Vanishing Jobs, Rising Unemployment

[thoughtone]

Seriously, what do you expect?

You have a congress that rather "fix" health care than private business.

You have a president that will do anything congress wants to do, even if it hurts his chances in 2012.

You have a government that believes in spending to fix things, instead of working the situation out efficiently.

On top of that, private businesses look at the government like they know higher taxes will come if they start hiring more people. Thus, making another recession situation.

What everyone needs to understand is that people who run big businesses do know what they have to do to make a profit in any situation. They know how to do more with less when it comes to employment. Thus, with every social program Obama and company wants, big business is looking at it in a "oh shit, I have to fire more people to turn a profit" mentality. Of course, this is because of Bush job policies right?

Simple question, why was the middle class, employment and the standard of living higher during the 1950s thru the 1970s when the maximum personal income tax rate was at least over 35% and it declined when Reagan and Clinton lowered it to under 30% from the 1980s thru 2000?

 

[actinanass]

Simple question, why was the middle class, employment and the standard of living higher during the 1950s thru the 1970s when the maximum personal income tax rate was at least over 35% and it declined when Reagan and Clinton lowered it to under 30% from the 1980s thru 2000?

1. can I see some stats on your claims?

2. Didn't tax revenue go up due to the lower unemployment numbers from Reagan to Obama?

 

[thoughtone]

1. can I see some stats on your claims?

2. Didn't tax revenue go up due to the lower unemployment numbers from Reagan to Obama?

1. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer

Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A11


The line is not likely to make this week's eulogies to Ronald Reagan, but when Vice President Cheney allegedly declared, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he summed up an enduring argument from the former president's economic legacy.

In late 2002, Cheney had summoned the Bush administration's economic team to his office to discuss another round of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill pleaded that the government -- already running a $158 billion deficit -- was careering toward a fiscal crisis. But by O'Neill's account of the meeting, Cheney silenced him by invoking his take on Reagan's legacy.

It wasn't that Reagan's policies proved that government borrowing had no impact on the economy. But his administration's record -- particularly with some years of hindsight -- did give reason to question traditional thinking and provided a new context for future arguments about deficit spending.

"The lesson we should have learned [from those years] is that deficits have little or no short-term economic impacts," said William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers.

As important, they appeared to have no impact politically, said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist at the Club for Growth who worked in Reagan's budget office.

"Voters and politicians became anesthetized to big deficits," Moore recalled. "Reagan was running these big deficits, and liberals argued it was going to be Armageddon. We were going to ruin the economy. Interest rates were going to go through the roof. And none of these things happened."

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

To some economists, the impact was clear. Interest rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economy slowed, then slipped into recession, and productivity barely advanced. Americans feared their nation had slipped into the shadows of Japan and Germany.

Reagan's "economic policy . . . was a disaster," University of California at Berkeley economic historian J. Bradford DeLong wrote this past weekend on his Web site. "The tax cuts made America a more unequal place, and the deficits slowed economic growth in the 1980s significantly."

But after the boom years of the 1990s, and the steady economic slides of those international rivals, some economists are reevaluating that version of history. The argument against deficits is more about self-righteous moralism than economics, they say.

The Reagan "experience changed the debate dramatically," said Kevin A. Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. "Back then, it seems that everybody believed Reagan must be some kind of kook and the people who agreed with these views were flimflam artists. Not so anymore."

Indeed, since the Reagan years, the argument over the deficit has been turned on its head. In the 1980s, prominent liberal economists dismissed the significance of government red ink to head off the slashing of social welfare spending. Now, many liberal economists have become the fiercest deficit hawks to head off still more tax cuts.

But the shifts go beyond politics. For nearly a century, economic orthodoxy has held that federal borrowing harms the economy by driving up interest rates, diminishing investment and productivity, and placing an unfair burden on future generations, who will finance the spending and tax cuts of the present.

Traditional economists argue that as the government enters private capital markets to finance its deficits, it competes with private borrowers. A deficit equal to 1 percent of the size of the economy -- about $110 billion today -- would slap as much as a full percentage point on the interest rates consumers pay to finance a new home or new car. By that measure, today's deficit would account for nearly 4 percentage points of a 6 percent mortgage.

But the new argument holds that interest rates are set on a vastly larger global marketplace. With rising global prosperity, even a federal deficit as large as the United States' would present little competition for would-be investors. A soon-to-be-published paper by American Enterprise Institute economist Eric M. Engen and Columbia University economist R. Glenn Hubbard, the first chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that the record budget deficit of 2004 should raise interest rates by 0.12 percent.

"The world's capital markets are lot more sophisticated and flexible than they were then," said N. Gregory Mankiw, the current chairman of Bush's economic council. "That probably means that other things being equal, changes in domestic fiscal situations have less impact."

Indeed, this school of thought is becoming something of a consensus, Engen said. Deficits equal to 1 percent of the size of the economy should raise interest rates by 0.3 percent, he said. That is the low end of the 0.3 to 0.6 percent range postulated by Brookings Institution economists William G. Gale and Peter R. Orszag when they argued deficits are economically significant.

Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard University economist who lamented Reagan's fiscal policies in his 1988 book "Day of Reckoning," said the expansion of foreign credit has tempered the feared hikes in long-term interest rates that he thought would cripple the economy. But, he said, "that doesn't let deficits off the hook."

"It's important to realize that interest rates are set on world capital markets; therefore, a large deficit need not impact capital formation," he said, referring to economic investments in new plants and equipment that drive growth. "But that's identical to saying we will continue to do capital formation, but we'll do it by forever borrowing abroad."

And that spells trouble, said Niskanen of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Debt does have to be repaid, and foreign investors -- primarily the central banks of Japan, Britain and China -- own $1.7 billion of federal debt. That, he said, has made the country "terribly dependent" and "terribly vulnerable."

That is a bipartisan fear. "The key point is, even if it were sustainable, it's not desirable," said Orszag, a prominent Democratic economist. "We still will owe the money to foreigners. We're still mortgaging our future national income. Just because you can take out a larger mortgage to buy a bigger house doesn't mean you should."

 

[actinanass]

1. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer

Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A11


The line is not likely to make this week's eulogies to Ronald Reagan, but when Vice President Cheney allegedly declared, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he summed up an enduring argument from the former president's economic legacy.

