1
   

The US Economy

 
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 12:05 pm
timberlandko wrote:
The supermarket clerk ringing up your box of cornflakes isn't an employee of Kellogs ... the same applies to cellphones, automobiles, sunglasses, appliances, and just about everything else involving direct retail transactions.


Well, there is a big difference there Timber! Very Happy

When I go into Wal-Mart or K-Mart I don't expect the clerk to be an employee of the manufacturer but I pretty much do expect that they are a WalMart/KMart employee.

The kiosk selling wireless service in the Mall is likely to have a hig "Cingular", "Verizon" or "Sprint" banner hung up and the only clue that they aren't really a part of those companies comes when you actually sign the contracts and even then you have to look closely.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 03:48 pm
From MoveOn's latest email:

Quote:
Today also marks the launch of our newest swing-state ad -- "Hoover" -- which describes the amazing job loss we're facing under President Bush. The ad says, "George Bush is doing something Bill Clinton didn't do . . . his father didn't do . . . not Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon . . . Not LBJ, or JFK . . . Not Eisenhower, or Harry Truman . . . Not in any of FDR's four terms. No, George Bush is going to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to lead an economy that loses jobs -- over 2 million so far. Didn't George Bush say his tax cuts would create jobs?"

You can watch the ad online at:
http://www.moveonvoterfund.org
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 05:06 pm
I expect MoveOn's commercial is going to be playing at odds with a much better promoted reality show:
Quote:
http://i.mktw.net/images/branding/MKTW/hrd-printer-logo-191x79.gif
Gaining ground
A look at the states with this year's top job growth


By Andrea Coombes, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 8:07 PM ET Nov. 21, 2003



SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Hawaii is benefiting from an increase in tourism as post 9/11 fears fade. Nevada's growing economy continues to hire teachers and construction workers. Georgia's gains are more broad-based.


While the U.S. labor market just started showing signs of improvement in the last month, several states have been chalking up employment gains this year in advance of a national turnaround.
Nevada led the country with 3.3 percent more total jobs in the 12 months ended in October, according to U.S. Labor Department figures released Friday. Total employment in Idaho and Georgia jumped 1.8 percent, while Hawaii gained 1.7 percent and New Mexico rose 1.6 percent.

The U.S. jobless rate was unchanged at 6.0 percent in October, yet rates fell in 36 states from a month earlier.Unemployment claims in the past four weeks dropped to a 33-month low, and total nationwide job gains in August, September and October were the highest in more than a year, with 286,000 jobs created.

"It's only been in the last few months that we've started to gain jobs," said Janell Hyer, a labor market analyst with the Idaho Labor Department. "Last year, we didn't see a lot of seasonal holiday hiring, but we are seeing it this year, and it's earlier."

To be sure, many of the new jobs are temporary positions, in lower-paying retail and food-services fields, and in the health-care industry, which added jobs throughout the economic downturn.

But while many economists bemoan "the jobless recovery," the limited rehiring pace owes in large part to the shallowness of the 2001 recession. The U.S. unemployment rate is barely 2 percentage points above the 3.8 percent recorded in April 2000 - the lowest jobless rate in the nation's history.

Many states typically hardest hit in recessions are close to their historical lows -- and well below post-Depression Era highs. West Virginia, where unemployment peaked at 19.5 percent in the early 1980s recession, is now at 5.6 percent, vs. a record low 4.6 percent in October 2001. Mississippi, where joblessness reached 13.8 percent in 1983, is at 5.7 percent compared with a low of 4.7 percent in February 1999 .


A matter of degree

Several states with the largest percentage gain in jobs have small populations, so one company opening several retail stores or expanding staff has a greater impact than in a larger state, economists said.

Yet even the most-populated states are showing signs of recovery. Florida added 94,100 jobs in the last year, a 1.3 percent increase that put it among the top eight states for job growth. Florida's gains were primarily at temp agencies, public schools and in specialty construction jobs such as masonry, electrical, and plumbing.

Alaska, whose percentage gain equaled Florida's, added just 3,800 total jobs, and its 7.3 percent jobless rate ranks among the highest in the nation. Yet Alaska saw increases in accounting, engineering and architectural positions, which state officials found cause to celebrate.

"If the engineers are busy and the architects are busy and the accountants are busy ... that suggests there's development going on, that the economy is lively," said Dan Robinson, a labor economist with the Alaska Department of Labor.


The manufacturing states

On the flip side are states like South Carolina, whose employment rolls fell 2.1 percent in the last year, the worst loss of any state. Massachusetts and Michigan ranked second, with total jobs falling 1.5 percent.

The main culprit in all three cases: Lost manufacturing jobs.

South Carolina saw steep declines in textiles and other factory jobs. Michigan also suffered a contraction in manufacturing jobs, along with losses in the government sector, professional positions such as engineering, and in the leisure and hospitality industries, said Jim Rhein, a labor market analyst with the Michigan Career Development Department.

"Michigan is historically one of the most cyclical states in the nation. When there's a downturn, we get hit a little harder," he said.

What follows is a look at the state of the labor market in the five states posting the biggest percentage job gains in the last year.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/image.asp?track=201&guid={8E865624-5FA2-456A-97EE-46FBD3919FCB}

Nevada holds up

When you think of Nevada, you think gambling. But that's not what's propelling the state's job growth. Instead, 16 years of being the top state in terms of population growth is creating jobs in construction, education and financial services.

The Nevada housing market ranks as one of the hottest in the country, setting records in sales of new and existing homes, said Jim Shabi, an economist with Nevada's Employment and Training Department.

"What we're seeing on the early returns this year is that the growth is actually faster than we're reporting right now," Shabi said. The state's jobless rate stood at 5 percent in October.


The Johnny-come-lately

In addition to increases in temp hiring and construction work, Idaho saw job gains at banks, insurance companies, retail stores and food services.

"We're seeing strong growth in restaurant" work, Hyer said. "We see new establishments coming and not as many old ones closing."

Idaho's specialty-trades industry, including plumbing and masonry work, has been hiring, and retailers are signaling their heightened expectations for the holiday season by showing significantly stronger, and earlier, hiring activity.

On the down side, lumber and food-processing companies have been cutting jobs in the past year, she said. Technology is another weak performer. Micron, a maker of semiconductor components, "had a large layoff in the spring; they're holding their own right now," Hyer said.

"For us, no layoffs is a good sign. Some (tech companies) are making money and reporting profits, and they're hiring a few people here and there."

Idaho's unemployment rate was 5.3 percent in October.


An unrefined silver lining

A booming housing market in Georgia continues to generate construction jobs, along with commercial development, which is ongoing despite low occupancy rates, said Michael Thurmond, the state's labor commissioner.

"Projects are still going up because people believe that days will get better," Thurmond said. "Developers are positioning themselves for a robust recovery."

Yet, while the state also saw gains in health care, temp work, and retail jobs, the news isn't all good.

"There is a caveat to all this: The jobs that are being created, a great majority of them are low-paying jobs," Thurmond said. "We haven't popped the cork on the champagne bottles yet. We are still seeing losses in manufacturing (and) many of the higher-paying jobs are being replaced by service and temp jobs."

Plus, the growth isn't statewide. Instead, "it's been centered in metropolitan Atlanta," he said. "Outside of Atlanta, it's basically been flat."

Georgia's jobless rate stood at 4.2 percent in October.

The sun also rises in paradise

After suffering tourism losses due to 9/11 and the SARS scare, which reduced stopover travelers to Asia, Hawaii's economy is enjoying broad-based job gains.

The strongest growth, at 5.6 percent, has come in professional, technology and scientific jobs, which includes lawyers, accountants, engineers, computer services, marketing consulting services, said James Hardway, special assistant to the director of the state labor department.

Construction work has picked up after extended weakness in residential real estate prices due to the economic slump in Japan, which long furnished buyers for island properties.

"Hawaii was just granted several billion dollars worth of military-housing projects, which will start in April and add to our growth," Hardway said. "It's an upgrade of the present facilities we already have, and it's a large chunk of change."

Employment in the hospitality industry grew 3.2 percent, or 3,100 jobs, in the last year. On the downside, a 2.5 percent gain in education and human services -- 1,600 jobs - is partly the result of Hawaii suffering the biggest increase in homelessness of any state in the last decade, Hardway said.

Hawaii's jobless rate was 4.2 percent in October.

Oh, down in New Mexico

When the national economy slumps, New Mexico tends to hold its own, said Mark Boyd, economist for the state labor department. And while it's been gaining jobs in the last year, he expects the state to lag in job creation as it tends to do when the U.S. economy is on the upswing.

While total employment is rising, the quality and pay-level of jobs has been declining, Boyd said. Among recently shuttered operations: A bus-manufacturing plant in Roswell, a Phillips semiconductor plant in Albuquerque and a Phelps-Dodge mining facility in Silver City, each of which cut 600 to 1,000 jobs.

An increase in defense spending has helped the state, which is home to Los Alamos Laboratories. "That's kept a certain buoyancy in the economy," Boyd said.

Construction jobs, up 5.7 percent in the last year, helped fuel the gain in the last 12 months, along with increased employment in home-health services for the state's growing retirement-age population.
New Mexico's jobless rate nearly mirrored the national average at 6.1 percent in October.
[/color]

Andrea Coombes is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com in San Francisco.

© 1997-2003 MarketWatch.com, Inc. All rights reserved. Disclaimer. See our Privacy Policy - updated 4/3/03.
CBS and the CBS "eye device" are registered trademarks of CBS Broadcasting, Inc.

Intraday data provided by Comstock, a division of Interactive Data Corp. and subject to terms of use.
Historical and current end-of-day data provided by FT Interactive Data.
Intraday data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges.
SEHK intraday data is provided by Comstock and is at least 60-minutes delayed.
All quotes are in local exchange time.


Certainly job growth is critical, and certainly, higher-paying jobs are slower to rebound. The momentum is growing. MoveOn, and The Democrats, are once again trying to stop a speeding freight train with a strand of sewing thread. Stay tuned.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 05:13 pm
timber, The problem with that speeding freight train is that the 2 million people still without jobs see it crawling. Those isolated states with job growth are surely good signs. We just need to see enough of a economic growth that continues job growth for more people. I think you are one of the very few people in this country that sees a sppeding freight train. Most of us see it chugging along - but definitely in the right direction.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 05:20 pm
c.i., perhaps your vision is colored by the fact you are isolated in one of the 14 states not experiencing the job growth recorded in the other 36. That train will get to your crossing before you know it ... try not be standing on the tracks when it roars through.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 05:31 pm
I think CI could build a house on the tracks and not have a whole lot to worry about for a while!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 05:37 pm
I wouldn't underwrite the mortgage on that house without being absolutely certain it was totally insured ... especially against damage from freight trains Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 05:38 pm
According to my limited math ability, 9 out of 50 still represents only 18 percent with job growth. I'm wait'n for that speeding train. How long did you say it'll take before before that speeding train gets to our state? Wink
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 05:50 pm
Well, if it's Amtrak......
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 07:47 pm
This was from yesterday's Wall Street Journal - not agreeing, necessarily, just quoting:

Quote:
Elected in 1994 as the party of limited government, Republicans seem to have abandoned any effort to limit spending. Worse, the current Republican President has shown no inclination to control it either. [..]

The final tallies show that overall spending grew by almost 9% for the 2003 fiscal year ending September 30, and by 21% over the past two years. This is before the $400 billion (yeah, right) Medicare prescription drug benefit and this year's energy and omnibus spending bills. If Bill Clinton had tolerated this, Republicans would be shouting from the rooftops. [..]

The alarming figure is domestic discretionary spending, or the kind that Congress has to approve each year. (Entitlements are automatic and based on a formula.) Non-military discretionary spending rose last year by 8.5% -- more than double the 4% caps Mr. Bush vowed to enforce and about quadruple the rate of inflation. While some of this money went to homeland security, a lot also went to such domestic boondoggles as the farm bill, transportation projects and education.

This is astonishing when you recall that only a few years ago "revolutionary" Republicans were proposing to eliminate actual federal programs. Instead, the GOP is now slowly restoring or adding to programs that it once bravely took the political heat for killing or shrinking. Witness the $20 million that once again went to mohair subsidies this year, thanks to the farm bill.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 08:08 pm
And this, NIMH, is today NYTimes lead editorial:

Quote:
November 25, 2003
The Sticker-Shock Congress



Couple this reality with an inevitable rise in interest rates and I think our brilliant surge forward will stop the train well before CI even gets the second storey of his track house built.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 08:43 pm
Tartarin wrote:
these Republicans have presided over an orgy of tax cuts and benefit increases that, according to the Concord group, will not only boost this year's projected deficit but also add as much as $800 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years. The damage will be even greater in the following decade. Among the more prominent items are $400 billion for Medicare (this page supported the new prescription drug benefit), $300 billion in tax cuts and $22 billion in new veterans' benefits. [..] And all of this comes on top of three consecutive tax cuts totaling more than $1.7 trillion over the next decade.


Course the Democrats would have spent even more (and rightly so) on health and veterans than those 400 and 22 billion, respectively.

But then they wouldnt have done the 300 billion + 1,7 trillion tax cuts.

Its like that WSJ editorial said: to use tax cuts as a way to enforce cuts in spending - even though the results would probably not have been to our liking at all - at least makes the sense of political consistency. But tax cuts and spending increases is just irresponsible. Should be one crowd-pleasing package tho. If Bush doesnt win the elections even when having both cut taxes and increased spending, he really did something wrong.

(In Holland, the mushrooming deficits that the semi-Thatcherite push for budget cuts in the eighties was supposed to cut down are usually blamed on the "tax and spend" Labour folks, by Rightists. Ironically tho, though the deficits did increase under Labour PM Den Uyl in 72-77, they did so much more still under the subsequent right-wing government of 77-81. That government came into power on a very narrow majority indeed, in a bit of a negotiation shocker after elections in which Labour had actually gained the most extra seats, which probably evoked a need in the government to "buy off" the public with gratuitous spending programs. An interesting parallel somewhere in there, perhaps.)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 08:52 pm
I, for one, won't need the proof provided by the electorate that he "really did something wrong."
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 09:51 pm
At the end of FY '03, the Congressional Budget Office discoveredthat some $27 Billion more tax revenue than had been projected as late as August had been in fact collected, despite tax rates lower than at any time since the late 1950's. The unexpected revenue enhancement was due to increased taxable earnings, both business and personal. The improved earnings are directly attributable to the stimulative effect of Administration fiscal policy. At that time, the economy had barely even begun to show the almost unprecedented strengthening we are experiencing now. Tax cuts under both Kennedy and Reagan similarly increased tax revenue through resultant economic expansion. Now, while I'll admit, with considerable dismay, that Bush the Younger hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like, more taxable income translates directly into more tax revenue. I sincerely hope the reins get pulled in soon, but this horse ain't hardly run out yet.Inflation is firmly in check, the Fed is holding near-to-mid-term firm on interest rates, Bonds and Treasuries show absolutely no indication of significant likelyhood of mid-to-long term interest rate increases, consumer spending and consumer confidence continue to improve, both new housing starts and commercial new construction are consistently performing beyond estimates, other capital investment is increasing, the employment picture finally is improving, the global economy is entering clear recovery ... the patient isn't healed, but the patient quit getting worse a while ago and clearly is getting better day by day. Like it or not, recovery is here to stay . And like it or not, that is going to go a long way to ensure that Bush the Younger is here to stay, too.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 10:47 pm
timber, Your ability to reconcile "speeding train" to equal "recovering patient" only proves to me that the economy still has a ways to go. This patient still needs a lot of rehab to get back to speed.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 11:12 pm
Timber - This is what I've been writing about for months, and a point most liberals refuse to even try to digest; when taxes are lowered enough people use the extra money they keep. This results in more business being done in the economy and MORE money flowing into the treasury than when higher taxes are leveraged on a lower level of business.

Just recently someone challenged my assertion that deficit projections were being corrected downward as projected tax revenues were being recalculated higher. Thanks for offering proof of my contention.

When tax rates are sufficiently high as to raise the opportunity cost of doing additional business, people will do less business. Lowering rates from this point means more business is done (because the opportunity cost is now low enough to entice people to "buy" business opportunities). The government takes a slightly smaller percentage of a larger total pie and ends up increasing tax revenues while simultaneously allowing people to keep a greater percentage of what they earn. It's a win-win situation that the zero-sum mentality of most liberals simply fails to "get".

I have a lot of reasons to be unhappy with Bush, but at least he "gets" this.

And to everyone continuing to wail "it's the jobs, stupid" just keep watching those employment numbers. Pretty soon you'll either realize that things are getting better (a lot better), or you'll decide there's something else (besides jobs) that we really need to be worried about. Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2003 11:16 pm
I heard some economist say that for the job growth to be "real," we need to add 250,000 jobs for one year to replace the jobs that were lost (it's estimated that over nine million are without jobs), and to begin adding jobs for the 'new' workers (for new college grads and teenagers that want part time jobs). We ain't even close to those numbers - yet.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 01:05 am
Sad to say, c.i., but it may take longer for the sunshine to get to California than other places. The Golden State has created itself a pretty impressive set of its own problems apart from its performance in and relationship to the overall national economy. I'm not really convinced Ahnuld is up to doing his own stunts in that movie.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 03:29 am
Scrat wrote:
Thomas wrote:
The rest were cuts or abolishments of other taxes (capital gains, estate, inheritance ....) which benefitted the top few percent of the income distribution almost exclusively.

Only if you assume that there is no benefit to the economy,

Economists think it's a tradeoff. There is a long-term benefit to the economy because long-run growth depends on the rate of capital accumulation. On the other hand, the cuts are financed with a rise in government debt, which impedes long-term growth by crowding out private investment.

Economists disagree whether the net effect of Bush's tax cuts is positive or negative for long-run growth. Liberal economists like deLong and Krugman think the cost of crowding out dominates, conservative economists like Barro and Friedman think the benefit from Bush's tax cuts dominates -- unless they are fiscally as well as politically conservative, in which case they think the crowding out dominates too. Mankiw falls into this category. So you can make a case for those tax cuts in terms of long-run growth like Reagan did. It is worth noting, though, that Bush didn't make that case. He made two other cases instead. First he said the budget surplus is too large, then he said it's about stimulus and jobs. The first case is mute, the second is bogus because stimulus and jobs depend on a boost in aggregate demand, not a boost in saving.

It is also worth noting that even the conservative economists say that their argument only applies as long as the government remains solvent. But according to projections of the Congressional Budget office, the deficits stay high for the forseeable future, then get worse as the baby boomers hit social security and Medicare. Given this outlook, one of three things has to happen as a mere matter of arithmetics: 1) The Bush tax cuts get repealed, and then some. To get the long-term budget balanced by tax raises, American taxes would have to get about halfway between where they now are and where Canada's taxes now are. That's a substantial raise, yes, but it's not communism either. 2) Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are severely cut (because nobody wants to cut defense spending, and because we are talking about the neighborhood of $500 billion -- way beyond any standard estimate of "government waste and fraud".) 3) The government will become insolvent. Take your pick; my own pick is 1).

Scrat wrote:
to jobs creation

in terms of job creation, it's better than nothing, but worse than a tax cut directed at people who spend their money rather than save it. In terms of job creation, it would have made a lot more sense to cut it out of the lowest bracket (which everybody pays) first. If you can't cut all of it out of the lowest bracket, proceed to the second lowest bracket, and so forth.

Quote:
to the money supply, to innovation,

For innovation, the same tradeoff that applies to capital accumulation also applies here. As to the money supply -- the money supply is whatever the Fed wants it to be, independant of fiscal policy. For what it's worth, textbook economics predicts that tax cuts make the Fed want to reduce, not expand, the money supply in order to control inflation. Tax cuts boost the economy in the first year or two, after which their effect is reversed, leaving nothing but an increase in inflation unless countered by a rise in interest rates. For a longer analytical treatment, see this article on Paul Krugman's website. Yes, I know you think he's a partisan hack, but the nice thing about this piece is that it closely follows G. Mankiw's textbook "Principles of Economics". If this is partisan hackery, it's hackery the president's chief economic advisor agrees with.

Scrat wrote:
I still dislike your classist rhetoric,

Don't blame me -- Bush started it by falsely claiming these are middle-class tax cuts. See, Bush could have done what Ronald Reagan had done. Reagan said "Yes, my tax cut is tilted towards the wealthy, but in the long run, it will create a rising tide that lifts all boats, which is what really matters." You could still agree or disagree with Reagan's theory. But unlike Bush, Reagan at least he didn't pretend his tax cuts were the opposite of what they actually were.

Why, in your opinion, is it fine for Bush to falsely claim his tax cut is directed towards the middle class, but "classist rhetoric" when I say this is a misrepresentation?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 06:30 am
Scrat wrote:
Timber - This is what I've been writing about for months, and a point most liberals refuse to even try to digest; when taxes are lowered enough people use the extra money they keep.


Well, only when they feel confident about the economy, right? Thats where psychology comes in. If they dont - for example because they feel that their government is taking irresponsible risks with the economy in tough economic times, or something, they will save it instead of spend it, and there will be no economic return on the tax cuts of the kind you suggest, even while they hurt government finance.

Course if they save it, banks will profit, and those might then invest the extra and boost the economy that way, but again psychology comes in, cause depending on their expectations of the immediate future they extend loans / investments a lot more easily at some times than at others, right?

So at least I dont think there's an automatism: lowering taxes doesnt automatically lead to extra business. How its working out now - well, I'm sure there's numbers enough in this thread 'proving' both one side and the other on the argument ... I dunno really, myself. Definitively not an expert on this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The US Economy
  3. » Page 38
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/17/2025 at 10:26:56