[Lerkfish]

this CBS marketwatch report with the headline "White House changes tune on jobs" is very interesting....

some highlights:

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- The Bush administration softened its projections for job growth on Tuesday, emphasizing that it believes the number of jobs will grow by about 3 percent this year, in contrast to its projections Monday that the economy would average 2.6 million more jobs this year than in 2003.

At the Tuesday hearing, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., suggested that the economy would need 425,000 new jobs per month to meet the administration's forecast. Mankiw replied: "That is not correct arithmetically."

Since then, however, employment growth has not lived up to the expectations of either administration or private-sector forecasters. Weak job growth at the end of the year also pushed down the 2003 average from the White House's assumptions, digging a deeper hole for the labor market to climb out of.

When President Bush took office in January 2001, U.S. nonfarm payrolls totaled 132.4 million. Since then, payrolls have fallen by 2.2 million.

this paints a very different picture from the rosy one Bush was using in the interview with Russert.

When I was young, I remember a term: Credibility Gap. I think its time to resurrect it.

[Lerkfish]

LOL! *crickets chirp*

I guess no bush apologist has the guts to address this one.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I guess no bush apologist has the guts to address this one.

Because sending jobs overseas helps U.S.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
this paints a very different picture from the rosy one Bush was using in the interview with Russert.

When I was young, I remember a term: Credibility Gap. I think its time to resurrect it.

We'll see how job creation comes along as the year progresses.

Whether the prediction is 425,000 jobs/month or 325,000 jobs/month, we'll see what's going on in September. Both predictions could be wrong.

Overall, Greenspan today said that the economy is growing "vigorously", and that job creation should follow (and that Bush's estimate was feasible).

"Looking forward, the odds of sustained robust growth are good, although, as always, risks remain," Greenspan said, submitting the brightest outlook in years to a House of Representatives panel.

"Last year appears to have marked a transition from an extended period of subpar economic performance to one of more vigorous expansion."

Greenspan presented a twice-yearly central bank report, which forecast growth of 4.5 to 5.0 percent in 2004 from the last quarter of 2003, up from last year's forecast of 3.75 to 4.75 percent growth.

The Federal Reserve's report to Congress said the unemployment rate was expected to decline to an average of between 5.25 and 5.5 percent in the last quarter of 2004 from 5.9 percent in the last quarter of 2003.

Greenspan also said the defecit could become a menace in the short term, but in general, we seem to be firmly on the right path.

[thunderous_funker]

A few myths to bust:

1) Just because the Economy is expanding, doesn't mean the Labor Market isn't in shambles. In fact, a horrific Labor Market is often very very good for Wall Street because it means costs are down and productivity is up. High unemployment is very good for business.

2) The only factor in which high unemployment negatively impacts the Economy is when consumers stop spending. Consumer spending is 2/3rds of the economy. Of course, debt spending is also good for the economy. Last year set a new record for personal bankrupcy claims. That was very good for the economy.

3) In order for the job market to keep up with population growth, it needs to generate approximately 200,000 jobs a month. Any number of job increases below that number indicates that job growth isn't even keeping pace with the number of new people entering the labor market.

4) Any glossy numbers on job growth should be measured against wages. Wages are consistently down over the course of this "recovery". Again, low wages are very good for business and very good for the economy--as long as they don't impact consumer spending in the short term.

5) Compare the glossy numbers in productivity to wages and unemployment. That means Americans are working harder for less. ONce again, that is good for the economy.

In short, what is good for the economy may not be very good for your household. In fact, quite often its quite bad for your household. Consider the scurge that is deflation. Every economist fears deflation and it is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy (consider Japan).

So in economist terms: lower prices are bad, lower wages are good, consumer debt is good, outsourcing is good, more work for less money is good, high paying jobs replaced by low paying jobs is good.

When Greenspan talks about the economy, he isn't talking about your savings or checking account.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! *crickets chirp*

I guess no bush apologist has the guts to address this one.

Because those of us with jobs don't care.

Still unemployed I see.

