Powerful US Economy

[onthebottom]

Shall we add to your reflections:

a) The 4.7% unemployment rate that OTB keeps citing has been questioned by the Federal Reserve as being as much as 3% too low because of people dropping out of the workforce because jobs don't exist

b) The Shrub's job creation rate is the worst in 40 years

c) The percent of people living in poverty has increased since the Shrub became President

d) The savings rate has dropped since he became President

But, in his inimitable fashion, OTB's cited stats confirm the Rethuglicans' attitude of "I've got mine -- screw everyone else."

I'm calling BS on this.

The unemployment rate is measure the same way everywhere and the same way it was measured when the First Fornicator was in the White House.

The rest I'd like to see you substantiate from a source other than a blog.

I do quite well, that much you have right.

OTB

 

[TOVisitor]

The unemployment rate is measure the same way everywhere and the same way it was measured when the First Fornicator was in the White House.

OTB

I posted the following on October 9 last year in a thread about military recruiting being bad. You had posted to that thread as well, but I guess that if the data doesn't support your position, you must not remember it. More truthiness.

No whining nor spin necessary. Just read a report from that "left wing organization", The Boston Federal Reserve Bank: http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppb/2005/ppb052.pdf

Here's a summary of the article:

"This public policy brief examines labor force participation rates in this recession and recovery and compares them with the cyclical patterns in earlier business cycles. Measured relative to the business cycle peak in March 2001, labor force participation rates almost four years later have not recovered as much as usual, and the discrepancies are large.

Among age-by-sex groups, the participation shortfall is especially pronounced at young and prime ages: Only for men and women age 55 and older has participation risen more than is usual four years after the business cycle peak.

The brief examines explanations and different recovery scenarios for various groups—older workers, women, teens. Depending on the scenario, the current labor force shortfall ranges from 1.6 million to 5.1 million men and women. With 7.9 million people currently unemployed, the addition of these hypothetical participants would raise the unemployment rate by 1 to 3-plus percentage points. Current low rates of labor market participation thus potentially represent considerable slack in the U.S. labor market. "

Translation: the jobless rate is lower than it would be IF a lot of people had not dropped out of the labor market. In other words, the denomoinator of the fraction of people working dividied by the total number of people in the labor force is low. How low? Labor force participation is at a 15 year LOW.

No spin, OTB. Just the facts. You can crow about a low unemplyment rate but there are fewer in the workforce than in a very long time. That extra 1-3 points would ordinarily see the unemployment rate at 6% to 9% -- not healthy at all.

I will get you links to the rest of my data over the next day or two when I have the time. I do have the links.

 

[onthebottom]

Hourly income: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref3

Year Jan
1996 11.84
1997 12.27
1998 12.77
1999 13.25
2000 13.73
2001 14.28
2002 14.74
2003 15.19
2004 15.48
2005 15.88
2006 16.40

Unemployment Rate: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

Year Jan
1996 5.6
1997 5.3
1998 4.6
1999 4.3
2000 4.0
2001 4.2
2002 5.7
2003 5.8
2004 5.7
2005 5.2
2006 4.7


Productivity: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=PR_lprbrief

Duration: index, 1992 = 100
Measure: Output Per Hour

Q1
1996 103.726
1997 104.904
1998 108.340
1999 111.403
2000 113.750
2001 116.447
2002 122.335
2003 124.976
2004 130.828
2005 134.715
2006 137.892
Looks like the US economy (and employment) does well no matter who is in the White House.

OTB

 

[TOVisitor]

d) The savings rate has dropped since he became President

Personal saving -- DPI less personal outlays -- was a negative $32.5 billion in March, compared with a negative $58.3 billion in February. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was a negative 0.3 percent in March, compared with a negative 0.6 percent in February. Negative personal saving reflects personal outlays that exceed disposable personal income. Saving from current income may be near zero or negative when outlays are financed by borrowing (including borrowing financed through credit cards or home equity loans), by selling investments or other assets, or by using savings from previous periods. For more information, see the FAQs on "Personal Saving" on BEA's Web site.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/pinewsrelease.htm[/QUOTE]

Data from the last quarter of 2005 and the first of 2006:

Personal saving -- disposable personal income less personal outlays -- was a negative $50.5 billion in the first quarter, compared with a negative $15.8 billion in the fourth. The personal saving rate -- saving as a Percentage of disposable personal income -- decreased from a negative 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter to a negative 0.5 percent in the first.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 

[onthebottom]

I posted the following on October 9 last year in a thread about military recruiting being bad. You had posted to that thread as well, but I guess that if the data doesn't support your position, you must not remember it. More truthiness.



I will get you links to the rest of my data over the next day or two when I have the time. I do have the links.

