Ka-BOOM!

[Drbio]

scoreboard. ouch. case closed.

[Mavdog]

not so fast there dude. adding the 193k jobs is good news, but at the same time did you miss the fact that there were an additional 168,000 workers who left the labor force in january?

"scoreboard" isn't so cut and dry as you seem to think.

[Drbio]

What a typical lib glass is half empty view.....

ok...for grins...lets say mavdog is correct. 193,000 > 168K. God forbid mavdog would credit the net gain.

scoreboard. suck it.

[Mavdog]

Pol·ly·an·na n.
A person regarded as being foolishly or blindly optimistic

[Drbio]

dunderpate

\Dun"der*pate`\, n.

A dunce....as in one who blindly ignores fact and reason

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not so fast there dude. adding the 193k jobs is good news, but at the same time did you miss the fact that there were an additional 168,000 workers who left the labor force in january?

"scoreboard" isn't so cut and dry as you seem to think.

Jan. 1998 = 4.6 unemployment rate.
Jan. 2006 = 4.7 unemployment rate.

4.7% SCOREBOARD

[Mavdog]

ah yes, living with your eyes wide shut...not too surprised.

ignore the facts. it's your loss, you're the one living in fantasyland

[Drbio]

Ignore the facts? Net gains in jobs?

Yeah that is awful. Well I guess it is if you are a democrat anyways.

too damn funny. You are in full retreat mode tonight.


Man what a pussimist.

[Mavdog]

understanding numbers is pretty tough for you isn't it?

the unemployment rate decreased due to the exodus of workers from the job market.

yep, pollyanna is appropriate.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

ah yes, living with your eyes wide shut...not too surprised.

ignore the facts. it's your loss, you're the one living in fantasyland

Hmmm....I post the same metrics that were used when it was the "greatest economy in history" and "I'm" the one living in fantasy land?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmmm....I post the same metrics that were used when it was the "greatest economy in history" and "I'm" the one living in fantasy land?

It is a vacuous feeble mind.....

He can't help it. He is "special". A democrat who denies being one who so desperately wants Bush to fail. Hard fact data like a drop in the unemployment rate is devastating to their agenda.


Nice to see it at its' lowest level since July 2001. wow.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Nice to see it at its' lowest level since July 2001. wow.

There is also empirical evidence of the boom as the fed keeps raising interest rates. Obviously they wouldn't be doing that if the unemployment rate were falling because of folks leaving the workforce, they'd be lowering them.

GDP up, Unemployment down, Interest Rates up.....it all spells KA-BOOM!

[Drbio]

Which all mandates........Scoreboard!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmmm....I post the same metrics that were used when it was the "greatest economy in history" and "I'm" the one living in fantasy land?

no dude, the comment was directed at another poster.

the number of workers not in the labor force has increased by about 10% during the past 4 years, about 7.4 Million workers have left the labor pool.

during the first clinton term it increased less than 5%, and during the second clinton term it increased about 7%.

this corresponds to a participation rate that during either of clinton's terms was never as low as it is currently (66%).

as people leave the work force they are not counted as unemployed.

[Drbio]

Ignore a positive growth if you want to. It is your ignorance.....and obvious Bush hatred.

What a Pussimist.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Ignore a positive growth if you want to. It is your ignorance.....and obvious Bush hatred.

What a Pussimist.

gee, what a persuasive response to the data that I presented. very uh....simple and sophmoric? yeah, that just about says it.

[dude1394]

Okay did some looking around to try and understand the constant statements of anti-bush types everytime the unemployment rate goes down. We get the same story that we are still in depression and the only reason the employment rate is going down is because people are leaving the workforce.

Econopundit addresses this. I do not pretend to understand this all.

Caption: While driving back to the office I heard some NPR expert explaining why the current employment figures only look good because so many job seekers have gotten discouraged and dropped out of the labor market.

Here's BLS series LNS13327707, seasonally adjusted total unemployed plus discouraged workers as a percent of civilian labor force plus discouraged workers. Don't be confused here. This is what the unemployment rate would look like if we included discouraged workers in the calculation:

I guess I could be missing something, but the BLS inclusive-of-discourage-worker-effect seems to be going down, not up.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

gee, what a persuasive response to the data that I presented. very uh....simple and sophmoric? yeah, that just about says it.

Another vacuous wanton response from the forum broken record.



And dude.....you understand just fine. At the recent Presidential Economic forum on campus I heard a wonderful talk on this topic. The dems can only throw smoke and mirror whines while the factual improvements accelerate. It is devastating to them.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Okay did some looking around to try and understand the constant statements of anti-bush types everytime the unemployment rate goes down. We get the same story that we are still in depression and the only reason the employment rate is going down is because people are leaving the workforce.

Econopundit addresses this. I do not pretend to understand this all.

Caption: While driving back to the office I heard some NPR expert explaining why the current employment figures only look good because so many job seekers have gotten discouraged and dropped out of the labor market.

Here's BLS series LNS13327707, seasonally adjusted total unemployed plus discouraged workers as a percent of civilian labor force plus discouraged workers. Don't be confused here. This is what the unemployment rate would look like if we included discouraged workers in the calculation:

I guess I could be missing something, but the BLS inclusive-of-discourage-worker-effect seems to be going down, not up.

I'll look at the numbers with that set of assumptions and respond, but off the cuff the graph doesn't appear to match the fact that there are more workers not in the labor pool today than when the peak is shown in this graph (est. 3Q 2003).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Okay did some looking around to try and understand the constant statements of anti-bush types everytime the unemployment rate goes down. We get the same story that we are still in depression and the only reason the employment rate is going down is because people are leaving the workforce.

Econopundit addresses this. I do not pretend to understand this all.

Caption: While driving back to the office I heard some NPR expert explaining why the current employment figures only look good because so many job seekers have gotten discouraged and dropped out of the labor market.

Here's BLS series LNS13327707, seasonally adjusted total unemployed plus discouraged workers as a percent of civilian labor force plus discouraged workers. Don't be confused here. This is what the unemployment rate would look like if we included discouraged workers in the calculation:

I guess I could be missing something, but the BLS inclusive-of-discourage-worker-effect seems to be going down, not up.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'll look at the numbers with that set of assumptions and respond, but off the cuff the graph doesn't appear to match the fact that there are more workers not in the labor pool today than when the peak is shown in this graph (est. 3Q 2003).

ok, here's the conclusion:
the chart is off due to including discouraged workers twice.

there is good job growth for the last 3 plus quarters. the same timeframe shows the number of unemployed to be down. there is growth. a better first year of the second term than any other year in the first term.

there remains a lower worker participation rate and almost historic numbers of workers discouraged enough to not be looking for jobs.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

almost historic numbers of workers discouraged enough to not be looking for jobs.

Doesn't this indirectly indicate a historic peak in quality of life and standard of living? To have the luxury of not looking for a job 'cause your wittle feewings aw huwt??

You don't hear about "discouraged workers" in Zambia, do ya?

[Mavdog]

you do have a point (although not as it relates to my post....)

in japan that very issue is happening. there are millions of 20 and 30 year olds who are so "unmotivated" that they sit at home and mooch off their parents. and the fact that most of these parents only had one or two kids, there's room in the ole budget, so the parents don't kick them out, they coddle them and just keep letting the kids stay. the problem happens when the parents are gone and there's these kids who do nothing.

[Five-ofan]

The president gets way to much credit and/or blame for the economy depending on how its doing. The senate and the fed have a lot more to do with it then the pres does. Also the economy naturally cycles. It cant always be in a boom. It cant always be in a bust. The economy is in neither right now. It was in a little bit of an artificial boon during the clinton years due to the .coms but that bubble had to burst sometime no matter who was president. Bush has done fine economically though i wish he would lower federal spending. He has been very very solid as a president.

[dude1394]

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0601131017.asp



Not all jobs are created equal. Some are volatile and speculative, and some are backed by real, existing profits. As it turns out, the jobs created over the last several years are backed by record levels of corporate profit.

From 2001 to 2005, we’ve seen a 1.4 percent increase in payroll jobs. But over that same period of time, we’ve seen corporate profits jump from $767 billion to $1.3 trillion — an increase of more than 70 percent.

This is in stark contrast to the job boom of the late 1990s, which greatly outpaced the growth of corporate profits. From 1997 to 2000, corporate profits actually decreased from $868 billion to $817 billion, a drop of almost 6 percent. Over that same time period, payroll jobs increased from 122 million to 131 million — a jump of 7.4 percent. Profits were dropping, but corporations kept hiring new workers anyway.

It follows that since today’s jobs are backed by rapidly growing profits, they should be more stable than the ones created in the late 1990s.

[Mavdog]

that is an interesting linkage. interesting but falacious.

profits and employment are congruent. if 2007 arrives and the companies are losing money, most will react by reducing expenses. the quickest way to reduce expenses is to reduce employees.

the past history of profits shouldn't change this dynamic. for example, look at our domestic auto producers who went from profitable to unprofitable in a few short years (tied to the suv market it seems). have they retained the same level of employment? absolutely not.

the graph and numbers do provoke an interesting question- why have the corporate profits increased by 70%? favorable tax treatment? reduction in pension obligations? outsourcing of production?