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
4) Any glossy numbers on job growth should be measured against wages. Wages are consistently down over the course of this "recovery". Again, low wages are very good for business and very good for the economy--as long as they don't impact consumer spending in the short term.

Not totally sure what you meant here, but low wages can be very bad in the long term as well. They're often cited as one of the causes of the great depression.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
A few myths to bust:

1) Just because the Economy is expanding, doesn't mean the Labor Market isn't in shambles. In fact, a horrific Labor Market is often very very good for Wall Street because it means costs are down and productivity is up. High unemployment is very good for business.

2) The only factor in which high unemployment negatively impacts the Economy is when consumers stop spending. Consumer spending is 2/3rds of the economy. Of course, debt spending is also good for the economy. Last year set a new record for personal bankrupcy claims. That was very good for the economy.

3) In order for the job market to keep up with population growth, it needs to generate approximately 200,000 jobs a month. Any number of job increases below that number indicates that job growth isn't even keeping pace with the number of new people entering the labor market.

4) Any glossy numbers on job growth should be measured against wages. Wages are consistently down over the course of this "recovery". Again, low wages are very good for business and very good for the economy--as long as they don't impact consumer spending in the short term.

5) Compare the glossy numbers in productivity to wages and unemployment. That means Americans are working harder for less. ONce again, that is good for the economy.

In short, what is good for the economy may not be very good for your household. In fact, quite often its quite bad for your household. Consider the scurge that is deflation. Every economist fears deflation and it is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy (consider Japan).

So in economist terms: lower prices are bad, lower wages are good, consumer debt is good, outsourcing is good, more work for less money is good, high paying jobs replaced by low paying jobs is good.

When Greenspan talks about the economy, he isn't talking about your savings or checking account.

I think that we need to overhaul the American education system.... somewhere out there an economics professor is shaking his head...

[itai195]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Because those of us with jobs don't care.

Still unemployed I see.

It's hard to believe that someone who managed to hold onto his job through this recession can have such a cavalier attitude.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's hard to believe that someone who managed to hold onto his job through this recession can have such a cavalier attitude.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
Not totally sure what you meant here, but low wages can be very bad in the long term as well. They're often cited as one of the causes of the great depression.

Which is why that sentence ends with the phrase "in the short term".

I'm glad you mentioned the impact of dropping wages in the Great Depression. I think that is something that is being completely overlooked in the rush to defend this "recovery".

I think this economy shows significant signs of over-capacity and dropping purchasing power for labor. The staggering consumer debt (and federal deficit spending) can only off-set those trends for so long before consumer spending is drastically reduced bringing the economy down with it.

Consumer spending is in the red. Federal spending is in the red. Trade is in the red. Wages are dropping and production is up. Those should be sending up serious flags.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
I think that we need to overhaul the American education system.... somewhere out there an economics professor is shaking his head...

WHOOPS.... sorry T_F.... I mis-read your post!! I thought your listings (1-5) were the myths and you were arguing that they were not true....

My apologies...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
WHOOPS.... sorry T_F.... I mis-read your post!! I thought your listings (1-5) were the myths and you were arguing that they were not true....

My apologies...

Whoops, awkward construction on my part.

I make no claims about my knowledge of economics, but it just seems to me that some things are patently obvious and yet remain unquestioned by the public.

It seems that as long as the headlines and politicians say everything is great, people just forget that they more on their credit cards than in their retirement account.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
When Greenspan talks about the economy, he isn't talking about your savings or checking account.

No - that's Bush talking about tax cuts.

Which is a better condition for job creation and increasing personal income: a "vigorously" growing economy or a recessionary economy?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No - that's Bush talking about tax cuts.

Which is a better condition for job creation and increasing personal income: a "vigorously" growing economy or a recessionary economy?

Who got the tax cuts? It wasn't most Americans. And in the next round of cuts, 88% of Americans will get less than $100.

Balance that against the spike in state and local taxes most Americans will face (or have already) and the slashing of essential services.

My heath insurance costs doubled from last year. In fact, the size of the increase was more than my federal tax cut.

As for "increasing personal income", isn't that the issue? Wages are dropping and good paying jobs are being replaced by poor paying jobs. The president's policies are decreasing personal income.