It's always been measured the same way, you have no point.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Personal saving -- DPI less personal outlays -- was a negative $32.5 billion in March, compared with a negative $58.3 billion in February. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was a negative 0.3 percent in March, compared with a negative 0.6 percent in February. Negative personal saving reflects personal outlays that exceed disposable personal income. Saving from current income may be near zero or negative when outlays are financed by borrowing (including borrowing financed through credit cards or home equity loans), by selling investments or other assets, or by using savings from previous periods. For more information, see the FAQs on "Personal Saving" on BEA's Web site.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/pinewsrelease.htm

Data from the last quarter of 2005 and the first of 2006:[/QUOTE]

Neither of these shows a drop since Bush became POTUS.

Why is this a partisan issue for you, personal behavior is not at the direction of who is POTUS.

You see the world in a single dimension.

OTB

 

[TOVisitor]

The rest I'd like to see you substantiate from a source other than a blog.

I do quite well, that much you have right.

OTB

Try reading this too:

http://rsch1.ml.com/9093/24013/ds/50479419.PDF

This analyzes job creation numbers and shows that the Shrub's are the wost in 40 years.

 

[TOVisitor]

Neither of these shows a drop since Bush became POTUS.

Why is this a partisan issue for you, personal behavior is not at the direction of who is POTUS.

You see the world in a single dimension.

OTB

I wil get the full set of data later.

POTUS can influence the people's behavior. Take for example those sham tax cuts that benefitted only the slightest fraction of the American people (of which neither you nor I are part of).

See for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/b...0a40120544a89c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was far more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of Mr. Bush's two previous tax cuts: on wages and other noninvestment income.

When Congress cut investment taxes three years ago, it was clear that the highest-income Americans would gain the most, because they had the most money in investments. But the size of the cuts and what share goes to each income group have not been known.

Not known until now. Read the article.

 

[TOVisitor]

How about wages?

Non-supervisory wages represent the pay for about 80% of the workforce. Non-supervisory wages were $14.28/hour in January 2001 and $16.47% in February 2006 for an increase of 15.33%. Over the same period, the national inflation index increased from 175.1 to 198.7 for an increase of 13.47%. This makes the total, inflation-adjusted increase in wages for the Bush administration 1.86%, or a compound annual growth rate of .36%. So, currently about 80% of employed people are making about what they made when Bush took office

The Fed says:

The survey shows that, over the 2001-2004 period, the median value of real (inflation-adjusted) family income before taxes continued to trend up, rising 1.6 percent, whereas the mean value fell 2.3 percent. Patterns of change were mixed across demographic groups. These results stand in contrast to the strong and broad gains seen for the period between 1998 and 2001 surveys and to the smaller but similarly broad gains between the 1995 and 1998 surveys.

Got that? The median went up while the mean went down. I will leave you to figure out what that means.

 

[onthebottom]

I wil get the full set of data later.

POTUS can influence the people's behavior. Take for example those sham tax cuts that benefitted only the slightest fraction of the American people (of which neither you nor I are part of).

See for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/b...0a40120544a89c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



Not known until now. Read the article.

The savings rate issue (and it is an issue, larger than public debt I think) is not a partisan issue.

The economy has boomed since those tax cuts. You have to pay taxes to get a tax cut, something like 800 people pay 25% of the taxes in this country, at 300k a year I'm in the top 2-3%, and yes, I've had a tax cut. For us to tax capital gains is foolish, other countries don't. Even with these tax cuts tax revenues are on the rise, more than 40 states are running surpluses at the moment and the Federal Government is beating it’s deficit forecast – why, because tax revenue is increasing. Long live Lauffer…. LOL

OTB

 

[TOVisitor]

Long live Lauffer…. LOL

OTB

The Laffer curve is a laugher.

Everyone who tries to use this argument that taxes are too high, assumes that we are on the right side of the peak of his curve (taxes too high) than on the left (taxes are too low).

There are NO historical data whatsover to support the Laffer curve.

This curve is built on the Rethuglicans' typical pitch to the voter: you can get something (greater government revenue) for nothing (reduce taxes).

Dream on.

 

[TOVisitor]

The savings rate issue (and it is an issue, larger than public debt I think) is not a partisan issue.

If people have been making the same since Bush became POTUS and new jobs are being created to replace the ones lost at $9,000 less (on average) and health care costs are skyrocketing (tax breaks for pharma companies) and gas costs more (tax breaks for big oil), then the savings rate is not a non-partisan issue.

It is very partisan as Bush's economic policies have declared war on the middle class and the poor.

Productivity uses wages in its denominator, and if wages are stagnant or going down, guess what happens? Productivity looks like it's going up.

 

[TOVisitor]

c) The percent of people living in poverty has increased since the Shrub became President

Here's data from 2003 and 2004 from the US Census. Poverty rate and number of people in poverty rose from 2003 to 2004.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov04/fig04.jpg

I'll get other years later.

 

[TOVisitor]

It's always been measured the same way, you have no point.

OTB

I have "no point"?

Hey, did you read what the Boston Fed says?

BTW, the NY Fed agrees with the Boston Fed.

People have dropped out of the labor force because there are no jobs! Labor force participation is the lowest in 15 years.

 

[onthebottom]

If people have been making the same since Bush became POTUS and new jobs are being created to replace the ones lost at $9,000 less (on average) and health care costs are skyrocketing (tax breaks for pharma companies) and gas costs more (tax breaks for big oil), then the savings rate is not a non-partisan issue.

It is very partisan as Bush's economic policies have declared war on the middle class and the poor.

Productivity uses wages in its denominator, and if wages are stagnant or going down, guess what happens? Productivity looks like it's going up.

Disposable income is up in your links check them out, what people do with that is personal choice.

Productivity is measured for a single hour worked, not what the pay is.

OTB

 

[Meister]

People have dropped out of the labor force because there are no jobs! Labor force participation is the lowest in 15 years.

As much as I think that the low unemployment numbers is due to a shift from manufacturing to service economy, which imo is not a good balance because they tend to be lower income types and mostly just consume, I do think that employment in the US is in good shape. If you think employment is bad in the US you should look at some countries in Europe:
Germany 10.4%
France 9.2%
and extremely high for people under 25 years.
Most of the countries in Europe are much more socialist than the US or Canada would ever be. While Europe doesn't have the debt problems that the US has it is in much worse shape when it comes to unemployment, demographics and social net burden.

 

[TOVisitor]

As much as I think that the low unemployment numbers is due to a shift from manufacturing to service economy, which imo is not a good balance because they tend to be lower income types and mostly just consume, I do think that employment in the US is in good shape. If you think employment is bad in the US you should look at some countries in Europe:
Germany 10.4%
France 9.2%
and extremely high for people under 25 years.
Most of the countries in Europe are much more socialist than the US or Canada would ever be. While Europe doesn't have the debt problems that the US has it is in much worse shape when it comes to unemployment, demographics and social net burden.

Oh I get it! We suck less than they do.

 

[onthebottom]

As much as I think that the low unemployment numbers is due to a shift from manufacturing to service economy, which imo is not a good balance because they tend to be lower income types and mostly just consume, I do think that employment in the US is in good shape. If you think employment is bad in the US you should look at some countries in Europe:
Germany 10.4%
France 9.2%
and extremely high for people under 25 years.
Most of the countries in Europe are much more socialist than the US or Canada would ever be. While Europe doesn't have the debt problems that the US has it is in much worse shape when it comes to unemployment, demographics and social net burden.

Current US unemployment is both low historically and in comparison to other large wealth countries. Productivity and pay for hours worked has risen steadily.

OTB

 

[someone]

The Laffer curve is a laugher.

Everyone who tries to use this argument that taxes are too high, assumes that we are on the right side of the peak of his curve (taxes too high) than on the left (taxes are too low).

There are NO historical data whatsover to support the Laffer curve.

This curve is built on the Rethuglicans' typical pitch to the voter: you can get something (greater government revenue) for nothing (reduce taxes).

Dream on.

I don't want to try to keep up with all the posts that are flying in this thread. Moreover, given that I find everyone to be saying some things I agree with and some I don’t, I’m likely to get it from all sides if I wade in . Thus, I’m just picking on this one as it is the hardest for anyone to debate. When it comes to the United States, you are absolutely right. Even in the case of Swedish tax rates, you need a very high elasticity of labour to be on the right half of the Laffer curve. BTW, the Laffer curve was something that Public economics types knew to be a theoretical possibility for years before Laffer told Reagan about it. Thus, I don’t think Laffer should really get as much credit for it as he does as all he did was popularize it. The story is that he told Regan about it by drawing it on a cocktail napkin.

 

[TOVisitor]

I don't want to try to keep up with all the posts that are flying in this thread. Moreover, given that I find everyone to be saying some things I agree with and some I don’t, I’m likely to get it from all sides if I wade in . Thus, I’m just picking on this one as it is the hardest for anyone to debate. When it comes to the United States, you are absolutely right. Even in the case of Swedish tax rates, you need a very high elasticity of labour to be on the right half of the Laffer curve. BTW, the Laffer curve was something that Public economics types knew to be a theoretical possibility for years before Laffer told Reagan about it. Thus, I don’t think Laffer should really get as much credit for it as he does as all he did was popularize it. The story is that he told Regan about it by drawing it on a cocktail napkin.

Yeah and that cocktail napkin should have been trashed after the conversation.

Instead, we have Kool-aid drinkers like BOT who praise Laffer when there is no empirical evidence whatsover to support his "theory."

In fact, if you look at what happend to government revenues AFTER both Reagan and Clinton raised taxes, in BOTH cases revenues increased. If anything, this provides "proof" that we are on the left side rather than the right side of the so-called Laffer curve -- i.e. the US is UNDER rather than OVER-taxed.