NationStates Jolt Archive

I often hear people on these boards talking about how bad the economy is now, about how if people voted on things such as the economy, rather than 'moral values', John Kerry would be President right now. How true are the claims?

The US economy has generated 2.073 million jobs in the last year (BLS). Compare this to the 1999-2000 period, in which 2.187 million jobs were created, and you see that only about 100,000 more jobs were created in the '99-'00 period than the '03-'04. GDP is predicted to rise by at least 4.2% this year (over double the Euro area's), and the GDP growth in 2003 was exemplary as well : including the largest period of growth in over 20 years in the 3rd quarter, at just under 8%. GDP growth, in fact, hasn't been negative since the 3rd quarter of 01 . Since September of '01, real disposable income has risen by 2.5%. Corporate profits, as well, continue to grow, having only one quarter with a loss since Sept 11th.


Sources
-------
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/gdp304a_fax.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/pi0904_fax.pdf
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/index_wide.cfm?page=Economic%20and%20Financial&story_id=3353433

Ok 2 million jobs were created.

How many were lost? Last month they bragged about 300K jobs created and then I saw a report that over 100 were lost.

I see people delaying purchases, canceling trips so the free cash is not readily available.

As to incomes being up? Somebody better mention that to a few companies around here. I ask around it people are getting raises and most say they don't.

So I don't see the economy picking up.

I also know a rather large company is going to be doing major layoffs as they export jobs to India within a year.....

How many were lost? Last month they bragged about 300K jobs created and then I saw a report that over 100 were lost.
There were probably millions lost.

What people don't understand about outsourcing and job loss is that they're extremely common. The only thing more common is job creation. Over the past decade, America has lost over 29 million jobs a year, on average (Dept. of Labor). On the other hand, on average, over 30 million have been created each year. The net gain was over 300k as shown by the latest employment report. Outsourcing, commonly decried as the cause of the loss, is actually a fairly small factor. Even if you accept numbers of 50k being lost each quarter, it ends up being a small amount of total jobs lost and even much smaller compared to total jobs created.

Try the household survey blackforest!

Alot of people are going into businesses for themselves and helping our economy grow

There were probably millions lost.

What people don't understand about outsourcing and job loss is that they're extremely common. The only thing more common is job creation. Over the past decade, America has lost over 29 million jobs a year, on average (Dept. of Labor). On the other hand, on average, over 30 million have been created each year. The net gain was over 300k as shown by the latest employment report. Outsourcing, commonly decried as the cause of the loss, is actually a fairly small factor. Even if you accept numbers of 50k being lost each quarter, it ends up being a small amount of total jobs lost and even much smaller compared to total jobs created.

Ok then the next obvious question would be underemployment. Tossing an 80K a year job and getting a 55K a year job is not really an improvement.

A buddy who is an IT guy got "Insourced" for a payloss....

Try the household survey blackforest!

Alot of people are going into businesses for themselves and helping our economy grow

Hardly. People don't like to admit they are doing bad.

Even as a business for themselves how is that an improvement? For one they probably don't have insurence.....

I often hear people on these boards talking about how bad the economy is now, about how if people voted on things such as the economy, rather than 'moral values', John Kerry would be President right now. How true are the claims?

The US economy has generated 2.073 million jobs in the last year (BLS). Compare this to the 1999-2000 period, in which 2.187 million jobs were created, and you see that only about 100,000 more jobs were created in the '99-'00 period than the '03-'04. GDP is predicted to rise by at least 4.2% this year (over double the Euro area's), and the GDP growth in 2003 was exemplary as well : including the largest period of growth in over 20 years in the 3rd quarter, at just under 8%. GDP growth, in fact, hasn't been negative since the 3rd quarter of 01 . Since September of '01, real disposable income has risen by 2.5%. Corporate profits, as well, continue to grow, having only one quarter with a loss since Sept 11th.


Sources
-------
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/gdp304a_fax.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/pi0904_fax.pdf
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/index_wide.cfm?page=Economic%20and%20Financial&story_id=3353433

Thanks, Kwangistar. You rock, as usual. :)

Average hourly earnings are only .05 below their past peak in the last decade at 8.30 in December of 2003.

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm --> "Access to Historical Data for the "B" Tables of the Employment Situation Release" --> "Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted" --> "Constant (1982) dollars"

Average hourly earnings are only .05 below their past peak in the last decade at 8.30 in December of 2003.

http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm --> "Access to Historical Data for the "B" Tables of the Employment Situation Release" --> "Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, seasonally adjusted" --> "Constant (1982) dollars"

Interesting. Thanks for the links as I didn't know they existed.

As said before there is a big perception problem. Many people I chat or eavesdrop seem to think times are bad.

I ask and listen simply to see if my perceptions are off and I don't hear that many "times are good/great" comments.

