That's the lowest it has been in nearly 5 and half years...
The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to its lowest in nearly 5-1/2 years during October as 92,000 more jobs were added and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up, a government report on Friday showed.
The October new-jobs figure was below Wall Street economists' expectations for 125,000 but the Labor Department said a total 139,000 more jobs were created in August and September than it had previously thought. It revised up September's job-creation total to 148,000, or nearly three times the 51,000 it reported a month ago, and said there were 230,000 new jobs in August instead of 188,000.
The unemployment rate fell in October to 4.4 percent from 4.6 percent in September. It was the lowest unemployment rate since 4.3 percent in May 2001 and was likely to fan concerns that labor markets are growing tight and could contribute to inflation pressures.
Will the Democrats finally admit the economy is in good shape? Don't count on it.
Posted by Matt at November 3, 2006 09:20 AM
Comments
does krugman still have a job?
Posted by: OhioOrrin at November 3, 2006 11:04 AM
Everyone I meet has money coming out their ears.
Posted by: USA at November 3, 2006 12:59 PM
I blame President Bush and his tax cuts.
Posted by: james allegro at November 3, 2006 06:47 PM
Six years to take us back to the Clinton years. Only problem this economy is built on the lives of 2800 dead and 500 billion borrowed Chinese dollars.
Rather than gloat, incompetent conservative extremist should dream how much further ahead we would be had the activist Supreme Court not anointed Bush king.
Posted by: Josh Keaton at November 3, 2006 07:35 PM
Employment may be low but our trade deficit is a disgrace.
We need to move away from buying things and start to make things again.
Transferring so much wealth to our enemy, China, is a disgrace..
Posted by: Ames Tiedeman at November 3, 2006 09:11 PM
Will the Democrats finally admit the economy is in good shape?
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, then and only then will the Dems admit that the economy is in good shape. Their standard canard, of course, is that only during the Clinton years did "the little guy" benefit from the strong economy. By constrast, whey will assert, only "the big guy" benefited from the economy under Reagan and either Bush. They never bother to explain, however, how Reagan got almost 60% of the popular vote during his re-election of 1984. There is simply no way that all of Reagan's votes that year could have come from "big guys", since "big guys" aren't all that numerous. Come to think of it, there's one other thing the Democrats will never admit - how bad the economy was under Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Bigfoot at November 3, 2006 09:50 PM
Notice how when the economy is goign well and unemployment is down, they say "Yeah, but wages haven't gone up!" And then when wages go up, THAT is reported as a problem> There can be NO positive news allowed through the filter. None.
]
Posted by: RYan at November 5, 2006 02:27 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment

does krugman still have a job?
Everyone I meet has money coming out their ears.
I blame President Bush and his tax cuts.
Six years to take us back to the Clinton years. Only problem this economy is built on the lives of 2800 dead and 500 billion borrowed Chinese dollars.
Rather than gloat, incompetent conservative extremist should dream how much further ahead we would be had the activist Supreme Court not anointed Bush king.
Employment may be low but our trade deficit is a disgrace.
We need to move away from buying things and start to make things again.
Transferring so much wealth to our enemy, China, is a disgrace..
Will the Democrats finally admit the economy is in good shape?
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, then and only then will the Dems admit that the economy is in good shape. Their standard canard, of course, is that only during the Clinton years did "the little guy" benefit from the strong economy. By constrast, whey will assert, only "the big guy" benefited from the economy under Reagan and either Bush. They never bother to explain, however, how Reagan got almost 60% of the popular vote during his re-election of 1984. There is simply no way that all of Reagan's votes that year could have come from "big guys", since "big guys" aren't all that numerous. Come to think of it, there's one other thing the Democrats will never admit - how bad the economy was under Jimmy Carter.
Notice how when the economy is goign well and unemployment is down, they say "Yeah, but wages haven't gone up!" And then when wages go up, THAT is reported as a problem> There can be NO positive news allowed through the filter. None.
]