The First Black President? Black Unemployment Levels Near All-Time Lows This racist president is oppressing vulnerable communities of color with steady work. Here's a story you were very unlikely to see on CNN, MSNBC, in the New York Times or the Washington Post. As much as low unemployment numbers are a non-story for much of the MSM as long as there�s a Republican in the White House, one specific segment of the employment forces is making inroads rarely, if ever, seen before. Unemployment among black Americans has been hovering at or just above seven percent for past couple of months. That's still shamefully worse than the overall unemployment figure, but to put it in context, it�s also very close to the best it�s been since Nixon was in office. It's nearing the low levels achieved during the tech-fueled Clinton Bubble in 2000, and even the very low rate reached under Nixon. It's nearing the low levels achieved during the tech-fueled Clinton Bubble in 2000, and even the very low rate reached under As far as the general unemployment rate, that is also As far as the general unemployment rate, that is at a seventeen year low. Again, dating to about the time of the Clinton Bubble. Thirteen states have announced a Thirteen states have announced a record low unemployment rates, the lowest they've been since the BLS began tracking state figures in 1976. The job market 'get much tighter. In October the U.S. unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%--the lowest level since December 2000, when it hit 3.9%. October also marked a �record-setting 85th straight month of job gains, dating back to 2010. That job creation is reaching into virtually every corner of the country. This year a remarkable 12 states have recorded their lowest unemployment rates since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking state figures in 1976, and California matched its previous low. By the way, remember when the unemployment rate fell under Bush, but the media would always dispute that figure citing the more "realistic" U-6 number (which includes people who have given up looking for work)? By the way, remember when the unemployment rate fell under Bush, but the media would always dispute that figure citing the more "realistic" U-6 number (which includes people who have given up looking for work)? And then remember how many times I complained the media forgot all about the U-6 number under Obama, only citing the more-generous, better-looking U-3 rate? And then remember how many times I complained the media forgot all about the U-6 number under Obama, only citing the more-generous, better-looking U-3 rate? Well guess what: Well guess what: The U-6 number is back, baby! Now, this article was actually published in April -- I didn't notice it then. (Note the unemployment rate is listed as 4.5%; it's now 4.1%.) Now, this article was actually published in April -- I didn't notice it then. (Note the unemployment rate is listed as 4.5%; it's now 4.1%.) But look how fast the media went from ignoring the U-6 under Obama to crowing about it under Trump. It literally only took the media three months to rediscover the U-6. But look how fast the media went from ignoring the U-6 under Obama to crowing about it under Trump. The government reported a 4.5% unemployment rate, but here's the realistic number Nick Wells | @wellsangels The headline unemployment rate might not be the best measure of jobs It was under Obama. Tell me, CNBC -- what's changed in just three months? It was under Obama. Tell me, CNBC --

The unemployment rate fell to 4.5 percent in March, according to the Labor Department. But relying on that one headline number as an indicator for the economy as a whole ignores important information just below the surface. Each month on "Jobs Friday," the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases a ton of economic data, each point providing its own perspective on the employment situation. Economists look past the official unemployment rate -- that 4.5 percent figure, also known as the "U-3" -- to other measures of jobs in this country. One of those measures is the U-6 rate, which has a broader definition than the U-3 rate. In March, that figure fell three-tenths of a point to 8.9 percent. So you're saying this U-6 number, which you mentioned quite a bit when Bush was president and not at all when Obama was president, also fell a great deal? So you're saying this U-6 number, which you mentioned quite a bit when Bush was president and not at all when Obama was president,fell a great deal? One more thing: If you search for "unemployment rate" under "news" on google, you will struggle to find much mention of the US' very low unemployment rate -- almost as if Google is hiding stories about it as #FakeNews which is also #Racist. One more thing: If you search for "unemployment rate" under "news" on google, you will struggle to find much mention of the US' very low unemployment rate -- almost as if Google is hiding stories about it as #FakeNews which is also #Racist. And almost as if the media is simply not reporting much at all on the fact that not only have we fallen under the 5% figure generally cited as indicating "full employment," but are approaching the record-low 3.9% achieved for only a short time in the Clinton Tech Bubble. And almost as if the media is simply not reporting much at all on the fact that not only have we fallen under the 5% figure generally cited as indicating "full employment," but are approaching the record-low 3.9% achieved for only a short time in the Clinton Tech Bubble. Posted by: Ace at 05:38 PM











MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat