March 01, 2004
Late Blogging Small Boortz
from - smijer
Sorry for the late and lite post today. I couldn't just skip posting for a whole day, so I went to my "Old Reliable". I notice Boortz (Today, Tomorrow) has gone back to his made up employment statistics. Only this time he claims they come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But, they are still wrong, and as I showed on Friday, they still contradict the facts reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Instead of just telling you that I was using the BLS, I gave links to the relevant pages at the BLS web-site. If you followed them, then you know that Boortz is not responsibly reporting what he supposedly gathered at the BLS.
Until next time.
::Posted by smijer at March 1, 2004 12:34 PM
Clearly, boortz is misrepresenting the labor stats. The peak unemployment figure (6.4) did not occur recently, it happened back in `93.
Moreover, the unemployment figure only counts people who are recieveing unemployment benefits - it does not count people who have gone back to school to retrain, etc.
As far as jobs created, we are probably more interested in jobs created per capita.
Now with that said,
a. Unemployment always lags recovery.
b. The government has little or no control over the job market. We are, after all, a relatively free market.
I afraid that I am deaf to this issue as a determination of who to vote for for the office of president. Going after the adminstration's haphazard proposals for amendments and it's gestapo-like security policies is probably the way to go.
|
Posted by CJG on March 1, 2004 01:19 PM Link to comment |
"Clearly, boortz is misrepresenting the labor stats. The peak unemployment figure (6.4) did not occur recently, it happened back in `93."
The peak in the '90's was 1992 at 7.5. If you go here:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab11.htm
click the top right box and do the query, then change the dates to include the range back to 1990, you will see 7.5 in 1992.
|
|
Posted by smijer on March 1, 2004 01:27 PM Link to comment |
Right. I should have added "under the Clinton Administration, which began in '93"
|
|
Posted by CJG on March 1, 2004 03:52 PM Link to comment |
Smijer, Did you hear Boortz answer those charges to a caller on his show today? It explained some things that I wondered about.
|
|
Posted by Jan on March 1, 2004 05:45 PM Link to comment |
Nope.. I don't get a lot of opportunities to listen to the radio.
|
|
Posted by smijer on March 1, 2004 06:12 PM Link to comment |
