Perhaps quite a bit lower, from James Pethokoukis over at US News:
I am starting to lend more personal credence to the theory that a combination of strong growth, fat corporate profits, and already tight labor market might push the unemployment rate to lows we have not seen since the 1960s. Here is MKM Partners economist Michael Darda:
Our indicators suggest that the outlook for the labor market is stronger than anytime since the late 1960s, when the unemployment rate dropped below 4 percent on a sustained basis. Weakness in profits and high real interest rates undermined the tight labor market of 1999–2000, whereas profits are much stronger today while real rates are much lower. In other words, monetary policy is much more accommodative now than it was before the last recession, which put an end to the tightest labor markets in 40 years. In fact, the profit and productivity backdrop is stronger now than it was during the first 20 quarters of the 1961–1969 expansion. ... We thus expect unemployment to drop below 4 percent during 2007...
I think that our booming economy is quite capable of this - might even push the unemployment rate down to below 3%...and then we'll all have a lot of fun.
Of course, we continue to blame the tax cuts for all this.
Posted by Mark Noonan at February 1, 2007 08:03 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
About this white-hot economy; the dems can only point at the deficit, and say "none of us would run our household budget like that". Pah, most families rely on a far greater line of credit than the gov does, compared to our GDP, and unlike most households, we have pared it down 50% in the past few years, due to the Bush tax cuts.
G.B. the U.S.A.
In my opinion, the only two things that can throw this economy on it's back are tax hikes, (Bush should veto every one), or another attack, which very few people seem worried about. When will our tolerance of the intolerant get us all killed?
Run Newt.
Posted by: conservanation at February 1, 2007 09:39 AM
The stop watch is running on the first wingnut to post on how the jobs being produced are only "low paying" ones.
This laughable statement, that is parroted constantly on this board and elsewhere, ignores one very simple fact. If the jobs didn't pay enough people would choose not to take them. It really is Economics 101. However, since unemployment continues to fall people are obviously taking these jobs rather then rely on government assistance.
And this is somehow a bad thing?
It's like saying teachers are underpaid. If they are so underpaid, then why is it virtually impossible to find a teaching post here in Southern California???
Posted by: GOP 4 ME at February 1, 2007 10:45 AM
the only two things that can throw this economy on it's back are tax hikes, (Bush should veto every one), or another attack
I would say that there's one other thing that can hurt the economy, and that's rising energy costs, which slowed it down for part of 2006, and which contributed to the economic problems of the 1970's. Thankfully, the price of a barrel of crude has slid down from its peak of around $78 to around $55, with gas at the pump decreasing from over $3 per gallon to just over $2 (allowing for some significant local and regional variations).
Posted by: Bigfoot at February 1, 2007 11:18 AM
Sure we will, as long as the Democrats don't cut the bottom out of it by raising the minimum wage and forcing small bussiness owners to fire some of their staff because they aren't worth half again what they were getting paid befor ehte government decided to force employers to pay more or fire some people.
The democrat plan for mininmum wage will put a hurt on these unemployment numbers. And I am sure that is what they are hoping; surely they are not so stupid as to believe raising the minimum wage will not remove jobs from the market place.
Restaurants will fire hostesses, movie theaters will fire ushers, burger joints will have fewer people to do the work, etc... The democrats want to force a bunch of people out of work by this minimum wage hike. It is horribly misguided if they think it is going to help anyone. All it will do is force small employers to reduce their workforce and increase inflation because employers will have to raise prices to pay it or fire some workers. When everyone has to raise prices for the same old goods it is called inflation, which means your dollar is not worth as much as it was.
So democrats fight to lose jobs, decrease job creation, and purposefully cause inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. What good would come of it? nothing. Morons.
Posted by: Steve at February 1, 2007 11:38 AM
You have to wonder, are they doing what the UK government has done? Fiddling the figures - it works like this.
In the UK, if you lose your job, you become "Unemployed". You sign on for state benefit, which is called "unemployment benefit", and you are counted on the official unemployment statistics.
For six months.
Assuming you haven't found a job after six months, you are then moved to a new classification called "Not Employed" where you receive the state benefit "Jobseeker's Allowance" - the key here, is you are NO LONGER counted in the unemployment statistics, because you're "not employed" not "unemployed".
Due to this, the unemployment rate in the UK has fallen year on year, and the government likes to pat itself on the back - however, the number of people who are "not employed" has continued to rise, but this isn't reported.
So - are the statistics REALLY correct, or are they just copying the UK method of fiddling the figures?
Posted by: Whisperwolf at February 2, 2007 04:22 AM
You have to wonder, are they doing what the UK government has done? Fiddling the figures - it works like this.
In the UK, if you lose your job, you become "Unemployed". You sign on for state benefit, which is called "unemployment benefit", and you are counted on the official unemployment statistics.
For six months.
Assuming you haven't found a job after six months, you are then moved to a new classification called "Not Employed" where you receive the state benefit "Jobseeker's Allowance" - the key here, is you are NO LONGER counted in the unemployment statistics, because you're "not employed" not "unemployed".
Due to this, the unemployment rate in the UK has fallen year on year, and the government likes to pat itself on the back - however, the number of people who are "not employed" has continued to rise, but this isn't reported.
So - are the statistics REALLY correct, or are they just copying the UK method of fiddling the figures?
Posted by: Whisperwolf at February 2, 2007 04:29 AM
Whisperwolf,
The unemployment figures are calculated by the # of first time applications for unemployment benefits.
In some cases unemployment is overreported in other cases it is underreported.
For example, if you move to a state for a job and then 45 days later you laid off, you are not counted among the 'unemployed'. The reason being: Most states have a time requirement (have to live in a certain state for 6+months) or a monetary requirement (you had to earn a certain amount if you lived in the state
Because you did not meet either requirement you are not allowed to file an application.
So to show how the under reporting can occur:
In the 1st quarter 100k people filed for unemployment benefits. On paper that looks like the state of virginia has an unemployment rate of 6%. At the beginning of the 2nd quarter 90k are still unemployed and for the 2nd quarter only 10k filed for unemployment: Now the rate is .04%!!
The same thing can happen with over reporting.
The bottom line: unemployment figures are just guidelines for how the economy is doing on the macro level. Micro level the situation can be drastically different.
Hence you have the case where unemployment can be very low, but people can still be pessimistic about the economy.
Posted by: IT for life at February 2, 2007 11:26 AM
IT wrote, "The unemployment figures are calculated by the # of first time applications for unemployment benefits."
NO, IT'S NOT!
Why do you people keep repeating this absurd thesis?
The unemployment number has nothing whatever to do with unemployment compensation, or filings for claims or standing in unemployment lines. I get real tired of explaining this; go to bls.gov and read how the unemployment numbers are calculated.
Posted by: Dasein Libsbane at February 2, 2007 02:49 PM
In Britain, they report both numbers; the Labour Force Survey and the so-called Claimant Count. The unemployment number in Britain is an interpolation of the total labor force and those available for the labor force, not including those not in the labor force. My silver-haired mother is "not in" the labor force, neither is my disabled brother-in-law or my incarcerated niece.
If ignorance is bliss, the two of you must be the happiest people on earth.
Posted by: Dasein Libsbane at February 2, 2007 03:09 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6324707.stm
"US unemployment has risen to a four month high of 4.6% after fewer new jobs were created last month than expected.
Analysts said figures showing that 110,000 new jobs were created in January were disappointing, but still reflected steady growth in the market."
Tell me again how unemployment is falling and how well Bush is doing?
Posted by: Whisperwolf at February 3, 2007 05:56 AM
Utopian whisperwolf would not be happy unless every single person in the United States was gainfully employed, and even then would find something to carp about. These negativists, these BDSers, simply cannot acknowledge any success, any progress, anything positive.
Note that the unemployment rate quoted was only a FOUR MONTH HIGH. That means it was so low for the previous period that even 4.6% was higher. And his own quote also stated that the figure "...still reflected steady growth in the market."
Yes, whisper, we know---life sucks, Bush sucks, conservatives suck, the economy sucks, the only answer is to confiscate the property of the "Rich" and redistribute it to the unproductive, by the State. If one person is unemployed, it's a disaster. If anything is not perfect, it is a failure. Lack of immediate total unqualified success---which must meet BS definitions of same---is total failure. Oh misery, oh grief, oh the horror of it all.
So sad to be so determinedly miserable, so committed to not only seeing the glass half full but to seeing it cracked, dirty, and ready to fail. So sad to be a BDS BS Liberal.
Posted by: Almiranta at February 4, 2007 07:31 PM
Damn, the BBC got the numbers wrong anyway; the change in the civilian labor force was a +199,000.
The bad news isn't bad enough; so, slit my wrists and call me a liberal!
Posted by: Dasein Libsbane at February 6, 2007 01:57 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
About this white-hot economy; the dems can only point at the deficit, and say "none of us would run our household budget like that". Pah, most families rely on a far greater line of credit than the gov does, compared to our GDP, and unlike most households, we have pared it down 50% in the past few years, due to the Bush tax cuts.
G.B. the U.S.A.
In my opinion, the only two things that can throw this economy on it's back are tax hikes, (Bush should veto every one), or another attack, which very few people seem worried about. When will our tolerance of the intolerant get us all killed?
Run Newt.
The stop watch is running on the first wingnut to post on how the jobs being produced are only "low paying" ones.
This laughable statement, that is parroted constantly on this board and elsewhere, ignores one very simple fact. If the jobs didn't pay enough people would choose not to take them. It really is Economics 101. However, since unemployment continues to fall people are obviously taking these jobs rather then rely on government assistance.
And this is somehow a bad thing?
It's like saying teachers are underpaid. If they are so underpaid, then why is it virtually impossible to find a teaching post here in Southern California???
the only two things that can throw this economy on it's back are tax hikes, (Bush should veto every one), or another attack
I would say that there's one other thing that can hurt the economy, and that's rising energy costs, which slowed it down for part of 2006, and which contributed to the economic problems of the 1970's. Thankfully, the price of a barrel of crude has slid down from its peak of around $78 to around $55, with gas at the pump decreasing from over $3 per gallon to just over $2 (allowing for some significant local and regional variations).
Sure we will, as long as the Democrats don't cut the bottom out of it by raising the minimum wage and forcing small bussiness owners to fire some of their staff because they aren't worth half again what they were getting paid befor ehte government decided to force employers to pay more or fire some people.
The democrat plan for mininmum wage will put a hurt on these unemployment numbers. And I am sure that is what they are hoping; surely they are not so stupid as to believe raising the minimum wage will not remove jobs from the market place.
Restaurants will fire hostesses, movie theaters will fire ushers, burger joints will have fewer people to do the work, etc... The democrats want to force a bunch of people out of work by this minimum wage hike. It is horribly misguided if they think it is going to help anyone. All it will do is force small employers to reduce their workforce and increase inflation because employers will have to raise prices to pay it or fire some workers. When everyone has to raise prices for the same old goods it is called inflation, which means your dollar is not worth as much as it was.
So democrats fight to lose jobs, decrease job creation, and purposefully cause inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. What good would come of it? nothing. Morons.
You have to wonder, are they doing what the UK government has done? Fiddling the figures - it works like this.
In the UK, if you lose your job, you become "Unemployed". You sign on for state benefit, which is called "unemployment benefit", and you are counted on the official unemployment statistics.
For six months.
Assuming you haven't found a job after six months, you are then moved to a new classification called "Not Employed" where you receive the state benefit "Jobseeker's Allowance" - the key here, is you are NO LONGER counted in the unemployment statistics, because you're "not employed" not "unemployed".
Due to this, the unemployment rate in the UK has fallen year on year, and the government likes to pat itself on the back - however, the number of people who are "not employed" has continued to rise, but this isn't reported.