In late 2002, Cheney had summoned the Bush administration's economic team to his office to discuss another round of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill pleaded that the government -- already running a $158 billion deficit -- was careering toward a fiscal crisis. But by O'Neill's account of the meeting, Cheney silenced him by invoking his take on Reagan's legacy.

It wasn't that Reagan's policies proved that government borrowing had no impact on the economy. But his administration's record -- particularly with some years of hindsight -- did give reason to question traditional thinking and provided a new context for future arguments about deficit spending.

"The lesson we should have learned [from those years] is that deficits have little or no short-term economic impacts," said William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers.

As important, they appeared to have no impact politically, said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist at the Club for Growth who worked in Reagan's budget office.

"Voters and politicians became anesthetized to big deficits," Moore recalled. "Reagan was running these big deficits, and liberals argued it was going to be Armageddon. We were going to ruin the economy. Interest rates were going to go through the roof. And none of these things happened."

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

To some economists, the impact was clear. Interest rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economy slowed, then slipped into recession, and productivity barely advanced. Americans feared their nation had slipped into the shadows of Japan and Germany.

Reagan's "economic policy . . . was a disaster," University of California at Berkeley economic historian J. Bradford DeLong wrote this past weekend on his Web site. "The tax cuts made America a more unequal place, and the deficits slowed economic growth in the 1980s significantly."

But after the boom years of the 1990s, and the steady economic slides of those international rivals, some economists are reevaluating that version of history. The argument against deficits is more about self-righteous moralism than economics, they say.

The Reagan "experience changed the debate dramatically," said Kevin A. Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute. "Back then, it seems that everybody believed Reagan must be some kind of kook and the people who agreed with these views were flimflam artists. Not so anymore."

Indeed, since the Reagan years, the argument over the deficit has been turned on its head. In the 1980s, prominent liberal economists dismissed the significance of government red ink to head off the slashing of social welfare spending. Now, many liberal economists have become the fiercest deficit hawks to head off still more tax cuts.

But the shifts go beyond politics. For nearly a century, economic orthodoxy has held that federal borrowing harms the economy by driving up interest rates, diminishing investment and productivity, and placing an unfair burden on future generations, who will finance the spending and tax cuts of the present.

Traditional economists argue that as the government enters private capital markets to finance its deficits, it competes with private borrowers. A deficit equal to 1 percent of the size of the economy -- about $110 billion today -- would slap as much as a full percentage point on the interest rates consumers pay to finance a new home or new car. By that measure, today's deficit would account for nearly 4 percentage points of a 6 percent mortgage.

But the new argument holds that interest rates are set on a vastly larger global marketplace. With rising global prosperity, even a federal deficit as large as the United States' would present little competition for would-be investors. A soon-to-be-published paper by American Enterprise Institute economist Eric M. Engen and Columbia University economist R. Glenn Hubbard, the first chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that the record budget deficit of 2004 should raise interest rates by 0.12 percent.

"The world's capital markets are lot more sophisticated and flexible than they were then," said N. Gregory Mankiw, the current chairman of Bush's economic council. "That probably means that other things being equal, changes in domestic fiscal situations have less impact."

Indeed, this school of thought is becoming something of a consensus, Engen said. Deficits equal to 1 percent of the size of the economy should raise interest rates by 0.3 percent, he said. That is the low end of the 0.3 to 0.6 percent range postulated by Brookings Institution economists William G. Gale and Peter R. Orszag when they argued deficits are economically significant.

Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard University economist who lamented Reagan's fiscal policies in his 1988 book "Day of Reckoning," said the expansion of foreign credit has tempered the feared hikes in long-term interest rates that he thought would cripple the economy. But, he said, "that doesn't let deficits off the hook."

"It's important to realize that interest rates are set on world capital markets; therefore, a large deficit need not impact capital formation," he said, referring to economic investments in new plants and equipment that drive growth. "But that's identical to saying we will continue to do capital formation, but we'll do it by forever borrowing abroad."

And that spells trouble, said Niskanen of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. Debt does have to be repaid, and foreign investors -- primarily the central banks of Japan, Britain and China -- own $1.7 billion of federal debt. That, he said, has made the country "terribly dependent" and "terribly vulnerable."

That is a bipartisan fear. "The key point is, even if it were sustainable, it's not desirable," said Orszag, a prominent Democratic economist. "We still will owe the money to foreigners. We're still mortgaging our future national income. Just because you can take out a larger mortgage to buy a bigger house doesn't mean you should."

They missed one clear reason why reaganomics was needed at the time. The deficit grew only because we decided to build up our military, in a way, that would make our nation end the cold war. I like the different p.o.v.'s in this article though.

 

[thoughtone]

They missed one clear reason why reaganomics was needed at the time. The deficit grew only because we decided to build up our military, in a way, that would make our nation end the cold war. I like the different p.o.v.'s in this article though.

You’re dense! Remember the article I posted stating that the CIA predicted the demise of the Soviet Union back in the 1960s. You asked me for evidence about that in another post and I listed the book and article. All you had to do was read it. Your entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

 

[actinanass]

You’re dense! Remember the article I posted stating that the CIA predicted the demise of the Soviet Union back in the 1960s. You asked me for evidence about that in another post and I listed the book and article. All you had to do was read it. Your entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

There's a difference between the CIA predicting, and the actual event. A prediction means nothing until the event actually happens.

The fact you are denying that Reagan had anything to do with the end of the Cold War lowers the credibility of your argument. You do not hear me denying the fact that Clinton balanced the budget. It sad when it seems like I'm more reasonable politically than you. Mr. tolerant liberal....

 

[thoughtone]

There's a difference between the CIA predicting, and the actual event. A prediction means nothing until the event actually happens.

The fact you are denying that Reagan had anything to do with the end of the Cold War lowers the credibility of your argument. You do not hear me denying the fact that Clinton balanced the budget. It sad when it seems like I'm more reasonable politically than you. Mr. tolerant liberal....

Every President from Truman’s declaration of the Cold War to HW Bush's reign over the opening of East Germany had equal parts in ending the Cold War. The first president to have a trillion dollar debt was Reagan. Reagan tried to fund the Cold War with tax cuts, thus our current debacle.

 

[actinanass]

Every President from Truman’s declaration of the Cold War to HW Bush's reign over the opening of East Germany had equal parts in ending the Cold War. The first president to have a trillion dollar debt was Reagan. Reagan tried to fund the Cold War with tax cuts, thus our current debacle.

