5 years), but it also says that the lion's share of the earnings are going to the big dogs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1162702800&en=4583b9a378f5f2ee&ei=5070

You can dig deeper for charts and other information about the realities, but you're going to have to ask yourself the same question the Minutemen did back in the early 1980's, "Do you want new wave, or do you want the truth?"



TPS

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

The unemployment rate fell in October to 4.4 percent from 4.6 percent in September. It was the lowest unemployment rate since 4.3 percent in May 2001 and was likely to fan concerns that labor markets are growing tight and could contribute to inflation pressures.

Gotta love Reuters.

 

[Ted]

what I found interesting when I heard this reported this morning was that Labor revised upwards the new job numbers from August and September from 90,000 to 130,000 (not exactly sure on the actual numbers, but I think that was it), which NPR said may have economists calling for checking the way Labor counts. I heard a report (granted it was on Air America) earlier in the week that Rove was going around to cabinet leaders telling them what they needed to do to help with the election. Interior was to allocate money to districts where Republican representatives were in trouble, etc. I wonder if this was Labor's task.

 

[wnelson]

its the economy, stupid.
dont let charlie melancon and his cronies tell you it is iraq or whatever
the elephant in the room is a robust and powerful economy.

it doesnt matter to me locally as bobby j will be reelected with 90% or so (no one would even run against him i suspect) but for my friends and saints fans everywhere, remember..... all politics is evil, carl rove IS satan... but is john kerry or hillary clinton any better? or even worse!?!? so remember, it was the republican congress in charge during the dot com boom, it was the republican congress which passed the tax cuts which has fueled this economy and it is the republican congress that has the balls to win the war on terror.

thanks, now i will exit the soap box

 

[St. Widge]

Surely the liberal media wouldn't report any good news which might help the incumbents.

I think a lot of this growth has to do with lower gas prices.

It really shouldn't be very surprising. Every time we are in a major long term war, unemployment goes down. We need people to build new planes, bombs, bullets, guns, rocket, trucks, etc. I'm not sure it is worth the exchange. Add in the number of people working to rebuild the Gulf Coast and it all makes sense.

But, I do agree with Blackadder that a President has very little to do with the economy or unemployment rates. That is of course unless he does something to hurt it, i.e. Clinton's crusade against Microsoft or appointing the wrong head of the Federal Reserve. IMO, the only thing a President can do in regard to the economy is hurt it.

 

[HouDat]

No President deserves as much credit or blame as they get for the economy.

Our $trillion economy is not subject to micromanagement to anyone in the Oval office. It is a misperception.

Voters blame the President when things are going poorly. President's take credit when times are good, or at least not bad.

It should be neither.

I said the exact same thing during the Clinton-era economic boom, and I'll say it again today. Unemployment figures are more a result of the stock market and market dynamics (energy costs being chief amongst them) than the party affiliation, hands-on tinkerings, or economic philosophy of the prevailing occupant of the White House.

Having said that, it'll be interesting to watch how the media and the opposition party handle this news which - on the surface, at least - is good news for the current administration.

 

[Dave]

U.S. employment costs up 0.9% in quarter
Wages jump 0.9%, highest quarterly rate in three years


<LABEL class=StoryContent id=StoryContent_Content>
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. compensation costs rose 0.9% in the second quarter, more than economists' expectations, the Labor Department said Friday.
It was the biggest gain in the employment cost index since the first quarter of 2005. Read full government report.

The rise was above expectations. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had been looking for a 0.8% increase in the employment cost index, considered one of the best measures of labor-cost pressures -- and one closely followed by Federal Reserve policymakers. See Economic Calendar.

Wage and salaries rose 0.9% in the second quarter, on the heels of increasing by 0.7% in the first quarter. This was the largest increase since the first quarter of 2003.

Benefits rose 0.8% in the second quarter, up from a 0.5% rise in the first quarter.

Calculated out over the past year, employment costs have increased 3.0%, up from 2.8% in the first quarter. Wages and salary costs have increased 2.8% in the past year, up from growth of 2.7% in the first quarter. Benefit costs increased 3.4% in the second quarter, the same pace as the first quarter.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/61f1rGbMGGBFN08gCWpXrNZ?siteid=siteid&dist=RNPullDown
</LABEL>

 

[blackadder]

its the economy, stupid.
dont let charlie melancon and his cronies tell you it is iraq or whatever
the elephant in the room is a robust and powerful economy.

it doesnt matter to me locally as bobby j will be reelected with 90% or so (no one would even run against him i suspect) but for my friends and saints fans everywhere, remember..... all politics is evil, carl rove IS satan... but is john kerry or hillary clinton any better? or even worse!?!? so remember, it was the republican congress in charge during the dot com boom, it was the republican congress which passed the tax cuts which has fueled this economy and it is the republican congress that has the balls to win the war on terror.

thanks, now i will exit the soap box

...And it is the Republican Congress who is spending like a drunken sailor. More money borrowed in the Bush years than all previous years combined. Might this "pump priming" have a little to do with propping up the economy????

And I'm not sure they know how to "win" a war on terror. If they did they would focus on the terrorists, rather than occupuying Iraq and fueling a nationalist insurgency. How many times does it take before a lesson is learned? The Brits already did this in the 1920s and had to declare victory and leave.

Look at N. Ireland. How many decades there and the Brits could not "win" the war on terror? Things didn't get better until they elected to "appease" the terrorists with political negotiations.

Conventional armies can not defeat a well rooted popular insurgency. That is a clear cut lesson of history. So I don't know what "victory" will look like as long as we have 150,000 troops in country.

For every jihadi "terrorist" you kill you are creating umpteen new ones, plus fueling insurgents who are more nationalist and secular and would be shooting at us whether Bin Laden was around or not.

There is no "war on terror" in Iraq. That is a canard.

Iraq is a chosen war of "nation building." Saddam could have capitualted to U.S. demands across the board and we were going in no matter what.

 

[blackadder]

I said the exact same thing during the Clinton-era economic boom, and I'll say it again today. Unemployment figures are more a result of the stock market and market dynamics (energy costs being chief amongst them) than the party affiliation, hands-on tinkerings, or economic philosophy of the prevailing occupant of the White House.

Having said that, it'll be interesting to watch how the media and the opposition party handle this news which - on the surface, at least - is good news for the current administration.

you are 100% correct, IMO. Clinton took credit for the 90s, and had little to do with it.

As little as I think of Bush, the economy was not in great shape when he came into office and 9/11 did not help any.