Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 79

Thread: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

  1. #61
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    The Free market is what determines American Competitiveness. Not massive Government Spending that does nothing but add more to the deficit. Obama promised "shovel ready" jobs with his first failed stimulus. that didn't happen. Instead we saw nothing more than corruption with scams like "Green Jobs" and Solyndra. Stop using the term "investing". It's propaganda.
    That the state of our infrastructure is a determinant of our competitiveness is simply a matter of fact. The free-market is a term used to explain (in a simplistic way) macroeconomics. I am not the President, so it makes little sense to rant about him via proxy.

    This is the scam. People like you claim we need to "invest" in Infrastructure, pass 800B+ Stimuli, and then don't use any of those funds on 'Infrastructure Spending".
    The research was provided; either refute it or move on. No amount of foot stomping will further your point.

    Sorry, you don't get to dismiss it as a strawman. I've already refuted the impact of Government financed infrastructure which is just your propagandist way of saying "More Government Spending". It doesn't work. It just adds more to the deficit, creates more debt, devalues the currency, and reduces the purchasing power of our money. Obama's stimulus didn't create a surplus. It didn't create any wealth. It added the deficit. All government Spending does is move money from the left hand to the right hand.
    The sub-topic was infrastructure spending. You (of course) used CFC as a tangent because you cannot keep up with the discussion at hand. Too bad!

    Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits.
    No. Keynes was opposed to deficits during periods of low unemployment. Do try and keep up!

    See above. This premise has already been blown out of the water
    You have not blown anything out of the water. The research has been presented and yet to be refuted. Mere sourcing of random articles does not suffice.

    So what are you proposing then? A massive defense build up from alien invasion like Kruhman advocated? There was real economic necessity that drove that decision. The type of Government Spending you are advocating for now is Government Spending for the sake of Government Spending. Your link only makes my argument stronger. I appreciate that.
    Infrastructure spending that is in the neighborhood of the cross-country average, as a percentage of GDP. There was a topic posted, and all you provided was partisan drivel.

    It isn't though. Government Spending and the economic policies you advocate only dig the hole deeper. make recessions last longer, or cause more recessions. I only need to look at the destruction the economic policies you advocate have caused over the last 4 years alone. 6 trillion added to the deficit. A shrinking Labor Force. High black Unemployment. High youth Unemployment. Wages stagnant and low.
    You have yet to provide anything that supports causation, let alone statistically significant correlation. Do try again!

    See above. Your premise has already been refuted. Government Spending is the PROBLEM. Not the solution. It only creates more debt.
    You have yet to refute anything! Government deficits add to economic output. This is simply a matter of fact. It would be beneficial not to confuse crowding out in your next response.

    Boring dodge. You are once again projecting your own ignorance. Nothing more.
    An observation of your activity.

    Fighting the Cold War which he won. This is in turn led to the Peace Dividend. Bush Sr and Clinton took advantage of this which created millions upon millions of new jobs. Reagan created 18 million net+ jobs over the course of his Presidency. His deficit to GDP spending was still only 51%, because the Economy grew by more than 1/3 under his leadership. Compare that with Obama, who is now spending at 103% Deficit to GDP in an Economy that just shrunk after 4 years of his leadership. You're just not very good at this whole posting thing are you. Under Clinton the deficit to GDP ratio was 68%. Reagan


    You mean debt to GDP; The deficit is at best 11% of GDP. The Reagan recession was an entirely different animal; high unemployment (caused by deliberate monetary policy via Volcker) and high inflation (expectation related). Perhaps it would be a good idea to at least get the terminology straight before making an argument.

    Reagan cut the top rates from 70% - 28%.
    Which helped alleviate inflation and inflationary expectations.

    You're just parroting Ezra Klein talking points.
    Nonsense, just a simple observation of the facts.

    This is not even worth my time. Obamacare has more than 20 new taxes about to kick in. many affect the poor and middle class. This is on top of oil/food prices skyrocketing. (A hidden tax).
    Tax rates are lower under Obama than they are under Reagan. Or can you provide relevant data to refute my comment?

    The tax cuts Reagan enacted didn't even take effect until later in his Presidency. using tax rates from 1980 is laughably misleading. So it's true. Carter's tax rates, not Reagan's, were higher than what people are taxed now. When discussing these things you need to start at the point where that president's tax policy actually went into effect. I mean you couldn't be more dishonest. I'm almost embarrassed for you. Reagan advocated a capital gains tax rate of 17.5%, and you're going to sit there with propaganda and try and claim taxes were higher under him than obama? It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Taxes under CARTER than obama (right now until obamacare kicks in) sure. I'll give you that.
    Effective tax rates are currently lower than during any other time in our post WWII history. Fact.

