About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

MSNBC's Watkins falsely claimed that "unemployment is at an all-time low ... the lowest it's been in decades"

June 17, 2008 4:23 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Joe Watkins falsely claimed, "No matter what you think about the current administration, at least unemployment is at an all-time low. It's at 5 percent, and some points, less than 5 percent, which has been the lowest it's been in decades." In fact, the current unemployment rate is 5.5 percent, more than double the lowest measured unemployment rate of 2.5 percent, which was recorded in both May and June of 1953.

22 Comments

On the June 17 edition of MSNBC Live, MSNBC political analyst Rev. Joe Watkins falsely claimed, "No matter what you think about the current administration, at least unemployment is at an all-time low. It's at 5 percent, and some points, less than 5 percent, which has been the lowest it's been in decades." Anchor Tamron Hall replied, "Yeah, but that doesn't mean the economy's in good shape." In fact, the current unemployment rate -- which is at 5.5 percent nationally, according to a June 6 release by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) -- is more than double the lowest recorded unemployment rate since 1948, and 1.3 percentage points higher than it was when President Bush took office in January 2001.

According to the BLS, the lowest unemployment rate since 1948 was 2.5 percent in both May and June of 1953. The unemployment rate was 4.2 percent in January 2001.

From the BLS' unemployment rate history page:

BLS Unemployment Rate

From the 12 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on June 17:

HALL: Well, I mean, Joe, you stand out -- you're bringing up the [former president Jimmy] Carter thing, and we talked a lot about this last week -- if it's going to be the next term for President Carter or the next term for Bush-Cheney. And it seems like we're back at these same kinds of conversations when it comes to taxes and what's happening with this economy.

WATKINS: Well, at the end of the day, what you don't want to do is, you don't want to -- when the -- especially if the economy looks like it's in a slump, you don't want to create a disincentive for business to succeed because business is how you hire people. And the whole idea is to make sure that the rate of unemployment stays low.

No matter what you think about the current administration, at least unemployment is at an all-time low. It's at 5 percent, and some points, less than 5 percent, which has been the lowest it's been in decades, and --

HALL: Yeah, but that doesn't mean the economy's in good shape.

WATKINS: Well, no. And so you want to do everything that you can to invigorate the economy and get people back to work, put more money in the pockets --

HALL: Right.

WATKINS: -- of average working Americans, and that's what John McCain is talking about doing.

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 17, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
         

      Wow.  My six year old can tell you the five and a half is more than five.  (And a LOT more that two-and-a-half.)  This is almost Orwellian.  ("Did you hear? They're raising the chocolate ration!" - 1984)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ConstanceRifleII (June 17, 2008 5:12 pm ET)
           

        Isn't Iraq in Eastasia?  Although I'd swear that we were fighting Eurasia this week....;)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (June 17, 2008 5:18 pm ET)
             

          Isn't Iraq in Eastasia?  Although I'd swear that we were fighting Eurasia this week....;)

          Is that Your Asia or My Asia?????  :-)

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (June 17, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
         
      Where do they keep finding these liars?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 17, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
           

        I just Googled Joe Watkins, and found his bio at Huffington Post.  Boldface emphasis is mine:

        Joe Watkins is the Director of Hill Solutions, LLC a firm that consults the government and businesses on how to do business. Before entering the financial services industry, he ran his own strategic advisory consulting firm in Philadelphia. He opened the firm in 1991 after serving as associate director in the Office of Public Liaison at the White House under President George H. W. Bush. Joe was introduced to politics in 1981 when he joined the staff of newly elected U.S. Senator Dan Quayle as the Assistant State Director. In 1984, he was tapped to run for the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana's 10th congressional district but was defeated in the general election by the incumbent. He returned to Pennsylvania and served as an assistant to the President of the University of Pennsylvania until his enlistment in the 1988 Bush Campaign and his subsequent transition to the Bush White House.

        He holds a Bachelor of Arts in History from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Arts in Christian Education from the Princeton Theological Seminary.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-watkins/

        So he's just nothing more than a Republican hack with a degree from a seminary.....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by lapsedlawyer (June 17, 2008 10:33 pm ET)
             
          Well, there you go, then.  Just another Repub bearer of false witness.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by political_left-religious_right (June 18, 2008 8:29 am ET)
               
            Not to mention the fact that Princeton Theological Seminary is where people once sound in their theology go to become agnostics, e.g. the noted apostate Bart Ehrman.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by plhamel4926 (June 17, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
           
        These numbers are worthless anyway. Any working person is automatically counted as employed regardless of their rate of pay or the number of hours they work. So someone earning $7/hr and working 4 hours a week is not counted as unemployed.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (June 17, 2008 4:32 pm ET)
         

      Why is there a reverend on cable crap news trying to school us on economics?

      What's next?  A sermon from Kenneth Arrow? 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by perdix (June 17, 2008 5:41 pm ET)
         

      And once again, let's remind our viewers that the official unemployment rate does not necessarily reflect the real unemployment rate. After a certain amount of time of being unemployed you are considered to have ceased looking for a job, whether it's true or not, and are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.

      Here in Michigan, it's disastrous.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (June 17, 2008 5:44 pm ET)
           

        After a certain amount of time of being unemployed you are considered to have ceased looking for a job, whether it's true or not, and are no longer counted in the unemployment rate. - perdix

        I thought that was when you started selling everything in your home that isn't nailed down on eBay? :)  

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 17, 2008 5:52 pm ET)
           

        And once again, let's remind our viewers that the official unemployment rate does not necessarily reflect the real unemployment rate.

        That's right.  It's merely a reflection of the general strength of the economy.  A more accurate gauge is whether or not you have a job.  :-)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (June 17, 2008 6:20 pm ET)
             

          Want the official line? Here it is, straight out of the labor bureau's mouth. Also note that last year, the unemployment rate was 4.5%. And, did you know that unemployment rate was 4.2% Bush's first year of office? You can see it by month here.

          Now, what's really neat is the unemployment forcast for the next six months. 6% folks. So no, unemployment isn't getting better.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (June 18, 2008 2:44 pm ET)
               

            So no, unemployment isn't getting better.

            Not until after President Obama's inauguration.  :-)

            Report Abuse
      • Author by political_left-religious_right (June 18, 2008 8:39 am ET)
           

        Good point, Perdix (fellow Michigander here)

        The statistics also don't point out how many people are underemployed, which is to say, working at a job where either the pay and/or benefits are much too meager, or where there's no job security, or else it doesn't come within a mile of their capabilities.  My wife has two master's degrees and is having trouble finding a job in a clerical position, much less something in her fields of study.  If she got a job flipping burgers, that would bring the unemployment rate down a tiny bit, but the problem would still be there.

        [Lest anyone think that the Michigan economy is entirely tied to the ailing auto industry.]

        Report Abuse
    • Author by archfiend (June 17, 2008 6:23 pm ET)
         
      The unemployment rate, for purposes of comparison, hovered between 3.8% and 4.1% during most of 2000 -- Bill Clinton's last year in office.

      http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248

      Usually these bobbleheads are more savvy than to lie about easily-checked-and-disproven statistics.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 17, 2008 6:29 pm ET)
         

      Wonder if he mispoke and actually meant " employement " ?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sambadaddy (June 17, 2008 8:54 pm ET)
         
      Whenever this grinning fool appears on the screen I revisit the shame despair I felt as a black child exposed to the images of pygmies attending Tarzan.

      Like Hannity, he speaks only from the right side of his mouth and his posterior.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cannonball (June 18, 2008 11:01 am ET)
         
      This seems rather an inconsequential argument.  The guy is right about one thing, unemployment is not high, but he failed to note that it is growing.  But this is also only part of the picture.  The real issue for me is the stagnant wage base that has been losing ground to inflation, in spite of its low recent rates for more than two decades.  Real wages are falling and available jobs are paying less in the service industry than the manufacturing jobs they are replacing.  The real middle class is falling into the lower class, the poverty level is catching up with actual full time employed parents, and the gap between upper middle class and lower middle class is widening (I'm not even addressing the upper class that we hear the most about).  These days without a degree you a facing delinign real wage in a service industry of less benefits, including poor or no health coverage, and less job security.  With a basic degree, you aren't going to fair that much better.  The standard of living seems high because electronics are cheap and cell phone service is coming down all the time.  But walking around with an Ipod and a Iphone isn't that same as a secure job, a house with a reasonable mortgage, a decent car and money to defer in to a retirement plan.  It just makes you look as successful to an outsider.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by usappa00 (June 18, 2008 2:50 pm ET)
         

      The unemployment rate doesn't count those not looking for work, who have given up hope to find employment.  Unemployment is high in many many fields, especially construction.  George Bush is going to be the first president to leave office with less people employed then when he started office.  Why would we believe John McCain would be any better for our economy?

      Report Abuse