[Lerkfish]

In relatively good news, we have this NYT story

GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

Jobs or employment aren't measured by this indicator, nevertheless this is good news.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In relatively good news, we have this NYT story




Jobs or employment aren't measured by this indicator, nevertheless this is good news.

Good news and a more realistic growth pattern as well. There's no way the 8% (I think that's what it was) from the previous qtr could be maintained.

[IceBreaker]

yeah but aren't we in a recession according to the News?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
yeah but aren't we in a recession according to the News?

A recession is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. At least that's one official definition.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
A recession is two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. At least that's one official definition.

I think that there are several factors that come into play.

We're seeing decent growth now...it's comparable to what Clinton had when he was re-elected. I get a chuckle everytime I see a crazy democrat bemoan the economy these days :lol

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I think that there are several factors that come into play.

We're seeing decent growth now...it's comparable to what Clinton had when he was re-elected. I get a chuckle everytime I see a crazy democrat bemoan the economy these days :lol

reading comprehension much?

[tie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/bu...D-ECON.html?hp

Selected quotes:

• The economy added just 21,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported today.
• The economy needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month or more to keep up with population growth.
• Manufacturers eliminated jobs for the 43rd consecutive month.
• Weekly wages for most of the workforce have risen less than 2 percent over the last year, roughly the rate of inflation.
• The average length of unemployment increased to 20.3 weeks, its highest level since 1984.
• When the economy grew at its current rate during the 1980's and 1990's, monthly gains of more than 250,000 jobs were common.
• In October, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow estimated that 200,000 new jobs a month would be created over the coming year; since then, the economy has added 59,000 jobs a month on average.

"Democrats argued this morning that the Bush administration had tried little other than tax cuts for the wealthy over the last three years and that the strategy had not worked."

They're right. The Treasury Secretary should be fired for his dishonesty and cluelessness. So should Bush.

[Edit: Those 21,000 new jobs were due to government hiring. Administration officials have no economic plan -- they cited the poor jobs data as reason for making permanent Bush's ineffective tax cuts.]

[dtriska]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I think that there are several factors that come into play.

We're seeing decent growth now...it's comparable to what Clinton had when he was re-elected. I get a chuckle everytime I see a crazy democrat bemoan the economy these days :lol

The US economy is still in trouble. US job creation is lagging behind Canada, and GDP growth really isn't all that much better. Canada's GDP growth during the last quarter was 3.6% annually.

I can't wait to see what happens when the US starts raising interest rates.

[Spliffdaddy]

If we're lagging behind Canada - then we're really in bad shape.

Is that what you meant?

[DBursey]

I doubt he meant it that way. Canada continues to lead the G8 in growth. We've had ten consecutive federal budgetary surpluses. We've been paying off our federal debt with those surpluses. Hell, one of your annual federal deficits is about the size of our total accumulated federal debt.

The United States may now be witnessing something which Canada realized 12 years ago. That being that conservatives are absolutely brutal when it comes to fiscal management.

[Zimphire]

At the cost of taxing your people to death.

[DBursey]

Another myth-conception. Our tax rates are similar to yours. Our average corporate rates are less than those in the US. I'll post links when I have time to hunt them down.

[Zimphire]

Wow I guess the reason my ex roomate moved back to the US was bunk then huh.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by DBursey:
The United States may now be witnessing something which Canada realized 12 years ago. That being that conservatives are absolutely brutal when it comes to fiscal management.

You're welcome for 50+ years of defense and security.

[DBursey]

You're welcome for 50+ years of defense and security.

50 years? Are you on my neighborhood watch program or something?

I didn't understand this to be a 'thanks for the security' thread. So be it. Thanks to all the men and women in uniform who've participated past or present in defense of North America during the past 50 years and beyond.

Thanks to you, spacefreak, for being a great US citizen and a fine sport throughout all this protecting business. One never knows when the commies might wanna do a nuclear first-strike on Toronto.

What all this have to do with the topic at hand? As one of my favourite presidents put it: "It's about the economy, stupid!"

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
reading comprehension much?

Very much. Only...I look for the facts, not the spin. Bush said while campaigning for the his first 4 years that the economy was headed for trouble. Gore disagreed because he knew that it would hurt his chances otherwise. Bush was right...the economy was slipping into recession during the last half of Clinton's second term.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20040226.shtml

During the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

If Clinton's numbers where good enough to get elected (coming off the first Bush recovery), then I doubt that current President Bush will have any problems with his current economic record, comming off a recovery that started while he was in office, once he starts campaigning and actually pointing out the nonsense.

But hey...I know that the Democrats are grasping for whatever they can. Maybe you can campaign to allow the French to vote this time?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Very much. Only...I look for the facts, not the spin. Bush said while campaigning for the his first 4 years that the economy was headed for trouble. Gore disagreed because he knew that it would hurt his chances otherwise. Bush was right...the economy was slipping into recession during the last half of Clinton's second term.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20040226.shtml

During the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

If Clinton's numbers where good enough to get elected (coming off the first Bush recovery), then I doubt that current President Bush will have any problems with his current economic record, comming off a recovery that started while he was in office, once he starts campaigning and actually pointing out the nonsense.

But hey...I know that the Democrats are grasping for whatever they can. Maybe you can campaign to allow the French to vote this time?

reading comprehension much? (he says again).

