Where is the US economy headed?

Quote:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22321.html

0 Replies

xingu, That´s an excellent article, but it doesn´t tell the whole story. States like California also have state sales tax, and those of us living in the San Francisco bay area pay 8.25 percent. If all the other taxes such as fuel tax, excise tax, and license fees, the actual amount of tax is much higher. Add to that federal income tax, and the tax rate is waaaaay up there!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

xingu, That´s an excellent article, but it doesn´t tell the whole story. States like California also have state sales tax, and those of us living in the San Francisco bay area pay 8.25 percent. If all the other taxes such as fuel tax, excise tax, and license fees, the actual amount of tax is much higher. Add to that federal income tax, and the tax rate is waaaaay up there!

Like maybe past the peak of the Laffer curve, cicerone?

0 Replies

Blasted unemployment rate continues down. This is disastrous. I am going to call Nancy and see if she can do something. Maybe devise a congressional policy to counteract the administration? If she can devise a separate congressional foreign policy, who knows? Something needs to be done before the next election for sure!

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

0 Replies

okie
Circuit City is firing 3500 experienced store level, employees because they're earning
too much money....about $ 12.00 /hr and will replace them with new employees who they
will probobly pay $8.00/hr.

Any idea how these people feel about the economy?

0 Replies

okie, Your insistence on using government unemployment rates only shows your ignorance about most economic topics. Most of the past six years during Bush´s tenure have been bad news for most middle-class and the poor.

You live in such isolation from reality, it´s a wonder you continue to ¨survive.¨

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

okie
Circuit City is firing 3500 experienced store level, employees because they're earning
too much money....about $ 12.00 /hr and will replace them with new employees who they
will probobly pay $8.00/hr.

Any idea how these people feel about the economy?

Maybe you should rephrase your question to: "Any idea how these people feel about Circuit City?"

I've always liked Circuit City, because I have found the sales people somewhat helpful and the store fairly customer friendly, but I wonder if this decision is one made by overpaid executives that probably should be laid off instead? From what I've observed, executives usually start at the bottom when they should be starting at the top to cut labor costs.

Also, cicerone and others chastise me often by using anecdotal evidence, and the Circuit City one is nothing more than that. If I wanted to take the time, I could dredge up stories where companies are hiring and raising wages. The unemployment statistics are actual numbers, and if cicerone claims they are no good, how come economists use them and constantly tout them as important? Maybe the low numbers are only credible during Democrat administrations and high numbers are only credible during Republican administrations, is that it, cicerone?

0 Replies

No, government unemployment numbers whether headed by democrats or republicans doesn´t change the simple fact that those numbers only reflect those found unemployment during the past four to six weeks. The important unemployment number are those who tried to find work and couldn´t beyond the government stats. Many just gave up looing for work - even many professionals.

You´ll never learn: there´s no cure for stupid.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The important unemployment number are those who tried to find work and couldn´t ..........

...and those who don't need to work and decided not to work, and.......and......and.......

Admit it cicerone, the numbers are credible. I don't personally know anybody right now that is out of a job, that really wants a job. I think we are near full employment. All jobs don't pay a hundred grand a year if that is what you want.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The important unemployment number are those who tried to find work and couldn´t ..........

...and those who don't need to work and decided not to work, and.......and......and.......

Admit it cicerone, the numbers are credible. I don't personally know anybody right now that is out of a job, that really wants a job. I think we are near full employment. All jobs don't pay a hundred grand a year if that is what you want.

I know someone with a masters degree who is out of a job. And I am quite sure he is not alone.

0 Replies

au, The only thing ¨credible¨about the government´s unemployment numbers is that they`ve used the same four to six weeks unemployed, and they´ve been known to REVISE them from time to time.

Those numbers tell us nothing more than those who have moved out of the unemployment insurance umbrella.

If those numbers mean anything to you, please explain to us how it does? It´s meaningless for all those folks still looking for jobs beyond the six weeks period.

0 Replies

ci
What gave you the impression that I agree with the Government's method of calculating and reporting unemployment statistics?

0 Replies

au, Sorry. I meant okie.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

au, Sorry. I meant okie.

I suspected as much.

cicerone, nobody claims unemployment statistics are perfect, but if anyone has a better method, how come it isn't being used? All statistics have flaws, but as long as they are calculated the same as they were last year, the year before, and so on, they at least give us one measure of the economy.

0 Replies

okie, You´re asking the wrong person why our government screws up almost everything they do - including unemployment stats. Grow up!

0 Replies

Grow up? I am losing my hair, and what's left is turning gray.

Please quit sugar coating your opinions, cicerone.

You finally said something I can agree with, the government is good at screwing things up. So why would anyone want them to take over more responsibilities for us, create new bureaucracies, etc. etc. etc.?

0 Replies

okie, Your conservative mind-set has gotten your grey matter changed into blanks. FYI, all governments have some responsibility to its citizens. Our government´s use of unemployment stats are meaningless, because it´s not complete. Consistently being wrong doesn´t make our citizens knowledgeable about what the ¨real¨unemployment rate in our country is. A few months ago, Bush was bragging that he created 2.3 million new jobs during the past six years. If you do the math, you´ll find it it´s way under ¨full employment.¨ Our country needs about 150,000 new jobs every month to keep up with the demand.

Do some research, and tell us what you find.

0 Replies

We've been through this argument before in some detail, so unless you have new evidence, I think it is plowing old ground again. For you to assert that unemployment stats are meaningless says more about your logic than the data.

cicerone, you are swimming against the tide of overwhelming evidence that the stats are meaningful. To repeat, they have flaws, but they are not meaningless, period.

You are stating stats about number of jobs needed, so I am asking you to back your claims with figures. Can you do it?

0 Replies

okie, Your brain, as I´ve said, have lost it. If you bother to look for facts under any search engine, you´ll find them readily.

posted 01-09-07
Clinton outdid both Reagan and Bush 43 in job growth.

Excerpt CNN report (same title as above.):

The economy has cranked out fewer jobs under President Bush -- by millions -- than it had by the same point in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
...

Under Bush, the economy produced 3.7 million new jobs from January 2001 through December of last year based on nonfarm payroll figures collected by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
...

When Clinton was in the White House, the economy generated 17.6 million jobs during the corresponding period -- from January 1993 to December 1998.

TRANSLATION: Under Bush, only 740,000 (avg per yr) jobs were created: a far cry from meeting the need for new jobs by high school and college grads.

0 Replies

Taken from the same article:

Bush's people blame the recession on that the US economy suffered from 2001 to 2003, but note that Reagan had a much more severe recession, and Clinton made sure he didn't have a recession.

Then they blame the fact that the workforce did not expand as quickly under Bush (probably leading up to a whine about needing "guest workers").

But a NY Times article showed that up to 12% of prime working year men have dropped out of the workforce because wages are too low. And in fact, wages have been disgusting under Bush.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know