So - are the statistics REALLY correct, or are they just copying the UK method of fiddling the figures?
You have to wonder, are they doing what the UK government has done? Fiddling the figures - it works like this.
In the UK, if you lose your job, you become "Unemployed". You sign on for state benefit, which is called "unemployment benefit", and you are counted on the official unemployment statistics.
For six months.
Assuming you haven't found a job after six months, you are then moved to a new classification called "Not Employed" where you receive the state benefit "Jobseeker's Allowance" - the key here, is you are NO LONGER counted in the unemployment statistics, because you're "not employed" not "unemployed".
Due to this, the unemployment rate in the UK has fallen year on year, and the government likes to pat itself on the back - however, the number of people who are "not employed" has continued to rise, but this isn't reported.
So - are the statistics REALLY correct, or are they just copying the UK method of fiddling the figures?
Whisperwolf,
The unemployment figures are calculated by the # of first time applications for unemployment benefits.
In some cases unemployment is overreported in other cases it is underreported.
For example, if you move to a state for a job and then 45 days later you laid off, you are not counted among the 'unemployed'. The reason being: Most states have a time requirement (have to live in a certain state for 6+months) or a monetary requirement (you had to earn a certain amount if you lived in the state Because you did not meet either requirement you are not allowed to file an application.
So to show how the under reporting can occur:
In the 1st quarter 100k people filed for unemployment benefits. On paper that looks like the state of virginia has an unemployment rate of 6%. At the beginning of the 2nd quarter 90k are still unemployed and for the 2nd quarter only 10k filed for unemployment: Now the rate is .04%!!
The same thing can happen with over reporting.
The bottom line: unemployment figures are just guidelines for how the economy is doing on the macro level. Micro level the situation can be drastically different.
Hence you have the case where unemployment can be very low, but people can still be pessimistic about the economy.
IT wrote, "The unemployment figures are calculated by the # of first time applications for unemployment benefits."
NO, IT'S NOT!
Why do you people keep repeating this absurd thesis?
The unemployment number has nothing whatever to do with unemployment compensation, or filings for claims or standing in unemployment lines. I get real tired of explaining this; go to bls.gov and read how the unemployment numbers are calculated.
In Britain, they report both numbers; the Labour Force Survey and the so-called Claimant Count. The unemployment number in Britain is an interpolation of the total labor force and those available for the labor force, not including those not in the labor force. My silver-haired mother is "not in" the labor force, neither is my disabled brother-in-law or my incarcerated niece.
If ignorance is bliss, the two of you must be the happiest people on earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6324707.stm
"US unemployment has risen to a four month high of 4.6% after fewer new jobs were created last month than expected.
Analysts said figures showing that 110,000 new jobs were created in January were disappointing, but still reflected steady growth in the market."
Tell me again how unemployment is falling and how well Bush is doing?
Utopian whisperwolf would not be happy unless every single person in the United States was gainfully employed, and even then would find something to carp about. These negativists, these BDSers, simply cannot acknowledge any success, any progress, anything positive.
Note that the unemployment rate quoted was only a FOUR MONTH HIGH. That means it was so low for the previous period that even 4.6% was higher. And his own quote also stated that the figure "...still reflected steady growth in the market."
Yes, whisper, we know---life sucks, Bush sucks, conservatives suck, the economy sucks, the only answer is to confiscate the property of the "Rich" and redistribute it to the unproductive, by the State. If one person is unemployed, it's a disaster. If anything is not perfect, it is a failure. Lack of immediate total unqualified success---which must meet BS definitions of same---is total failure. Oh misery, oh grief, oh the horror of it all.
So sad to be so determinedly miserable, so committed to not only seeing the glass half full but to seeing it cracked, dirty, and ready to fail. So sad to be a BDS BS Liberal.
Damn, the BBC got the numbers wrong anyway; the change in the civilian labor force was a +199,000.
The bad news isn't bad enough; so, slit my wrists and call me a liberal!