Reposting some Employment figures

People often think numbers and facts should be in any positive discussion. In heated conflicts with multiple points of view, numbers and authority based on numbers will not settle the dispute. With the understanding that sources are always open to question, including government web pages, I am presenting the an unpopular point of view in North Georgia.

Year Civilian Labeled % Labeled Labeled Unemployed Discount
Population Employed Employed Not-Employed Rate*
1992 192805 118492 61.5 64700 9613 3.00
1993 194838 120259 61.7 65638 8940 3.00
1994 196814 123060 62.5 65758 7996 4.75
1995 198584 124900 62.9 66280 7404 5.25
1996 200591 126708 63.2 66647 7236 5.00
1997 203133 129558 63.8 66837 6739 5.00
1998 205220 131463 64.1 67547 6210 4.75
1999 207753 133488 64.3 68385 5880 4.00
2000 212577 136891 64.4 69994 5692 6.00


I assembled the Clinton data table from only two sources. The discount rate information comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. This single rate figure per year does not fully reflect all changes within that respective year. The Discount Rate, as it was called, can be changed up and down within a year. Data was selected to be near the year-end. As the population grew between 1992 and 2000, more people became employed and fewer people were classified as unemployed.


Clinton Era ’92 to ’00 Data Table
Numbers in thousand unless expressed as a percentage or a rate*.


Bush Era Data Table ’01 to ‘04
Year Civilian Labeled % Labeled Labeled Unemployed Discount
Population Employed Employed Not-Employed Rate*
2000 212,577 136,891 64.4 69,994 5,692 6.00
2001 215,092 136,933 63.7 71,359 6,801 1.25
2002 217,570 136,485 62.7 72,707 8,378 0.75
2003 221,168 137,736 62.3 74,658 8,774 2.00
2004 223,357 139,252 62.3 75,956 8,149 3.75
Numbers in thousand unless expressed as a percentage or a rate*.


I assembled the Bush data from the same sources. It shows more people unemployed and fewer people (as a percentage) as employed. This represents trends that differ strongly between the two administrations.

There is more information out there. This data is my choice. The employment numbers during the Clinton era grew under a heavier discount rate burden. The economic growth rate ( as defined by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, including inflation ) grew rapidly. The discount rate was increased to slow that growth during the Clinton Era just as it was lowered during the Bush Era to increase growth (and recently raised to control inflation ).

I don’t look upon these numbers as settling any dispute. Other data to be examined include Balance of Payments, Total Debt as reported by the US Treasury, money supply, velocity of money, savings, consumer debt and its components. Some might include stock market figures and exchange rates.