The media often make an economy seem much better, or worse, than it actually is. And not because of partisan bias usually, but because the thing becomes a story in itself.

For example, the late nineties weren't as great as many people think in terms of real GDP growth, or creation of high paying jobs. Also a lot of outsourcing occured then as well.

The US dollar is in trouble as its value is plumetting, partially due to market insecurities relating to the obscene budget deficit. If more economies begin using the Euro as standard means of exchange, long term US economic dominance will be permenantly reduced.

Low dollar and high gas prices......... Inflation is coming your way. Hope your incomes aren't fixed.

The US dollar is in trouble as its value is plumetting, partially due to market insecurities relating to the obscene budget deficit. If more economies begin using the Euro as standard means of exchange, long term US economic dominance will be permenantly reduced.

Low dollar and high gas prices......... Inflation is coming your way. Hope your incomes aren't fixed.

Good.

That will reverse our balance of trade deficit, as well a place economic pressure upon us to become more eco-friendly.

I, for one, welcome a much lower dollar.

as well a place economic pressure upon us to become more eco-friendly.
While i hope that is true, I tend to think that competitive pressures will actually result in less environmental restrictions and fewer worker protections.

A month go when they were talking about the 1.7 million jobs gained over the last year, I found it surprising that nearly 900,000 of those were in the Government. it is odd that 'a smaller more efficient" republican government would be expanding so. I don't know where the last 300,000 were created, but i wouldn't be surprised if many were putting up Christmas displays in department stores.

Good.

That will reverse our balance of trade deficit, as well a place economic pressure upon us to become more eco-friendly.

I, for one, welcome a much lower dollar.

People don't understand the this unfortunately. People think that a lower dollar is bad! In some regards it is but in other regards it is quite beneficial

While i hope that is true, I tend to think that competitive pressures will actually result in less environmental restrictions and fewer worker protections.

As a net importer of energy, a lower dollar will reduce US ability to purchase energy. This will place tremendous pressure upon the US consumer to become more energy-efficient, which has been the number-one call by environmentalists for years.

A high dollar benefits oil companies.

It's not about jobs! :headbang:
Our economy is a house of cards. That's how it was when Bush inherited it, but like most Presidents, he made it worse. One terrorist attack will knock it down.

It's not about jobs! :headbang:
Our economy is a house of cards. That's how it was when Bush inherited it, but like most Presidents, he made it worse. One terrorist attack will knock it down.

Then why is the economy growing?

And here's a newsflash:

We had a massive terrorist attack and we have recovered from it including economically.

Its not the job creation. Its the wage earned of the job. The reports from the government are VERY sketchy on what kind of jobs are being made. Losing "living" wage jobs then creating minumum wage jobs (which are not livable $) is not helping anyone.
This has been a trend for a long time, not due to reps or dems- but to big buisness. Government CAN influence buisness to do better, but why? Politicians got where they are thru all the cooperate contributions or the very wealthy (who are so because of ig buisness) in thier election campains. They aren't about to bite the hand that feeds them.
Yes, I think the US ecomomy is in the sh***er. I work in science with a BA. I haven't seen a raise in 3 years and definitely cost of living has forced paycheck to paycheck living. It really sucks. But I do feel luckier than many other people I know. I have a trust fund for school- and that's where I am going. Most folk don't have the resources to do that. They can't even get a school loan- because they don't earn enough and owe to much trying to make ends meet.
Economic reports are not very reflective of the majority of working people. Looking at the classified in the paper and consider the wage for it- that says a great deal more about what is really going on.
History has a lot to say about what happens when you have the masses struggling to make ends meet while the few wealthy get more so.

The US dollar is in trouble as its value is plumetting, partially due to market insecurities relating to the obscene budget deficit. If more economies begin using the Euro as standard means of exchange, long term US economic dominance will be permenantly reduced.

Low dollar and high gas prices......... Inflation is coming your way. Hope your incomes aren't fixed.

If the dollar continues to drop, the trade deficit will get better, meaning good things for US businesses.

Also, higher inflation means lower unemployment in the short run (not to say that there are any indications of the super inflation you're talking about).

Then why is the economy growing?


It's an illusion.


And here's a newsflash:

We had a massive terrorist attack and we have recovered from it including economically.
Yes, but we won't make through the next 1 or 2.

It's an illusion.

Prove that it is an illusion. All the evidence points otherwise

Yes, but we won't make through the next 1 or 2.

I don't think I totally agree with you but only partially.

It's an illusion.


Yes, but we won't make through the next 1 or 2.

So if 5k more people die from a terrorist attack the whole country will collapse?

Try the household survey blackforest!

Alot of people are going into businesses for themselves and helping our economy grow

Becuase they lost their jobs. they wouldn't have started up their own bussines if they hadn't lost their jobs in the first place, like my dad.

