I make an error every now and then. I would like to know why they need to resort to a poll, when they have data from the people filling filing for unemployment.
I make an error every now and then. I would like to know why they need to resort to a poll, when they have data from the people filling filing for unemployment.
economy failing? Really, haven't feel or noticed that. My parents are making more money now then they were making a year ago so i can't really agree that our economy is failing at all
It might make it more accurate, but people that dont file are not looking for goverment help either.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
And your point is?
If you will read the original "the sky is falling" post and compare that to the facts you'll see that unemployment isn't rampant. The economy is growing, albeit slowly.
I don't remember seeing any doom and gloom predictions from the media back in July of '94. Of course their buddy bubba was prez back then.
I believe you are missing the context . . . and have a selective memory for history. In 1994, we were emerging from a recession . . . not teetering towards a double dip. Although the economy was in a bit of a funk, the Congress (Republican-controlled by then I think) appropriately deep-sixed Clinton's stimulus package.
I guess the Clinton media loved him so much that they ignored the relative lack of experience and relatively high turnover during the first two years of his administration.
I guess the Clinton media loved him so much that they ignored the relative lack of experience and relatively high turnover during the first two years of his administration.
The economic recovery started in 1992 not 1994.
The democrats still controlled both houses of congress until January of 1995.
The democrats still controlled both houses of congress until January of 1995.
Appropriately? This is the same congress and president that OK'd a retroactive tax increase.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
I don't mean to get tacky here, maybe the prospects for employment are fine in Marshaltown, Iowa - but -
A town of 30,000 population in a state with a total population of 3 million is not really representive of what
is going on in most of the major cities in this country.
400,000 jobs lost EACH WEEK for 4 months is a total of over 5 million jobs lost - more that the entire population of Iowa.
Unemployment benefits of about $ 200 per week (Taxable income, by the way) run out after a period of time.
Some states only offer 8 weeks, some go 16 weeks, some longer - depends on how many 'Quarters' you worked
prior to being excessed. More than half of those people have not found replacement employment at the end of
that time period, and are simply removed from the listing of 'Unemployed' for statistical records.
This means that while the 'Official' count is 5% to 6%, the real number is in the 8% to 10% range.
Now - U.S. population per 2000 census was 280 million+ (plus or minus a few million) we'll use 280 as a baseline.
If a 'Typical' household is 2 adults and 2 children - quite stereotypical for the country, and only 1 adult works
(which is becoming less and less of the norm in todays society) there should be 70 million people working.
An unenployment percentage of 5% equals 3.5 million not working, but 10% would be 7 million.
Either number is an outrageous figure.
The fact alone that 5 million have lost jobs in the last 4 months should make you realize that the 5.8 % unemployed
is a fictious number - as it well exceeds the 4 million total that would be represented by a 5.8% unemployment figure.
The average time for a person to find employment from the previos job loss is near 18 months now.
That means that they have been of the 'Unemployed Statistical Count' for over a year when they get back to work.
Booming Economy, is it not ?
A town of 30,000 population in a state with a total population of 3 million is not really representive of what
is going on in most of the major cities in this country.
400,000 jobs lost EACH WEEK for 4 months is a total of over 5 million jobs lost - more that the entire population of Iowa.
Unemployment benefits of about $ 200 per week (Taxable income, by the way) run out after a period of time.
Some states only offer 8 weeks, some go 16 weeks, some longer - depends on how many 'Quarters' you worked
prior to being excessed. More than half of those people have not found replacement employment at the end of
that time period, and are simply removed from the listing of 'Unemployed' for statistical records.
This means that while the 'Official' count is 5% to 6%, the real number is in the 8% to 10% range.
Now - U.S. population per 2000 census was 280 million+ (plus or minus a few million) we'll use 280 as a baseline.
If a 'Typical' household is 2 adults and 2 children - quite stereotypical for the country, and only 1 adult works
(which is becoming less and less of the norm in todays society) there should be 70 million people working.
An unenployment percentage of 5% equals 3.5 million not working, but 10% would be 7 million.
Either number is an outrageous figure.
The fact alone that 5 million have lost jobs in the last 4 months should make you realize that the 5.8 % unemployed
is a fictious number - as it well exceeds the 4 million total that would be represented by a 5.8% unemployment figure.
The average time for a person to find employment from the previos job loss is near 18 months now.
That means that they have been of the 'Unemployed Statistical Count' for over a year when they get back to work.
Booming Economy, is it not ?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nobody said it was a "booming economy", but it sure as hell isn't as gloomy as you pessimests think. OK so you don't like Marshaltown but How about Des Moines Iowa? Pretty big city is it not? I seem to see quite a big Help wanted section everyweek in the Des Moines Register, but I guess those are all minimum wage jobs
If the average time to find a new job is 18 months -THEN THOSE PEOPLE ARE TOO DAMN PICKY!!!!
CkG
This thread cracks me up...