[madape]

Productivity increases, Mavdog. That's the reason.

You don't hear much about Herbert Hoover lately, do you? The tax cuts are working. Unemployment is low. Standard of living is up. Economy is growing. All of this while the rest of the world is still mired in a near recession. It's a good time to be an American.

[dude1394]

Saw some interesting guvment spending/deficit comparisons.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com..._17_06_JM.html

Year....Prez........Outlays%GDP.......Deficit%GDP
1980....Carter.....21.7%....................2.7%
1988....Reagan...21.3%....................3.1%
2000....Clinton....18.4%....................+2.4%
2005....Bush.......20.1%....................2.6%

[dude1394]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

WASHINGTON -- The federal deficit will register $260 billion this year, the lowest in four years, reflecting a strong economy and resulting growth in tax revenue, congressional analysts said Friday. The estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is well below its earlier predictions and also below the $296 billion White House estimate less than a month ago.

-------
Thought I would put a little context on the number. From mavdog's post about how the economic boom is only occurring because of deficit spending.
2001 ($32.5 Billion)
2002 ($317.5 Billion)
2003 ($538.4 Billion)
2004 ($567.4 Billion)

[Mavdog]

wow!. over $1.2 trillion in deficits over bush's term, your suggestion is we should a) be happy and giving thanks that this past year's deficit was only a quarter trillion, and b) fall victim to the ole setting of expectations trick...nah.

true, federal income is greater than forecast. where is it coming from? those "record corporate profits" primarily. also to huge investment gains by the wealthy.

let me correct one point you made, I don't see the resilience in our economy as being a result of the deficits, yet it is a major factor. the fed's management has been (so far) very well done. the public sector spending has been (imo) the largest stimulate.

in other words, not the tax cuts but the classic keynesian approach.

[dude1394]

Oh I know you don't think it's the tax cuts but the scoreboard says it is.

Bada-boom.

[mcsluggo]

Its really too bad none of the worlds ECONOMISTS are manning that scoreboard.

Bada-bing.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Its really too bad none of the worlds ECONOMISTS are manning that scoreboard.

Bada-bing.

Links please..

[mcsluggo]

What do you want, some blog-site of "economists polls"? I don't have one, I don't go to blogs.

However I am a PhD economist, and I read economics literature, and I attend economics conferences, and I confer with other economists.... and I have yet to find ONE, conservative, liberal, libertarian... or any shade of grey in between that believes that the fiscal policies pursued by this administration are sound economic policy. period.

(on the other hand, I'm sure there are TONS of bloggers that believe it to be the case, so scoreboard, I guess)

There are PLENTY that believe that tax cuts are good policy... when implimented even somewhat correctly. THere are none (I repeat NONE) that believe that the the Bush Tax cuts have been/are/will ever be/ self funding. None. It simply doesn't compute by ANY estimates of financial statistic. ESPECIALLY WHEN SPENDING IS INCREASING AS IF THE TILL IS BEING TENDED BY A DRUNKEN SAILOR.

So tax cuts and increased spending today are an implicit tax on future generations. That is acceptable sometimes <for instance if the country is being wrung by an especially deep recession, or there is deflation in the economy). But to continuously cut taxes and simaltaneusly bump up government spending in the midst of an economy that is already operating at/or near/ full employment is... well... Hugo Chavez. (or Juan Peron, or Nestor Kirchner or Danial Ortega, or Evo Morales any other disasterous latin american populist you wanna think of)

In the economic environment that has existed in the US since 2002(ish) (perhaps 2001) fiscal stimuli have had very little return for their long run cost, it is the equiv to running your AC in February. You..are..not..going..to..make..the.. econmy.. grow ..much ..faster, BUT..it..will..be..DAMN..expensive..anyway (in terms of debt policy)

[dude1394]

Ka-boom continues..

Hiring perked up in August as employers added 128,000 jobs, pulling down the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, sending a Labor Day message that the economic expansion still has staying power.

The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is not in danger of fizzling out.

The tally of new jobs last month was slightly stronger than the 125,000 that economists were forecasting. The nation's unemployment rate dropped down a notch from a five-month high of 4.8 percent in July. Job gains for June and July also turned out to be better than previously estimated. In June, employers boosted payrolls by 134,000 positions and in July they added another 121,000.

