1
   

The US Economy

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:24 pm
Oh, sorry about that link to BLS problem ... apparently you have to set the charts for yourself. Hang on, I'll reconstruct how to get there, and post the numbers. Meanwhile, here's some info on the deficit, which has been posted here before.

Quote:
Source
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion ...

... The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.


Quote:
Source

Budget Deficit May Surpass $450 Billion
War Costs, Tax Cut, Slow Economy Are Key Factors
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01


War, tax cuts and a third year of a flailing economy may push this year's budget deficit past $450 billion, according to congressional sources familiar with new White House budget forecasts ...


Quote:
Sourcethe final number came in sharply below the White House's July forecast of $455 billion, which Treasury Secretary John Snow attributed to a reviving economy and rising tax receipts ...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:25 pm
timberlandko wrote:
OK ... here ya go:

Unemployment for January of 1993 was 7.3%, having been 5.9% or above since September of 1990, though it had steadily declined from its 7.8% June 1992 high. Not untill September of 1994 did the unemployment rate fall below 6%, and it remained above 5% through June of 1997, never dipping below 5.6% through Clinton's entire first term. Falling to 3.8% in July of 2000, the index began drifting up, standing at 4.1% when Bush the Younger took office in January of 2001, reaching 5.8% by the end of 2001, 6.0% at the end of 2002, peaking at 6.4% in June of 2003 before declining to its present rate of 5.9%, falling a half point in 5 months. In Clinton's first term, unemployment was 5.5% or above for 46 out of 48 months, and for 6 months out of his second term ... 52 out of 60 months. It was 8 months before Clinton achieved a half-point reduction.


OK ... so ye110 asked whether "unemployment in terms of both actual number and percentage of the population is higher than it was under clinton". Let me filter from the data you just gave, what the straight answer to that would be.

Unemployment in 1993 (start of Clinton era) was 7,3%. By September 1994 it fell below 6%. It remained between 5-6% until 1997. Then it fell to 3,8% in 2000, and stood at 4,1% when Bush Jr took over.

Bush Jr. thus started at 4,1%, then unemployment rose to first, 5,8% end 2001, 6,0% end 2002 and 6,4% mid-2003. Its now fallen to 5,9%.

So the unemployment rate of the past two years has been higher than in the Clinton years 1997-2000, but similar to the Clinton years 1994-1996.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:37 pm
PDiddie wrote:
http://homepage.mac.com/benburch/images/employment-200311.gif


So, It's Clinton's fault and Bush is trying to bring unemployment back under control. That seems about right.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:38 pm
timberlandko wrote:
OK ... here ya go:


Unemployment for January of 1993 was 7.3%, having been 5.9% or above since September of 1990, though it had steadily declined from its 7.8% June 1992 high. Not untill September of 1994 did the unemployment rate fall below 6%, and it remained above 5% through June of 1997, never dipping below 5.6% through Clinton's entire first term. Falling to 3.8% in July of 2000, the index began drifting up, standing at 4.1% when Bush the Younger took office in January of 2001, reaching 5.8% by the end of 2001, 6.0% at the end of 2002, peaking at 6.4% in June of 2003 before declining to its present rate of 5.9%, falling a half point in 5 months. In Clinton's first term, unemployment was 5.5% or above for 46 out of 48 months, and for 6 months out of his second term ... 52 out of 60 months. It was 8 months before Clinton achieved a half-point reduction.
Meanwhile, in January of 1993, 119,075,000 Americans were employed, with a number of 137,000,000 being surpassed for the first time in April of 2000, though it dipped below for the next 5 months. 138,000,000 was surpassed for the first time ever with this October's reading, and November's number is 138,603,000.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics The charts and tables at that link are not "From" BLS figures; they ARE the BLS figures.

The charts Here and Here show that US GDP for each of the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 has been consistently higher than the previous banner year, 2000.

Does that answer your questions?

k got it. thanks for the link.

there were 2.7 million net private sector jobs lost since march 2001.
but you're right. there are more people employed today than ever before. there are also more people unemployed since bush sr.

the unemployment rate when clinton took office was 7.3%. it never rose above that. by his 2nd term it was down to 5.4% and it never rose above that so that at the end of his 2nd term it was at 3.9%.
unemployment when bush jr. took office was 4.1%. it's never went below that.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:39 pm
Timberlandko wrote:
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics The charts and tables at that link are not "From" BLS figures; they ARE the BLS figures.


Hm. So your link is direct from the horse's mouth, so to speak, whereas the graph PDiddie linked in, being merely "From BLS data" - might therefore perhaps be less reliable?

Well, thanks to your link that's easily checked out.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce is the U.S. Department of Labor / Bureau of Labor Statistics page on "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)".

Click "Total Private Employment - Seasonally Adjusted - CES0500000001 " and "retrieve data".

I did. If you do, you can see - this graph seems to be pretty much completely correct, according to those offical US Department of Labor statistics:

PDiddie wrote:
http://homepage.mac.com/benburch/images/employment-200311.gif


(and a brilliantly designed graph it is, too, I must admit. Very effective.)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:41 pm
impressive graph
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:44 pm
It's only impressive in that it shows what a complete failure Clinton was as a leader. Think how much higher it would be if Shrillary were to get in office.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:44 pm
McGentrix wrote:
So, It's Clinton's fault and Bush is trying to bring unemployment back under control. That seems about right.


Heh. Either you have an ironic streak I'd sadly underestimated thus far (but will greatly enjoy henceforth), or you didnt see it was a graph about employment, not unemployment?

I'm banking on the first. That's funny ;-).
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:46 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's only impressive in that it shows what a complete failure Clinton was as a leader.


Nope, no irony - you're serious!

How's a consistent increase in private employment show that Clinton was a "complete failure"?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:47 pm
Embarrassed I thought it was unemployment numbers...hehe Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:49 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It's only impressive in that it shows what a complete failure Clinton was as a leader. Think how much higher it would be if Shrillary were to get in office.

any more "failures" like the above (should "shrillary" get into office) would mean the best economy the world has ever seen.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:54 pm
If Clinton was a failure, I like to see GWBush exceed that failure by adding ten million more jobs. That would be equivalent to about 50 percent of Clinton's failure. Wink
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 07:55 pm
Well, the private sector grew because Billy was busy depleting our military. Numerous base closings and the loss of many jobs that were needed. Bush has turned that around, restoring the strength of our military to a respectable size.

Again, I originally misread the chart, but it still goes to show the depletion of government jobs.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 08:00 pm
McGent, You should get your facts straight before you make untrue statements. Here are the facts. http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/topic/37311-1.html
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 08:00 pm
OK, to get the charts and tables I mentioned, Click here: http://www.bls.gov/images/icon_mrs.gif

Select from the list item 1, "Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force", item 5, "Unemployment Rate", and click "Retrieve Data". On the next page, at the top, you'll see "Change Output Options". Set the period to include from 1991 to 2003, then select "include graphs" and click "Go" (the blue button to the right of the "2003" year box. That should do it. Sorry for the confusion.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 08:01 pm
So, according to the seasonally adjusted numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are in fact 3,0 million fewer people employed in the private sector this November than in December 2000.

But on the bright side, there are 680,000 more people employed by the government than in December 2000.

Isn't that weird, for a Republican president? Or would those be homeland security jobs?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 08:06 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Again, I originally misread the chart, but it still goes to show the depletion of government jobs.


Wrong again - sorry!

Just in case you prefer BLS statistics over the "forum of rumors" c.i. linked <winks> - they're, again, at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce - just this time, you choose to retrieve records for "Government Employment - Seasonally Adjusted".

You'll see that there was a year-on-year increase in government jobs every single year of Clinton's terms. The rate varied from 80,000 to 450,000 extra jobs per year.

Thats on top of the growth in private sector jobs that PDiddie's graph so neatly outlined, of course <winks>
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 08:19 pm
Oh yeah?! Well see if I post in THIS thread again!! Razz
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 08:22 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2003 08:39 pm
Total employment for December of 2000 was 137,620,000, or 983,000 fewer than the 138,603,000 all-time record set this November. Private Sector or Public Sector, an employed person is an employed person. More Americans are employed today than ever in history ... for the second month in a row.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US Economy
  3. » Page 45
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 07:51:21