Bush is no more to "blame" for the current status of the economy than was Clinton to "claim" the years of good economy under his adiministration.
Did Clinton "cause" the year 2000, and the record IT profits and huge resultant boom? Did Bush "cause" the resultant fall off and burst of the dot-com bubble, and then 9/11? (please conspiracy theorists don't reply I'm tired of hearing we didn't land on the moon, black helicopters, trilateral commission, etc.)
Factors that drive the US economy (roughly in decreasing order):
Consumer Spending
Business Spending
Monetary Policy
New Construction
Stock & Bond Markets
Trade Gap
Government Spending/Taxes
Currency Markets
So at best its number 7 impact. And heavily outweighed by any of the top 6.
Bush is no more to "blame" for the current status of the economy than was Clinton to "claim" the years of good economy under his adiministration.
Did Clinton "cause" the year 2000, and the record IT profits and huge resultant boom? Did Bush "cause" the resultant fall off and burst of the dot-com bubble, and then 9/11? (please conspiracy theorists don't reply I'm tired of hearing we didn't land on the moon, black helicopters, trilateral commission, etc.)
Factors that drive the US economy (roughly in decreasing order):
Consumer Spending
Business Spending
Monetary Policy
New Construction
Stock & Bond Markets
Trade Gap
Government Spending/Taxes
Currency Markets
So at best its number 7 impact. And heavily outweighed by any of the top 6.
I stand corrected . . . memory is fuzzy b/c I was still a Young Republican back then.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriately? This is the same congress and president that OK'd a retroactive tax increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curious . . . balanced the budget didn't it? Clinton presided over a period of relatively low inflation in health care costs . . . even though the trial lawyers were having a field day. Clinton is certainly no prize . . . he basically arrived at the right time and managed not to mess it up before exiting stage left.
Bush on the otherhand, inherited an economy with serious issues and has done nothing substantitively to help the long term solvency of the government. It is the Republican Congress from 1996-2000 that can take credit for shifting a myriad of programs to the states . . . accounting for part of the rapid growth in state budgets over the interval . . . and the current state deficits . . . GOP Congress AND Clinton.
Reagan didn't revitalize America . . . he tax-cut and spent his way to the impression of success using borrowed money. He then left GHWBush holding the bag with more debt and Saddam Hussein. Clinton didn't cut many taxes (on balance he probably raised them - not to mention benefiting from GHWBush tax increases and Greenspan monetary policy). Alas, the new economy was a mirage as well. Clinton/GOP Congresses left Bush with an overextended military (based on funding), indeterminant foreign policy, low unemployment, low interest rates, AND previously unheard of budget SURPLUSES.
Bush's record thus far is mixed at best. The military has improved its funding but Bush has further extended its use. Foreign policy apprently has a direction; Pax Americana by any means necessary . . . I wouldn't call that improvement. Unemployment is low b/c it started low NOT the Bush fiscal policy. Interest rates are low b/c Greenspan runs that show (and the economy was sluggish) plus it's taken some time for Bush to burn through previous surpluses. As for the surplus . . . what surplus?!:frown:
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
First link - doesn't contradict anything that Tiger posted
Second link - tripod.com?propaganda? Opinion? I think so
Third link - I pulled this out of the first paragraph: "Economic growth resumed in the fourth quarter of 2001, accelerated sharply in the first quarter of 2002, and continued in the second quarter, albeit at a slower pace."
ALSO - your .3% is growth of government spending and has nada to do with "economic growth". Here is the quote you took the .3% from: "Government spending increased dramatically in 2001, driven by security and defense expenditures. In 2001, real federal government spending increased at a 4.8 percent annual rate, compared to a 0.3 percent average growth rate from 1995-2000. In the first half of 2002, federal government spending hit a growth rate of 7.6 percent at an annual rate. Defense spending increased by 5.0 percent in 2001-the largest increase since 1986-whereas non-defense spending increased by 4.5 percent. State and local government spending increased by 3.1 percent."
I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve with those links but I suggest you go find something that actually might support your claims.
CkG
It's ashame that someone would actually perceive government spending with economic growth. It just goes to show how so many people have lost sight of what a true market economy is about.
And yet Dubya is promising to stimulate the economy through tax cuts. Once he got this country in debt to stimulate the economy, it's Dubya's responsibility.
Where did you get this from? It's not that I don't believe you but many of those factors confound one another. For instance, if you dramatically lower taxes (including taxation of dividends) you will likely see an increase in items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (not to mention increased interest rates which will act against those factors). Can't Bush at least argue that the magnitude of long term growth from tax cuts will exceed the costs in increased interest rates, reduced government spending, and likely lower dollar.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
And when I keep more of MY money(via tax cuts) ...Guess what? I SPEND more which is #1 on alchemize's list.
I'm sure as to the accuracy of his list but it's pretty darn close if not spot on.