    You're not an objective analyst. You're a far left hack who is pretending to be an objective analyst. I see right through your schtick. Change your political leaning to Socialist. It's really what you are. You are not a Libertarian. You are being dishonest by calling yourself a Libertarian.
    Another fallacy? I was not aware that my political lean was in any way topic of discussion. Desperateness is beginning to set in i see. Try to stay on topic (a request for the nth time).

    The Economy grew by more than a third under reagan's leadership.
    Not disputing that.

    Under obama it just shrunk.
    Wealth losses in excess of 100% of GDP can have that lingering effect.

    Cumulative GDP compared between the two it's not even close.
    Cumulative GDP GROWTH. Again, careful on the terminology in the future.

    You're really getting desperate. That much is obvious.
    Really? I have managed to stay on topic in a continuous manner where as you have been all over the place.

    See above. You lied in your previous post
    A liquidity trap has been our reality. Your low-brow article is not a means of refutation.




    Yea ok than Obama and Bernanke should start minting those trillion dollar coins so none of us ever have to pay taxes again
    I am not supporter of MMT; hence it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.

    I only need to point to the fact that Obama's Stimulus didn't create a surplus.
    That is kind of the point. Fiscal stimulus is enacted to create short term economic growth.

    It created more debt and added to the deficit. Pure waste.
    Your opinion, given the level of your of understanding simply does not cut it.

    There was no fiscal multiplier associated with it.
    This makes zero sense. A fiscal multiplier means that NO (zero) money that was appropriated was subsequently spent into the real economy. This of course is nonsense.

    That's why his administration is no longer releasing reports about his stimulus.
    An overwhelming majority of the stimulus has been dispersed. Of course you lack the understanding and objectiveness necessary to discuss fiscal stimulus.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  2. #62
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,372

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    I've interviewed a BLS economist, and he revealed how the process has been done like forever.
    It was probably Steve H. you interviewed, he does a lot of those. I'm not mistaken, I know very well how the data is calculated and meet regularly with the BLS experts to discuss this stuff at the professional level.

    He told me that the information used to create the reports presented to the public at the beginning of every month are not obtained from government offices reporting in about this or that actual occurrence during the named month of the particular report.
    Correct.

    Instead, the information for the report so-named "January" is collected during the second week of January by an interview process performed by the U.S. Census Department as contracted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    Yes. Not sure why you said "so-named"...the January data comes from the week in January that contains the 12th day, and the interviews occur during the week that contains the 19th. Just like I said. You were the one claiming the data "is mostly for DECEMBER, the second week in December through the first week in January, so it is hugely more accurate to state that the number of unemployed rose "from 12.2 million in NOVEMBER to 12.3 million in DECEMBER." Which is wrong. The interview for the January report (released Feb 1) was for labor force activity in the week of Jan 6-12 and all changes are the changes from the week of December 9-15. November has nothing to do with it.

    The Census Department interviews roughly 60,000 pre-selected households (which change periodically) (amounting to roughly 120,000 working-qualified people) and roughly 150,000 businesses.
    They don't interview any businesses....that's a seperate survey conducted solely by BLS.

    Yes, that many interviews happen each and every month .. and in those interviews the interviewees are asked questions about what happened in the second week of the previous month through the first week of the current month.
    You misunderstood. The interview for the January data took place the week of Jan 13-19 and the questions were all framed as "last week, did you..." except for questions about job search, which was "in the last 4 weeks.." and a couple others. But all questions on Employment and Unemployment were solely for the week of January 6-12.


    Something else the BLS economist told me was that estimates of those who drop off the radar of their interview process are way off, as they simply assume that the people in a household that's unreachable for the interview in a given month are all in the same status they were previously but they're simply dropped from the reports.
    It's a little more complicated than that. There are different categories of non-response. What your contact was talking about was if the household simply didn't respond that week but still occupied the house. If the house was torn down, turned into a business, or vacant, things are a little different.

    But really, you didn't contradict anything I said, you were just mistaken on your understanding of the time periods.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    It was probably Steve H. you interviewed, he does a lot of those. I'm not mistaken, I know very well how the data is calculated and meet regularly with the BLS experts to discuss this stuff at the professional level.

    Correct.

    Yes. Not sure why you said "so-named"...the January data comes from the week in January that contains the 12th day, and the interviews occur during the week that contains the 19th. Just like I said. You were the one claiming the data "is mostly for DECEMBER, the second week in December through the first week in January, so it is hugely more accurate to state that the number of unemployed rose "from 12.2 million in NOVEMBER to 12.3 million in DECEMBER." Which is wrong. The interview for the January report (released Feb 1) was for labor force activity in the week of Jan 6-12 and all changes are the changes from the week of December 9-15. November has nothing to do with it.

    They don't interview any businesses....that's a seperate survey conducted solely by BLS.


    You misunderstood. The interview for the January data took place the week of Jan 13-19 and the questions were all framed as "last week, did you..." except for questions about job search, which was "in the last 4 weeks.." and a couple others. But all questions on Employment and Unemployment were solely for the week of January 6-12.


    It's a little more complicated than that. There are different categories of non-response. What your contact was talking about was if the household simply didn't respond that week but still occupied the house. If the house was torn down, turned into a business, or vacant, things are a little different.

    But really, you didn't contradict anything I said, you were just mistaken on your understanding of the time periods.
    You contradict yourself here .. you would do well to be more careful .. and if you're going to cite specifics of weeks, like 1/13 - 1/19 and 1/6 - 1/12, don't you think you'd do well to link to proof, rather than merely say "I know Steve H.".

    The bottom line is what is important, and as you've validated, the report we received from the BLS last Friday is, as I stated, mostly about December, and truly less about what happened in the great part of January, despite your imaginative hedging.

    In addition, I don't recall the BLS agent telling me anything other than that the interviews were conducted by the Census people, including the 150,000 business inteviews, even if the questions themselves might have originated with the BLS. So again, you might want to show a BLS link if you're going to override what a BLS agent directly told me, as saying you know Steve H. doesn't cut it.

    Finally, your imaginings of why there was a non-response are pretty extreme .. and, no, that's not what is the great general rule. The great general rule of non-response is not that "the house got torn down" or "turned into a business", as that's pretty ludicrous to attribute. The truth of the matter is that people who can't find a job for awhile lose their homes, and they get tired of relating their dismal situation to the census taker each month, and they just stop looking .. these are the great general rules that people don't respond.

    To assume the person I spoke with told me something than what I've related to you is rather arrogant of you.

    Sounds like you're really more liberal than centrist.

    Reality remains that the true unemployment rate is around 14.0%.

    That's an accurate presentation of the percentage of those who want a job and would take a job if offerred, and that includes those who search for work in ways that are wholly acceptable and sensible, but are rejected as valid methods of looking for work by the BLS.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Thought you might be interested to read this article bubba. It appeared on the front page of my local newpaper. This is part of the major problem.


    For new immigrants, an 'American nightmare' in Los Angeles

    Once a promising destination for foreign jobseekers and war refugees, the City of Angels is rolling up its ladder of opportunity.

    (Excerpt)

    "A small group of day laborers clustered around the exit. Jose Perez, 22, and about a dozen other men whistled, waved and shouted at passing vehicles, hoping to get some work. They’ll do just about anything, Perez said, from landscaping to putting together a swing set. He looked concerned but resilient. He said he hadn’t found work in several days.

    Then a gray Lexus rolled to a stop and an electric window slid down. The driver extended a manicured finger in Perez’s direction, her blonde perm hardly moving above large, dark sunglasses."


    The author of this pap is Kevin Douglas Grant, offers this in his bio.

    At GlobalPost, Grant oversees foundation-supported reporting series from around the world, including work on human rights, global health, world religions, emerging democracies and rebuilding efforts in Haiti. He works closely with organizations including Ford Foundation, Kaiser Family Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation, Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting and Galloway Family Foundation among others.

    The Progressive Machine is alive and well, and on the front page of major newspapers..............

    DayLaborerContempt.jpg
    Soon to be registered Democrats.

    Unless the Republican Party becomes the party of giving away free stuff, the Mexican and Central American Latino voters will continue to vote the Democrat ticket because they want their free stuff, food stamps, subsidising housing, WICS, and Obama phones.

  5. #65
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    DayLaborerContempt.jpg
    Soon to be registered Democrats.

    Unless the Republican Party becomes the party of giving away free stuff, the Mexican and Central American Latino voters will continue to vote the Democrat ticket because they want their free stuff, food stamps, subsidising housing, WICS, and Obama phones.
    Any question about why Latin America remains a Third World region is answered by the people in the picture.

    Are these the types of immigrants Progressives want to compare our nation of immigrants to?

  6. #66
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,372

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    You contradict yourself here .. you would do well to be more careful .. and if you're going to cite specifics of weeks, like 1/13 - 1/19 and 1/6 - 1/12, don't you think you'd do well to link to proof, rather than merely say "I know Steve H.".
    Why? You didn't....you just related what you remember from an interview. I'm telling you that you are a little off or misunderstood.

    For the reference weeks, it's right in the Technical Note:
    In the household survey, the reference period is generally the calendar week that contains the 12th day of the month.
    The bottom line is what is important, and as you've validated, the report we received from the BLS last Friday is, as I stated, mostly about December, and truly less about what happened in the great part of January, despite your imaginative hedging.
    The ONLY thing that is "mostly about December" is job search. Read the actual Survey Questions:
    It starts off with:
    I am going to ask a few questions about work-related activities (THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK). By (the week before last/last week), I mean the week beginning on Sunday, (DATE), and ending on Saturday, (DATE).
    (THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), did (name/you) do ANY work for (pay/either pay or profit)?
    (THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), (was/were) (name/you) on layoff from a job?
    etc etc, until you get to things like:
    What are all the things (you/he/she) (have/has) done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
    Did (name/you) look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
    In addition, I don't recall the BLS agent telling me anything other than that the interviews were conducted by the Census people, including the 150,000 business inteviews, even if the questions themselves might have originated with the BLS.
    I'm sorry your memory is not perfect. But the multiple people I've talked to at BLS, who work on the different surveys...and the people I've spoken to at Census who work on the household survey, all confirm that there are 2 surveys, one for household, one for business (actually, there are a few more, but we're just talking about Friday's release now). Again, you should have read the Technical Note:
    The household survey provides information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables, marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

    The establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables, marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. BLS collects these data each month from the payroll records of a sample of nonagricultural business establishments.
    Do you need links to the BLS Handbook of Methods?

    So again, you might want to show a BLS link if you're going to override what a BLS agent directly told me, as saying you know Steve H. doesn't cut it.
    So why does your one conversation outweigh my multiple conversations at the professional level? And there's a difference between what he told you and what you understood/remember. I study this stuff continuously and have for many years.

    Finally, your imaginings of why there was a non-response are pretty extreme .. and, no, that's not what is the great general rule. The great general rule of non-response is not that "the house got torn down" or "turned into a business", as that's pretty ludicrous to attribute.
    Never said it was a great general rule. I was pointing out other reasons that do frequently occur. And ludicrous??? I'll get back to that.

    The truth of the matter is that people who can't find a job for awhile lose their homes, and they get tired of relating their dismal situation to the census taker each month, and they just stop looking .. these are the great general rules that people don't respond.
    And your link for that is? The fact is that there is usually no way to tell why a person no longer occupies a home. Let's go to Technical Paper 66 for the word on that. First sentance when talking about ineligibility:
    The FR’s first task is to establish the eligibility of the sample address for the CPS. There are many reasons an address may not be eligible for interview. For example, the address may have been converted to a permanent business, condemned or demolished, or it may be outside the boundaries of the area for which it was selected. Regardless of the reason, such sample addresses are classified as Type C noninterviews.
    Obviously this is important contrary to your claims and it is a matter of including the address in future interviews.
    Next up is
    Type B ineligibility includes units that are intended for occupancy but are not occupied by any eligible individuals.
    Reasons for such ineligibility include a vacant housing unit (either for sale or rent), units occupied entirely by
    individuals who are not eligible for a CPS labor force interview (individuals with a usual residence elsewhere (URE), or in the Armed Forces). Such units are classified as Type B noninterviews.
    And let's not forget Type A;
    These are households that the FR has determined are eligible for a CPS interview but for which no useable data were collected. To be eligible, the unit has to be occupied by at least one person eligible for an interview (an individual who is a civilian, at least 15 years old, and does not have a usual residence elsewhere). Even though such households are eligible, they are not interviewed because the household members refuse, are absent during the interviewing period, or are unavailable for other reasons.
    As for claims of how often...I'm not going to go digging for more recent non-interview data, but again from Technical Paper 66, for September 2004 (Figure 7-9):
    Noninterviews: 16,445
    Type A: 4,511 Mostly refusals, no reason given.
    Type B: 11,522 Mostly from vacancies, no way to tell why.
    Type C (which you claimed was "ludicrous"): 412



    To assume the person I spoke with told me something than what I've related to you is rather arrogant of you.
    I'm assuming that you, not being expert in this field, misunderstood what you were told. It happens. I've been doing this a very long time and know this stuff almost as well as anyone at BLS.

    Reality remains that the true unemployment rate is around 14.0%.
    i guarantee no one at BLS told you that. The U6 includes people with jobs, and the Marginally Attached are not Unemployed (by definition).

    That's an accurate presentation of the percentage of those who want a job and would take a job if offerred, and that includes those who search for work in ways that are wholly acceptable and sensible, but are rejected as valid methods of looking for work by the BLS.
    It also includes people who have full time jobs but are temporarily working part time due to cut hours. Why do you consider them unemployed?

    And which "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods are you talking about? Census and BLS accept all active methods: anything that could conceivably result in a job offer. From the Interviewer's Manual:
    Active Job Search Methods
    • Contacted public employment agency (for example, visited a job service)
    • Contacted private employment agency (for example, called a recruiting or head-hunting agency)
    • Contacted employer directly (for example, spoke to someone in a company's employment office about a job)
    • Sent out resume or filled out applications (for example, mailed a job application)
    • Contacted friends or relatives (for example, asked friends for job leads)
    • Contacted school/college or university employment center (for example, visited a college placement office)
    • Placed or answered ads (for example, responded to newspaper want ads)
    • Checked union/professional registers (for example, placed name on nurses union register)
    • Other Active (for example, bid on a contract or auditioned for a part in a play)
    Methods not accepted as active search would be
    Looked at ads (for example, read newspaper want
    ads, but did not respond to any)
    • Attended job training programs or courses (for example, took a typing course)
    • Other passive (for example, studied for Real Estate license or picked up a job application)
    Which of those do you consider to be "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods

    In addition, those on temporary layoff who expect to return do not need to have conducted any search.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    That the state of our infrastructure is a determinant of our competitiveness is simply a matter of fact. The free-market is a term used to explain (in a simplistic way) macroeconomics. I am not the President, so it makes little sense to rant about him via proxy.
    As was stated before, if it was such an issue, then why didn't Obama's 800B+ stimulus primarily go to fund Infrastructure? You keep simplistically calling or "Infrastructure Investment" when it is nothing more than Government Spending. You're really not saying much here that already hasn't been refuted 10 times over in this thread.

    Nobody is "ranting" about the President. This is why it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. You mischaracterize and objectify positions when you are unable to refute facts.

    The research was provided; either refute it or move on. No amount of foot stomping will further your point.
    You don't have a point. You're just claiming we need more Government Spending. We don't. Your points were refuted in the previous post, regardless of how much Socialist "research" you want to provide.

    The sub-topic was infrastructure spending. You (of course) used CFC as a tangent because you cannot keep up with the discussion at hand. Too bad!
    Dodging again. You can't refute facts so you obfuscate. /shrug it is what it is

    No. Keynes was opposed to deficits during periods of low unemployment. Do try and keep up!
    Keynes was against large and structural deficits. He believed they were a drag on the Economy. Do try and keep up!

    You have not blown anything out of the water. The research has been presented and yet to be refuted. Mere sourcing of random articles does not suffice.
    Of course I have. All you keep doing over and over is stating the Government needs to spend more money, engage in more Stimulus Spending. It's a joke.

    Infrastructure spending that is in the neighborhood of the cross-country average, as a percentage of GDP. There was a topic posted, and all you provided was partisan drivel.
    You just keep advocating more Government Spending. It didn't work before. It won't work now. Obama's Stimulus added to the deficit and created more debt. No new wealth was created. Pure waste. These are Infrastructure Projects that wouldn't sustain any jobs over the long term, and would be done anyways regardless, hence no net gain to the Economy in the long run. You're also not taking into account, (and surprise! I mentioned this in a previous thread and you were unable to refute it) high levels of job poaching and the negative externalities associated with that. Construction jobs are usually highly specialized jobs. It's a wash.

    You also are unable to refute the massive cost overruns, fraud, corruption ect. usually associated with massive Government Spending Projects. There is also no point in repairing bridges in communities that aren't producing any goods and services. Using your logic we might as well rebuild Detroit from the ground up. Doesn't mean there will be sustained economic growth there at all, so in the long term, there would be very little value in rebuilding that infrastructure.

    9 out of 10 Government projects go over budget, many at DOUBLE initial estimates - http://www.honolulutraffic.com/JAPAFlyvbjerg05.pdf

    I suggest you get up to speed - http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp10229.pdf

    You have yet to provide anything that supports causation, let alone statistically significant correlation. Do try again!
    6 trillion added to the deficit over the last 4 years. An 800B Stimulus Package (Largest in American History). Economy just shrunk. You are not worth my time.

    You have yet to refute anything! Government deficits add to economic output. This is simply a matter of fact. It would be beneficial not to confuse crowding out in your next response.
    Government deficits add to economic output? 6 trillion spent over the last 4 years. The Economy just shrunk genius. Look you try and act like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. You keep trying to debate nonsense in a bubble. When that bubble is punctured by reality, you claim pesky facts that bring down your house of cards are not relevant. Clearly it's waste of time trying to even engage you. You are not an honest person.

    An observation of your activity.
    Projection noted

    You mean debt to GDP; The deficit is at best 11% of GDP. The Reagan recession was an entirely different animal; high unemployment (caused by deliberate monetary policy via Volcker) and high inflation (expectation related). Perhaps it would be a good idea to at least get the terminology straight before making an argument.
    Total Debt: $16,432,730,050,569.12; Debt To GDP: 103% | Zero Hedge

    Under Reagan it was 51%. The Economy under Reagan grew by 1/3. Yes we get it. The Economy under Reagan was "Different" or something. /laugh

    Which helped alleviate inflation and inflationary expectations.
    Which caused massive economic growth actually. Something you admit you cannot dispute

    Nonsense, just a simple observation of the facts.
    You're repeating his talking points. Nothing more

    Tax rates are lower under Obama than they are under Reagan. Or can you provide relevant data to refute my comment?
    This strawman was refuted in the previous post. Claiming tax rates when Reagan took office is misleading. A better indicator of his tax policy would be when he left office. They were lower, especially for the poor and middle class. Tax rates under Carter were higher than Obama, but only because Obama chickened out on raising taxes. He's now calling for higher taxes. You're just bleeting a debunked article run by the NYT. Nothing more.

    Effective tax rates are currently lower than during any other time in our post WWII history. Fact.
    /yawn you're not very good at this

    Obamacare = 20 new taxes coming down the pipe. Poor and Middle class will be hardest hit. Obama inherited low tax rates which he is now trying to raise. You don't even know the argument you are trying to make. You're just bleeting talking points in a vacuum (par for the course) without any context and not making any sense. We get it though, when your dishonesty is pointed out, you will quickly come up with excuses like "that isn't relevant to the discussion" because anything outside your limited knowledge of talking points must not be discussed. I know your game and it doesn't impress me.

    Another fallacy? I was not aware that my political lean was in any way topic of discussion. Desperateness is beginning to set in i see. Try to stay on topic (a request for the nth time).
    Not a fallacy at all. Just an observation of facts. You are not a libertarian. You are a socialist who bleets like a sheep the need for more and more Government Spending with every post.

    Not disputing that.
    You can't dispute it. You try and propagandize around it with lies and obfuscation, but unfortunately for you it blows whatever garbage point you are trying to make in this thread, ie Government Spending is the answer to all our economic problems or something.

    Wealth losses in excess of 100% of GDP can have that lingering effect.
    You mean wealth stolen. Another dodge when you can't refute facts. We need to create a drinking game for your buffoonery.

    Cumulative GDP GROWTH. Again, careful on the terminology in the future.
    *drink*

    Really? I have managed to stay on topic in a continuous manner where as you have been all over the place.
    *drink*

    This is your usual ploy. Not working. You're just bleeting what Keynesian fools like Krugman keep claiming. All as an excuse to increase Government Spending. These are the keynesians who were wrong about Obama's Stimulus. Current Monetary Policy is simply not working. Hell, they are heavily pumping into malinvestments yet again (MBS what could possibly go wrong?) which in the long term is only going to create another recession. We've just had a quarter of negative growth. We shall see what happens next quarter which is usually the slowest retail quarter of the year.

    A liquidity trap has been our reality. Your low-brow article is not a means of refutation.

    Another typical ploy of yours. Dismiss facts you don't like as "low brow". Krugman does the same thing. If you don't buy into his Keynesian Big Government nonsense, you're "dumb" ect. *drink*

    I am not supporter of MMT; hence it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.
    Oh it does, but like everything you try an argue, you can't step outside your simplistic little box.

    That is kind of the point. Fiscal stimulus is enacted to create short term economic growth.
    Too bad it hasn't created any short term economic growth. It has only added 6 trillion to the deficit while shrinking the Economy. Fail.

    Your opinion, given the level of your of understanding simply does not cut it.
    Projection noted. I've had these types of discussions with Big Government Spending types like you many times. Your premise is always the same. Government needs to spend spend spend, regardless of the actual Economic results. Unfortunately for your position on the subject, the facts are hilariously against you at this point.


    This makes zero sense. A fiscal multiplier means that NO (zero) money that was appropriated was subsequently spent into the real economy. This of course is nonsense.
    The fact that you believe it makes zero sense tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge on the subject. You're just spouting a bunch of BS. Obama's own economic team made predictions based entirely on the Fiscal Multiplier. All of those predictions were laughably not even close, all while while creating more debt and adding to the deficit. I get it though, your response in the past was "So what?". There really is nothing more to say on the subject. Obama's stimulus didn't create wealth. it created waste and hurt the Economy.

    An overwhelming majority of the stimulus has been dispersed. Of course you lack the understanding and objectiveness necessary to discuss fiscal stimulus.
    We talked about this in a previous thread and I repeated the point earlier which you ignored. Stimulus funds are maintaining less and less jobs, while the cost of these jobs continue to rise. It was a massive failure. You are also contradicting a previous claim you made in regards to stimulus funds which I had (like always) to correct you on.

    For any further answers you need on the subject, feel free to read my previous posts. You have repeatedly lied and tried to pass off debunked nonsense as facts. It's not worth anyone's time to engage you, since you are incapable of having honest debate.