When I said it the first time, you said "I get a chuckle everytime I see a crazy democrat bemoan the economy these days :lol" completely missing the fact that I started this thread with a POSITIVE comment on the economy.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You're welcome for 50+ years of defense and security.

On behalf of all Canadians, thank you. Now, my government has the money to pay for my pot and the boat trip for all of my commie buddies who wish to immigrate.

Now, that that's behind us, I'd just like to apologize for any ill-will that's existed between our great countries in the last few years. Take care.

[gadster]

Can anyone provide the salary level for the 21,000 jobs provided? What kind of jobs were they? Cooks for the military?

[tie]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
During the first three years of the Bush administration compared with the first three years of the Clinton administration, the inflation rate is lower (1.9 percent versus 2.6 percent), the unemployment rate is lower (5.5 percent versus 6.2 percent), annual productivity growth is higher (4.1 percent versus .5 percent), and the increase in nonfarm real compensation per hour is higher (+0.8 percent versus -0.3 percent).

If Clinton's numbers where good enough to get elected (coming off the first Bush recovery), then I doubt that current President Bush will have any problems with his current economic record, comming off a recovery that started while he was in office, once he starts campaigning and actually pointing out the nonsense.

This is a very good point. Unfortunately, my computer just lost my response.

Anyway, there is a nice article in the Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/editors.htm .

A few quotes:

Real hourly-wage growth has continued through the recession and the recovery, albeit at a slower pace than in the late 1990s. And wage growth has been broadly distributed, meaning that most workers, including most of the middle class, have benefited. In fact, there is a wide gap between how most people feel the economy in general is faring (poorly) and how they feel they themselves are doing (quite well). A poll conducted by the Gallup Organization in August found that 75 percent of respondents rated the financial well-being of "average Americans" as "poor" or "only fair," and that 89 percent considered the employment situation specifically to be either "poor" or "only fair." (Nearly 50 percent rated it as downright "poor.") Yet when asked about their personal experiences, only 19 percent of those currently working said they were worried about being laid off, and even fewer worried about having their hours or wages reduced—the same percentage that feared these things in 1997, when the economy was booming.
...
When unemployed workers did find new jobs during the 1980s and 1990s, they had to settle for wages that were on average 14 percent lower than those in their previous jobs. ... According to Farber's analysis of the most recent Displaced Workers Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, covering 1999 through 2001, shows that workers with more than sixteen years of education saw an average reduction in income of roughly 23 percent upon finding new jobs; in the mid-1990s the reduction averaged only 12 percent.
...
In short, we have entered what might be called a "reverse-lottery economy." The broad majority of American workers continue to do well; yet in any given year—even in boom times—a few workers hit the negative jackpot and must accept lengthy or even permanent reductions in living standards. Increasingly, these unfortunates hail from a variety of educational backgrounds and occupations.

Much more in the actual article.

It is still easy to make the case that Bush's economic policies are incompetent. The cornerstones of his policies are enormous deficit spending, and tax cuts for the rich. Neither is good for America.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by tie:
....and tax cuts for the rich. Neither is good for America.

You forgot devouring new born babies as snacks. That's not good for America, and I don't know why he added that to his economic plan either.

...unless I'm just really confused and he didn't include eating babies or "tax cuts for the rich", because don't remember seeing a bunch of reports on eaten babies and since I'm probably in the lower middle class and I got some pretty big tax cuts since Bush took office, I doubt that his plan was to just provide "tax cuts for the rich. I've got a feeling that both are probably just pretty well laid out urban myths.

[dtriska]

My favourite part of Bush's tax "cuts" is his $300 advance from a year or two ago. That was hilarious.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Can anyone provide the salary level for the 21,000 jobs provided? What kind of jobs were they? Cooks for the military?

that's a very valid question, I don't know the answer.
What makes it more complicated is it is "net" change in jobs. That doesn't mean it is exactly 21,000 new or different jobs. There might have been a lot of switching around, or a real loss of 50,000 and gain of 71,000. I simply don't know.
The hardest hit industries at the moment are retail. They are generally the economic front line. I work at a newspaper and can tell you that retailers are skittish and holding their resources close to the vest, reducing their advertising.
Look around you at the malls. At least where I live (which has usually had a very stable economy) there are great many vacant store spots in the large malls and the strip malls.
So, I doubt many jobs are being created there.
My guess would be there is an increase in demand in the military industrial complex -- outfitting the halliburtons and the troops, that sort of thing. But that's conjecture on my part. I don't know of any industry that is increasing except for that. All around us corporations are reporting dismal quarterly earnings.

I hope there is a return to growth, but thus far, its on the assett side of the company upper level by increased productivity with fewer employees.

I think "downsizing" is a trend that will stay with us for a while. But that's a guess.

Does anyone in their respective areas know of ANY company that is reporting increasing their workforce or number of stores, etc.?

[tie]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
You forgot devouring new born babies as snacks. That's not good for America, and I don't know why he added that to his economic plan either.

Or bombing random countries. Securing Iraq's nonexistent WMD program has cost $1500 per voter and that number is only going up.

I'm not sure what your point is. Moderate-size middle class tax cuts, and much larger tax cuts for the rich.

I notice you didn't even try to justify the enormous budget deficits -- growing larger and larger every year despite Bush's ever incorrect budget predictions.