The report comes as the nation's work force gets ready to the Labor Day holiday and as the election season looms.

Economic conditions _ especially those where people live and work _ are likely to be on voters' minds when they go to the polls in November.

Workers' average hourly earnings edged up to $16.79 in August, a 0.1 percent increase from July. Economists were forecasting a bigger, 0.3 percent advance. While workers welcome strong wage growth, economists worry that a rapid and prolonged pickup in wages can ignite inflation fears.

Over the 12 months ending August, wages grew by a strong 3.9 percent. The last time this figure was higher was in June 2001.

[mcsluggo]

[qoute]Census Reports Slight Increase in ’05 Incomes

By RICK LYMAN
Published: August 30, 2006
[bold]The nation’s median household income rose slightly faster than inflation last year for the first time in six years, the Census Bureau reported yesterday.

The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks — in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. [/bold] Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet, and some people made more money from investments and other sources beyond wages.

The glimmer of improvement came after years in which the economy slogged through the bursting of the 1990’s stock market boom, a brief economic downturn, the aftershocks from the 2001 terrorist attacks, a series of corporate scandals and growing evidence of a deepening divide between rich and poor.

While the economy has been strong by most statistical measures for the past several years, its benefits have not translated into improvements in the standard of living for many people. In New York, the proportion of city residents living below the poverty level has not changed in the last five years. (Related Article)

Nationally, the small uptick in median household income reported yesterday, 1.1 percent, was not enough to offset a longer-term drop in [bold] median household income — the annual income at which half of the country’s households make more and half make less.

That figure fell 5.9 percent between the 2000 census and 2005, to $46,242 from $49,133, [/bold] according to an analysis of the data conducted for The New York Times by the sociology department of Queens College. The difference was so sharp, in part, because the 2000 census measured 1999 income, which was at the height of the dot-com bubble.

Still, census officials were upbeat at a news conference while announcing the new data, also pointing out that the number and percentage of those living below the poverty line held steady in 2005 after four consecutive annual increases.

The White House seized on the positive numbers, which had been in short supply in previous recent census reports.

“Unemployment is low, wages are rising, and there are more jobs in America today than at any other time in history,” said Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “While we still have challenges ahead, our ability to bounce back is a testament to the strong work ethic of the American people, the resiliency of our economy and pro-growth economic policies, including tax relief.”

Within hours of the data’s release, political partisans on both sides were parsing it for advantage in the upcoming midterm elections, what with both houses of Congress in play and voters’ assessments of the nation’s economic health likely to play a role in the outcome.

“Today’s census report confirms that most working families have not been able to make much economic progress in the last year, and they still have not made up the ground lost since President Bush took office,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee.

Republicans responded in kind.

“While many Democrats have jumped on the opportunity to point out some statistics today, we can’t forget that the economy remains strong,” said Carolyn Weyforth, spokeswoman for the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist. “Yes, there are some disconcerting numbers that Senator Frist feels that Congress must continue to address, but by no means do these numbers mean that the economy is anything but strong and continuing to grow.”

The new data also showed continuing erosion in the percentage of Americans covered by health insurance. In 2005, an estimated 46.6 million people had no coverage, up 1.3 million since 2004 and increasing the percentage of Americans without health coverage from 15.6 percent of the population to 15.9 percent.

After recent decreases in the numbers of children without health insurance, this year’s data found that their numbers grew between 2004 and 2005, rising from 10.8 percent of those under 18 to 11.2 percent.

The 5.9 percent drop in median household income since 1999 was not shared equally around the country. In Michigan, median household income fell 11.9 percent between 1999 and 2005. In North Carolina, it was 11.2 percent, in Utah 10.4 percent and in Indiana 9.5 percent.

But in some states, the impact was not nearly so great: a drop of 2.5 percent in New York, 2.4 percent in South Dakota and 1.9 percent in New Hampshire. In the District of Columbia and six states — Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and Virginia — the change was so small that it fell within the survey’s margin of error.

David Johnson, chief of the housing and household economic statistics division, also noted some persistent signs that Americans from different income groups were not sharing equally in the country’s recent economic good fortune.

He pointed out that slightly more than half of the nation’s income was going to the top 20 percent of wage earners at the same time that the number living in poverty remained essentially unchanged, at about 37 million people.

“That could represent an increase in inequality,” Mr. Johnson said.

In fact, the Queens College study found that — at least between the two years studied, 1999 and 2005 — there was less economic disparity across the country. In 1999, at the height of the dot-com bubble, those in the top 20 percent in income made 19 times more than those in the bottom 20 percent, while in 2005 that gap had fallen to 14.8 times as much.