So Reagan, in your words, did absolutely NOTHING to end the cold war?

 

[thoughtone]

So Reagan, in your words, did absolutely NOTHING to end the cold war?

Every President from Truman’s declaration of the Cold War to HW Bush's reign over the opening of East Germany had equal parts in ending the Cold War.

Reagan tried to fund the Cold War with tax cuts, thus our current debacle.

 

[SPECTRE1]

Radical changes will need to be made...I don't see the jobs coming back unless we dump capital back in.

Even though most small businesses like restaurants will fail, they create jobs in the mean time from capital investment they receive. This same process happen during the dot com boom, creating many jobs,

We had the same process occur with housing, most of the housing being built wasn't going to be repaid, however, the mortgages provided jobs in the mean time from construction. If you want jobs, we will have to regenerate this process with something.

Eventually, the government should build free housing using the labor that is sitting idle right now (no projects, housing that is dispursed). They bought a bunch of trailers for Katrina, why not housing for somebody that is unemployed. Build up a stock of housing for situation like this. Or buy the cheap housing sitting empty right now, reducing supply and raising home prices. Unemployment is a natural part of capitalism and we should provide assistance when it occurs, it won't impact the lives of families. Unemployment shouldn't result in sleeping on sidewalk and starving. Forcing people/families to live at home with their parents, their car, or a shelter is stupid.

Housing is infrastructure, it shouldn't be all about road repairs...We need to get away from mentality of having to sit at a job to determine the allocation of wealth in a country, since our means of production is efficient (we only have 60% of the labor force working). Many countries don't have homelessness because the government is actively involved.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
U.S. unemployment rate falls,
job losses improve</font size><font size="4">

Employers shed just 11,000 jobs in November,
far fewer than projected, and the unemployment
rate fell by two-tenths of a percentage points for
the month from from 10.2 percent to 10 percent.
</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Kevin G. Hall |
Friday, December 4, 2009


WASHINGTON — Employers shed just 11,000 jobs in November, far fewer than projected, and the unemployment rate fell by two-tenths of a percentage points for the month, two surprising Labor Department reports said Friday.

Surveys of mainstream economists suggested another 150,000 jobs would be lost nationwide in November, but the Labor Department’s Establishment Survey found that when losses and gains were evened out the nation lost just 11,000 non-farm payroll positions.

Powering the improvement was unexpectedly strong hiring in the category of business and professional services, adding 86,000 jobs, while education and health services improved by a solid 40,000 positions.

Adding to a very positive jobs report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised October jobless projections to note that the economy lost 111,000 jobs, not the 190,000 first reported in the November report on job creation in October.

It points to an economy potentially gathering steam toward recovery, although monthly statistics have been volatile in recent months.

Just Thursday, the Obama administration was signaling that it expected the jobless rate to tick up on Friday when the Labor Department's Household Survey was released. Instead, the national unemployment rate fell from 10.2 percent to 10 percent.

The positive numbers suggested it could be a good day on Wall Street. The value of stock futures, traded ahead of the 9:30 a.m. start to trading on the New York Stock Exchange tripled right after jobs numbers were released.

NOVEMBER EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR:

- Construction, fell by 27,000.

- Manufacturing, down 41,000.

- Leisure and hospitality, down 11,000.

- Retail, off 15,000.

TOTAL LOSSES: 94,000​

​

​

- Government, up 7,000.

- Professional and business services, plus 86,000.

- Health care and education, plus 40,000.

TOTAL GAINS: 133,000​

​

​

​

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/80068.html

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4">
Bureau of Labor Statistics: </font size> November jobs report

`

 

[Upgrade Dave]

<font size="5"><center>
U.S. unemployment rate falls,
job losses improve</font size><font size="4">

Employers shed just 11,000 jobs in November,
far fewer than projected, and the unemployment
rate fell by two-tenths of a percentage points for
the month from from 10.2 percent to 10 percent.
</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Kevin G. Hall |
Friday, December 4, 2009


WASHINGTON — Employers shed just 11,000 jobs in November, far fewer than projected, and the unemployment rate fell by two-tenths of a percentage points for the month, two surprising Labor Department reports said Friday.

Surveys of mainstream economists suggested another 150,000 jobs would be lost nationwide in November, but the Labor Department’s Establishment Survey found that when losses and gains were evened out the nation lost just 11,000 non-farm payroll positions.

Powering the improvement was unexpectedly strong hiring in the category of business and professional services, adding 86,000 jobs, while education and health services improved by a solid 40,000 positions.

Adding to a very positive jobs report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised October jobless projections to note that the economy lost 111,000 jobs, not the 190,000 first reported in the November report on job creation in October.

It points to an economy potentially gathering steam toward recovery, although monthly statistics have been volatile in recent months.

Just Thursday, the Obama administration was signaling that it expected the jobless rate to tick up on Friday when the Labor Department's Household Survey was released. Instead, the national unemployment rate fell from 10.2 percent to 10 percent.

The positive numbers suggested it could be a good day on Wall Street. The value of stock futures, traded ahead of the 9:30 a.m. start to trading on the New York Stock Exchange tripled right after jobs numbers were released.

NOVEMBER EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR:

- Construction, fell by 27,000.

- Manufacturing, down 41,000.

- Leisure and hospitality, down 11,000.

- Retail, off 15,000.

TOTAL LOSSES: 94,000​

​

​

- Government, up 7,000.

- Professional and business services, plus 86,000.

- Health care and education, plus 40,000.

TOTAL GAINS: 133,000​

​

​

​

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/80068.html

The Republicans do not want those numbers to keep moving in that direction if they want to win back either house of Congress in November. Much like they don't want any substantive health care reform because, like Medicare, once it's passed and all the evils they predicted don't happen, it'll become too popular and be counted as a huge Obama/Democrat victory.

 

[SPECTRE1]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/04/news/economy/black_unemployment/index.htm

Decrease in job losses because companies don't want to fire around Christmas. It will pick up next year. We won't see 4 percent unemployment for awhile, unless you juke the numbers.

 

[Chitownheadbusa]

The Republicans do not want those numbers to keep moving in that direction if they want to win back either house of Congress in November. Much like they don't want any substantive health care reform because, like Medicare, once it's passed and all the evils they predicted don't happen, it'll become too popular and be counted as a huge Obama/Democrat victory.

so you think those TINY improvements are because of Obama?

and i type tiny in caps because if you look at the status quo of this country on a broader scale...those numbers aint shit.

But.....im optimistic about the numbers improving in the future.....but not because of Obama. Truth be told..most of OUR money that he gave away either hasnt been allocated, its being mismanaged or the people are trying to return it so the government wont try to take over their biznesses like they did GM. So if you wanna thank someone for the small job growth...thank the employers and other reg ol people thats working for us instead of against us.

 

[Lamarr]

NOVEMBER EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR:

- Construction, fell by 27,000.

- Manufacturing, down 41,000.

- Leisure and hospitality, down 11,000.

- Retail, off 15,000.

TOTAL LOSSES: 94,000


- Government, up 7,000.

- Professional and business services, plus 86,000.

- Health care and education, plus 40,000.

TOTAL GAINS: 133,000

I guess a total gain should be viewed as a 'good' thing. However, upon closer examination, the areas we see job gains are govt jobs or industries heavily subsidized by the govt. And the service sector is boomin! Unfortunately, we see losses in manufacturing and construction, which represents some of the better paying jobs.

The 'fundamentals of a healthy economy' are being eroded. We're trading good paying manufacturing jobs for service sector jobs and 'spinnin' the results as something positive . We have to manufacture our way out of this crisis, it's backwards to think we can spend our way back to prosperity. We need the economy to rebalance itself & we need to start makin things again.

 

[UniqueStyles82]

I guess a total gain should be viewed as a 'good' thing. However, upon closer examination, the areas we see job gains are govt jobs or industries heavily subsidized by the govt. And the service sector is boomin! Unfortunately, we see losses in manufacturing and construction, which represents some of the better paying jobs.

The 'fundamentals of a healthy economy' are being eroded. We're trading good paying manufacturing jobs for service sector jobs and 'spinnin' the results as something positive . We have to manufacture our way out of this crisis, it's backwards to think we can spend our way back to prosperity. We need the economy to rebalance itself & we need to start makin things again.

Who wants to take bets on when the next recession is going to happen(once we get out this one). The U.S. is effectively going away from the idea of having a balanced economy. And you will see that recessions will be more and more frequent. Its safe to say that almost 90% of the US economy will be service based if we are not already to that point. the fundamentals are fucked. The fact that China is pegging the yuan to the dollar is hampering our ability to export while we are dealing with moderate to high inflation.

Man if healthcare passes. That shit will be a ticking time bomb before something gives. They want to tax those who have and those who have not even more. People will further depress their urges to spend. Follow the chain link. Awww man Im going to need to rub my eyes cause shits going to get ugly

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
31 states added jobs in January,
though jobless rates rose</font size></center>

McClatchy Newspapers
By Kevin G. Hall
March 10, 2010


WASHINGTON — Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia posted net gains in employment in January, the Labor Department reported Wednesday, providing further evidence that the economy is slowly gaining momentum.

The state-by-state January employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics clarifies and deepens the national employment data released last week, which suggested that employers have stopped firing workers and are starting to hire.

In January, the BLS said, California led all states in employment growth with 32,000 net new jobs. Illinois and New York state followed with respective net gains of 26,000 and 25,500, and the state of Washington followed with 18,900. Eighteen states saw employment decrease, and one state saw no change.

"The fact that you have three important and largely service-based economies showing gains may tell us that we have a broader recovery emerging, and this may be a bit of a bright light here," said Steve Cochrane, a managing director at forecaster Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pa.

States with big manufacturing operations showed positive signs last year, he said, thanks to demand created by the government's "cash for clunkers" program and growing exports. So improvement in states with large service sectors is another positive indicator.

"Through the end of last year, most of the recovery was centered around the manufacturing centers or commodity-producing areas such as the Plains states and Texas, and increasingly towards the Southeast," Cochrane said.

Moody's Economy.com does its own state-by-state economic analysis, and it recently concluded that at the end of last year, 20 states had emerged from recession. Economists overwhelmingly think that the national recession has ended, but the formal declaration of that comes months later from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Wednesday's news was a bit darker on state unemployment rates. Thirty states and the nation's capital reported an uptick in their jobless rates. Only nine states saw jobless rates fall, and 11 saw no change. The national unemployment rate stood at 9.7 percent in January and February.

The unemployment rate is rising in many states because workers who gave up and exited the labor force are seeking employment again as the economy resumes growing. That means there's greater confidence that the economy is rebounding, but it also suggests that the national jobless rate could rise again.

"While there has been a sharp narrowing in the breadth of unemployment rate increases, unemployment rates through January continued to rise in more states than they fell. Historically, a predominance of declining state unemployment rates confirms the staying power of a downward trend in the national rate," Alan Levenson, the chief economist for investment manager T. Rowe Price Associates, wrote in a note to investors.

Michigan again led all states with an unemployment rate of 14.3 percent in January, followed by Nevada and Rhode Island at 13 percent and 12.7 percent, respectively. South Carolina followed at 12.6 percent and California at 12.5 percent.

The jobless rates in South Carolina and California reflected contemporary record highs, as did the rates in Florida (11.9 percent), North Carolina (11.1 percent) and Georgia (10.4 percent).

On a brighter note, 25 states posted jobless rates that were sharply lower than the national average. North Dakota had the lowest unemployment rate, at 5.4 percent, followed by Nebraska and South Dakota, which respectively had rates of 4.6 percent and 4.8 percent.

The most positive news in Wednesday's report was the sign of new hiring in large, economically important states.

"At least until recently, some of the larger states were some of the weaker economies, in general California, Florida and New York. Among the large states, only Texas had emerged from recession, and the recession there was very shallow," Cochrane said.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/10/90149/jobs-ticking-up-in-


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/10/90149/jobs-ticking-up-in-many-states.html

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
U.S. Economy Added 162,000 Jobs
in March, Most in 3 Years</font size><font size="4"

Nationwide, the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent</font size></center>

onstruction workers at work on a planned shopping center in Philadelphia this week. Most major
industry showed gains in employment last month.



By CATHERINE RAMPELL and JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
Published: April 2, 2010


The clouds have parted.

After more than two years in which more than 8 million jobs were lost, the country’s nonfarm payrolls surged in March.