What is "vigorously" growing is debt, private and federal. That makes for good numbers on the economy in aggregate, but it doesn't take into account the negative long term consequences of those actions.

The president didn't put more money in my pocket, he put more money in investors pockets in the hopes they would do something that would create jobs and increase personal income. They did, only it was in India rather than Indiana.

[FeLiZeCaT]

And it is the continuation of something that started a long time ago...

I think what Thunderous _funker says reflects a state of affair that we will see more often in many industrialized countries.


Man.. I wish you could see the documentary "The Corporation"

I know, I keep mentionning it but I have seen it twice already and I do plan to see it another time...

A well invested 2 hours of my time...

http://www.thecorporation.tv


That's it. I won't mention it again. Promise.

As I said in another thread, profit may very well be our doom...

People in power will try to get as much as possible, just to the limit of the tolerable, just before populations will revolt. By that time, losing elections does not matter, especially if you used your time correctly (make the most of your time and of course, "time is money").

And people wonder why so many are in prison. Give good opportunities and for people to be respectable citizens and you'll see any countries become healthy.

Sorry if I sound simplistic. But I do not believe it is so complicated.

But then, my dream is the nightmare of others.

My 2 cents.

[BRussell]

In the first post in this thread, it said the administration had cut back its forecasts, but the link is now gone and I can't find anything that confirms it. Everything I read says that the administration is sticking with its 2.6 million number.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
In the first post in this thread, it said the administration had cut back its forecasts, but the link is now gone and I can't find anything that confirms it. Everything I read says that the administration is sticking with its 2.6 million number.

Go to the CBS Marketwatch homepage, you should see the link on the right hand side.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! *crickets chirp*

I guess no bush apologist has the guts to address this one.

No, it's just that I have to make a special effort to see your posts, and sometimes they're slower than others. And, I've learned that responding makes no difference anyway, suggesting that your capacity to learn may be limited.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


When Greenspan talks about the economy, he isn't talking about your savings or checking account.

TF:
I know that playing pretend is fun, but please leave economics to the pros.

For everyone else:
I'm a pro -- everything's OK, and all of the bad stuff folks are peddling is FUD. It has been FUD before, and FUD it shall be again. There's nothing to see, go back to what you were doing.

(Any response beyond the scope of that one is a waste of time, anyway. FUD away.)

[FeLiZeCaT]

Finboy, thank God for your wisdom.

Then expert as you are, you'll take of this mess right?


right?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, it's just that I have to make a special effort to see your posts, and sometimes they're slower than others. And, I've learned that responding makes no difference anyway, suggesting that your capacity to learn may be limited.

A personal insult (argumentum ad hominem), and...

TF:
I know that playing pretend is fun, but please leave economics to the pros.

For everyone else:
I'm a pro -- everything's OK, and all of the bad stuff folks are peddling is FUD. It has been FUD before, and FUD it shall be again. There's nothing to see, go back to what you were doing.

(Any response beyond the scope of that one is a waste of time, anyway. FUD away.)

The most extreme example of elitist arrogance I've ever seen on the boards in quite a while.

I mean, an argumentum ad verecundium, where you're the authority you appeal to on the matter! Yowza!

You're right up there with Cipher and me in terms of ego, finny. Do you have to see a chiropractor often about your neck? I do, it's hard enough holding a head as swollen as mine up. I can't even imagine what you must go through.



BlackGriffen

[FeLiZeCaT]

that is a good link.

caution: lots to read!

http://www.bullyonline.org/

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
A personal insult (argumentum ad hominem), and...

The most extreme example of elitist arrogance I've ever seen on the boards in quite a while.

I mean, an argumentum ad verecundium, where you're the authority you appeal to on the matter! Yowza!

You're right up there with Cipher and me in terms of ego, finny.

Geez, I didn't use ANY LATIN in my posts, insults or not. I feel left out. Maybe I can use some PIG LATIN if I can find that javascript page again. (Or IGPAY ATINLAY for those of you who are *in the know*)

I'm just tired of all the dreck in the lounge these days. Every thread is the same thing -- Bush is evil, Bush kills old folks & babies, Bush is a monkey. Just tired of it. More smackdown than I've got is needed, but I don't have time to play.

And if that's the most extreme example, you haven't been paying attention. Everytime someone starts one of those bullsh*t threads it looks like more elitist arrogance and FUD to me.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
TF:
I know that playing pretend is fun, but please leave economics to the pros.

You mean like the 2001 nobel laureate George Akerlof? He called Bush's budget policies "the worst in American history" and "a form of looting".

Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent unemployment from rising. In fact,
there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity,
corporate scandals, and uncertainty have and will continue to weigh down the economy.

The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics
of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation
of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus.
As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly
complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.

Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This
fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as
investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further
inequalities in after-tax income.

To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand,
and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth
and jobs in the short term without exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.

Signed by:

George Akerlof*
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY
Kenneth J. Arrow*
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Peter Diamond
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Lawrence R. Klein*
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Daniel L. McFadden*
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY
Lawrence Mishel
ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE
Franco Modigliani*
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Paul A. Samuelson*
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Robert M. Solow*
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Joseph Stiglitz*
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Laura D’Andrea Tyson
LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL
Janet Yellen
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIABERKELEY
Douglass C. North*
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
William F. Sharpe*
STANFORD UNIVERSITY

* indicates Nobel Laureate

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You mean like the 2001 nobel laureate George Akerlof? He called Bush's budget policies "the worst in American history" and "a form of looting".

And for everyone on that list, there are as many who disagree. Look back at BG's post with all the latin stuff in it, and one of those things is what you're doing.

If this was all about the 'lemons problem', I'd call Akerlof first. His work in the '70s was f*cking brilliant, no doubt. Just lectured on it the other day.

All I was trying to do was give an educated, alternative opinion. And point out that economics isn't for amateurs. Obviously.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by finboy:
Geez, I didn't use ANY LATIN in my posts, insults or not. I feel left out. Maybe I can use some PIG LATIN if I can find that javascript page again. (Or IGPAY ATINLAY for those of you who are *in the know*)

SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONE HABES

Every thread is the same thing -- Bush is evil, Bush kills old folks & babies, Bush is a monkey.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Bush must really be an @sshole if even you are accusing him of such things.

And if that's the most extreme example, you haven't been paying attention. Everytime someone starts one of those bullsh*t threads it looks like more elitist arrogance and FUD to me.

Trust me on this, there are only four really really arrogant people on these boards. In no particular order: BlackGriffen, Cipher, finboy, and some guy whose name I can't recall because he isn't important enough .

Even Simey, in spite of his long and sometimes laborious posts filled with specialist knowledge, is self-effacing compared to that lot.

BlackGriffen

[itai195]

It looked more like you were trying to limit discussion by saying you're a professional and the rest of us aren't, therefore your opinion is the truth. Well, apparently some professionals disgaree with you, so your opinion just an opinion.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by finboy:
And for everyone on that list, there are as many who disagree. Look back at BG's post with all the latin stuff in it, and one of those things is what you're doing.

True, but he at least cites authorities external to himself who have received awards in the field of relevance.

Last I checked, finboy, you're a legend in your own mind, and that's about it. Sure, you have skill to become a professor, but a professorship does not acclamation make.

All I was trying to do was give an educated, alternative opinion.

Bull$hit (heh- I didn't realize that was a pun ). Read your own post again - you implied that you spoke for the entire field.

And point out that economics isn't for amateurs. Obviously.

Nope, it's for remedial students.

BlackGriffen

[tie]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Because those of us with jobs don't care.

Including Bush himself, it seems.

Sorry for trolling. Anyway, back on topic:

Originally posted by finboy:
And for everyone on that list, there are as many who disagree. Look back at BG's post with all the latin stuff in it, and one of those things is what you're doing.

Name ten economics Nobel laureates to support your claim. I don't believe you at all.

[finboy]

Originally posted by tie:
Name ten economics Nobel laureates to support your claim. I don't believe you at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2754283.stm

Here's three, at least. And the article points out how (GASP) economists are divided among POLITICAL LINES about it.