In 2005, the poor accounted for 12.6 percent of the population, roughly the same as in 2004. The only racial group that saw any improvement in their poverty rate over the year was non-Hispanic whites, a group that had 8.7 percent below the poverty line in 2004 and 8.3 percent in 2005.

And advocates for the poor pointed out that, although the numbers living below the poverty line held steady between 2004 and 2005, there has been a sharp increase in those living in extreme poverty.

The average person living in poverty actually earned $3,236 less than the poverty line — $19,971 for a household of four — in 2005, the highest such gap ever measured by the Census Bureau, said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group. And 43 percent of the poor earned less than half of the poverty limit, Mr. Greenstein said, again the highest such percentage ever recorded.

“This is further evidence that the nation’s economic recovery has had very limited reach, with many low- and medium-income families not sharing in the game,” he said.

The new census data also helped paint a picture of those living at the top and bottom of the nation’s income ladder in 2005.

Those in the top fifth in income were overwhelmingly more likely to live in metropolitan areas than rural ones, 90.8 percent to 9.2 percent. But within those metro areas, they were significantly more likely to be found in the suburbs, with 29.3 percent living within the dominant city limits and 61.5 percent living outside.

Wealthy Americans were also much more likely to be part of a married couple living in a single-family household (79 percent of those in the top fifth), to be a non-Hispanic white (81.2 percent) and to have two or more wage earners in the household (76.3 percent).

Meanwhile, those living in the bottom fifth in income could be found in disproportionate numbers in rural areas (21.2 percent of this group lived outside metro areas compared with 9.2 percent of the wealthiest) and to live in non-family households (59 percent of the poor compared with 12.5 percent of the wealthy).

A study of the data by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire found that children in rural areas were particularly hard hit, with the percentage living in poverty in 41 states higher in 2005 than it was five years before.

Blacks made up 20.6 percent of those living in the bottom fifth, compared with 5.8 percent of those in the top fifth. Hispanics were 13.4 percent of the bottom group and 5.9 percent of the top one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/us...ewanted=2&_r=1
[/quote]

kaboom indeed

[dude1394]

Blacks made up 20.6 percent of those living in the bottom fifth, compared with 5.8 percent of those in the top fifth. Hispanics were 13.4 percent of the bottom group and 5.9 percent of the top one.

Man is that not depressing. I mean we are now engaged in a discussion in affirmitive action about what about two decades now and the percentages are that low for blacks. EVEN compared to hispanics who come in with absolutely nothing.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

kaboom indeed

Well sluggo...I guess we could have 10% unemployment like germany?? It seems pretty clear that keeping inflation down also means keeping salaries down to some degree as well. I don't pretend to know what the number should be, but globalization IS a global equalizer.

I don't think the answer is higher taxes? I dont' think the answer is unions? I don't really think the answer is more educational opportunity as it seems that if you want to get education it's out there and dang near free if you qualify for grants.

The only thing that I can see that would increase those wages would be protectionism, tariffs and higher prices. Is that your position, just really curious?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Man is that not depressing. I mean we are now engaged in a discussion in affirmitive action about what about two decades now and the percentages are that low for blacks. EVEN compared to hispanics who come in with absolutely nothing.

you should see what the percentages were prior to the civil rights legislation...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you should see what the percentages were prior to the civil rights legislation...

Why were they better?

[dude1394]

This guys is doing something interesting. Instead of just wage increases he also adds in benefits increases to come to a slightly different conclusion about rising wages.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=090106B

In the Times piece, "Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity," reporters Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt give the impression that workers are somehow doing worse and getting a raw deal from employers. Errors in the Times piece make the reporters' case appear stronger than it really is. But the even bigger problem is that the data are presented in a way that will surely leave an incorrect impression in their readers' minds. Indeed, their article is a model of how to write a news story to mislead your reader or, alternatively, a model of how not to write a news story if you want to inform your reader.

The basic message Greenhouse and Leonhardt deliver is that "wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960's." That is literally correct, according to the federal government's measures. But it's also misleading, for two main reasons, in order of importance.

First, as marginal tax rates have increased for most people except the highest-income people, due mainly to rising Medicare and Social Security tax rates over the last 40 years, employers have paid a higher and higher percent of compensation in the form of untaxed benefits. So a more-relevant measure is not wages and salaries but total employee compensation. Second, national income is a better base to use for considering each group's -- employees, corporations, proprietors, landlords, and lenders -- share of income.