Libs can proclamate that the economy is great, but businesses & Americans
are not buying the message. There is palpablehesitancy about the economy,
& stress at homes over income, bills & employment. Despite improving
employment numbers, if polled, Americans would not say they believe their
situation is strong or better than 4 or 6 years ago. Obama & Libs would
simplify the disconnect by lowering the bar, "we just have to get used to a
lower standard of living & the end of American dominance & leadership in
the world.Americans want more than setting the bar lower. And
Americans don't really believe the campaign propaganda in the media that
the economy is great.
As one who has been looking for work, I fully understand how bleak the job
picture is today. Yes, there is no doubt it is better than it was a year ago,
but too often, journalists focus only on the 'main' number give by
Washington, not the whole picture. Journalism today is about regurgitating what
the reporter hears, not about digging in a given all the information. Woodward
and Bernstein would not be able to do today what they did in the 70's.
When I see an article that at least tries to go a bit more in-depth, I applaud
the effort. Is this reporter a bit biased, yeah, I think his conservative side
comes out, just as it does in most reporting today. The sad fact is
that most 'journalists' today were never taught the Joe Friday method
of reporting, 'Just the facts' instead it is 'Don't cloud
your opinion with the facts.'
Do you remember when under President Bush, unemployment dropped to an all time
low of just over 5% and the liberals whined, “yes but they are hamburger
flipper jobs”. These same liberals are elated now that there are ANY jobs
and suddenly “hamburger flipper jobs are wonderful and prove that
Obama’s policies are working” even though real unemployment is
double what it was under President Bush! Its amazing what Americans are willing
to accept for leadership isn’t it?
Thredgold continues to insist that the decrease in the unemployment rate is
because workers have left the labor force because they have become
"discouraged" in looking for work. However, he never actually checks the
number of discouraged workers--a figure that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
tracks. If he were to take the time to examine the data, he would discover that
the number of discouraged workers has shown steady declines over the past year.
To be considered "unemployed," one must be looking for work.
However, the bar is set very low. What does it say about an individual who
can't even check the internet once in the last four weeks for job openings?
It tells me they are hardly in desperate need of employment.
What is sad about this is this is being promoted by a "respected"
paper.... not some hack web blogger. You would think they would have more
integrity then to play partisan games like this, but I guess not. An honest
piece would have done as scribe and looked at this same measure of a larger
period of time to see what the trend line really is - not convenient snap shots.
Thats the kind of stuff campaigns do, not real journalist.
Wonder if Jeff did this same calculation while Bush was president, or anyone
else was president. And the "real" unemployment rate is....blah, blah,
Jeff, this is probably one of the weakest arguments yet. The constant attempts
to invalidate the unemployment numbers only shows desperation. You can't
distort the current numbers by adding in factors that were not included in
earlier calculations - to even have a reasonable attempt to measure a number of
time. There are many ways to look at numbers and mix matching them only
distorts history.There are more significant factors influencing the
total number of people "looking" for work. For example, if you look at
married households, the number married of men in the workforce from 1971 to 2011
has grown by 49.2%. Over the same period, the number of married females in the
workforce has grown 114.5%. In 1971, the percentage of households being
supported by dual incomes was far lower than today. Unemployment measured at
the household level tells a far different story. A dual income household
loosing one income impacts differently than a single income household loosing
its only income. That is why an unemployment rate of today of 8.2%
if far different that 5.9% 30 years ago. 1971 Labor participation rate was
60.1%. Peak rate, 1998 at 67.2%.