Jobless rate down to 5.0%

[Stephen]

It was just reported that the unemployment rate has dropped to 5%. This is down to pre-9/11 level.

Now this is a good thing, both for this country and this administration. But the spin that will come from liberals will be as follows:

"It's low because people have stopped looking for work." Even if this is true, it's a constant that has existed since the index has been tracked. Therefore any drop could be blamed on this, regardless of the administration in place. I don't think I heard this brought up once during the Clinton administration.

"Manufacturing jobs are down. People are getting laid off everywhere." We are moving into a service economy, which is a normal cyclical event. When the US has something that it can excel in manufacturing, we will shift towars manufacturing again. Also, we are dealing with high inventories, which necessitates a cutback in production. In the meantime, many more jobs have been added in the services industries.

"People aren't making as much as they used to." Wages are up for the year 2.7% (hey, where's mine?).

In all, the economy is improving. I wonder which Clinton policy is responsible for the improvement? :wink:

-Stephen

 

[hammer]

It was just reported that the unemployment rate has dropped to 5%. This is down to pre-9/11 level.

Now this is a good thing, both for this country and this administration. But the spin that will come from liberals will be as follows:

"It's low because people have stopped looking for work." Even if this is true, it's a constant that has existed since the index has been tracked. Therefore any drop could be blamed on this, regardless of the administration in place. I don't think I heard this brought up once during the Clinton administration.

"Manufacturing jobs are down. People are getting laid off everywhere." We are moving into a service economy, which is a normal cyclical event. When the US has something that it can excel in manufacturing, we will shift towars manufacturing again. Also, we are dealing with high inventories, which necessitates a cutback in production. In the meantime, many more jobs have been added in the services industries.

"People aren't making as much as they used to." Wages are up for the year 2.7% (hey, where's mine?).

In all, the economy is improving. I wonder which Clinton policy is responsible for the improvement? :wink:

-Stephen

I for one am glad to see that the economy is turning around (albeit slowly).

Of course, the flip side to your question is "I wonder which Bush policy is responsible for the improvement?" :-?

The big concern that I have at this time is that we're generating HUGE deficits...so far, we're OK, but that's got to bite back at us at some point.

Whatever negative claims you want to make about Clinton, at least he didn't run up deficits...and don't tell me that the deficits were just due to 9/11 either...

 

[Stephen]

Hammer good points. You got me on the Bush policy. I'll propose that the tax cuts have led to an increase in luxury spending. People are building more houses, making more improvements, etc. I see it in my own business where companies are now investing in improvements in networking and A/V equipment that they would have just done without before.

Clinton increased my taxes while offering little directly back to me, a plain ol' common white boy. I'm still paying for my college, and will be for a long time.

-Stephen

 

[ctenidae]

None of Clinton's policies are responsible for the economy coming back. He was President six years ago, remember. Pre 9-11 levels would have been, let me see, yup- Clinton era.

There is a huge amount of research that shows the tax cuts did not, in any way, lead to increased spending. It almost all went to pay down debts. Didn't help the economy any.

Housing is, in fact, rocking. Though again, not because of any tax cuts. Thank Greenspan, not Bush, for the housing market. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Greenspan retires next year.

IT and tech spending is up- and that's a good sign. About time, too- companies have been making do for too long, and the tech sector needs the boost.

There is also a huge amount of research that indicates 5% unemployment is way off base. "Real" unemployment is figured to be between 12 and 18%. Huge range, because no one can agree on what Real unemployment is. The one thing they do agree on is it's way more than 5%. and it's a new phenomenon, not something that's been around since the index has been tracked. The part that has been built in the whole time is 2-3% for systemic or frictional unemployment and to account for underemployment.

That said, any drop in the unemployment rate and increase in wages is a good thing.

 

[Vortex]

None of Clinton's policies are responsible for the economy coming back. He was President six years ago, remember. Pre 9-11 levels would have been, let me see, yup- Clinton era.

There is a huge amount of research that shows the tax cuts did not, in any way, lead to increased spending. It almost all went to pay down debts. Didn't help the economy any.

Housing is, in fact, rocking. Though again, not because of any tax cuts. Thank Greenspan, not Bush, for the housing market. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Greenspan retires next year.

IT and tech spending is up- and that's a good sign. About time, too- companies have been making do for too long, and the tech sector needs the boost.

There is also a huge amount of research that indicates 5% unemployment is way off base. "Real" unemployment is figured to be between 12 and 18%. Huge range, because no one can agree on what Real unemployment is. The one thing they do agree on is it's way more than 5%. and it's a new phenomenon, not something that's been around since the index has been tracked. The part that has been built in the whole time is 2-3% for systemic or frictional unemployment and to account for underemployment.

That said, any drop in the unemployment rate and increase in wages is a good thing.

Some very good points here. I paid down Debt. I bought a 2nd home... doing much better than any stock market investment.
Many of my friends are shall we say under empolyed. I feel the unemployment rate really does not tell the story. I consider myself quite conservative on economic issues, but not sure if there is any blame or credit here. I see it more as an economic cycle.

 

[ctenidae]

There is certainly a hangover from the wild party that was the tech bubble. It happens. The US economy will be okay, barring any nastiness from teh deficit, the trade imbalance, or the vulnerability of the dollar. Let's all just hope China takes it easy.

 

[pedxing]

I think we should have a much bigger economic and employment boost from 1) War, 2) deficit spending. The trade and budget deficits have me worried, as do rising energy costs. China is on the rise, and we've got to be ready to compete economically and in terms of global influence. Militarily we are still way ahead, but we should watch out on that account long term.

 

[riverc0il]

It was just reported that the unemployment rate has dropped to 5%. This is down to pre-9/11 level.

Now this is a good thing, both for this country and this administration. But the spin that will come from liberals will be as follows:

people who take an analytical look at the BS numbers handed down from people in power, be those people so called liberal or conservative or in betwee, would be right to point out the limitations of said BS numbers. lets take a closer look and not blindly throw praise at numbers without careful analysis.

"It's low because people have stopped looking for work." Even if this is true, it's a constant that has existed since the index has been tracked. Therefore any drop could be blamed on this, regardless of the administration in place. I don't think I heard this brought up once during the Clinton administration.

how do we know it is a constant? especially considering that the baby boom generation is amongst the largest demographic in the country and is experiecing lots of lay offs. people such as my dad, laid off at age 55 from the tech sector and unable to get back in, gave up. what if a larger part of the population such as the boomers were isolated by current economic and work place factors?

the unemployment rate is calculated by survey in which people are asked if they are looking for employment and the number of people that have jobs are devided by the number of people looking for jobs. if a greater number of people respond to the survey that they are "not looking" because they gave up, the rate does not take this into consideration. just stating it is not a constant even though it "usually" does not vary much. the current work place and economic factors may create unnoticed changes. further, the rate does not take into account people working for less than what they should be, so a person laid off and flipping burgers to get by is considered "employeed."

"People aren't making as much as they used to." Wages are up for the year 2.7% (hey, where's mine?).

wage is irrelevent. it's what you can do with a dollar that is important. BUYING POWER is a better measure of whether people are making enough money. that is, the relative value of a dollar to the purchasing needs of an individual or more importantly a family. for example, the federal minimum wage of $5.15/hour has not changed since 1997. unskilled workers and immigrents are usually taking up all those new and great "service sector" jobs being created that hide the fact that professional level jobs are being lost due to outsourcing and mergers. those folks making $5.15 an hour have a yearly salary of just $10,712 before taxes. assume two parents and two kids in a family and see how far that salary gets you. not as much as it got you 8 years ago in 1997, that's for sure. just an illustration, the same is true for professional level workers. it is just more hidden because of the level of debt people have taken on.

also, is that 2.7% increased wages staff per person or total wage dollars? because if it is the later, it makes sense due to the population explosion since as more people get added to the country, more services are demanded, more retail stores open, etc. also, wages should be keeping track of inflation, etc so that could account for an increase as well. there are so many factors that citing a stat doesn't say much. what does say something is where certain consistantly taken stats trend. that is when a stat becomes useful.

i am not making this point because i disagree with bush. i believe bush has nothing to do with these numbers. the economy is generally getting better lately despite a lot of hardships. i do not see any causal relationship between bush policies and the economy doing better. we are pretty much back to pre-9/11 on a lot of levels, but that isn't saying much. pre-9/11 the country was slumping pretty bad and the trend was slumping further still.

the biggest problem facing this country in the next few years will soon become the money we owe, both as individuals and a nation. we have pushed our collective debt to a dangerous level and that combined with a crazy trade deficit and other countries like china coming into their prime will spell trouble down the road. too many people living above their means and a lot of folks are about to hit a brick wall.

 

[riverc0il]

here are some stats for ya:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

notice the third column in which the minimum wage was adjusted for inflation and how it has gone down every year since 1997 to the lowest value as far back as the chart goes (1955). a trend that our dollar buys a lot less these days than it used to which is a better way to look at wages than total dollars.

 

[bigbog]

Hammer good points. You got me on the Bush policy. I'll propose that the tax cuts have led to an increase in luxury spending. People are building more houses, making more improvements, etc. I see it in my own business where companies are now investing in improvements in networking and A/V equipment that they would have just done without before.

Clinton increased my taxes while offering little directly back to me, a plain ol' common white boy. I'm still paying for my college, and will be for a long time.

-Stephen

Except for the thing he has with Iraq being the center of all evil :lol: and his low IQ(just opinion), I'm not about to chastize Dubya, except that the families who are receiving the widest/largest tax cuts are the families who least need them.... This administration just doesn't believe in helping jobskill re-tooling companies in areas outside of the suburban-growth avenues. Dubya has talked a lot about education, yet for years Texas was dead last in the country as far as test results during his reign of Governor. What helps to bring test scores up is a child with a healthy, positive feeling of self-worth , with parents possessing optimism in their family's future, that have enough free time to do things as a family.
If people at the high end of the economic tree can't develop a healthy life/family with the money they're already making, a tax cut isn't going to fix their problem(s).
$.01

*...apologies gang...it's my last political rant & raving(after the 2nd coffee :lol: )....just got back into an exercise club! 8)