This is what conservatives actually believe. Are you starting to see that they're idiots?

mrshowrules: Hope is the feeling you have when you think things are bad but will get better. Actually, it is the expectation of improvement regardless of the present circumstances.

If you had hope when it was 5.7, obviously it was misplaced. If you have hope toady when it is 8.6, who knows if it will be justified?

I think the US will be lucky if they ever see 5.7% unemployment again. I doubt it will ever drop below 6% and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The idea that 95% or working age adults should work 40 hours a week is an ancient and outdated paradigm.

that's not what unemployment measures. the number of adults working 40 hours per week is something like 50%.

And in 1984 a 7.5 unemployment rate was "Bringing A Sense Of Pride Back To America".

bugontherug: This is what conservatives actually believe. Are you starting to see that they're idiots?

Starting? Only conservatives still believe that they are not idiots.

7of7: You mean context matters? I'm shocked!

It's not so much context as greater understanding of economics being lost on anyone who reports politics, or is in the line of work of a politician.

Derivatives and hard.

I hear they increased the choco ration! Doubleplus good!

People actually clicked on a Boortz link? On purpose and everything?

Grandpa made Boortz in his pants again.

All this statistic shows is that even in the so-called "boom" years, regular people were getting screwed and the government was fudging the employment figures. Same as it ever was.

Testiclaw: [upload.wikimedia.org image 400x280]

Derivatives and hard.

Take your squiggily lines elsewhere, communist.

/I don't know what your lines mean! Are they related to the maths?

GAT_00: mrshowrules: I doubt it will ever drop below 6% and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The idea that 95% or working age adults should work 40 hours a week is an ancient and outdated paradigm.

Uh, 6% unemployment =/= 94% of working age adults working 40 hours a week

This needs to be repeated. The way we measure unemployment has little bearing on reality.

We ought to do it the most direct route: number of people working full time/number of people in the country. That's what matters; the proportion of workers to non-workers being supported by the government. Perhaps part time can be included as well (so if you work 20 hours a week count that as .5, 10 hours and it's .25 and so on).

I think that you really have to look at the payroll numbers and not the unemployment rates. That at least is a measure of people working and how much they are being paid, although it does not include everyone since not everyone that works is on a payroll (self employed)..

BravadoGT: 7of7: You mean context matters? I'm shocked!

* Context=party of president.

That's ridiculous.

It also includes the majority party in Congress to some degree.

thomps: BravadoGT: 7of7: You mean context matters? I'm shocked!

* Context=party of president.

i don't want to single anyone out, but generally speaking, it amazes me that people can think of such goddamned dumb things and still have the ability to log on to the internet and type them out. again, hypothetically.

I usually assume that such people have helper monkeys to log on to the internet for them and to wash them with a rag on a stick.

Here's a simple question: In each case, were the figures higher or lower than the year before?

/context is important

There is no liberal media.

HotWingConspiracy: There is no liberal media.

Talk radio isn't really media. It's a support group for emasculated men.

Here's a lesson in political reporting: Boortz = shiat.

OH BOORTZY GOT DEM LYING LIBBIES BIASING AGAIN!

That's what i'm going to hear tonight, great... Despite the complete and total differences in the two situations.

Has anyone commented on how we added 120,000 jobs last month compared to the 1,000 jobs added for the Bush headlines? That seems like a big difference- especially if you're trying to recover from a deep recession.

/I understand the change in unemployment rate included those leaving the workforce

Heh, and Boortz is considered a smart "conservative".

As this was Neal Boortz, this headline should have been written in Boortzo's speaking style:

A lessughn in puhhlitichhh(spews bile on the mic)llll repoughrtinguuuhhh...

It's called economic context.

A Dark Evil Omen: People actually clicked on a Boortz link? On purpose and everything?

Don't you know it's unfair to conservatives to ever become bored with the derp. If you couldn't listen to 8 years of the big fat idiot saying every day that Clinton is the anti-christ you must hate america.

You are another part of the vast liberal conspiracy keeping them down.

Yes, the unemployment rate dropped to 8.6 percent and we added 120,000 jobs in November. Whoopee. Roughly half the improvement is because 315,000 workers finally gave up on finding a job and the other half is from seasonal jobs in retail, restaurants and bars. Not only that, but we need to add about 100,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth.

Instead of fishing for good news in a monthly report, if you look at the big picture, you can't help but see that we're still in deep you-know-what.

CBS Money Watch

Demetrius: The glass being half empty or half full depends on whether or not you're drinking or pouring.

It's funny how close that is to the comment I was about to make.

GTATL: Has anyone commented on how we added 120,000 jobs last month compared to the 1,000 jobs added for the Bush headlines? That seems like a big difference- especially if you're trying to recover from a deep recession.

Sorry. I was too distracting by the 315,000 people that were so discouraged by the Obama economy that they gave up and left the job market.

In case a certain segment of our population forgot, I remind everyone that the housing bubble popped in 2008 causing an economic recession. 2004 is less than 2008, meaning the economy hadn't experienced this recession yet in 2004. You see, 2004 was 4 years before 2008. And right now, in 2011, we're still feeling the fallout from the economic crisis of 2008. You may notice news stories these days about Europe, high unemployment, income discrepancy, etc. Did you notice those news stories in 2004? No, because there wasn't an economic recession yet, because 2004 happened before 2008, meaning 2004 was a year that happened before the worldwide economic recession (which started in 2008), meaning it hadn't happened yet. The worldwide economy was relatively healthy in 2004. This may help explain the difference you see in "political reporting" as you see it.

Or it's a huge crazy liebral conspiracy in the media and only tinfoil hats will keep them liberals out of your brainwaves.