AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

They are already his PROBLEM, the question is, are they his FAULT. The answer is, no. He's playing the hand he was dealt.

Agreed, BUT once he passes his first budget any economic problems after that will be both his problem AND his fault.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
They are already his PROBLEM, the question is, are they his FAULT. The answer is, no. He's playing the hand he was dealt.

Agreed, BUT once he passes his first budget any economic problems after that will be both his problem AND his fault.

I don't agree with that. A continuation of the old problems can't be totally laid upon him.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Also percent unemployed ain't the same thing as total employed.

That's right. Total numbers don't really tell us a lot without putting them into context. For example, an increase in employment numbers of 5,000,000 is more impressive for a total population of 30 million people than it is in a population of 300 million people.

Without putting the numbers you've been spamming this thread with into the context population size, size of the labor force etc., they tell less than the full story - which I assume you're really happy with.

Using unemployment numbers as a percentage of the labor force would help you to compare unemployment over time - but you don't want to do this, because you must have noticed, from your source, that the employed civilian labor force, as a percentage of the population, fell from 64.4% in 2000 to 62.2% in 2008 - while unemployment rose from 4% in 2000 to 7.2% in December 2008.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009

....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
2009….. 139,649,000…………...- 5,713,000 (as of August 31, 2009)

[/quote]

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Using unemployment numbers as a percentage of the labor force would help you to compare unemployment over time - but you don't want to do this, because you must have noticed, from your source, that the employed civilian labor force, as a percentage of the population, fell from 64.4% in 2000 to 62.2% in 2008 - while unemployment rose from 4% in 2000 to 7.2% in December 2008.

In the United States, the "unemployment numbers as a percentage of the labor force" only apply to the labor force employed plus those actively seeking a job. Many employable unemployed cease being recorded as unemployed after a while, and then are not treated as part of the labor force.

However, your point about my not taking into account the growth of the labor force population over time is a valid point. Nonetheless, I think total employed is a better indicator of economic conditions than % unemployed.

Assume the % unemployed is 10%. If the total employable work force population were say 160 million, then that ought to imply there are 16 million unemployed. But in the USA the correct total unemployed--including those unaccounted for--is not accounted for.

Say 140 million people out of the 160 million total employable are employed. Then the true unemployed percentage would be (100% x (140+20-140)/(140+20) =) 12.5%. But if only 14 million of the 20 million unemployed are accounted for and there are 140 employed, then the published unemployment percentage would be (100% x (140+14-140)/(140+14) =) 9.09%.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
rather than voting for the party that is good for the U.S. as a continuum of the nation that was built by conservative values.

It's the ole..
"America was built by people that think like me, and if you don't think like me then you ain't an 'Merican" argument.

No. This country was not really built by people that think like me. But, not wanting to trivialize those people that did the "hard work," before my family came here in the late nineteenth century, I would like the country to maintain the paradigm that those that work hard get to keep the fruits of their labors.

Being a secular Jew, I know that one of the anti-Semitic canards about Jews is that they "take over." Far be it for me to want to take over what hard working Christians did to give me and my family a safe haven to be a citizen of, while not a small portion of the world still languishes in atavistic anti-Semitism.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

No. This country was not really built by people that think like me.

Sure, you just keep thinking that. Maybe some day it will be true in minds other than just your own.

Those that work hard have ALWAYS paid taxes in this country. What kind of nonsense are you trying to peddle about those that created the country? Taxes are necessary for any government to exist. Read the Federalist papers before you make comments about how everyone can keep the fruits of their labors.

When a country goes from 10% of GDP to 20% of GDP in tax rates it is rather idiotic to argue that the first allows citizens to keep the fruits of their labors and the second doesn't.

1 Reply

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
2000 to August 31, 2009

....Total USA Employed..........Change
2000 136,891,000------------------
2001 136,933,000.........+42,000
2002 136,485,000.......-448,000
2003 137,736,000....+1,251,000
2004 139,252,000....+1,516,000
2005 141,730,000....+2,478,000
2006 144,427,000....+2.697,000
2007 146,047,000....+1,620,000
2008 145,362,000........-685,000
2009 139,649,000....-5,713,000 (as of August 31, 2009)

2002: - 448,000/12 = - 37,333 per month.
2009 -5,713,000/8 = - 634,777 per month.

634,777/37,333 = 17

Under the Obama Administration there has been an average monthly job loss rate in 2009, 17 times greater than the average monthly job loss rate in 2002 under the Bush II administration.

Bush II solved the problem in 2003 by reducing income taxes for both the rich, the middle class, and the lowest income earning/tax-paying class. How is Obama going to solve the problem?

0 Replies

@parados,

Americans are ignorant of the tax rates in other developed countries. They are not socialist countries; they pay much higher taxes, live longer, and are in most cases happier than Americans.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

However, your point about my not taking into account the growth of the labor force population over time is a valid point. Nonetheless, I think total employed is a better indicator of economic conditions than % unemployed.

How is it a better indicator if you're not even adjusting for the change in total population size?

The population size for the United States was about 281 million at the beginning of 2000, and about 306 million at the end of 2008 (numbers from here). That means that, using your numbers for total employed, the employment figure relative to the total population size has gone down from 48.6% in 2000 to 47.5% in 2008.

2 Replies

@old europe,

With an almost 9% increase in population, it would seem that the increase in jobs would have to have some relationship to population increase plus all those first-time job seekers such as high school and college grads. Otherwise, any unemployment number is meaningless.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

How is it a better indicator if you're not even adjusting for the change in total population size?

The population size for the United States was about 281 million at the beginning of 2000, and about 306 million at the end of 2008 (numbers from here). That means that, using your numbers for total employed, the employment figure relative to the total population size has gone down from 48.6% in 2000 to 47.5% in 2008.

I opine that the total number of jobs is a better indicator of actual ECONOMIC conditions than is % of the population employed. The % of the population employed can decrease simply because an increased % of the population is doing other things like going to school, or doing volunteer work for charities, or providing care for their own increasing numbers of children at home.

Also, when total jobs are increasing, more people--including those supported by job holders--are benefiting from the economy than when total jobs are decreasing.

The loss of almost 4% (145 million to 139 million) total jobs in only 8 months is a probable indicator that the ECONOMY is deteriorating. Whereas a 1.1% decrease in 8 years in the population employed (from 48.6% in 2000 to 47.5% in 2008)--as the population size increases almost 8.9% (from 281 million to 306 million)--is an improbable indicator of whether the ECONOMY is deteriorating.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Wrong; they are both important indicators of an economy. It must also include GDP and per capita income.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Wrong; they are both important indicators of an economy. It must also include GDP and per capita income.

Yes, they are all important factors in the full evaluation of our economy's SUPPORT of our population. However, total jobs are adequate to evaluate the general PERFORMANCE of our economy--that is, to evaluate how fast our economy is growing, staying the same, or shrinking.

In the 96 months, 2000 to 2008, the ECONOMY gained from 99 million jobs to 145 million jobs: an average gain of 479 thousand jobs per month.

In the first 8 months of 2009 , the ECONOMY lost from 145 million jobs to 139 million jobs: an average loss of 750 thousand jobs per month. That loss per month in the last 8 months is almost 1.6 times the average per month gain in the prior months.

Since the year 2000, the population of the USA has been increasing, so there is no decrease in population that can explain the job losses in the first 8 months of this year.

That leads to the conclusion that our economy in the last 8 months would NOT be adequately SUPPORTING our population, even if our population were not growing.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

In the 96 months, 2000 to 2008, the ECONOMY gained from 99 million jobs to 145 million jobs: an average gain of 479 thousand jobs per month.

I opine that you're quite bad at reading numbers...

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

CORRECTION!

Yes, they are all important factors in the full evaluation of our economy's SUPPORT of our population. However, total jobs are adequate to evaluate the general PERFORMANCE of our economy--that is, to evaluate how fast our economy is growing, staying the same, or shrinking.

In the 96 months, 2000 to 2008, the ECONOMY gained from 137 million jobs to 145 million jobs: an average gain of 83 thousand jobs per month.

In the first 8 months of 2009, the ECONOMY lost from 145 million jobs to 139 million jobs: an average loss of 750 thousand jobs per month. That loss per month in the last 8 months is more than 9 times the average per month gain in the prior months.

Since the year 2000, the population of the USA has been increasing, so there is no decrease in population that can explain the job losses in the first 8 months of this year.

That leads to the conclusion that our economy in the last 8 months would NOT be adequately SUPPORTING our population, even if our population were to have remained constant.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

CORRECTION!

Yes, they are all important factors in the full evaluation of our economy's SUPPORT of our population. However, total jobs are adequate to evaluate the general PERFORMANCE of our economy--that is, to evaluate how fast our economy is growing, staying the same, or shrinking.

In the 96 months, 2000 to 2008, the ECONOMY gained from 137 million jobs to 145 million jobs: an average gain of 83 thousand jobs per month.

In the first 8 months of 2009, the ECONOMY lost from 145 million jobs to 139 million jobs: an average loss of 750 thousand jobs per month. That loss per month in the last 8 months is more than 9 times the average per month gain in the prior months.

Since the year 2000, the population of the USA has been increasing, so there is no decrease in population that can explain the job losses in the first 8 months of this year.

That leads to the conclusion that our economy in the last 8 months would NOT be adequately SUPPORTING our population, even if our population were to have remained constant.

For which you can blame the previous 8 years of unregulated greed under that dribbling fuckwit you love so much.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
They are already his PROBLEM, the question is, are they his FAULT. The answer is, no. He's playing the hand he was dealt.

Agreed, BUT once he passes his first budget any economic problems after that will be both his problem AND his fault.

Wow, he's got one budget to correct 8 years of idiocy. Who let you out of the asylum?

0 Replies

Is Foxfyre on vacation?

1 Reply

@JTT,

I think she got tired of being treated like dirt here.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think she got tired of being treated like dirt here.

T
K
Or she has a glass jaw.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know