Policy works or it doesn't. I guess only time, and elections, will tell. How's that tax cut working so far, anyway?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by finboy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2754283.stm

Here's three, at least. And the article points out how (GASP) economists are divided among POLITICAL LINES about it.

Policy works or it doesn't. I guess only time, and elections, will tell. How's that tax cut working so far, anyway?

tf's full house beats your three of a kind. That is, unless you have some aces up your sleeve. Got any more Nobels in there? Maybe a Fields Medal or two?

j/k

BG

[Lerkfish]

my economics professor used to say that all economists are absolutely correct.....and they all disagree.

Economists are basically theorists and depending on whether they're keynsians or some other flavor will determine their answers. Similar to psychologists who are freudians, Jungians, etc.
Some are right more often than others, but all can easily be wrong, because there are too many variables to keep track of, and many variables affect other variables, and some variables simply cannot be predicted by any theory (pet rocks and hula hoops, for example).

But, that having been said, there are some basic common sense indicators that all theorists would agree on to some degree: like having fewer and fewer new jobs and more and more new workers entering the work force would indicate a looming unemployment situation.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's hard to believe that someone who managed to hold onto his job through this recession can have such a cavalier attitude.

94% of folks who want jobs are employed.

I've been employed continuously for 19 years.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
94% of folks who want jobs are employed.

wrong. I presume you are getting this figure by taking the unemployment rate, and subtracting that 6% from 100%. Perhaps what you fail to realize is that the 6% is not the total amount of persons unemployed...merely the number still actively seeking employment and being tracked for doing so in certain specific categories.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I've been employed continuously for 19 years.

good for you. I hope that continues to work out well for you.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
94% of folks who want jobs are employed.

I've been employed continuously for 19 years.

And scientists in the 1950s said a surprise nuclear attack would only wipe out 2% of the entire US population, max, so nothing to worry about.

And Lerk pointed out the interesting counting methods they use already...

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wrong. I presume you are getting this figure by taking the unemployment rate, and subtracting that 6% from 100%. Perhaps what you fail to realize is that the 6% is not the total amount of persons unemployed...merely the number still actively seeking employment and being tracked for doing so in certain specific categories.

I received my Bachelor's Degree in Econ, but I am no Economics Professor, so i will defer to Finboy here... I've always been under the impression that in an economic recovery, unemployment is one of the last indicators to rebound. Is this not so Finboy? I also came across the following statistics (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) that somewht indicate an improvement:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm

As you will notice, in Jan 2004, 47.7% of the "unemployed" were either job leavers, re-entrants, or new entrants (as opposed to those that lost their jobs). This is a one year improvement from 40%, which IMO, is very significant, because the steady increase in re-entrants and new entrants signifies that people are becoming more and more confident in the economy (and their prospects of finding a job). Indeed, many of the charts at www.bls.gov indicate slow, but steady, labor market recovery.

[tie]

Originally posted by tie:
Including Bush himself, it seems.

It's rare enough that I think I'd better point it out: I was right!

"On Monday, N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters that 'outsourcing' — companies' practice of taking work done by Americans and moving it to low-wage countries abroad — was 'probably a plus for the economy in the long run' because it reflected an expansion of free trade benefiting all nations, including the United States."

Not Bush himself unfortunately, just a top advisor. Bush has since called for more money for job training, although like the last time he'll probably forget actually to put it into his budget.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Because those of us with jobs don't care.

Originally posted by itai195:
It's hard to believe that someone who managed to hold onto his job through this recession can have such a cavalier attitude.

The aphorism "whistling past the graveyard" comes to mind.

Do you really not care about your fellow Americans who need jobs? I'm honestly inquiring. Is it really just a case of "Hey, I got mine", or were you just being facetious for Lerkfish's sake?

[tie]

Originally posted by finboy:
Here's three, at least.

So I guess you were wrong. Care to try again?

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

"The scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

link

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by tie:
So I guess you were wrong. Care to try again?



link

Damn you, I just posted a whole thread on this.