6% unemployment was the low norm before Clinton Administration...

Actually, the present unemployment rate was considered "low" during the Reagan/Bush years. It was thought that 6% was about the lowest our economy could go without inflationary pressures. However, in late 2000, the unemployment rate went down to 3.9%, even with the tech stocks tanking. It was right at 4% when Bush and Cheney took over the reins.

But is it realistic to expect that people will punish the Bush Administration for the present unemployment rate? Reagan, at one time, had a rate above 10%, but he added the military into the equation so as to bring down the statistic enough to make it more palatable. And he never suffered for it.

I think the unemployment rate has to reach 8% or higher before people start to look at it as a serious problem. Just my opinion... from hsitorical levels. However, this does not minimze the serious situation that the unemployed, including myself, find ourselves in.

Here are the details.

------
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/business/5962629.htm

Unemployment: It depends on how you define it
May. 29, 2003
By DIANE STAFFORD
Columnist

You've been out of work for 18 months and know 15 others who are vainly job hunting. You suspect that the 5.8 percent unemployment figure for April is government propaganda.

In your world, things are much worse off. And, guess what, in your world, you're right.

The "real" unemployment rate for you is 9.8 percent. You can look it up. It's every bit as real as the 5.8 percent that was reported in the media. So what's the deal?

The deal is that there are six government-sanctioned definitions of unemployment. The six measures produce a broad range of unemployment numbers. For April 2003, the range was a scant 2.5 percent to a scary 9.8 percent.

One of the midrange numbers, dubbed U-3 and defined as "total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force," is the official unemployment rate.

Snip ......

account a lot of factors, such as people who've lost the unemployment benefits, so they aren't counted.

How can unemployment be at 6% when daily the headlines tell of another massive layoff somewhere? When you lose a couple thousand jobs a pop, plus the creation of new jobs just ain't happening, how can unemployment really be at 6%?

And then again there are several thousand people like me. I'm working a temporary position. For damn sure I'm not included in the unemployed category, although for all practical purposes I should be. More and more companies are going to temp and part-time help. This means that we are soooo underemployed it's not funny. But there are no statistical reports on people like me. The place I am working for has "offered" me a job, but they won't tell me what it pays. I've been asking for over a week now. In fact, it was a week last Thursday. Meanwhile, they are busy searching my entire life history and invading my privacy for a job that I now understand only pays $17,000.00 a year. This is about 8.25 per hour. So, in order to take this job I have to decide what it is I want to give up. My house payments, utilities, food, (already do without medical and dental care).

These unemployment statistics are bullshit.

Who is responsible? One George F****** Bush!

'nuff said!

and I agree with you. It's George F***tard Bush's fault! People like you and I aren't even considered in the unemployment stats.

I recall a presidential debate (could've been Nixon vs. Kennedy) where the point was made that unemployment had risen from 4% to 4.5% under the administration of the time. At that time we had a large manufacturing base and a good many of the jobs paid an actual living wage along with retirement benefits.

there are other factors in play with the Unemployment rate. Bush I had created more jobs when he left the presidency than when he started.

There has also been a massive decrease in manufacturing jobs.

What is going to be the replacement for those workers?

...with unemployment rates among Blacks in urban settings close to 50%.

Don't forget that people that have exhausted their unemployment benefits are no longer counted as unemployed.

The situation is far worse than the media is reporting...they're part of the problem.

I recall how difficult it was for companies to find employees in 1999-2000? In some towns here in Colorado, they sent buses to neighboring towns 40-50 miles away to try and find employees...

That is those people that have exhausted their unemployment benefits and are no longer counted in the U3 rate.

These folks are now counted in the U6 rate which is never reported.

Since the economy was creating so many jobs under Clinton, U6 could have been very, very low.

In other words, a vibrant economy can create jobs quickly enough to absorb those recently laid off. A stagnant economy does not create jobs at all and hence does not absorb unemployed workers. Hence U6 grows and grows.

The problem for Bush is that he has presided over the worst job creation since Herbert Hoover and literally millions of Americans are not counted as unemployed because they long ago gave up after their unemployment insurance ran out.

I recall there being an article this summer about how teenage unemployment was high, that teens couldn't find summer jobs. It is because more adults are employed in those jobs after they lost their other job. We had a variety temps at my business that would be strung ablong. At the employee meeting the other day, the human resources manager announced that we no longer needed to use the temp agency because the company had advertised a position with the job service office six months ago and had hundreds of people apply and that many of those people were still out of work. I am not sure if she exaggerated to make all of us feel lucky that we had a job and that many people wanted ours so we shouldn't demand anything, but I have a feeling that it is mostly true.

But that didn't stop the Repugs from blasting him.

There are a lot of similarities between Carter's economy and Bush's economy.

4% is considered low. 6 to 7% is considered unacceptable historically. Especially since the US keeps its figures differently than other countries. If we used the same system as Europe our unemployment would be 8.5% right now.