Employers added 162,000 jobs last month, and employment numbers in the previous two months were revised upward. Nationwide, the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent.

To many ordinary, out-of-work Americans, the recovery may finally start to feel real.

“The key message from this report is that we’ve finally turned the corner,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. “Going forward, we should expect things to strengthen further over the rest of the year.”

Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement that the report showed “continued signs of gradual labor market healing.”

Ms. Romer added, however, that “there will likely be bumps in the road ahead.”

Nearly a third of the gains came from temporary hiring for the 2010 Census, which will continue over the next couple of months. The report was also complicated by a rebound from weather-related work stoppages in February.

But even setting aside these caveats, many Americans found work in March.

“Every major industry, except financial services and information, showed gains in employment,” John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics, said. “From manufacturing, to construction, to retail, it really didn’t matter. They’re all hiring now.”

Private-sector job growth was biggest in health care and temporary help services. Since September 2009, temporary help services have added 313,000 jobs, including 40,000 last month. Health care, which grew steadily even during the depths of the recession, has added 588,000 jobs since the start of the downturn over two years ago, including 27,000 jobs in March.

Though they know their jobs are temporary, many of the 48,000 workers hired by the Census are counting their blessings. To these Americans, a job is a job, a closed hole in their résumés and maybe even a bridge to permanent employment elsewhere.

Gregory A. Butler, a 41-year-old union carpenter in West Harlem, had been unable to find work since November. Then last month, he got a call from the Census Bureau asking him to work as a supervisor. Unlike most of the department’s new hires, who are part-time, he expects to work 40-hour weeks for about two months, at $20 an hour.

“This is a very good transition opportunity for me, since I’m trying to start a new career as a freelance writer,” Mr. Butler said. “I don’t mind that it’s temporary. It’s important work, and it gets me off unemployment.”

The disconnect between the rise in payroll jobs and the flat unemployment rate partly reflects the fact that some discouraged workers are starting to trickle back into the labor force and search for jobs again.

Because so many of the jobs created were part-time jobs for people who really wanted full-time work, the broader measure of unemployment and underemployment ticked up, to 16.9 percent, from 16.8 percent the previous month. And the number of people out of work for at least 27 weeks increased by 414,000 last month, to 6.5 million.

“We have had this massive disaster, but we’re at a place now where things are stabilizing,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “But the report does not signal yet that the private sector is poised to create jobs at a healthy enough rate to start bringing unemployment down.”

The economy must create at least 100,000 jobs each month just to absorb new entrants into the labor force, let alone provide a livelihood for the nation’s 15 million people already looking for work.

That sustained level of growth may not come until later this year, economists said, making pervasive unemployment a virtual certainty for some time to come.

Indeed, the government predicts the jobless rate will average 9.8 percent next year and 8.4 percent in 2012 before falling to 5 percent in 2016. The rate was 4.7 percent in November 2007, the month before the recession began.

Friday’s report was largely in line with expectations, but economists noted it may be difficult to gauge the health of the labor market for the near future. The hiring of thousands of part-time census workers will continue through end of the summer, inflating the numbers.

The economy has shown signs of renewal in recent months with the help of significant government spending. Analysts generally believe the recovery will endure even in the absence of stimulus programs.

“Strength effectively feeds itself,” said James F. O’Sullivan, chief economist for MF Global. “What happens to the labor market is key to perceptions about the sustainability of the recovery.”

But substantial worries persist. Consumer spending remains tepid, though it has improved modestly in recent months. Real estate markets are still severely depressed, holding back hiring in critical industries like construction. And many state and local governments, facing ballooning deficits, are poised to make severe cutbacks.

Those uncertainties have left 15 million Americans out of work, many of them for more than six months.

In Roseville, Mich., a suburb of Detroit, Mark R. Hamlin, is nearing his fourth year without work. Mr. Hamlin, 49, was laid off from his position as a sales manager for a copper wire distributor just as the auto industry began to collapse. Though his wife has a job, the Hamlins struggle to keep up with a $900 monthly mortgage payment and $5,000 in credit card debt. To cut costs, they keep the heat at 55 degrees.

With his latest round of unemployment benefits expiring this week, Mr. Hamlin said he worries that he may not be able to give his 4-year-old daughter Kara a stable upbringing.

“I’m hoping, I’m praying, I have my fingers crossed,” Mr. Hamlin said. “I’ve got to find something this year. I’ve got to find something this year.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/economy/03jobs.html

 

[Cruise]

The unemployment rate didn't move...

yet somehow jobs were added.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The Republicans do not want those numbers to keep moving in that direction if they want to win back either house of Congress in November. Much like they don't want any substantive health care reform because, like Medicare, once it's passed and all the evils they predicted don't happen, it'll become too popular and be counted as a huge Obama/Democrat victory.

so you think those TINY improvements are because of Obama?

and i type tiny in caps because if you look at the status quo of this country on a broader scale...those numbers aint shit.

But.....im optimistic about the numbers improving in the future.....but not because of Obama. Truth be told..most of OUR money that he gave away either hasnt been allocated, its being mismanaged or the people are trying to return it so the government wont try to take over their biznesses like they did GM. So if you wanna thank someone for the small job growth...thank the employers and other reg ol people thats working for us instead of against us.

Arguing against a point I didn't make. Why do people do that?

<font size="5"><center>
U.S. Economy Added 162,000 Jobs
in March, Most in 3 Years</font size><font size="4"

Nationwide, the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent</font size></center>

onstruction workers at work on a planned shopping center in Philadelphia this week. Most major
industry showed gains in employment last month.



By CATHERINE RAMPELL and JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
Published: April 2, 2010


The clouds have parted.

After more than two years in which more than 8 million jobs were lost, the country’s nonfarm payrolls surged in March.

Employers added 162,000 jobs last month, and employment numbers in the previous two months were revised upward. Nationwide, the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent.

To many ordinary, out-of-work Americans, the recovery may finally start to feel real.

“The key message from this report is that we’ve finally turned the corner,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. “Going forward, we should expect things to strengthen further over the rest of the year.”

Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement that the report showed “continued signs of gradual labor market healing.”

Ms. Romer added, however, that “there will likely be bumps in the road ahead.”

Nearly a third of the gains came from temporary hiring for the 2010 Census, which will continue over the next couple of months. The report was also complicated by a rebound from weather-related work stoppages in February.

But even setting aside these caveats, many Americans found work in March.

“Every major industry, except financial services and information, showed gains in employment,” John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics, said. “From manufacturing, to construction, to retail, it really didn’t matter. They’re all hiring now.”

Private-sector job growth was biggest in health care and temporary help services. Since September 2009, temporary help services have added 313,000 jobs, including 40,000 last month. Health care, which grew steadily even during the depths of the recession, has added 588,000 jobs since the start of the downturn over two years ago, including 27,000 jobs in March.

Though they know their jobs are temporary, many of the 48,000 workers hired by the Census are counting their blessings. To these Americans, a job is a job, a closed hole in their résumés and maybe even a bridge to permanent employment elsewhere.

Gregory A. Butler, a 41-year-old union carpenter in West Harlem, had been unable to find work since November. Then last month, he got a call from the Census Bureau asking him to work as a supervisor. Unlike most of the department’s new hires, who are part-time, he expects to work 40-hour weeks for about two months, at $20 an hour.

“This is a very good transition opportunity for me, since I’m trying to start a new career as a freelance writer,” Mr. Butler said. “I don’t mind that it’s temporary. It’s important work, and it gets me off unemployment.”

The disconnect between the rise in payroll jobs and the flat unemployment rate partly reflects the fact that some discouraged workers are starting to trickle back into the labor force and search for jobs again.

Because so many of the jobs created were part-time jobs for people who really wanted full-time work, the broader measure of unemployment and underemployment ticked up, to 16.9 percent, from 16.8 percent the previous month. And the number of people out of work for at least 27 weeks increased by 414,000 last month, to 6.5 million.

“We have had this massive disaster, but we’re at a place now where things are stabilizing,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “But the report does not signal yet that the private sector is poised to create jobs at a healthy enough rate to start bringing unemployment down.”

The economy must create at least 100,000 jobs each month just to absorb new entrants into the labor force, let alone provide a livelihood for the nation’s 15 million people already looking for work.

That sustained level of growth may not come until later this year, economists said, making pervasive unemployment a virtual certainty for some time to come.

Indeed, the government predicts the jobless rate will average 9.8 percent next year and 8.4 percent in 2012 before falling to 5 percent in 2016. The rate was 4.7 percent in November 2007, the month before the recession began.

Friday’s report was largely in line with expectations, but economists noted it may be difficult to gauge the health of the labor market for the near future. The hiring of thousands of part-time census workers will continue through end of the summer, inflating the numbers.

The economy has shown signs of renewal in recent months with the help of significant government spending. Analysts generally believe the recovery will endure even in the absence of stimulus programs.

“Strength effectively feeds itself,” said James F. O’Sullivan, chief economist for MF Global. “What happens to the labor market is key to perceptions about the sustainability of the recovery.”

But substantial worries persist. Consumer spending remains tepid, though it has improved modestly in recent months. Real estate markets are still severely depressed, holding back hiring in critical industries like construction. And many state and local governments, facing ballooning deficits, are poised to make severe cutbacks.

Those uncertainties have left 15 million Americans out of work, many of them for more than six months.

In Roseville, Mich., a suburb of Detroit, Mark R. Hamlin, is nearing his fourth year without work. Mr. Hamlin, 49, was laid off from his position as a sales manager for a copper wire distributor just as the auto industry began to collapse. Though his wife has a job, the Hamlins struggle to keep up with a $900 monthly mortgage payment and $5,000 in credit card debt. To cut costs, they keep the heat at 55 degrees.

With his latest round of unemployment benefits expiring this week, Mr. Hamlin said he worries that he may not be able to give his 4-year-old daughter Kara a stable upbringing.

“I’m hoping, I’m praying, I have my fingers crossed,” Mr. Hamlin said. “I’ve got to find something this year. I’ve got to find something this year.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/economy/03jobs.html

The unemployment rate didn't move...

yet somehow jobs were added.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

It makes perfect sense. It takes a hell of a lot more than 162k jobs to move a percentage point.
As I said before, we are going int the right direction. Now if the D's can get that financial reform pushed through with some big ass teeth in it, they'll win back more of the support they lost from their base.

 

[LennyNero1972]

The unemployment rate didn't move...

yet somehow jobs were added.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Its increasing here in GA.

 

[actinanass]

The unemployment rate didn't move...

yet somehow jobs were added.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

it's funny how that all happens huh?

 

[QueEx]

it's funny how that all happens huh?

<font size="3">Yeah, whats even funnier is how you seem to have conveniently forgotten the first post in this thread - - you know, back in 2008 when your boy G.W. began the fucking-up of America:

</font size>

<font size="5"><center>
Job losses hit 5-year high,
reignite fears of new recession</font size></center>

Bags of food for the needy are stacked at So Others May
Eat in Washington D.C.


McClatchy Newspapers
By Kevin G. Hall
Friday, September 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — Recession fears are back with a bang and the economy is front and center in the political arena again after a Labor Department report Friday showed that the nation's unemployment rate leapt to 6.1 percent in August, employers shed jobs for the eighth consecutive month and revised numbers for earlier months showed even greater payroll hits.

Employers shed 84,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said, and the unemployment rate moved up by a larger than expected four-tenths of a percentage point. There were job losses across most of the broad spectrum of U.S. employment, especially in the manufacturing, retail and construction sectors.

The strong 3.3 percent economic growth in the second quarter of this year, led by solid U.S. exports, had eased recession concerns. But Friday's jobs numbers pointed to a serious slowdown and erased any confidence about the economy for just about anyone outside the optimistic Bush administration.

"This thing is just lingering. It's almost like a storm that comes ashore and just kind of sits there," said Ken Goldstein, an economist with the Conference Board, a New York-based group that publishes indices of consumer sentiment. "We've seen declines every month, all year long, right through August. But the declines have started to intensify, and that will continue through the end of the year, very likely into the first months of 2009."


<font size="3">Some are certain that recession lurks.</font size>

"This is a very weak jobs report that screams recession," wrote John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros, partners in the New York forecasting firm RDQ Economics.

Peter Kretzmer, a Bank of America economist, added in a note to investors that the "rapid rise in the unemployment rate points to a U.S. recession, as such an increase has never occurred outside of one."

Recession fears have reignited on evidence that job losses are picking up steam. The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday revised the June and July unemployment numbers upward, virtually doubling the original estimate for June job losses from 51,000 to 100,000. Most of the job losses this year — 1.75 million — have come since April.

"Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 2.2 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 1.4 percentage points, with most of the increase occurring over the past four months," the BLS report said.


<font size="3">In August, 9.4 million Americans were unemployed.</font size>

The number of long-term unemployed — those jobless for 27 weeks or more — rose by 163,000 to 1.8 million, an increase of 589,000 over the past 12 months. The newly unemployed, jobless for fewer than five weeks, rose by 400,000 in August.

It all points to a deeper slowdown, just as the presidential election heats up.

"We expect growth to slow in the current quarter to just over 1 percent and then turn negative in the fourth quarter," said Nigel Gault, the chief U.S. economist for forecaster Global Insight in Lexington, Mass.

The jobs report became fodder for the presidential campaigns Friday. Democrat Barack Obama linked Republican rival John McCain to President Bush's economic policies, and McCain promised to fight for a better economy.


<font size="3">Only the Bush administration expressed optimism.</font size>

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, in an interview with McClatchy, pointed to the strong second-quarter growth to suggest that the economy is stronger than it appears.

"The fact that we grew 3.3 percent in the second quarter is very different to the scenario that the really bleak forecasters would have you believe," he said.

Pointing to the impact of rising energy costs on auto manufacturers, Gutierrez said that was why "we really do need to get on with the future and start drilling for oil."

The Department of Energy has said that new U.S. oil production is unlikely to have much impact on global oil prices, and most new drilling operations would take years before they resulted in significant oil production.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51836.html

<font size="3">
Its funny how that all happens, Huh ???

</font size>

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

The unemployment rate didn't move...

yet somehow jobs were added.

thats the "new" math!

 

[Greed]

Does It Matter Whether Unemployment is Socially Productive?

Does It Matter Whether Unemployment is Socially Productive?
Casey B. Mulligan

Evidence that unemployment insurance causes more unemployment is easy to find. So a few stimulus law advocates (recall that actually and prospective stimulus laws spend significant $ on unemployment insurance programs) have embraced that evidence, claiming that workers can gain something by being unemployed longer, because they can search for a better job.

Suppose for a moment that their claim -- unemployment time is socially productive -- is correct. Still, the claim does not rationalize unemployment insurance. Actually working is productive too, that's why people get paid for doing it. And it's widely recognized that the observed behavioral reactions occur because unemployment insurance subsidizes unemployment relative to working. Efficiency is lost whenever one productive activity is subsidized relative to another. In other words, the argument that unemployment insurance is inefficient in no way relies on an assumption that unemployment is entirely wasteful.

The marketplace involves a myriad of decisions between alternate productive activities, and the case for subsidies happens only when the market by itself would excessively favor one over the other.

So if you want to defend unemployment insurance on the grounds that unemployment is productive, you need to further argue that the market by itself results in too little unemployment, so that unemployment insurance helps ensure that we get the extra unemployment that society needs!

Such a claim would be logical, and perhaps even correct, but I predict that stimulus law advocates are unwilling to make it.

http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-it-matter-whether-unemployment-is.html

 

[thoughtone]

Re: Does It Matter Whether Unemployment is Socially Productive?

Does It Matter Whether Unemployment is Socially Productive?
Casey B. Mulligan

Evidence that unemployment insurance causes more unemployment is easy to find. So a few stimulus law advocates (recall that actually and prospective stimulus laws spend significant $ on unemployment insurance programs) have embraced that evidence, claiming that workers can gain something by being unemployed longer, because they can search for a better job.

Suppose for a moment that their claim -- unemployment time is socially productive -- is correct. Still, the claim does not rationalize unemployment insurance. Actually working is productive too, that's why people get paid for doing it. And it's widely recognized that the observed behavioral reactions occur because unemployment insurance subsidizes unemployment relative to working. Efficiency is lost whenever one productive activity is subsidized relative to another. In other words, the argument that unemployment insurance is inefficient in no way relies on an assumption that unemployment is entirely wasteful.

The marketplace involves a myriad of decisions between alternate productive activities, and the case for subsidies happens only when the market by itself would excessively favor one over the other.

So if you want to defend unemployment insurance on the grounds that unemployment is productive, you need to further argue that the market by itself results in too little unemployment, so that unemployment insurance helps ensure that we get the extra unemployment that society needs!

Such a claim would be logical, and perhaps even correct, but I predict that stimulus law advocates are unwilling to make it.

http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-it-matter-whether-unemployment-is.html

Why do you post such dribble?

 

[Greed]

Do Jobless Benefits Discourage People From Finding Jobs?

Do Jobless Benefits Discourage People From Finding Jobs?
By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago.

Unemployment benefits provide a small amount of help to a number of people who desperately need it. But some economists have gone too far by claiming that unemployment insurance is stimulating the economy.

Unemployment insurance is jointly administered and financed by the federal and state governments, offering funds to “covered” people who lost their jobs and have as yet been unable to find and start a new job. The program has been around for decades, but this recession has created an especially large group of laid-off workers who, despite an extensive search, genuinely cannot find another job.

With no new job in sight, a large group of people are under considerable personal and financial stress. In recognition of these facts, the stimulus law of 2009 extended the eligibility period for unemployment benefits, and provided additional funds for the program.

Before this recession, most economists probably thought that some amount of unemployment benefits were just and compassionate, and offered a sense of security even to people who were lucky enough to retain their jobs, despite the fact that the program would raise unemployment rates and reduce both employment and economic output.

In other words, unemployment benefits shrink the economy to some degree, but shrinking the economy a bit may be a price worth paying.

Unemployment benefits were thought to reduce employment and output because, by definition, working people were ineligible for the benefits. In particular, an unemployed person who finds and starts a new job, or returns to working at his previous job, is supposed to give up his unemployment benefits. Economists had found that a large fraction of unemployed people delay going back to work solely because the unemployment insurance program was paying them for not working.

Fewer people working means a lower employment rate, and less output because unemployed people are not yet contributing to production.

The recession has seen a number of economists ignore prior findings on unemployment insurance, at least as long as this recession continues. For example, in evaluating the stimulus law economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assumed that the law would raise gross domestic product, and took no account of the fact that the unemployment insurance and other provisions of the stimulus law give people incentives to work less.

Paul Krugman recently summarized the incentives-do-not-matter point of view in his blog (see also Lawrence Katz, a leading labor economist at Harvard, quoted here):

Everyone agrees that really generous unemployment benefits, by reducing the incentive to seek jobs, can raise the [normal unemployment rate]… But in case you haven’t noticed … What’s limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant. [emphasis added]​

I have not seen any evidence to support this claim that, in essence, the laws of economics are suspended as long as a recession continues. Rather, the available evidence suggests the opposite.

One feature of the unemployment insurance program is that it specifies an exhaustion date: a person stops receiving benefits when he or she starts working again, or reaches the exhaustion date (often a fixed number of weeks after being laid off), whichever comes first.

In the past, economists observed that a large fraction of unemployed people suddenly started working again within a week or so of their exhaustion date, despite having been without work for so many weeks prior: evidence that the benefits themselves were sustaining unemployment.

If the Congressional Budget Office, Professor Krugman and others were correct, this pattern would be absent during a recession, because the demand just isn’t there, and demand will not miraculously appear merely because of the arrival of the benefit exhaustion date.

A study published by two labor economists, Stepan Jurajda and Frederick J. Tannery, looked at employment histories for unemployment insurance recipients in Pittsburgh in the early 1980s. Unemployment rates got quite high in Pittsburgh in those days, reaching 16 percent at one point, and staying over 10 percent for two and a half years.

The chart below summarizes their findings for Pittsburgh.
Source: Stepan Jurajda and Frederick J. Tannery. “Unemployment Durations and Extended Unemployment Benefits in Local Labor Markets.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 56(2), January 2003, Figure 3.

The chart displays the fraction of persons (in Pittsburgh) receiving unemployment benefits who began working again, as a function of the number of weeks until their unemployment benefits were scheduled to be exhausted. For example, a “hazard” value of “0.04″ for week “-14″ means that, among unemployed persons with 14 weeks remaining until their benefit exhaustion date, 4 percent of them either began working a new job or returned to their previous job.

Very few people started working during the two to three weeks prior to the exhaustion of their unemployment benefits (weeks “-3″ and “-2″ in the chart). But almost 30 percent started work just a week later (19 percent started a new job, 10 percent returned to a previous job).

“Demand” may have been lacking in Pittsburgh in the early 1980s, but that did not stop unemployed people from responding to the work incentives presented to them by the unemployment insurance program (economists also looked for this pattern during a Swedish recession, and found it there too).

Unemployment insurance is only a small part of the reason why the labor market has so far failed to restore employment to pre-recession levels. But unemployment insurance is not free: It results in less employment and less output, not more. The real question is whether, and for how long, this price is worth paying to continue a just and compassionate program.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...benefits-discourage-people-from-finding-jobs/

 

[thoughtone]

Of course the private sector has no answers!

 

[Lamarr]

Of course the private sector has no answers!

The policies are crushing the private sector. Its like a 400 pound jockey on a 75 pound horse - it wont win.

Unfortunately, the govt pursues policies that make us uncompetitive! Get rid of the taxes & regulations, I have faith in the American people. We can compete with anyone, govt has to get out of the way

 

[thoughtone]

The policies are crushing the private sector. Its like a 400 pound man on a 75 pound horse - it wont win.

Unfortunately, the govt pursues policies that make us uncompetitive! Get rid of the taxes & regulations, I have faith in the American people. We can compete with anyone, govt has to get out of the way

No talking points! When were the government policies conducive for the private sector to create jobs?

The 2000s, 90s, 80s, 70s, 60, 50s...?

I don't expect an answer just more videos and Ron Paul links.

 

[Lamarr]

No talking points! When were the government policies conducive for the private sector to create jobs?

The 2000s, 90s, 80s, 70s, 60, 50s...?

Since I believe the less govt, the healthier the economy, I can't give you an objective answer.

Don't get me wrong, I think govt. has a role in our nation's structure but "the people" should be allowed to run the economy. History tells us that "central economic planning" never works and ultimately fails the people.

When the govt allows people to keep more of the money they work for, they are free to save, invest, or spend however they like. That is freedom And yes I agree with a post earlier: Taxes are theft!

 

[QueEx]

Since I believe the less govt, the healthier the economy, I can't give you an objective answer.

Don't get me wrong, I think govt. has a role in our nation's structure but "the people" should be allowed to run the economy. History tells us that "central economic planning" never works and ultimately fails the people.

When the govt allows people to keep more of the money they work for, they are free to save, invest, or spend however they like. That is freedom And yes I agree with a post earlier: Taxes are theft!

C'mon bro. You've got to show successful examples, otherwise, your idea is mere theory.

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

C'mon bro. You've got to show successful examples, otherwise, your idea is mere theory.

QueEx

check out the question Que, he's trying to get me to argue his points for him.

When were the government policies conducive for the private sector to create jobs?

My point is govt policies don't really assist the private sector create jobs. In my lifetime, all I've witnessed is deindustrialization & globalization. I'll just take the auto industry, It's now obvious, they were healthier before NAFTA, CAFE standards, and other "managed" trade policies that made us uncompetitive.

Looking at how most industries have outsourced their work, isn't it also obvious govt policies are not condusive to creating private-sector jobs?

 

[Cruise]

check out the question Que, he's trying to get me to argue his points for him.



My point is govt policies don't really assist the private sector create jobs. In my lifetime, all I've witnessed is deindustrialization & globalization. I'll just take the auto industry, It's now obvious, they were healthier before NAFTA, CAFE standards, and other "managed" trade policies that made us uncompetitive.

Looking at how most industries have outsourced their work, isn't it also obvious govt policies are not condusive to creating private-sector jobs?

I think too many believe government is Santa Claus, or maybe Jesus Christ, or maybe their momma.

Government neither creates jobs nor creates wealth.

The people do that. Government just gets in the way.

If you have a society with gold, oil, trees, and farmland, then you can produce gold, gas, trees, and food.

Some people think laws need to be passed and the government has to take control of the resources to get those things. They have no faith in their fellow man to provide these things for them, without a government bureaucracy.

I understand, because non-whites think of the government as a protector against white aggressions. From that standpoint, the government as god mentality makes sense.

However, for those who don't fear white aggression, the government is a competitor, a meddler, a waster, and a destroyer of wealth.