    Have a great day

  8. #68
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Why? You didn't....you just related what you remember from an interview. I'm telling you that you are a little off or misunderstood. For the reference weeks, it's right in the Technical Note: The ONLY thing that is "mostly about December" is job search. Read the actual Survey Questions: It starts off with: etc etc, until you get to things like: I'm sorry your memory is not perfect. But the multiple people I've talked to at BLS, who work on the different surveys...and the people I've spoken to at Census who work on the household survey, all confirm that there are 2 surveys, one for household, one for business (actually, there are a few more, but we're just talking about Friday's release now). Again, you should have read the Technical Note: Do you need links to the BLS Handbook of Methods? So why does your one conversation outweigh my multiple conversations at the professional level? And there's a difference between what he told you and what you understood/remember. I study this stuff continuously and have for many years. Never said it was a great general rule. I was pointing out other reasons that do frequently occur. And ludicrous??? I'll get back to that. And your link for that is? The fact is that there is usually no way to tell why a person no longer occupies a home. Let's go to Technical Paper 66 for the word on that. First sentance when talking about ineligibility: Obviously this is important contrary to your claims and it is a matter of including the address in future interviews. Next up is And let's not forget Type A; As for claims of how often...I'm not going to go digging for more recent non-interview data, but again from Technical Paper 66, for September 2004 (Figure 7-9): Noninterviews: 16,445 Type A: 4,511 Mostly refusals, no reason given. Type B: 11,522 Mostly from vacancies, no way to tell why.
    Type C (which you claimed was "ludicrous"): 412 I'm assuming that you, not being expert in this field, misunderstood what you were told. It happens. I've been doing this a very long time and know this stuff almost as well as anyone at BLS. i guarantee no one at BLS told you that. The U6 includes people with jobs, and the Marginally Attached are not Unemployed (by definition). It also includes people who have full time jobs but are temporarily working part time due to cut hours. Why do you consider them unemployed? And which "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods are you talking about? Census and BLS accept all active methods: anything that could conceivably result in a job offer. From the Interviewer's Manual: Methods not accepted as active search would be Which of those do you consider to be "wholly acceptable and sensible" job search methods In addition, those on temporary layoff who expect to return do not need to have conducted any search.
    Pure Obfuscation.

    You attempt to drown the reader in quotes from the BLS website, but at no place do you at all refute the facts that were in question.

    In fact, you showcase that the household questions are "by" the first week in January starting with the second week in December, so clearly the so-called January reports are mostly about December.

    And you completely ignore the reality of the 150,000 businesses surveryed where the questions put to them were from the second week in December through the first week in January how many people did you hire, fire, lay off, out-source, in-source, etc.

    Again, you're simply posting subterfuge, probably for a liberal reason.

    As for what does the BLS not allow as a valid job-search reason? For one, if you post an account with Monster or Dice or any employment data base where all the job openings are posted nowadays, with key search parameters for your profession and have that site send you an e-mail when a job-opening matching those parameters appears, that's not considered looking for work by the BLS requirements .. yet everyone does that anymore.

    And, when you can't accept that the BLS, the Census Department, they simply can't get an accurate handle on all the truly unemployed people, that they admit that the millions of not-in-labor-force "discouraged" workers the reports present is really only about 60% of the true figure, you then say "they're professionals, they'd never say that, no BLS worker ever told you that".



    Clearly your political ideological agenda is to keep the BS up because it's the liberal thing to do to make the fictional numbers sweeter for Obama than they in reality are.

    I really don't care whether the numbers favor Obama and House Repubs or harm either of them.

    All I care about is the truth, which I have presented.

    Sadly, obfuscation is all you seem to care about, and for political agenda reasons.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    04-03-13 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    458

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Anyone else see how MSNBC received the jobs numbers news? Despite the uptick in unemployment to 7.9%, it was really good news,
    Has Fox recommended we go to the bunkers yet?

  10. #70
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,261

    Re: Unemployment Rises to 7.9 Percent, Economy adds 157,000 Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    why didn't Obama's 800B+ stimulus primarily go to fund Infrastructure?
    The majority of stimulus money was in the form of tax cuts and aid to state/local government. I have maintained the same sentiment that it was too small and poorly targeted.

    You keep simplistically calling or "Infrastructure Investment" when it is nothing more than Government Spending. You're really not saying much here that already hasn't been refuted 10 times over in this thread.
    Again, you have yet to refute a single comment i have made. Government spending is simply a subset of GDP, which can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX). A deficit adds to GDP by definition; there is no debate here.

    Nobody is "ranting" about the President. This is why it is impossible to have a real discussion with you. You mischaracterize and objectify positions when you are unable to refute facts.
    I am not the one who brings up President Obama in every single response! Debate the topic, not your like/dislike of the current administration via proxy.

    You don't have a point. You're just claiming we need more Government Spending. We don't. Your points were refuted in the previous post, regardless of how much Socialist "research" you want to provide.
    If we were to balance the budget tomorrow, aggregate output initially declines, dollar for dollar, by way of elimination of federal deficits. This can be observed by way of the national income accounting identity GDP = C + I + G + NX.

    Keynes was against large and structural deficits. He believed they were a drag on the Economy. Do try and keep up!
    Can you source this statement? Of course not! Here is a link to The General Theory.

    All you keep doing over and over is stating the Government needs to spend more money, engage in more Stimulus Spending. It's a joke.
    When unemployment is abnormally (and persistently) and given the existence of a liquidity trap (short term interest rates at the zero bound), fiscal policy responses in the form of increased public expenditure alleviate economic downturns. Again, this can be observed by the national income accounting identity: GDP = C + I + G + (NX) and a basic IS/LM diagram.

    You just keep advocating more Government Spending. It didn't work before. It won't work now. Obama's Stimulus added to the deficit and created more debt. No new wealth was created. Pure waste. These are Infrastructure Projects that wouldn't sustain any jobs over the long term, and would be done anyways regardless, hence no net gain to the Economy in the long run.
    Stimulus is not a long term solution to high unemployment. This is a strawman at best.

    You're also not taking into account, (and surprise! I mentioned this in a previous thread and you were unable to refute it) high levels of job poaching and the negative externalities associated with that. Construction jobs are usually highly specialized jobs. It's a wash.
    Stimulus is a short term solution to high unemployment; your comment is of no use (strawman).

    You also are unable to refute the massive cost overruns, fraud, corruption ect. usually associated with massive Government Spending Projects.
    Government failure and market failure are not mutually exclusive. Try again.

    There is also no point in repairing bridges in communities that aren't producing any goods and services.
    Quote me stating anything of the sort.

    Using your logic we might as well rebuild Detroit from the ground up.
    Detroit has a GDP of over $200 billion. The city would benefit from infrastructure stimulus when unemployment is high.

    Doesn't mean there will be sustained economic growth there at all, so in the long term, there would be very little value in rebuilding that infrastructure.
    Say you are correct (although i disagree); that does not equate to infrastructure stimulus having very little value. What do the experts (Civil Engineers) have to say?

    Home | Report Card for America's Infrastructure

    9 out of 10 Government projects go over budget, many at DOUBLE initial estimates - http://www.honolulutraffic.com/JAPAFlyvbjerg05.pdf
    An article on industrial planning does not support your premise that infrastructure stimulus will not boost short term economic growth. It simply argues that infrastructure planners (both public and private) can do much to improve their forecasting methods and accuracy.


    I suggest you read your own sources:

    The analysis here shows that in a standard neoclassical growth model, the
    cumulative multiplier for output can still be larger than 1, even under distortionary financing
    and with a modest degree of productivity of public capital. Since recent countercyclical fiscal
    actions in the United State include substantial government investment projects, our results
    indicate that different government spending categories are likely to have very different
    multipliers, depending on the productivity of the spending.
    Macroeconomic effects of government investment hinge critically on implementation delays
    and distorting fiscal adjustments. A substantial time-to-build lag in a standard neoclassical
    model can make expansionary government investment contractionary in the short run, at
    worst, and have a muted impact, at best. Over longer horizons, the choice of fiscal adjustment
    instruments is important for minimizing the negative effects from stabilizing government
    debt. The productivity of government investment is also critical. Macroeconomic analysis
    often does not distinguish among the various types of government spending. But
    present-value long-run output multipliers can be larger than 1 even if government investment
    is only moderately productive.
    6 trillion added to the deficit over the last 4 years. An 800B Stimulus Package (Largest in American History). Economy just shrunk. You are not worth my time.
    Cuts in government spending while a slowly growing private sector continues to dig its way out can have that effect. Government expenditures fell by 6.6% in QIV 2013.


    Government deficits add to economic output? 6 trillion spent over the last 4 years.
    By definition!

    The Economy just shrunk genius.
    As did government expenditure in the tune of 6.6%, or 0.025% of GDP.

    Which caused massive economic growth actually. Something you admit you cannot dispute
    Never intended to dispute it. But imagine that, increased federal deficits caused massive economic growth. Who would have thought?


    This strawman was refuted in the previous post. Claiming tax rates when Reagan took office is misleading
    We can use tax rates when Reagan left office; it really does not make a difference. Taxes are lower now then they were during any period of the Reagan Presidency. Understand the difference between progressive tax rates and effective tax rates.

    A better indicator of his tax policy would be when he left office.
    Source?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •