Employment, Debt, Deficit & Austerity

[expat_panama]

...None of the above measurements have even re-touched their 2007 peak. Except for maybe...

We got two different ways of going at it. You decide without checking and announce your findings with a "maybe". I check first to find out, and I say what what's there.

We're not going to find any common ground here.

 

[likeabird03]

...None of the above measurements have even re-touched their 2007 peak. Except for maybe...

We got two different ways of going at it. You decide without checking and announce your findings with a "maybe". I check first to find out, and I say what what's there.

We're not going to find any common ground here.

Actually what I'm referring to are the facts, not maybes.

Between January 2008 and Feb 2010 a total of 8,750,000 jobs were lost. Since then we have only added 2,088,000 jobs. So we are still substantially down from the peak.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Industrial production which declined approx 14% from Oct 2007 through June 2009, since then it's only recovered about 9% from it's trough.

U.S. Industrial Production Flat In October | Tainted Alpha


GDP Which declined 5.1% during the recession has grown only 4.8% from those depressed levels as of the second quarter. We've essentially had zero growth in nearly half a decade.
The reason I said MAYBE for the above indicator is because we will have to see what the 3rd quarter numbers show before we know whether we reached the 2007 peak.

Quarterly Growth in real GDP at annual rates, Percent


Median household income, after reaching a peak of 52,500.00 per year in 2000 had dropped to below 49,500 by 2010.

Census: 2010 Saw Poverty Rate Increase, Income Drop : NPR

Anything else?

 

[Zander]

The OP is so riddled with lies, myths, and misconceptions.....is it possible that it's satire?

Or Is the Krugman/Keynesian kool-aid just so delicious that real world failure (like we just experienced with the failed Stimulus) doesn't matter? Their attitude is - "well, it works in theory- to hell with the real world! We'll just say it wasn't "big" enough.......! "

 

[Toro]

...It's actually quite easy to figure out how much cash corporations have...

In this age we never have a problem with information being hidden, what we got is a real problem with so much info that we can spit out any answer we want. That's good for party hacks that are out to 'prove' their ideology, and it's bad for guys like us that actually want to know what's going on.

I got an American Association of Individual Investors database on over 10k publicly listed corps with a dozen different fields on 'free cash'. They all vary depending on the definition and accounting method. That's why I stepped back and went for Flow of Funds and GDP numbers for total aggregates and why I steer away from some clown's proprietary hidden-agenda research.

Sure, we can imagine US business' got $2T in stacks of tens'n'twenties in some huge box in the Caymans. Or not. What we know for sure is US corps are out $1.1T from market cap. losses, and they now owe an additional 0.6T to banks. We also know that this year alone they're paying an all time high $8.3T to employees and an all time high record $1.5T in taxes.

I read a piece by Bianco Research last week, with a fancy graph and all, stating that as of June 30, US corporations had $2.05 trillion of cash on their collective balance sheets.

 

[expat_panama]

Americans are high paid; household incomes for the past three years is the highest level ever.

American jobs aren't shipped overseas because a Chinese working doesn't mean an American becomes helpless. The average number of Americans working for the past six years is the highest on record.

American factories have not shut down; the value of goods produced in the past six years is the highest ever.​

...none of that outpaces inflation or population growth. ALL of these statistics improve decade on decade.

Seems most people only want to hear about bad things for America because that kind of news sells even when it's made up and doesn't even make sense.

Like saying record high household income is no good because population's growing anyway. What, the population of a household? Nobody cares that population growth has no affect on higher average individual household income. Bear in mind we're talking about the average household income after inflation that's high. fwiw, the numbers and links are available to all--

--but the info's the easy part and getting anyone to part with doom'n'gloom is harder. Same goes for factory output, employment, --there're so many good things happening with what real life Americans are actually doing, but the U.S. haters want none of it.

 

[expat_panama]

...Median household income, after reaching a peak of 52,500.00 per year in 2000 had dropped to below 49,500 by 2010. Census: 2010 Saw Poverty Rate Increase, Income Drop : NPR

Anything else?

NPR likes to turn numbers in their own funny way, but what we're talking about is how you said Chinese workers--

...are not as productive as the American worker, but when you take into account they make so much less it still make business sense to move production...

--and I said they were cost effective only for the low pay they get. We're talking relative productivity and relative living standards comparing US and Chinese workers. That's how we got into how decades of competition and trade not being a problem with factories and incomes and how average real income per household is now higher than the 2007 peak--

--or like US factory output having gotten back above the average for the past decade:

 

[likeabird03]

...Median household income, after reaching a peak of 52,500.00 per year in 2000 had dropped to below 49,500 by 2010. Census: 2010 Saw Poverty Rate Increase, Income Drop : NPR

Anything else?

NPR likes to turn numbers in their own funny way, but what we're talking about is how you said Chinese workers--

...are not as productive as the American worker, but when you take into account they make so much less it still make business sense to move production...

--and I said they were cost effective only for the low pay they get. We're talking relative productivity and relative living standards comparing US and Chinese workers. That's how we got into how decades of competition and trade not being a problem with factories and incomes and how average real income per household is now higher than the 2007 peak--

--or like US factory output having gotten back above the average for the past decade:

Thank you, the production graph shows that we are still below the 2007 Level. You still haven't debunked my claim that economic indicators haven't recovered. Oh and the statistics that you show for national income, that's a very different statistic from median household income. OF COURSE average income (gross ntnl income devided by number of households) has increased, it includes the growth that has gone to the top income earners. The middle income however has in fact decreased.

I'm not a US "hater" as you put it. In fact I'm upset that we're not doing better than this, because the average American deserves better. We're the most advanced, and hardest working country, and we have plentiful resources, yet we're falling behind. It's sad that this country used to average a GDP growth rate of near 4%, a decade ago we were enjoying income growth rates of between 5 and 8%, we also used to be the worlds largest manufacturer. No more. We can't get back to this type of exceptionalism if we fail to admit that their are problems and that the engine of growth is broken. Non farm payrolls have gone nowhere in 12 years, this is unprecedented.

 

[expat_panama]

...Thank you, the production graph shows that we are still below the 2007 Level....

My pleasure, but fwiw we're still below the Feb. 2005 level!

...You still haven't debunked my claim that economic indicators haven't recovered...

Exactly, because my claim was that--

...American factories have not shut down; the value of goods produced in the past six years is the highest ever...

--and your earlier claim was--

...None of the above measurements have even re-touched their 2007 peak. Except for maybe...

--which was why I showed--

But hey, we're together on the important stuff --that we're worse off since the '08 election, and that American workers' high pay is justified by productivity and not at risk by competition from cheap foreign labor.

 

[Brutus]

What I'm saying is: Increase taxes on the rich and use the money to fix and build roads, bridges, railways, airports, high speed internet lines and hospitals. Also use it to train medical workers and technicians in industries with shortages of skilled labor.

that of course is pure Keynesian liberal stupidity:

government stimulus creates a bubble the bursts and make things worse. Ever heard of the housing bubble??? See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ??

 

[Brutus]

What I'm saying is: Increase taxes on the rich and use the money to fix and build roads, bridges, railways, airports, high speed internet lines and hospitals. Also use it to train medical workers and technicians in industries with shortages of skilled labor.

that of course is pure Keynesian liberal stupidity:

government stimulus creates a bubble the bursts and make things worse. Ever heard of the housing stimulus bubble??? See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ??

 

[cbirch2]

...Increase taxes on the rich and use the money to fix and build roads, bridges, railways, airports, high speed internet lines and hospitals. Also use it to train medical workers and technicians in industries with shortages of skilled labor.

When you hire unemployed people...

The poor don't hire. The rich hire. The rich pay the poor with the money the rich have. If the rich pay more taxes then they have less money to pay the poor, so the bottom line is that taxing the rich more equals less employment.

This is not a matter of doctrine, this is historical record that we can see at irs.gov and bls.gov.

no see thats totally wrong. Without the rest of us you glorious rich people dont have people to sell things to. Regardless of what the top 1% do, if the bottom 99% can barely spend then demand is going to decrease. If demand decreases GDP decreases. Thats simple.

 

[cbirch2]

What I'm saying is: Increase taxes on the rich and use the money to fix and build roads, bridges, railways, airports, high speed internet lines and hospitals. Also use it to train medical workers and technicians in industries with shortages of skilled labor.

that of course is pure Keynesian liberal stupidity:

government stimulus creates a bubble the bursts and make things worse. Ever heard of the housing stimulus bubble??? See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ??

lol now the housing bubble was caused by government spending. O wow lets get into fannie and freddie.....

 

[cbirch2]

But hey, we're together on the important stuff --that we're worse off since the '08 election, and that American workers' high pay is justified by productivity and not at risk by competition from cheap foreign labor.

To say that the economy is worse off under obama is a massive lie. You can say that because the unemployment rate is higher but that is because monthly job reports were extremely negative when he took office and took time to become positive. Monthly job reports, GDP growth, and the stock market all rebound considerably through obamas term. In fact they even drop off right when the stimulus money runs out.

The simple fact is that when bush left office the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Thats worse than it is now.

Dont even get me started on the size of the package. it was only 10% of the entire loss caused by the crisis.

 

[likeabird03]

...Thank you, the production graph shows that we are still below the 2007 Level....

My pleasure, but fwiw we're still below the Feb. 2005 level!

...You still haven't debunked my claim that economic indicators haven't recovered...

Exactly, because my claim was that--

...American factories have not shut down; the value of goods produced in the past six years is the highest ever...

--and your earlier claim was--

...None of the above measurements have even re-touched their 2007 peak. Except for maybe...

But hey, we're together on the important stuff --that we're worse off since the '08 election, and that American workers' high pay is justified by productivity and not at risk by competition from cheap foreign labor.

We are worse off than the 2008 election of course, but the downward trajectory started under Bush. That being said, Obama has been in office three years and it's his economy now. His policies have failed. Any such improvement or stabilization in the economy that you can point to can be attributed to the fact we're on life support due to overspending by the federal govt. What people don't realize though is that in itself if what's choking this recovery. The government is crowding out the private sector, money diverted to government bonds is money that could have been used to securitize commercial and consumer loans. While the recession may have been a little deeper we would probably be in a more sharp sustained recovery by now if it wasn't for the govt stepping in as much as it did.

By saying that American factories are producing more in the last 6 years than the previous six years is a major cherry picking of stats to match your claim. That time range includes years 2005 through 2007 when production was at high levels, so I wont argue that it may be higher than the 1999 - 2005 years. The fact we're at 2005 levels means it has not grown in 6 years, that would be about the worst showing in 60 years. An economy where we're seeing no growth, or low grow growth -- especially after a recession can be just as bad as being in one. Because of the high rate of productivity growth per worker over the last couple of decades, we need to grow at an even higher rate just to get to full employment. You can cherry pick the numbers all you want but none of them will counter the fact we are in the worst economy in decades, and to claim that we are in fact not losing jobs to China and other countries is a total disregard for the truth.

 

[likeabird03]

But hey, we're together on the important stuff --that we're worse off since the '08 election, and that American workers' high pay is justified by productivity and not at risk by competition from cheap foreign labor.

To say that the economy is worse off under obama is a massive lie. You can say that because the unemployment rate is higher but that is because monthly job reports were extremely negative when he took office and took time to become positive. Monthly job reports, GDP growth, and the stock market all rebound considerably through obamas term. In fact they even drop off right when the stimulus money runs out.

The simple fact is that when bush left office the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Thats worse than it is now.

Dont even get me started on the size of the package. it was only 10% of the entire loss caused by the crisis.

Yes - and this just shows that the underlying economy has not improved. Any such improvement was a short lived blip due to the govt throwing a trillion dollars at the problem, which isn't a solution. We need to take our medicine, let the problems straighten themselves out so the real economy can get back on its feet.

 

[cbirch2]

To say that the economy is worse off under obama is a massive lie. You can say that because the unemployment rate is higher but that is because monthly job reports were extremely negative when he took office and took time to become positive. Monthly job reports, GDP growth, and the stock market all rebound considerably through obamas term. In fact they even drop off right when the stimulus money runs out.

The simple fact is that when bush left office the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Thats worse than it is now.

Dont even get me started on the size of the package. it was only 10% of the entire loss caused by the crisis.

Yes - and this just shows that the underlying economy has not improved. Any such improvement was a short lived blip due to the govt throwing a trillion dollars at the problem, which isn't a solution. We need to take our medicine, let the problems straighten themselves out so the real economy can get back on its feet.

^^Most ridiculous thing ever said. More ridiculous than you bringing up the discredited theory that government spending crowds out private sector spending, which is totally untrue.

Government borrows the difference so money it spends isnt directly taken from the private sector, at least not that year. So your assumption that government spending equals lower private sector spending relies on tax payers being perfectly reasonable, they must cut spending an equivalent amount because they assume they will have the pay for that spending later. The only problem is thats not how the real world works. We dont see people spending less when the government spends, it just doesnt happen. Your assuming rational consumers and taxpayers, when basic economics says people sometimes behave very irrationally. In summation, crowding out is not something that exists in the real world.

And it shows the underlying economy hasnt improved? No. It shows how much the underlying economy has improved. -800,000 to +100,000 is quite the improvement.

The whole idea that we should just not do anything is proved wrong by the last 3 years. prior to tarp, economists were predicting 20-25% unemployment. If it hadnt been for the stimulus we would still be losing jobs. to claim the underlying economy isnt any better is just wrong.

 

[cbirch2]

To say that the economy is worse off under obama is a massive lie. You can say that because the unemployment rate is higher but that is because monthly job reports were extremely negative when he took office and took time to become positive. Monthly job reports, GDP growth, and the stock market all rebound considerably through obamas term. In fact they even drop off right when the stimulus money runs out.

The simple fact is that when bush left office the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month. Thats worse than it is now.

Dont even get me started on the size of the package. it was only 10% of the entire loss caused by the crisis.

Yes - and this just shows that the underlying economy has not improved. Any such improvement was a short lived blip due to the govt throwing a trillion dollars at the problem, which isn't a solution. We need to take our medicine, let the problems straighten themselves out so the real economy can get back on its feet.

"We need to take our medicine". Can you expand upon what that means? You act like the government not doing anything will somehow make the economy better. Can you explain that please. Because the only way that high government spending can slow economic growth is through higher interest rates on treasury bonds. Treasury bonds are at record lows, so theres really no reason to cut back on spending.

In fact a decrease in government spending is going to decrease aggregate demand, which is of course the problem right now. Since there are no pressure from the bond market to reduce our deficit, the government should at least attempt to keep aggregate demand constant. Firing swaths of state and local workers is extremely counterproductive.

 

[cbirch2]

What I'm saying is: Increase taxes on the rich and use the money to fix and build roads, bridges, railways, airports, high speed internet lines and hospitals. Also use it to train medical workers and technicians in industries with shortages of skilled labor.

that of course is pure Keynesian liberal stupidity:

government stimulus creates a bubble the bursts and make things worse. Ever heard of the housing bubble??? See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ??

The housing bubble started in 2003 when bush relaxed limits on leverage. Bank leverage jumped from 7 to 33 in one year.

And then when you look at the fact that fannie and freddies market share continually dropped as the bubble inflated (from 2004 - 2007), it becomes pretty obvious that government spending did not cause the housing bubble.

 

[expat_panama]

...This is not a matter of doctrine, this is historical record that we can see at irs.gov and bls.gov.

no see thats totally wrong. Without the rest of us you glorious rich people dont have people to sell things to...

If you really want to play personalities here you'll have to play with it by yourself because I don't do that nearly as well as I do facts.

Don't play with it by yourself too much though, they say it can make you blind you know...

 

[cbirch2]

...This is not a matter of doctrine, this is historical record that we can see at irs.gov and bls.gov.

no see thats totally wrong. Without the rest of us you glorious rich people dont have people to sell things to...

If you really want to play personalities here you'll have to play with it by yourself because I don't do that nearly as well as I do facts.

Don't play with it by yourself too much though, they say it can make you blind you know...

For as well as you do facts that post was pretty much devoid of any.