Asshole

Becuase they lost their jobs. they wouldn't have started up their own bussines if they hadn't lost their jobs in the first place, like my dad.

Asshole

Well I'm sorry that he lost his job!

Now for the asshole comment, nice job in invalidating your entire arguement.

No, people start up businesses because they want to make money. They are entrepenours.

Becuase they lost their jobs. they wouldn't have started up their own bussines if they hadn't lost their jobs in the first place, like my dad.

Asshole

I'm sorry your dad lost his job, but that's just anecdotal and doesn't prove anything.

Well I'm sorry that he lost his job!

Now for the asshole comment, nice job in invalidating your entire arguement.

No, people start up businesses because they want to make money. They are entrepenours.

Don't know about you, but I'm donning my flame-proof suit right now.

Now to on topic, a lower U.S. dollar is good more than it is bad . . . at least for now. Things will definitely change as time goes on, but a low U.S. dollar can really help us out right now.

So if 5k more people die from a terrorist attack the whole country will collapse?

How about if you add in say a bio or dirty bomb attack centered on WallStreet or the Sillicon Valley?....

I often hear people on these boards talking about how bad the economy is now, about how if people voted on things such as the economy, rather than 'moral values', John Kerry would be President right now. How true are the claims?

The US economy has generated 2.073 million jobs in the last year (BLS). Compare this to the 1999-2000 period, in which 2.187 million jobs were created, and you see that only about 100,000 more jobs were created in the '99-'00 period than the '03-'04. GDP is predicted to rise by at least 4.2% this year (over double the Euro area's), and the GDP growth in 2003 was exemplary as well : including the largest period of growth in over 20 years in the 3rd quarter, at just under 8%. GDP growth, in fact, hasn't been negative since the 3rd quarter of 01 . Since September of '01, real disposable income has risen by 2.5%. Corporate profits, as well, continue to grow, having only one quarter with a loss since Sept 11th.


Sources
-------
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/gdp304a_fax.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/pi0904_fax.pdf
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/index_wide.cfm?page=Economic%20and%20Financial&story_id=3353433

A few points:

1) With respect to the trade deficit.

Lowering the dollar isn't going to help with the trade deficit, because China (our major importer) has pegged it's currency to the dollar. That means when the dollar drops, so does the comparitive value of Chinese currency. As such, no matter how low the American dollar gets, imports from China will always be more appealling, both to American consumers and other nations in the world, than will American goods.

However, what the decline of the dollar will do is severely hamper the willingness of people to save, because their dollars will be overall less valuable when they pull them out of a savings bond or bank account than when they put them in. Unfortunately, our savings rate is already at a historic low.

Moreover, a declining dollar raises the spector of deflation in the currency. As value of the dollar declines relative to static prices of goods, it simultaneously costs more dollars to produce goods (thus raising the price), while at the same time decreasing the power of the consumer to purchase said good (thus decreasing demand). So you have the threat of too many goods chasing too few (real, or inflation-adjusted) dollars.

Even worse, most of the financing for our debt is currently offered up by people effectively betting on the value of American currency: they buy U.S. bonds on the assumption that as the value of the dollar increases, it will simultaneously increase the value of the money they will get back when they sell their bond over and above the guaranteed return. If the value of the dollar declines, however, it erodes the profit margin of bonds, and that detracts from the willingness of people to buy them.

Thus, we're looking at huge shocks in the government as people start decreasing the rate at which they purchase U.S. bonds, forcing massive changes in spending. At the same time, you're also looking at massive declines in the purchasing power of the U.S. consumer, coupled with an overproduction of goods left over from the 90's and a lack of support in case people need to fall back on something. In case you didn't know, this little menage-et-trois was last seen in the U.S. economic system in 1929.

2) GDP.
First of all, while the GDP hasn't been declining over time, it has been stagnating for the vast majority of it, which is something you conveniently left out. While this doesn't necessarily mean that the economy has been doing bad, it does provide a pretty good practical test that trickle-down tax policies do exactly what critics of it said: they would only cause the rich to buy a bit more than they usually do, with the rest going into the bank account in Switzerland. If they hadn't been doing that, there would have been significantly greater spikes in GDP growth directly following the tax refunds.

Moreover, you also left out the fact that almost every economist calls this rate of expansion unsustainable. The reason why they call it that is because they've been getting this increase by effectively blackmailing workers into working longer and harder for fewer benefits, for fear of losing their job. However, there is a ceiling up to which people can work, after which no matter what incentive is used, you simply cannot get people to continue working (i.e. burnout).

Even worse, this plays into the fears of deflation mentioned above, because you've seen an increase in the rate of production, coupled with no correlative increase in the total amount of dollars the working class has to buy those goods. This is a recipe for too many goods chasing too few dollars, which is only compounded if those dollars aren't worth as much as they once were.

3) Job creation

You forgot, when you mentioned that net losses in income are only about a nickel per hour, to also mention that those numbers don't count a lot of intangibles: things like pensions, retiremend funds, and health coverage. All of those things, once standard benefits in a job, have now become rare, and almost never seen in the part-time and temp fields that have shown the biggest gains for employment. Factor those in, and you have on your hands what is effectively a pretty frappin' big loss in how much people are effectively paid, because now people have to pay out of their own pocket what was once effectively free for them, costing only the company.

So if 5k more people die from a terrorist attack the whole country will collapse?

The economy will collapse. It will be something like the Great Depression. I can't tell you exactly what will happen or when, but the current situation is unsustainable. The total amount of public and private debt requires economic growth to be serviced. But there is too much waste, and not enough production and resources to continue growing the economy. It's also quite possible that the US is going to run out of creditors soon. This is probably one of the least worst things that can happen, because they'll be forced to cut spending. Although, they might attempt to raise revenue instead.

The best advise I have is to not borrow money.

If the dollar continues to drop, the trade deficit will get better, meaning good things for US businesses.

You are assuming flexible demand curves and responsive consumer behaviour but the reality is that consumers in a global economy have little opportunity to be flexible. So many products are dificult to source domestically (computer chips for instance - %95 of world supply comes from Taiwan) that prices will rise. Even if there is some shift to domestic production, high oil prices increase inpuit costs and distribution costs all of which will be passed on to the consumer at some stage.

First of all, while the GDP hasn't been declining over time, it has been stagnating for the vast majority of it, which is something you conveniently left out. While this doesn't necessarily mean that the economy has been doing bad, it does provide a pretty good practical test that trickle-down tax policies do exactly what critics of it said: they would only cause the rich to buy a bit more than they usually do, with the rest going into the bank account in Switzerland. If they hadn't been doing that, there would have been significantly greater spikes in GDP growth directly following the tax refunds.

Actually, looking at *real* GDP growth rate, it has increased by 3% in 2003, and in the first 3 quarters of 2004 the numbers have been 5%, 4.8%, and 3.9% respectively. In a developed economy, this is hardly "stagnating".
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Moreover, you also left out the fact that almost every economist calls this rate of expansion unsustainable.
Correct. The point is that the economy of the past two years has not been bad.

You forgot, when you mentioned that net losses in income are only about a nickel per hour, to also mention that those numbers don't count a lot of intangibles: things like pensions, retiremend funds, and health coverage. All of those things, once standard benefits in a job, have now become rare, and almost never seen in the part-time and temp fields that have shown the biggest gains for employment. Factor those in, and you have on your hands what is effectively a pretty frappin' big loss in how much people are effectively paid, because now people have to pay out of their own pocket what was once effectively free for them, costing only the company.
Interesting, although you lack statistics with your arguments (it could no doubt be true). The number of people in part-time jobs because that is the only sort of work they could find is at mid-1998 levels. Looking at the part-time statistics over the past year, only 13k new people are at part time jobs for economic reasons, while those at part-time jobs for non-economic reasons stand at a little over 100k more than those in December of 2000, before Bush took office.

JOB GROTH IS DOWN!!!

No matter if you use the house hold survey, or the BLS (the one that Greenspan says we should use. And I'm sorry kudlow, hes smarter than you) Our job growth rate is significantly lower than it has been since post WWII.

Also, with the deficit building up, who is going to pay for. I will tell you, everyone under the age of 35. My solution?

Step one : spend more on Iraq to get out of Iraq. The sooner Iraq is stable, the better off we are.

Step two : Tax reform. Flat Tax for businesses. Somewhere in the 20%-30% range for corperations, 15-20 for small business. That will get rid of most of the loop holes in the tax code, so that bussiness owners who are honest get a lower tax rate than what they used to, and the liars pay Higher.

Step three : Social Security reform. I'm sorry, we can't keep it up at this rate. We will also have to raise the age of retirement I'm sad to say. This one makes me cry.

Those are the biggies. I think I has to get worse before it gets better.


And as always, I urge people to reach across party lines. And punish Tom Delay.

No matter if you use the house hold survey, or the BLS (the one that Greenspan says we should use. And I'm sorry kudlow, hes smarter than you) Our job growth rate is significantly lower than it has been since post WWII.

Interesting but untrue. From 1946 to 2000 (the beginning of the Bush Admin.), a span of 54 years, a two million-a-year job creation figure would mean 108 million new jobs since 1946. In 1946, there were 41,759,000 jobs (monthy numbers averaged, non-seasonally adjusted). Add 108,000,000 to that and you get a figure of 149,759,000 jobs as the should-be number for 2000, when in reality it was 131,785,000. Job growth over the past year has exceeded post-war averages.

Well I'm sorry that he lost his job!

Now for the asshole comment, nice job in invalidating your entire arguement.

No, people start up businesses because they want to make money. They are entrepenours.

Out of the four so-called "entrepuners" I know started their bussinesses becuase they lost their jobs.

We realize your a spoiled little conservative prick. But you're not rich enough to avoid the inevitable draft.(at least I don't think you are)
Republicans have no heart, or sympathy. They're flithy animals that should be killed like the thousands of Iraqis and American service men they senselessly murdered.

I HATE THE RICH, I HATE BUSH, AND I HATE THESE "MORALISTIC" BASTERDS WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT POVERTY IS LIKE.

You are assuming flexible demand curves and responsive consumer behaviour but the reality is that consumers in a global economy have little opportunity to be flexible. So many products are dificult to source domestically (computer chips for instance - %95 of world supply comes from Taiwan) that prices will rise. Even if there is some shift to domestic production, high oil prices increase inpuit costs and distribution costs all of which will be passed on to the consumer at some stage.

But, on the other hand, it will decrease US demand for imported non-essentials, while also increasing incentives to maintian production within the US.

You are right that a sudden "dip" in the dollar would have little effect, but a long term lower level dollar would fundamentally alter the worldwide supply demand curves. Given the superb productivity of the US worker with the lower dollar, I would expect the US manfuacturing export sector to grow signifigcantly over time.

As well as this, a lower dollar would significantly reduce the pressure to "outsource" jobs overseas. Remember outsourcing is not a "cost-free" activity and there are certain diseconomies assoctiated. Thus is many sectors, although I have no direct empirical evidence, I would assume that outsourcing may become more expensive than retaining those jobs within the US. And in fact, depending on the final level of the dollar, some of those jobs may return.

I often hear people on these boards talking about how bad the economy is now, about how if people voted on things such as the economy, rather than 'moral values', John Kerry would be President right now. How true are the claims?

The US economy has generated 2.073 million jobs in the last year (BLS). Compare this to the 1999-2000 period, in which 2.187 million jobs were created, and you see that only about 100,000 more jobs were created in the '99-'00 period than the '03-'04. GDP is predicted to rise by at least 4.2% this year (over double the Euro area's), and the GDP growth in 2003 was exemplary as well : including the largest period of growth in over 20 years in the 3rd quarter, at just under 8%. GDP growth, in fact, hasn't been negative since the 3rd quarter of 01 . Since September of '01, real disposable income has risen by 2.5%. Corporate profits, as well, continue to grow, having only one quarter with a loss since Sept 11th.


Sources
-------
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/gdp304a_fax.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/pi0904_fax.pdf
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/index_wide.cfm?page=Economic%20and%20Financial&story_id=3353433
Still doesn't account for the fact that there was a NET LOSS of jobs under Bush's first term and that is the first time that happened since the Depression in 1929:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=354506

Notwithstanding also that Bush spent $700 Billion in tax cuts that were supposed to create 5 Million jobs.

Notwithstanding that the US Debt has increased over $1.5 Trillion in the past 4 years

Notwithstanding that the greatest US Trade deficit in history has occured under George W.

Notwithstanding that the interest rates were at an historical low...wait until they start to rise again.

Notwithstanding that the US currency is lower valued

Notwithstanding that there was a net loss under George W. for business investment

And....I could go on but if you feel good about what you are posting....carry on?

Interesting but untrue. From 1946 to 2000 (the beginning of the Bush Admin.), a span of 54 years, a two million-a-year job creation figure would mean 108 million new jobs since 1946. In 1946, there were 41,759,000 jobs (monthy numbers averaged, non-seasonally adjusted). Add 108,000,000 to that and you get a figure of 149,759,000 jobs as the should-be number for 2000, when in reality it was 131,785,000. Job growth over the past year has exceeded post-war averages.

Except I'm not talking about the last year. I'm talking about the past 4 years. We already decided that the rate of growth in the last year cant be sustained.

Interesting but untrue. From 1946 to 2000 (the beginning of the Bush Admin.), a span of 54 years, a two million-a-year job creation figure would mean 108 million new jobs since 1946. In 1946, there were 41,759,000 jobs (monthy numbers averaged, non-seasonally adjusted). Add 108,000,000 to that and you get a figure of 149,759,000 jobs as the should-be number for 2000, when in reality it was 131,785,000. Job growth over the past year has exceeded post-war averages.
Ummm the US population in 1946 was only 139 Million, less than half it is right now. You can't just go back and tack on 2 Million jobs a year when the population was far less than it is now.

I would challenge you on the post war growth of jobs figures too. Also you should remember, but then again perhaps you can't because you weren't born then, but post war America, generally speaking, there was only ONE bread winner in the family?

Ummm the US population in 1946 was only 139 Million, less than half it is right now. You can't just go back and tack on 2 Million jobs a year when the population was far less than it is now.

I would challenge you on the post war growth of jobs figures too. Also you should remember, but then again perhaps you can't because you weren't born then, but post war America, generally speaking, there was only ONE bread winner in the family?

+1

Interesting but untrue. From 1946 to 2000 (the beginning of the Bush Admin.), a span of 54 years, a two million-a-year job creation figure would mean 108 million new jobs since 1946. In 1946, there were 41,759,000 jobs (monthy numbers averaged, non-seasonally adjusted). Add 108,000,000 to that and you get a figure of 149,759,000 jobs as the should-be number for 2000, when in reality it was 131,785,000. Job growth over the past year has exceeded post-war averages.
From the stats you posted for the October unemployment figures at BLS:

Both the number of unemployed persons, 8.1 million, and the unemployment rate, 5.5 percent, were essentially unchanged from September to October. The jobless rate has held fairly steady thus far this year and remains below its most recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003.

Total employment edged up in October to 139.8 million, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--remained at 62.3 percent.

Compare that to job increases under Clinton:

25 Million jobs created in 8 years.

Also this:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001121.html

To the mystification of the Bush administration and its allies, the American people aren't particularly grateful.... Here's one possible explanation for the disconnect between the administration's cheery rhetoric and the population's gloomy disposition: The labor market is nowhere near its late-1990s heyday.... Consider the employment–to-population ratio.... The ratio rose steadily in the 1990s, from 61.4 percent in January 1993 to 64.7 in the spring of 2000. In January 2001, it stood at 64.4 percent, very close to an all-time high. Since then, it has deteriorated steadily, even after the recession ended in November 2001. In May 2004, it stood at 62.2 percent, more than 2 percentage points below the rate of January 2001....

Now you were saying?

Don't know about you, but I'm donning my flame-proof suit right now.

Mind lending me one? :p

Now to on topic, a lower U.S. dollar is good more than it is bad . . . at least for now. Things will definitely change as time goes on, but a low U.S. dollar can really help us out right now.

I totally agree with you.

A month go when they were talking about the 1.7 million jobs gained over the last year, I found it surprising that nearly 900,000 of those were in the Government. it is odd that 'a smaller more efficient" republican government would be expanding so. I don't know where the last 300,000 were created, but i wouldn't be surprised if many were putting up Christmas displays in department stores.


The thing with this is that many jobs that were held in private hands became Federal workers e.g. all airport screeners are now federal jobs. same people but they now work for the govt. BTW: it was the dems that insisted on this.

As a net importer of energy, a lower dollar will reduce US ability to purchase energy. This will place tremendous pressure upon the US consumer to become more energy-efficient, which has been the number-one call by environmentalists for years.

A high dollar benefits oil companies.

I disagree, I think it will put pressure on the greens and we will finally be able to build some more refinary capacity(we havent in 30 yrs). You know that high gas prices is less a function of CRUDE oil prices than it is of the lack of refinary capacity. Capacity that has to juggle home heating vs gasoline.

I disagree, I think it will put pressure on the greens and we will finally be able to build some more refinary capacity(we havent in 30 yrs). You know that high gas prices is less a function of CRUDE oil prices than it is of the lack of refinary capacity. Capacity that has to juggle home heating vs gasoline.

Yeah, I know about the refinary problems. But I'm not talking about the whole heating oil/gas crunch.

I see the dollar staying at such a low level that it will put pressure on energy across the board, and this will finally incentivize development of more efficient technologies across the board. Which is true environmentalism.

Whether or not a few extra refinaries are built is irrelevant. Remember true environmentalism does not equal sierra club manifesto. Rather it is people living well in harmony with the world. More energy effiecency will get us there.

(I would also like to see, with a lower dollar, the public transport monopoly being lifted, so we could actually get some decent mass transit - but that is another thread).

But, on the other hand, it will decrease US demand for imported non-essentials, while also increasing incentives to maintian production within the US..
In a complex modern economy, there are no non essentials. Almost all manufacturing is at some point dependent on imported components or resources. And it still remains the case that long term high oil prices will increase distribution costs all along the production chain and lead to higher prices.


You are right that a sudden "dip" in the dollar would have little effect, but a long term lower level dollar would fundamentally alter the worldwide supply demand curves. Given the superb productivity of the US worker with the lower dollar, I would expect the US manfuacturing export sector to grow signifigcantly over time.
I dont think the exact value of the dollar is important but instability is. If the dollar fluctuates, the Euro will become currency of choice in international trade. Euro members are obliged to restrict defecit spending to under %2 of GDP hence there is a guaruntee of long term stability. At present, it is too early to tell if the current slide in the dollar is a temporary shift or the beginning of major instability. One thing is clear, and that is that the federal government will need to manage its finances very prudently in the next few years. Wouldnt want all those chinese banks to call in their loans after all.

As well as this, a lower dollar would significantly reduce the pressure to "outsource" jobs overseas. Remember outsourcing is not a "cost-free" activity and there are certain diseconomies assoctiated. Thus is many sectors, although I have no direct empirical evidence, I would assume that outsourcing may become more expensive than retaining those jobs within the US. And in fact, depending on the final level of the dollar, some of those jobs may return.
Outsourcing of current jobs is not a serious problem for the economy. What is a problem is that capital is being exported to the developing world and is unavailable for reinvestment in the US.

Yeah, I know about the refinary problems. But I'm not talking about the whole heating oil/gas crunch.

I see the dollar staying at such a low level that it will put pressure on energy across the board, and this will finally incentivize development of more efficient technologies across the board. Which is true environmentalism.

Whether or not a few extra refinaries are built is irrelevant. Remember true environmentalism does not equal sierra club manifesto. Rather it is people living well in harmony with the world. More energy effiecency will get us there.

(I would also like to see, with a lower dollar, the public transport monopoly being lifted, so we could actually get some decent mass transit - but that is another thread).
The main problem with this theory is that it is still cheaper in monetary terms to open up national parks for oil drilling than it is to develop alternative energy supply.

In a complex modern economy, there are no non essentials. Almost all manufacturing is at some point dependent on imported components or resources. And it still remains the case that long term high oil prices will increase distribution costs all along the production chain and lead to higher prices.

Ah, but you assuming that consumption is at a constant throughout all classes of goods. What if, because of a lower dollar, the profile of the average consumer shifted. Away from goods, and towards services. In other words, trinkets from wal-mart become relatively more expensive and eating out at restaurants relatively cheaper. So there could quite easily be a shift in how disposable income is spent, thus eliminating the trade imbalance.

Also a lower dollar would make US agricultural produce cheaper, and therfore there would be an upswing in food exports, both in what can be charged for them, and the quantity that can be exported.

Finally you are assuming that there is only one path to each finished good. It is quite conceivable that with a lower dollar, the percentage of US orgin components in any finished good will increase. Again closing the trade gap.

I dont think the exact value of the dollar is important but instability is. If the dollar fluctuates, the Euro will become currency of choice in international trade. Euro members are obliged to restrict defecit spending to under %2 of GDP hence there is a guaruntee of long term stability. At present, it is too early to tell if the current slide in the dollar is a temporary shift or the beginning of major instability. One thing is clear, and that is that the federal government will need to manage its finances very prudently in the next few years. Wouldnt want all those chinese banks to call in their loans after all.

Oh I agree instability is terrible. That is absoultely the worst of all worlds. But I think that the dollar has been kept artificially high in recent times to keep energy costs down and fuel the American economies appetite for imported goods. (On many levels). It needs to come down to remove distortions in the global market-place.


Outsourcing of current jobs is not a serious problem for the economy. What is a problem is that capital is being exported to the developing world and is unavailable for reinvestment in the US.

I agree that outsourcing is not really a problem. I was pointing out to that a lower dollar would reverse it anyway though. As to capital flight. A lower dollar would also halt it.

The main problem with this theory is that it is still cheaper in monetary terms to open up national parks for oil drilling than it is to develop alternative energy supply.

Nah, that won't happen. People won't have it.

I HATE THE RICH, I HATE BUSH, AND I HATE THESE "MORALISTIC" BASTERDS WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT POVERTY IS LIKE.

And you do?

The economy will collapse. It will be something like the Great Depression. I can't tell you exactly what will happen or when, but the current situation is unsustainable. The total amount of public and private debt requires economic growth to be serviced. But there is too much waste, and not enough production and resources to continue growing the economy. It's also quite possible that the US is going to run out of creditors soon. This is probably one of the least worst things that can happen, because they'll be forced to cut spending. Although, they might attempt to raise revenue instead.

The best advise I have is to not borrow money.

No it won't.

We are not going to run out of creditors. Have you seen our credit rating?

Once people become reluctant to lend money, interest rates will rise. There will not be some sort of epic collapse of the economy.

One thing is clear, and that is that the federal government will need to manage its finances very prudently in the next few years. Wouldnt want all those chinese banks to call in their loans after all.


They can't. The loans have set maturity dates. All they can do is sell them on a secondary market.


Outsourcing of current jobs is not a serious problem for the economy. What is a problem is that capital is being exported to the developing world and is unavailable for reinvestment in the US.

There is also a risk in being over-capitalized. That is why Microsoft is giving aways billions in dividends; they don't see any good investment opportunities at the moment.

They can't. The loans have set maturity dates. All they can do is sell them on a secondary market.



There is also a risk in being over-capitalized. That is why Microsoft is giving aways billions in dividends; they don't see any good investment opportunities at the moment.

Good point about the loans. I forgot about that.

the us economy is horrible.it cannot sustain itself for ONE reason and one reason alone.nearly every fricken trade agreement we have is a net influx of goods.we cant support our own consumers,eventully one importent trade agreement will fail(say for oil,or worse for grain) and our economy wil spiral out of control.

Just one thing : the GDP isn't the economy. It is just a number and it doesn't really mean anything. It is measured in dollars. If it grows 10%, it means it is 10% more dollars, but if the dollar goes down at the same time and loose 50%, the economy is actually worse despite the GDP increase.

I'm quite curious, how much of spending for the war is acocunted for US'es GDP? Does anybody know?

But wartime is wartime. Don't expect the economy to be GOOD, any other way.

I'm quite curious, how much of spending for the war is acocunted for US'es GDP? Does anybody know?

But wartime is wartime. Don't expect the economy to be GOOD, any other way.

assumming the total cost of the war $100bn per year. Then < 1%

Still doesn't account for the fact that there was a NET LOSS of jobs under Bush's first term and that is the first time that happened since the Depression in 1929:
Not the use of the past tense, as if his first term has ended. Which it hasn't. Its extremely likely that he will end up with a net increase of jobs, however small.

Notwithstanding that the greatest US Trade deficit in history has occured under George W.
...
Notwithstanding that the US currency is lower valued
And before him the biggest trade deficit in history was under Clinton. Your point? Maybe we should keep a high dollar and see if the trade deficit goes down? What are you trying to get at there :rolleyes:

Notwithstanding that the interest rates were at an historical low...wait until they start to rise again.
Yes, because the Fed decided that since the economy was back on track its best to not let run wild.

Notwithstanding that there was a net loss under George W. for business investment
"Link, please?" I'm particularly interested in the last two years, which I've been focusing on. We all know there were major losses in the 3rd Q of 2001.

Ummm the US population in 1946 was only 139 Million, less than half it is right now. You can't just go back and tack on 2 Million jobs a year when the population was far less than it is now.

I would challenge you on the post war growth of jobs figures too.
Current job creatoin is at a tad over 2 million a year. If this was below the average, then the number of jobs today should be above the number of jobs in 1946 plus 54*2,000,000. Unfortunately, it is not, so unless he's using an alternative measure of "average job creation", which he can post, thats what it means. Go ahead and challenge me on my post war growth of job figures. Its right there in the BLS : payroll non-farm employment, do non-seasonally adjusted to get the annual numbers.

Also you should remember, but then again perhaps you can't because you weren't born then, but post war America, generally speaking, there was only ONE bread winner in the family?
The Employment-Population ratio has risen slightly less than 6% from 1948 (earliest year) to 2003 (latest year). There has been no massive shift, depsite what stereotypes may bring to mind.

Both the number of unemployed persons, 8.1 million, and the unemployment rate, 5.5 percent, were essentially unchanged from September to October. The jobless rate has held fairly steady thus far this year and remains below its most recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003.

Total employment edged up in October to 139.8 million, and the employment-population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--remained at 62.3 percent.
Yes, both those numbers (62.3% and 5.5%) are both below or near 20-year averages, I think. I know unemployment is, and I think employment-population is just a hair below. Not good, but definately not bad news.

Compare that to job increases under Clinton:

25 Million jobs created in 8 years.
Irrelevant.

If this "pro business" president is such a genius, why are we so hugely in debt?

Why is the friggin' Dow Jones index still hovering around 10,000, year after year? That should be a sign of stagnation that even a neocon would recognize.

Why has this president lost more jobs, net (after figuring in new jobs) than any other in history?

Why does he keep cutting back funding for the Small Business Administration?

This is basic stuff folks. Don't swallow the spin. This guy is a moron who is bankrupting us.

Why is the friggin' Dow Jones index still hovering around 10,000, year after year? That should be a sign of stagnation that even a neocon would recognize.

The DJIA has only recently picked up from the stock market slump. Its peak was in August of 2000, months before Bush took office. After falling to a low of 7,891 in February of 2003, its gained to 10,397 today - hardly stagnation in the last year and a half.

Why has this president lost more jobs, net (after figuring in new jobs) than any other in history?
He hasn't, thats a flat out lie.

Why does he keep cutting back funding for the Small Business Administration?
Because he believes funding can be better applied elsewhere.

Over two million have been created? Yes that is absoluetely true, and I'm sure the people of China and Indonesia are grateful for getting these jobs and getting paid barely enough to live and being beaten while they work, but at least they'll have some money for their kids right? Oh wait these people that are being used as tools ARE CHILDREN! So yeah good job Dubya!