Bush vs. Clinton

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Postby shahmask » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:10 pm

i know why bush's unemployment figures have been so good. it doesn't count ppl that have been unemployed for more than (i think it is 15) 15 months. after 12 or 15 or 18 months (don't remember which), you are no longer for unemployment. so, those that haven't gotten a job within that time are no longer counted as unemployed.

so, in actuallity, there are probably quite a few more unemployed ppl than we have been led to believe and, if there were a lot of layoffs at a specific time, and their unemployment has run out, that would be a large droop in the unemployment figures.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:46 pm

hmmm. that reminds me of something my macroeconomics professor said - that unemployement doesn't take into account those who have become discouraged. this, taken in stride with your post prompted me to look up unemployement in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

i haven't read the article in full, yet (i'm posting from class), but there are a few criticisms that stick out. those who work as little as one hour a week is counted as being employed. also, measures of unnemployement don't take into acount underemployement (ie. someone with a PhD in CS working as a janitor at wal-mart), etc.

also, wikipedia states that employement info is gathered from surveys. this makes one wonder if the survey samples could be biased. i suppose the effectiveness of survey's will be fully demonstrated, yet again, at the conclusion of this election (current polls show that kerry and bush are near tied - if someone wins in a landslide, the polls aren't doing a very good job)

EDIT: unemployment under Bush...

Image

source (the above graph is from Civilian Unemployment Level)

from this, we can see that unemployment was on the rise before Sept. 11. further, the only improvement that really takes place after Sept. 11 is about a year and a half later, and it's pretty slight.

anyway, irregardless of how big or small it is, should it be attributed to bush or to the american people? ie. have the american people gotten over Sept. 11th on their own, or has Bushes policies been what has resulted in it's improvement? i don't know, but considering this, the issue is quite obviously not as black and white as ardent bush supporters would have one believe. the same, i'm sure, holds true of ardent kerry supporters, too, but blasting the underdog isn't any fun, heh.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Previous

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron