Where is the US economy headed?

Weak Jobs Growth

Before we go any further, here are some definitions to help clarify the Bureau of Labor Statistics terminology:

Unemployed persons. All persons who: 1) had no employment during the reference week; 2) were available for work, except for temporary illness; and 3) had made specific efforts, such as contacting employers, to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.

Participation rate. This represents the proportion of the population that is in the labor force

The unemployment rate often quoted in the financial press only includes people who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks. So, if somebody hasn't looked for work, they're not included.

0 Replies

Good evening to Okie and ci, and that is about the population here.

Economic statistics are pretty amusing in that you can kind of make them prove anything.

If yall have the time, Google in "US unemployment layoffs 2006" and, lo and behold, okie will be happy. Mass layoffs hit a 10 year or so low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But Mass Layoffs apply to companies with 50 or more employees. And, as near as I can tell the numbers do not include the fairly highly paid workers in, say, the auto industry who were paid to disappear.

They will not show up in the unemployed/underemployed statistics for awhile. I suspect that when they do come back in, they will working for less pay and with fewer benefits.

Finally, I thought I heard today that by 2018, according to some government (?) study one out of 5 dollars in our GDP will go for health care. And insurance premiums betwixt now and then will rise at 6% per year. I may have my numbers wrong there. If so, please tell me.

Thank you. -johnboy-

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The unemployment rate often quoted in the financial press only includes people who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks. So, if somebody hasn't looked for work, they're not included.

Is that drastically different than it has always been? I guess my point is, maybe the apple isn't perfect, but as long as we are comparing apples to apples, then it tells us something credible in comparison to the past. If you try to alter the current apple into something more perfect, or bias the current apple, you end up comparing apples to oranges, which is not as credible. Cicerone, I have always known these statistics are not perfect, but if you could create something better to totally replace it, they would abandon this statistic, and that isn't going to happen soon.

And good points, rjb, also isn't it true that small business is growing in terms of percentage of employees accounted for in this country, so perhaps the impact on mass layoff statistics is affected that way. Good points about company layoffs. I had the same experience, and most got nice severance packages, and if old enough, nice golden parachutes, so they retired or at least took long vacations before picking up another occupation or job.

I think we are in danger of bankrupting the country with healthcare.

0 Replies

okie, No, it doesn't. It doesn't count the people actually looking for work beyond that four week period, and that number changes dramatically during periods of less new jobs - like the past six years of Bush's tenure. Bush's job creation is the worst since Hoover. Think about the impact of that to the unemployed ranks.

Now that I've provided the labor departments definition of the unemployed, you want me to develop a stats? Get real.

0 Replies

So you are going to count spouses that decided to stay home with the kids, and the people that have enough money to take a year off, and the people that don't need to work, and so on, cicerone? Again, show me where the unemployment statistics are counting differently than they once did, and when did it change?

If you guys are going to once again try to make the case that this is the worst economy since Hoover, I would suggest you go see a shrink.

Sorry about the sarcasm, but I thought that was a nice line, and you deserve it. Laughing

0 Replies

Well, now ... this doesn't look good at all ... for the doomsayers -

Quote:

U.S. Leading Economic Indicators Index Rises 0.1%

By Bob Willis

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- A closely watched gauge of the future direction of the U.S. economy rose for a second month in January, the first back-to-back gain in a year, lifted by an increase in a measure of consumer sentiment.

The Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators rose 0.1 percent after a 0.6 percent gain in December that was twice as large as previously reported, the New York-based group said today. The gauge points to the direction of the economy over the next three to six months.

An expanding job market and higher stock prices are stoking consumer spending and helping the nation overcome the housing slump. The rise in the leading index bears out Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's forecasts for ``sustainable'' growth.

``There is still plenty of life left in the economy,'' said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. ``It's a clear sign it's not headed into a downturn, that economic growth will remain solid.''

A separate report from the Commerce Department today showed consumer prices increased more than forecast in January. The consumer-price index rose 0.2 percent after a 0.4 percent gain in December. Excluding food and energy, prices rose 0.3 percent, the most since June of last year.

Economists projected the leading index would rise 0.2 percent, according to the median of 57 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. Forecasts ranged from a decline of 0.1 percent to a rise of 0.4 percent.

Four of 10 components of the index of leading economic indicators had a positive effect on the overall number.

Jobless Claims

Money supply, consumer expectations for the next six months, initial jobless claims and stock prices boosted the index.

A decline in the factory workweek, falling building permits, a negative differential between shorter and longer-term interest rates, and faster supplier deliveries weighed the index down.

An expanding job market and rising wages are encouraging Americans to keep up the spending that accounts for two-thirds of the economy.

``Consumer spending continues to be the mainstay of the current expansion,'' Bernanke said in congressional testimony last week.

Weekly initial jobless claims averaged 305,000 in January, down from 318,000 in December, as unemployment hovered near a five-year low. The economy generated an average of 171,000 jobs a month between November and January, up from 164,000 in the prior three months.

The Reuters/University of Michigan gauge of consumer expectations for the next six months rose to 87.6 at the end of January, the highest since December 2004.

Share Prices

Consumer sentiment has also been lifted by gains in stock prices. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index rose 1.4 percent in January, extending its 14 percent gain in 2006.

Consumers are helping the economy maintain its expansion in the face of the worst housing slump in 15 years and cutbacks among manufacturers including Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp.

Building permits declined 2.8 percent to a 1.568 million annual pace in January, the government reported Feb. 16. That followed a 6.6 percent gain in December that was the first rise in 11 months.

``The weakness in housing market activity and the slower appreciation of house prices do not seem to have spilled over to any significant extent to other sectors of the economy,'' Bernanke said last week.

Manufacturing was also a source of weakness. The factory workweek fell to 40.8 hours in January, the lowest since December 2005, from 41 in December, according to the government payroll report for last month.

Growth Forecast

Economic growth may accelerate to a 2.9 percent pace by the third quarter of this year from the first quarter's expected 2.5 percent pace, according to the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News the first week of February.

Richard Notebaert, chief executive of Denver-based Qwest Communications International Inc., is among executives forecasting steady economic growth this year.

``I think it is going to be a pretty steady state. I don't expect any major swings this year,'' he said Feb. 15 in Naples, Florida, where he was attending the Business Council meeting.

The Conference Board's index of coincident indicators, a gauge of current economic activity, rose 0.1 percent in January after a 0.2 percent rise in December. The index tracks payrolls, incomes, sales and projections.

The gauge of lagging indicators fell 0.1 percent following a 0.8 percent increase. The index measures business lending, length of unemployment, service prices and ratios of labor costs, inventories and consumer credit.

Sidebar: An amusing flashback

No wonder the doomsayers are (still) all bent outta shape (yet again); there hasn't been much going their way for years. Frustration and disappointment will do that to ya. Almost feel sorry for 'em.

0 Replies

timber, We were talking about the "unemployment rate." That you can cut and paste an article that shows that our economy looks healthy is good, but that doesn't change the fact that under Bush, job creation has been the worst since Hoover.

Most of us know that the US productivity rate has been healthy, but the average worker did not reap the benefits of those production increases.
Buying power for the middle class has been dropping, and more families lost health insurance coverage. Those are the facts under Bush Jr.

What makes you think I'm a "doomsayer?" I only provide personal opinion that is usually backed by evidence provided by the leading financial articles and our government.

I and my family have done very well, thank you. Our annual income in retirement is above the national average of per capita income - including San Jose which is one of the highest in the country.

BTW, FYI, economists future prognostications about our economy is not always correct. You're better off reading tea leaves.

0 Replies

Deja Vu, c. i. - you and I have been at this discussion for how many years now? I'think the economy's performance over those years speaks for itself.

0 Replies

The American economy is on acid

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Deja Vu, c. i. - you and I have been at this discussion for how many years now? I'think the economy's performance over those years speaks for itself.

Sure - great for some at the top, flat for everyone else, 3 trillion extra dollars in debt for us all.

The average national savings rate is negative; lowest since the depression. That should tell you something about our economy, Timber.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Naw, timber is a Bush supporter, and he only sees the good stuff; blind to the realities.

0 Replies

Not so much a 'Bush Supporter", c. i. ; more like diametrically opposed to every Democrat-proposed economic, social, and defense initiative proposed over the past generation or so. The Republican platform hardly has been my ideal over those years, it merely has been the least objectionable of 2 unsatisfactory alternatives ... Hobson's Choice, sorta.

As for the "good stuff" and the "realities", well, the numbers speak for themselves, as does my track record on these boards pertaining to discussions of the economy's progress.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Not so much a 'Bush Supporter", c. i. ; more like diametrically opposed to every Democrat-proposed economic, social, and defense initiative proposed over the past generation or so. The Republican platform hardly has been my ideal over those years, it merely has been the least objectionable of 2 unsatisfactory alternatives.

As for the "good stuff" and the "realities", well, the numbers speak for themselves, as does my track record on these boards pertaining to discussions of the economy's progress.

Which numbers 'speak for themselves,' Timber?

You don't think that the other numbers - the ones which make the economy look not so good - speak for themselves as well?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I've never contended "all was rosy", Cyc - just that things ain't bad at all, and that things are in particular never have been anywhere near as bad as those afflicted with the Librul Disease and/or Bush Derangement Syndrome purport them to be.

0 Replies

timber, Your perceptions are way off target.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

....The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.

......

What chart on the right, cicerone?

There are several big problems with your arguments here about Democrats are all great and Republicans are lousy.

Not all presidents have control of Congress, and their programs are not necessarily instituted.

When programs are instituted, perhaps Congress is either to blame or deserve credit. For example, I credit much of the budgeting success and other important initiatives, such as welfare reform, clearly was greatly influenced by a Republican Congress during the 90's.

Also, the economy does not turn on a dime, and also is obviously cyclical and has many influences beyond the control of a president. Even when a president does influence the economy, there may be small immediate impacts, but some impacts take years to experience the full effects. Some policies were instituted by a previous president, and when they begin to bear fruit, the next president that had nothing to do with it, can take credit for it, and of course they always take credit for anything positive.

Lastly, cicerone, unless you can point to a particular policy, such as a tax rate change or incentives instituted as part of a president's policy that can be shown to have impacted the indicators that you cite, this debate is rather pointless. You can cherry pick your statistics to show what you wish them to show, just as I can, and the argument will never be solved. I should remind you too that I have asked several questions that you haven't answered. You just go on your merry way pasting the stuff you must have archived.

0 Replies

That doesn't matter; the facts speak for themselves. You don't need a graph to translate the words.

0 Replies

okie, If you want to "attack" anything, attack the facts as delineated in the article, and show evidence or proof for what you claim.

0 Replies

Thanks to McG's new thread on European poverty, I did a search for poverty in America, and found the following:

Posted on Thu, Feb. 22, 2007

U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty
By Tony Pugh

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.

The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.

The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who co-authored the study. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

The growth spurt, which leveled off in 2005, in part reflects how hard it is for low-skilled workers to earn their way out of poverty in an unstable job market that favors skilled and educated workers. It also suggests that social programs aren't as effective as they once were at catching those who fall into economic despair.

About one in three severely poor people are under age 17, and nearly two out of three are female. Female-headed families with children account for a large share of the severely poor.

Nearly two out of three people (10.3 million) in severe poverty are white, but blacks (4.3 million) and Hispanics of any race (3.7 million) make up disproportionate shares. Blacks are nearly three times as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be in deep poverty, while Hispanics are roughly twice as likely.

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, has a higher concentration of severely poor people - 10.8 percent in 2005 - than any of the 50 states, topping even hurricane-ravaged Mississippi and Louisiana, with 9.3 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively. Nearly six of 10 poor District residents are in extreme poverty.

0 Replies

Who knows, cicerone, I could be poverty stricken before I kick the bucket, the way they re-define the characteristics of poverty anymore.

http://www.fullemployment.org/Understanding%20Poverty%20in%20America.pdf

I happen to know a few people classified below the poverty line right now, and if you care to know anything about it, I could explain why, and also explain to you that they enjoy most of the modern comforts that everybody does.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know