CkG
Yes but isn't bankruptcy reform a priority in the current Congress? Aren't many states/localities increasing taxes? While everybody likes a rebate on some GM vehicle they don't really want . . . isn't it the 0% financing on a GM vehicle they don't really want that prompts them to buy a GM vehicle they don't really want?
What's going to happen to consumers who must buy on credit when these ridiculously low interest rates begin to rise?
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
1) I don't think that the 10,000 jobs created each month has much effect offsetting a job loss of 400,000+ as stated by our Government.
2) 18 month AVERAGE was the Missouri State number presented to me by the state when I last was caught in a downsizing.
I was able to find a job that paid LESS THAN HALF of what I had been making, which I kept for 1 1/2 years - before moving to
another state, when employment in my industry regained strength. Several hundred never did get back though, and have been
forced to relocate to continue working.
3) I'm not picking on Iowa, I was simply trying to point out that most cities in crisis have populations larger than that state.
Basara and Baghdad had populations bigger than some of our less populous states.
4) It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood, isn't it.
2) 18 month AVERAGE was the Missouri State number presented to me by the state when I last was caught in a downsizing.
I was able to find a job that paid LESS THAN HALF of what I had been making, which I kept for 1 1/2 years - before moving to
another state, when employment in my industry regained strength. Several hundred never did get back though, and have been
forced to relocate to continue working.
3) I'm not picking on Iowa, I was simply trying to point out that most cities in crisis have populations larger than that state.
Basara and Baghdad had populations bigger than some of our less populous states.
4) It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood, isn't it.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Nobody said it was a "booming economy", but it sure as hell isn't as gloomy as you pessimests think. OK so you don't like Marshaltown but How about Des Moines Iowa? Pretty big city is it not? I seem to see quite a big Help wanted section everyweek in the Des Moines Register, but I guess those are all minimum wage jobs
If the average time to find a new job is 18 months -THEN THOSE PEOPLE ARE TOO DAMN PICKY!!!!
I can't comment on overall employment in the Des Moines area, but the tech sector job market is pretty grim. For years, there were several full pages of tech jobs in the Sunday paper. There were times last winter where there were none - not one. It has improved quite a bit in the last two or three months, up to maybe 10-15 jobs each week. Some of them are pretty good jobs, but there are dozens of well-qualified people applying for each one.
Des Moines isn't as bad as many areas of the country, e.g., New York City and Silicon Valley. I read that NY was especially hard hit due to the bad economy and the effect of 9/11 driving some businesses out of the city. It's unemployment was reportedly running at up to about 9%. I don't know if it has improved recently or not.
Bottom line, the economy is pretty gloomy for a whole lot of people.
If America doesn't demand and if our leaders lack the courage to endorse it, it won't be happening. Sadly, both items are true. But hey maybe it's not my problem, I can always tune into re-runs of Seinfeld!
Our leaders don't lack courage . . . they don't give a poop. The ideology of the day is that tax cuts are good . . . an unqualified good.
Booming economy: tax cut.
Recession: tax cut.
Lagging recovery: tax cut.
Jobless recovery: tax cut.
Huge deficits: tax cut.
Tax cuts today are essentially being paid with debt. Our grandparents and parents have laden the country with $6T in red ink . . . so our response is to pass even MORE debt to our children and grandchildren. It really is ridiculous but it's amazing how the GOP has lost it's way. Clinton really is the worse thing to ever happen to the GOP. He stole our best ideas and facilitated the takeover by the alleged-Christian Right and Neo-Cons. Now the Party of Lincoln and Teddy has become the Party of Reagan . . . bad, very bad.
My question would be what happens in fiscal year 2006 when DOD, Medicare are consuming half the federal budget and Medicaid is consuming a third of state budgets? How will the rest of America get education, health care, public health . . . charter schools? volunteer clinics?
I hate to bust the bubble but charter schools have flopped all over the place and many physicians ALREADY consider taking Medicare and Medicaid just short of volunteer work.
Booming economy: tax cut.
Recession: tax cut.
Lagging recovery: tax cut.
Jobless recovery: tax cut.
Huge deficits: tax cut.
Tax cuts today are essentially being paid with debt. Our grandparents and parents have laden the country with $6T in red ink . . . so our response is to pass even MORE debt to our children and grandchildren. It really is ridiculous but it's amazing how the GOP has lost it's way. Clinton really is the worse thing to ever happen to the GOP. He stole our best ideas and facilitated the takeover by the alleged-Christian Right and Neo-Cons. Now the Party of Lincoln and Teddy has become the Party of Reagan . . . bad, very bad.
My question would be what happens in fiscal year 2006 when DOD, Medicare are consuming half the federal budget and Medicaid is consuming a third of state budgets? How will the rest of America get education, health care, public health . . . charter schools? volunteer clinics?
I hate to bust the bubble but charter schools have flopped all over the place and many physicians ALREADY consider taking Medicare and Medicaid just short of volunteer work.
Until there is tax reform, there will be out of control spending. Maybe we can get the tax reform before we reach historitcally high levels of debt:GDPratios.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter