Obama hails economy's 3.2% growth rate

[SmarterThanHick]

why is it that people believe the government lies to them about how the economy is doing? do they not know what the stock market is? Are the results somehow not observable to dumb people? Cuz I can google the stock market trends and see economic growth for myself pretty easily.

 

[pinqy]

this debate only highlights the nuance by which the survey can moderate the gravity of the published rate. it is possible that in a recession, everyone comes up with brilliant reasons to be discouraged, or more comically, brilliant resolve to join the ranks of the more marginally attached -- or maybe, the rates are reflective of a flexible interpretation which says, 'enough is enough' about the discouraging cloud of gloom an earnest published rate would cast on the employment market. i like the plausibility of the latter perspective.

This is interesting coming from someone who not that many posts ago claimed that "the government only tracks registered persistent long-term unemployed, leaving the majority of people who cease using the government's relatively worthless unemployment resources after their benefit dries out unaccounted for. it was that way in the 80s and it is that way now."

I take it you no longer hold that view?

It IS important to look at the Discouraged and marginally attached and part-time for economic reasons. Also the long term unemployed of the U1 and the people who lost their jobs rather than quit of the U2. But it is inappropriate to put them in the official measure when the purpose of the official measure is to look at the actual Labor Market, rather than opinion of people and/or people who could potentially be part of the Market but are not participating in it.

A Discourage worker is no more part of the labor market or labor force than a full time student, or retiree, or stay at home spouse. None are working (for pay) or looking for work. The effect is the same.

i still hold that view; it is a characterization of the U-3 index, and of the persons who fall off it.

I'm sorry, you're seriously saying that even though it's been shown that the Unemployment figures come from a survey and that eligibility or receipt of benefits is not a consideration at all you still hold the view that the unemployment figures come solely from people collecting benefits? Basically you're saying you don't care what BLS says they're doing, they're really doing something completely different. I'd love to see your source for this info that gives you this view.

however you define them, marginally employed workers shoot up in recessions, and particularly deep, long-term contractions. i believe that this is based on how the government defines them (or subjectively classes them) for the purposes of shining up the show rate.

And why do you believe that over the actual reason, which is an attempt to us objective measures (rather than the subjectivity of what people think especially when those people have motivation to be less than truthful)?

As for Shadowstats...the only way I've been able to duplicate his results is with invalid mathematical operations. First, there's no way he's conducting his own survey, so he must be going off of either BLS or Gallup information (and the Gallup figures are usually within .1 or .2 percent of the BLS figures. But looking at the numbers, even if we redefine the U-6 to be Unemployed+ all who say they want a job + part time for economic reasons divided by Labor Force + all who say they want a job, we still only get 18.7%, not the 21% Williams is claiming.

Now if you add in marginally attached and discouraged then we get 21%. But Marginally attached is included in "those who want a job" and discouraged is included in marginally attached, so that's double counting all marginally attached and triple counting the discouraged.

Oh, and "all who want a job" includes people who haven't looked in years and/or people who are not currently available for work. That's hardly reliable or useful.

Another possibility is that he's using some adjustment factor. The issue is that he does not reveal his methodology or sources. I don't see how anyone can prefer the end results of unknown methodology over carefully documented methodology. It makes no rational sense.

 

[oreo]

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama acclaimed a government report on Friday that showed the economy expanded at a 3.2 percent rate in the first quarter, saying it was an "important milepost on the road to recovery."

Obama hails economy's 3.2% growth rate - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com

Good news for a change.

Well--it's good- but still way behind the growth last year same quarter--when it was 5.2%. I think alot of the retailer growth came from income tax refunds that Americans would have received in February and March. At least that was what I was told from some of my friends who own retail businesse's--specifically in clothing stores, etc.

The article also says this:

Looking ahead, analysts believe consumers will be wary of stepping up spending much further. The unemployment rate is high at 9.7 percent and is expected to stay elevated in the months ahead. Sluggish income growth and problems getting loans could restrain shoppers' appetite to spend, they say.

 

[oreo]

why is it that people believe the government lies to them about how the economy is doing? do they not know what the stock market is? Are the results somehow not observable to dumb people? Cuz I can google the stock market trends and see economic growth for myself pretty easily.

And what does the stock market have to do with the guy on the street looking for a job?-- One who has taken every penny out of his/her 401K to survive this recession. Also the stock market--aka--the private sector--unlike the federal government---will cut back to bare bone minimum--on expenses to show a "profit"--therefore driving stock prices higher.

Several economists have called this the "jobless" recovery. Noting that while the stock market may be trending higher--it sure isn't putting Americans back to work. That won't happen until there is DEMAND for goods and services--something that we currently are not seeing in this economy.

In my opinion--this country does not have a recovery until AMERICANS go back to work. Currently California is suffering from a 12.7% unemployment the highest ever recorded. And as they say where California goes--so does the rest of the country.

Now--IF gasoline prices rise--which they always do in the summer months--we can expect to see growth in the private sector collapse again.

 

[antagon]

Antagon engages in static pie thinking. If capital makes labor more efficient, then labor can produce more - causing economic growth.

What good does it do a capitalist to produce products if there are not enough buyers to purchase them?

We don't have a capitalist system, btw. We have a cronyist Big Government version, which is due to the infiltration of the socialist/communist principles you apparently favor (given your belief that Labor and Capital are enemies).

Not even close!

In fact, my personal life is a banner for capitalism. I'm some kind of privately educated, private enterprise-owning elitist! My view is enhanced from 'up' here. It does not escape me that some of my customers are government agencies and members of the American socialist state. So goes an increasingly substantial portion of our produce in this country. It certainly doesn't escape me, with April just in our wake, that the government asks considerably more from my gains than the average American.

Isn't the premise of tax commie? Where pure capitalism affords me all the wealth created by my enterprise, which I wholly own, the government, as if it owns 3x% of this enterprise, exacts a share from me every year! Consider this: the hoops one has to jump through to hack away at this liability, are all predicated by private assumption of duties or consumption which the governments in socialist or communist economies would displace.

Your statement that capitalism needs customers, doesn't mean that an isolated capitalism will do anything to create them, other than to reduce prices. I recognize, intimately, that wealth creation, the part that makes the pie not-so-static, is realized from profit. Profit is pursued through efficiency. Efficiency in our increasingly industrialized world is affected by capital means of production, not labor.

Imagine a motor; while iron and fuel will do the work, it cant sustain function without cooling and electricity. These ancillary roles are played by collectivist policies analogous to our capitalist economy.

Peep your stock market! Do investors 'applaud' hiring and inefficiency or cutbacks and technology? I don't know about 'enemies', boe, capital makes a unit of labor look stunning. Anyone looking to criticize the employment market has to recognize that one stunning worker takes the place of a hand-full of others.

A Model-T, for example, was a simple machine, a top-of-the-line Lincoln Navigator comes together with a smaller team, given what I'm talking about. How is the converse relationship between consumption of labor and of other means of production so obscure to you?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

so let me get this straight. even though you admit that the economy is on the rise, you somehow define it as not growing because people aren't as employed as you like. Well as much as I like people making up definitions to suit their own needs, the large scale acquisition of profits by the private sector is not somehow invalidated just because you say so. Profits are profits, even if they don't benefit you directly, they're benefiting someone else. The point of business is not to employee people, which is a desirable side effect, surely, but the goal is to make profit for the business and investors.

 

[SFC Ollie]

so let me get this straight. even though you admit that the economy is on the rise, you somehow define it as not growing because people aren't as employed as you like. Well as much as I like people making up definitions to suit their own needs, the large scale acquisition of profits by the private sector is not somehow invalidated just because you say so. Profits are profits, even if they don't benefit you directly, they're benefiting someone else. The point of business is not to employee people, which is a desirable side effect, surely, but the goal is to make profit for the business and investors.

How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.

 

[antagon]

This is interesting...

i still hold that view; it is a characterization of the U-3 index, and of the persons who fall off it.

I'm sorry, you're seriously saying that even though it's been shown that the Unemployment figures come from a survey and that eligibility or receipt of benefits is not a consideration at all you still hold the view that the unemployment figures come solely from people collecting benefits? Basically you're saying you don't care what BLS says they're doing, they're really doing something completely different. I'd love to see your source for this info that gives you this view.

i dont believe that unemployment figures come solely from UI beneficiaries. i acknowledge that the criteria for being attached to the labor force are in line with those for receiving benefits (with respect to efforts to gain employment), and as those benefits expire due to long-term unemployment, that unemployed are likely to take on characteristics of marginally attached groups not accounted for in the u-3. that is because they are not beholden to the regimen of collecting UI with its reporting and search criteria. if the near-doubling of the population so affected in the last year or two cant convince, unfortunately, i believe the inaction on extending UI will vindicate my stance further in into the summer.

as to shadow stats, i've not done any stat analysis on them. that is great that you have. i see this data from a few steps back, whatever the source, where it implies the health of the economy relative to other points in the cycle. if stats are consistent, they could support that outlook. reading into what a shadowstats apple says about a bls orange is not what i advocate. if i'm looking for a grim picture, i'd just look at the population to laborforce to employment stats.

 

[antagon]

so let me get this straight. even though you admit that the economy is on the rise, you somehow define it as not growing because people aren't as employed as you like. Well as much as I like people making up definitions to suit their own needs, the large scale acquisition of profits by the private sector is not somehow invalidated just because you say so. Profits are profits, even if they don't benefit you directly, they're benefiting someone else. The point of business is not to employee people, which is a desirable side effect, surely, but the goal is to make profit for the business and investors.

How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.

this question does not change the fact that hiring has nothing to do with improving the business customer base. it points to an answer to how depression is catalyzed by deep recession.

now, what about government jobs and spending? cut those back in this environment, too?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.

You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.

What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.

I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.

 

[boedicca]

why is it that people believe the government lies to them about how the economy is doing? do they not know what the stock market is? Are the results somehow not observable to dumb people? Cuz I can google the stock market trends and see economic growth for myself pretty easily.

Stock prices do not indicate just economic growth - they indicate the value of stocks as compared to the risk of holding or trading other assets.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

to hand-waive the correlation between the stock market and economy is just foolish. No, they are not equivalent, but they do reflect each other. When was the last time you saw the stock market tank and the economy flourish?

 

[boedicca]

Where are the jobs, bub?

A healthy recovery generates jobs. This one hasn't so far.

A little global and historical perspective wouldn't hurt:

- Earnings last year were dismal; stocks are up on better earnings (largely from cutting labor costs)
- The Eurozone is in turmoil; US instruments are "safe havens"
- Obama is engaged in Cronyism which will dole out taxpayer money to mega corps.

 

[SFC Ollie]

How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.

You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.

What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.

I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.

I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.

Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?

 

[antagon]

Where are the jobs, bub?

A healthy recovery generates jobs. This one hasn't so far.

A little global and historical perspective wouldn't hurt:

- Earnings last year were dismal; stocks are up on better earnings (largely from cutting labor costs)
- The Eurozone is in turmoil; US instruments are "safe havens"
- Obama is engaged in Cronyism which will dole out taxpayer money to mega corps.

the grandstands are reserved for the home team; the visitors usually kick it in the taliban section.

 

[maineman]

How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.

You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.

What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.

I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.

I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.

Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?

perhaps you should be posing that question to the business sector which grew despite high unemployment.

 

[antagon]

How long will businesses make a profit when people don't have the jobs to make money to purchase goods and services with? And the job market is far from getting better.

You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.

What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.

I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.

I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.

Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?

i'd say shits been like that since summer 2008. i ramped up sales efforts and the advertising outlay, went after seniors with discounted services, then got on bid-lists for the air force base. that worked fine until january. sales outside the military have fallen off, chiefly because i hurt myself and cant make 4-5 sales calls per day. a month or so from now, when i can engage my clutch, i'm hoping that i could pick back up where i left off.

there's always business. recessions squeeze on profits a bit, but if the well doesn't run dry in this monster, it has got to be survivable for the business that stays on top of its game and didnt make stupid decisions at the peak of the last expansion.

i stress, again, the value of uncle sam in this economic climate. that extends beyond my lucky draw with the air force to some of the fixed-income clientele that i have, and the health of the economy in a town where the gubmint's got a base they ain't closing anytime soon. health's still to generous. pulse, maybe.

thats an answer. maybe you had a point?

 

[boedicca]

You clearly have little to no business knowledge, and yet like all hicks you believe your opinion has some value. That's cute. As antagon pointed out, the hiring and firing of employees at a company does not dictate the success of the company. If a company hires more employees than it can sustain, then everyone is happy with their income, right? Well, no, because that drops profits, and the company runs at a deficit. Do you know what happens when companies run at a deficit for too long? No one has a job.

What you still don't understand is that profit IS money. Not for you, the small fry employee with little investment sense. Nor does it somehow just magically evaporate away. Let's say I buy 100 stock of company X. When the company fires 300 employees, it drives up profit, which means I get more money. This makes me happy, and more willing to continue investing in the company, which makes the company happy. It essentially moved money from the liquid expense of employees constantly draining funding, to a more stable capital.

I find it amazing that hicks always complain about "me, me, me", and yet somehow don't understand when companies similarly look out for their own best interest. What hypocrisy.

I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.

Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?

perhaps you should be posing that question to the business sector which grew despite high unemployment.

Perhaps you should think about how robust growth would be if we actually were creating jobs.

The current growth is anemic at best.

 

[maineman]

I was general manager of a business that employed roughly 20 people, You do not know me for shit. So when you attack someone you really should have some idea of what you are attacking.

Now, when people are not buying your product, because they do not have money, because they do not have jobs, how do you maintain a profit?

perhaps you should be posing that question to the business sector which grew despite high unemployment.

Perhaps you should think about how robust growth would be if we actually were creating jobs.

The current growth is anemic at best.

it is growth. profits are increasing. the economy is expanding. Go look at Ollie's question and my response in light of that, and try again.

and while you're at it, perhaps you should think about how deeply in the toilet this economy was when the Obama administration took over.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There it is again. When the Obama Administration took over. Why is it everyone tends to forget ( or should I say ignore) that the Democrats have ruled congress for over 3 years and Obama was part of that congress. You simply cannot continue to blame Bush.