The US Economy

A straw for those arguing against recovery to grasp is provided by the fact October traditionally has shown a spike of layoff announcements, though not all of the layoffs announced necessarily occur.

Timber, I really doubt that anyone here wishes the economy to get worse. Thats the sort of passive aggressive behavior my ex-wife used to engage in, the whiny: "There, I failed a test, don't you feel better now knowing I'm dumb?"

Oh, I know nobody is dreaming wistfully of a depression. I do think there are plenty of folks uncomfortable with the notion The Current Administration might gain advantage from economic developments.

Timber, I don't care who, if anyone, benefits politically, I just want people to be able to find jobs!

timber; the unfortunate thing is that no matter which way the economy goes the voters will blame/praise Bush. That is really stupid no matter how it goes.

Tartarin, amen.

Working with people with disabilities in Connecticut and helping with a homeless shelter in New Haven, I can vouch that the range of people goes from one extreme to another--from homeless Yale professors to drug-addicted teenage mothers.

There is the teenage drug-addicted mother in Hartford who takes her four year old daughter out to sell to men in order to get drugs. The little girl wears a dress to make it easier for the men to get at her.

There are the parents whose house burned down who also had major medical expenses and who now have nowhere to live except in a homeless shelter.

There is the mother I met who had a little boy who looked in the garbage before ever thinking to look in the refrigerator, when he was offered food because he had lived on the street for so long.

And yes, there are the forth generation welfare families. Of course there should be decent work programs for them--but there needs to be day care for their children. When money gets low, the day care is the first to go.

Then there are those lovely block grants--money given to states to do with as they please, with the undertstanding that the money will go to certain programs. Well, bull ****, the mayor spends the money on a shiny new fire truck and gets his picture in the paper.

Those of us who are a little cynical call these programs the 'sexy' ones because they have far more appeal than the kid with cerebral palsy who drools and talks "funny," Or the schizophrenic man who hears voices and talks about what his dogs said that morning.

These are people most of us seldom see and seldom think about. To think that communities can handle all the problems of society in such a way that gives the people it is treating the simple dignity we all expect, is terribly naive. It is very costly yet, in the long run, less expensive that institutions.

I doubt that until someone has seen the change in anyone who, for the first time in his or her life is treated with respect and dignity, can truly understand how vital it is for any human being to feel some sort of inclusion in the community without being made to feel like a constant "taker."

There are times when I have as much of a problem with liberals as I do with consevatives, especially when liberals become so entrenched with a program that they won't admit when it isn't working. Some of these programs have become careers and those in leadership are more interested in keeping their jobs than they are in providing the best possible service for the least, reasonable, amount of money.

I don't think it is possible to have an all-around perfect program simply because there are so many different needs. but when individual needs are addressed, instead of providing a 'one size fits all' program, wonders do happen. The problem is that this takes federal money in order to provide dependable service in any part of the country. I know of several people who have declined jobs in the south because they knew their children wouldn't be given the quality of care they were receiving in Connecticut. Now that I live in
Colorado I'm sure that I'll find the same thing, as the services here are of fairly high quality.

This is a subject on which I can rant for hours, so I'll stop before I really get going.

Or that they might have to spin their way around the idea that Bush's tax cuts actually created growth.

Bloomberg



Inconvenient for those who decry the tax cuts, at the very best.

timber, Although I find your post have some good news information, trying to compare past history to current and future eocnomic performance is difficult at best. The dynamics that make up our economy changes as does the developed and devloping countries of the world, and nothing stays static for good comparisons. When we've had an average 90,000 job loss for almost 30 months, any addition of jobs below that average still reflects a struggling economy - IMHO.

As it happened this morning, I read one of Al Goldman's most recent Market Commentaries (cleaning up my desk) while listening to a Greenspan quote on the radio. Goldman still seems unwilling to predict a rosy future and cautions that the uncertainty of the 2004 election is bound to hold things up. Greenspan is worried about jobs. I don't think of either of these guys as being flaming liberals or wet blankets. I'm just kind of suspicious of the kind of neener-neener optimism I think Timber and Scrat are expressing and think CI's measured, realistic approach is far better in the long run.

I don't think I've expressed "neener-neener" optimism (though I'm not surprised you'd take any opportunity to portray my opinion negatively). What I have repeatedly stated is that after considering the available information on both sides of the question, I come away believing the economy is in recovery and has been for months. I have neither claimed this is a proven fact, nor denied the existence of data, reports and indicators that call that opinion into question. I simply have an opinion that I believe continues to be proven out as new information comes in.

Perhaps you just can't accept someone holding an opinion that differs from yours.

One report on jobs during the past couple of montsh.

NEW YORK (AP) - Job cuts announced by U.S. companies more than doubled in October from the previous month, providing more evidence that the nation's economy is in a period of jobless expansion, according to a report from an outplacement firm.

Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said Tuesday that in October companies announced plans to eliminate 171,874 positions, compared with 76,506 jobs in September. It was the highest monthly level since October 2002, when 176,010 job cuts were announced.

The surge in October ended a streak of five months when job reductions fell below 100,000 per month. The lowest figure during that time was in June, with 59,715 jobs cut.

Hardest-hit was the automotive industry, which announced plans to eliminate 28,363 jobs in October. That was followed by the retail sector, which plans to cut 21,169 positions, and the telecommunications industry, which said it would slash 21,030 jobs.

"While perhaps shocking to some, the October spike follows a trend of heavy year-end downsizing that has occurred since we began tracking job cuts in 1993," said CEO John A. Challenger. "In 2001 and 2002, October was the largest job-cut month in the fourth quarter."

Yes, I heard that too this morning, CI. Here's what I think (and here's what most economists are saying, from what I've heard): There is plenty to be grateful in the growth this past quarter. There are still plenty of problems out there. No one who has taken a hard look at it has enough evidence that we're in a wonderful turnaround. The 7% growth rate was dramatic and good, the rest of the news is still kind of iffy. Does that cover it?

Whether it was the extraordinarily low interest rates, the tax cuts or corporate downsizing, eliminating jobs is showing up on the books and eventually the economic indicators (which are sometimes not even as reliable as the weather report) is debatable. Armchair economists (hell, even professionals) are amusing to read but as three slowing quarter indicates a recession, so it takes three upturn quarters to show a recovery. Sure unemployment and poverty levels may be eventually effected but a lot of people out of work is still going to be the major factor about the economy. Bush Senior raised taxes, so if the idea is that the Reagan voodoo economics was working is the argument, I don't buy it. Clinton raised them again and the economy took off like a rocket.

BTW, anyone buy stock right after 9/11?

Not I, said the little red hen.

Yup. Well, not 'till the markets opened again a week later. Been bargain hunting ever since.

You're not an eagle, you're a vulture!

(Okay, so my friends refer to me as The Condor -- on my business manager's advice, we bought also).

I had just finished building a house when Bush got into office and was feeling mahty poor and, thanks to our glorious leader oops I mean economy -- I still feel poor. In other words, no money with which to pounce on bargains unless, of course, real property in an area which has not been affected too badly by the economic downturn, turns out to have been a real bargain!

This just in...