• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Mithros said:
There isn't such a graph. But realize we're talking about two different things here.

Businesses are independent profit maximizers. Their job is to maximize their profits and gobble up as much of the available market share as possible. I'm not advocating improper behaviour, but maximizing profit is their duty to their families and employees. Businesses shouldn't ever feel the need to expand when it's not in their self interest to do so. That's micro-economics.

But we're not talking about microeconomics. We're not talking about open systems where it's possible to absorb wealth and material from the outside. We're talking about Macro-economics where there is no outside.

The bottom line is that there amount of stuff made in the world equals the amount of stuff consumed. The economy is essentially the trading of all of these goods and services. The economy grows as people produce and therefore consume more. However, if all of the wealth is concentrated in too few hands, then the uber rich can't possibly spend what they have and the people at the bottom don't have enough wealth to make up the difference. The net result is higher unemployment.

I know you have all of these political hot button issues, but they kind of don't matter, at least not when we're talking about fundamental problems in the economy.
Click to expand...


Well, you may think them hot button issues, but they are relevant on both the micro, and the macro. Personally, I think the massing of wealth gained through the clicking of a mouse, or the betting on a stock price manipulated to shimmer at the right moment in time is a joke. However, it would be hypocritical of me to call for changes to limit the practice. I fully reject any action that identifies someone, or something, as being too big to fail. That is outrageous and prostitutes the process.

In the whole, one can broaden the scope of the global economy to fit any macro review. I don't know how helpful that is. I suppose in some futurist fantasy there could be a point that suggests only a few have all, and the rest live only to serve them, but reality certainly crashes that scenario to the ground.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, you may think them hot button issues, but they are relevant on both the micro, and the macro. Personally, I think the massing of wealth gained through the clicking of a mouse, or the betting on a stock price manipulated to shimmer at the right moment in time is a joke. However, it would be hypocritical of me to call for changes to limit the practice. I fully reject any action that identifies someone, or something, as being too big to fail. That is outrageous and prostitutes the process.

In the whole, one can broaden the scope of the global economy to fit any macro review. I don't know how helpful that is. I suppose in some futurist fantasy there could be a point that suggests only a few have all, and the rest live only to serve them, but reality certainly crashes that scenario to the ground.
Click to expand...

Well then have at it! How are they relevant on the macro level? For example Obama-Care.
 
Conservative said:
You create wealth by creating services that people want, i.e. Facebook. You have such a narrow minded view of the economy and what leadership is. Wonder if you would have the same outlook if these were a Republican numbers vs. a Democrat? Capitalism made this country great, too bad liberals and Obama are trying to destroy it? You think demonizing individual wealth creation helps capitalism? You think that things like Obamacare, more regulations, and higher taxes promote capitalism? You think having people dependent on the govt. promotes capitalism?

I trash the guy in the WH because he lacks the leadership and executive experience to be there. Sometimes it takes a leader to cheerlead and Obama would rather blame someone else vs cheerleading the workers in this economy
Click to expand...
Facebook? Can't most of the functions performed by their employees be performed by people in other countries? What good is a service job if the job can be exported just like manufacturing jobs? jThe fact is that a good deal of middle class jobs have been exported to China and a multitude of other countries. One service job is nurses which cannot be exported, that fact maybe why so many men have entered into the field.


Number of male U.S. nurses triple since 1970 - CBS News
 
Mithros said:
Well then have at it! How are they relevant on the macro level? For example Obama-Care.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Frankly, I'm more focused on the micro, as you put it. It would seem you view the macro as being the economy on a global scale.

I suppose an argument could be made that the economic drag on business caused by uncertainty over the impact of Obamacare can have global implications. For example, I purchase sub-assemblies for products I manufacture through a number of souces in China, and Thailand. I plan to start making those here, but I am holding off that investment until I have a better feel for where the X crosses the Y. Obamacare, and other factors are part of those calculations. Our analysis indicates we will need 8 people, plus some additional engineering time, to bring the manufacturing of those components under my roof.

What kind of impact would 8 well paid workers have on the global economy? Well, that's all realtive. Multiply that times thousands of companies.
 
pbrauer said:
Facebook? Can't most of the functions performed by their employees be performed by people in other countries? What good is a service job if the job can be exported just like manufacturing jobs? jThe fact is that a good deal of middle class jobs have been exported to China and a multitude of other countries. One service job is nurses which cannot be exported, that fact maybe why so many men have entered into the field.


Number of male U.S. nurses triple since 1970 - CBS News
Click to expand...

Sorry but it seems that you want a simple yet secure job for life and that is never going to happen in the real world. People change, demands change, buying habits change and those that adapt to change will benefit the most from changing with that change. Many of the industries are gone replaced by new industries created from technological or demand changes. Manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country only to be replaced by high tech jobs that replaced them. The only thing constant in this world is change. Too bad liberals don't understand that
 
Conservative said:
Sorry but it seems that you want a simple yet secure job for life and that is never going to happen in the real world. People change, demands change, buying habits change and those that adapt to change will benefit the most from changing with that change. Many of the industries are gone replaced by new industries created from technological or demand changes. Manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country only to be replaced by high tech jobs that replaced them. The only thing constant in this world is change. Too bad liberals don't understand that
Click to expand...


I enjoy your posts.

One thing that seems to escape so many, is the impact of regulatory incrementalism. People have such short memories. Take the automobile industry.

A modern car is a technological wonder. It staggers me to think of the technology cramed into a car to meet current EPA and other regulations. Add in the fact the government demands these cars work properly for 100,000 miles, come hell or high water. Then consider the fact the resulting vehicle must be priced at a point the market will respond to, and it's no wonder automation and actual human man hours have been reduced.

Add in ROI demands from stockholders, hedge funds, and the big public pension funds, and it's no wonder production has been shipped off shore in order to maintain profit margins and growth.

From my point of view, one of the greatest threats to business in the US is the reality of regulatory incrementalism. It's a cancer that has had a dramatic negative impact on business throughout the country.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to be an expert on what everyone else does and what businesses do with higher taxes and regulations. That leads me to believe you never had a dime of your own money invested in anything nor did you ever have to meet a payroll with revenue generated from the sale of any products. I do agree with you though as most of it is manageable but the problem is that management normally means reduction in operating expenses with the easiest one to reduce and the most expensive being payroll. We are seeing businesses making record profits today and achieving high stock values due mostly to operating expenses being low because payrolls are low. Companies are doing more with less and the reverberates throughout the economy. The ones being hurt the most are small businesses which liberals want to ignore. Further what you fail to understand is how the market works. People even people like you are always looking for a good deal. Competition keeps prices low and when you raise operating expenses and cannot pass those increased costs on to the consumer you cannot print money thus you go out of business.

The economic results of Obama are geared to the uneducated non business individual who somehow seems to believe that money grows on trees. For the govt. it basically does as they cut down trees and print cash out of the paper. Private business cannot do that. Obama has been the most anti business, anti private enterprise President this country has seen since Carter. He is making Carter look good though. Unfortunately in your world results don't seem to matter which leads me to believe as I stated you invested and managed nothing.
Click to expand...

I have history to inform me on what has happened, so we can predict based on history what will happen. it's not against the rules to read up on it. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I have history to inform me on what has happened, so we can predict based on history what will happen. it's not against the rules to read up on it. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


I have seen no evidence that you have any concept of history or actual business experience. Anyone that doesn't believe regulations, higher taxes, Obamacare don't affect business costs negatively are very naïve and have no knowledge of history or a business financial statement.
 
Conservative said:
I have seen no evidence that you have any concept of history or actual business experience. Anyone that doesn't believe regulations, higher taxes, Obamacare don't affect business costs negatively are very naïve and have no knowledge of history or a business financial statement.
Click to expand...

Stay within the claim. No one said no effect. Said not enough to stop business if people are buying. This economy has flourish with both low and high taxes, more regulations and less regulations. This is historical fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
Stay within the claim. No one said no effect. Said not enough to stop business if people are buying. This economy has flourish with both low and high taxes, more regulations and less regulations. This is historical fact.
Click to expand...

Again, you offer your opinion and pass it off as fact. Since you apparently have no idea what regulations, higher taxes, Obamacare, as well as debt service and other business expenses costs businesses, your opinion is nothing more than an inaccurate guess. Site the historical facts you claim you have? Do you have a list of all the financial statements from every business in the country? Do you have the profit demand for each business as well? State your post as opinion because that opinion of yours is downright idiotic.
 
Conservative said:
Again, you offer your opinion and pass it off as fact. Since you apparently have no idea what regulations, higher taxes, Obamacare, as well as debt service and other business expenses, your opinion is nothing more than an inaccurate guess. Site the historical facts you claim you have? Do you have a list of all the financial statements from every business in the country? Do you have the profit demand for each business as well? State your post as opinion because that opinion of yours is downright idiotic.
Click to expand...

What I offered as fact, is fact. Not opinion.
 
Boo Radley said:
What I offered as fact, is fact. Not opinion.
Click to expand...

You have provided no source of that so called fact so until you offer financial reports and profit demands of business yours is nothing more than an uneducated opinion.
 
Conservative said:
You have provided no source of that so called fact so until you offer financial reports and profit demands of business yours is nothing more than an uneducated opinion.
Click to expand...

Over the years, I've provided many. How about this one:

. . . it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton.

(snip)

What does this mean for public policy? Given the large rise in inequality in the United States over the past 40 years, if the historical evidence tells us that it is unlikely that taxing the wealthy has a large negative impact on growth (and it might even have a positive impact), shouldn't we increase rates on the wealthy from their current top rates of 35%?

Economist's View: Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt Growth?

or this:

Yet this belief, which has been subject to extensive research and analysis, does not fare well under scrutiny. As three leading tax economists recently concluded in a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence, “there is no compelling evidence to date of real responses of upper income taxpayers to changes in tax rates.”[1] The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run.

Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

or this:

The argument has proved extraordinarily successful. Under Republican presidents, the top income tax rate fell as low as 28 percent, less than half the 70 percent level it was in 1980.

The top corporate income tax rate was 46 percent when President Reagan took office. Today it is 35 percent. Taxes on investment income, which primarily flows to the wealthy, are even lower. In laying out his plan for a balanced budget by 2023, Mr. Ryan has trotted out the same three elements of Mr. Kemp’s formula: drastic curbs on spending, paring loopholes in unspecified ways and cutting tax rates even further, well below the roughly 40 percent top rate on income that was reintroduced by President Obama’s recent tax increase.

“The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the board — not to fund more wasteful government spending,” Mr. Ryan’s budget plan states. Echoing Mr. Forbes, he called the new Republican proposal “a pro-growth tax system that benefits families and businesses.”

Problem is, there is little evidence that tax cutting has worked as advertised.

Thomas L. Hungerford, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, got into trouble with Republicans last year when he published a study suggesting that the sharp drop in top tax rates since 1945 did little to lift economic growth but probably did contribute to soaring income inequality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/b...-economy-is-unproved.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Boo Radley said:
Over the years, I've provided many. How about this one:

. . . it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton.

(snip)

What does this mean for public policy? Given the large rise in inequality in the United States over the past 40 years, if the historical evidence tells us that it is unlikely that taxing the wealthy has a large negative impact on growth (and it might even have a positive impact), shouldn't we increase rates on the wealthy from their current top rates of 35%?

Economist's View: Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt Growth?

or this:

Yet this belief, which has been subject to extensive research and analysis, does not fare well under scrutiny. As three leading tax economists recently concluded in a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence, “there is no compelling evidence to date of real responses of upper income taxpayers to changes in tax rates.”[1] The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run.

Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

or this:

The argument has proved extraordinarily successful. Under Republican presidents, the top income tax rate fell as low as 28 percent, less than half the 70 percent level it was in 1980.

The top corporate income tax rate was 46 percent when President Reagan took office. Today it is 35 percent. Taxes on investment income, which primarily flows to the wealthy, are even lower. In laying out his plan for a balanced budget by 2023, Mr. Ryan has trotted out the same three elements of Mr. Kemp’s formula: drastic curbs on spending, paring loopholes in unspecified ways and cutting tax rates even further, well below the roughly 40 percent top rate on income that was reintroduced by President Obama’s recent tax increase.

“The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the board — not to fund more wasteful government spending,” Mr. Ryan’s budget plan states. Echoing Mr. Forbes, he called the new Republican proposal “a pro-growth tax system that benefits families and businesses.”

Problem is, there is little evidence that tax cutting has worked as advertised.

Thomas L. Hungerford, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, got into trouble with Republicans last year when he published a study suggesting that the sharp drop in top tax rates since 1945 did little to lift economic growth but probably did contribute to soaring income inequality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/b...-economy-is-unproved.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...

All this does is prove that you have no idea what business expenses are including business taxes, operating expenses, debt service, and then the personal income taxes. Your argument that regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare affect only the rich who you believe can afford it shows really how poorly informed and biased you are. Not all small business owners are rich and not all small businesses can afford the expenses being imposed by the Obama Administration. Until you are in their shoes all the studies and reports you post are nothing more than the opinion of others, still opinions
 
Conservative said:
All this does is prove that you have no idea what business expenses are including business taxes, operating expenses, debt service, and then the personal income taxes. Your argument that regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare affect only the rich who you believe can afford it shows really how poorly informed and biased you are. Not all small business owners are rich and not all small businesses can afford the expenses being imposed by the Obama Administration. Until you are in their shoes all the studies and reports you post are nothing more than the opinion of others, still opinions
Click to expand...

So, you choose to ignore the history, fully studied and recorded, that proves you wrong.



I'm shocked . . . . not! :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you choose to ignore the history, fully studied and recorded, that proves you wrong.



I'm shocked . . . . not! :coffeepap
Click to expand...

And what history is that? You post information on personal income taxes that have absolutely nothing to do with business operating expenses or the cost of regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare
 
Conservative said:
Sorry but it seems that you want a simple yet secure job for life and that is never going to happen in the real world. People change, demands change, buying habits change and those that adapt to change will benefit the most from changing with that change. Many of the industries are gone replaced by new industries created from technological or demand changes. Manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country only to be replaced by high tech jobs that replaced them. The only thing constant in this world is change. Too bad liberals don't understand that
Click to expand...
I understand the change, but here is the problem:

d86e1186454c94217f6ee6c451ec77be.png
 
pbrauer said:
I understand the change, but here is the problem:

d86e1186454c94217f6ee6c451ec77be.png
Click to expand...

What are you trying to show here, that the net deficit has gone up the last three years and is approaching 2008 levels? Do you have any idea what percentage trade deficit is of GDP and how that impacts jobs? If you cut off all foreign imports what will that do to product costs in this country or have you given that any thought? Who does higher costs impact the most and do you always go out and shop American at higher prices?

By the way where are exports in your numbers?
 
Conservative said:
And what history is that? You post information on personal income taxes that have absolutely nothing to do with business operating expenses or the cost of regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare
Click to expand...

The first issue was taxes. That's what you asked for evidence on. First, do you concede I'm correct about taxes and the historical evidence? We have to have that before I move on.
 
Boo Radley said:
The first issue was taxes. That's what you asked for evidence on. First, do you concede I'm correct about taxes and the historical evidence? We have to have that before I move on.
Click to expand...

Both addressed personal income taxes not business taxes. Apparently that fact escaped you and no I don't buy the opinion of the study because the study doesn't have any clue what those evil rich people do with their money or what their profit demand is. All I see is another jealous liberal who cares more about what someone else makes rather than doing what is right for the country. Since the impact is so little according to the study why do it?
 
Boo Radley said:
The first issue was taxes. That's what you asked for evidence on. First, do you concede I'm correct about taxes and the historical evidence? We have to have that before I move on.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can educate someone who claims they actually ran a business. For example, I am a business owner who incorporates for legal protection. In that corporation I have monthly operating expenses including payroll. I pay myself a salary out of that corporation and that salary is subject to personal income taxes as well as payroll taxes all going to the Federal Govt. If that corporation makes money then the govt. collects corporate taxes on the profit. If the company loses money then I have to adjust my operating expenses including my salary and then the salary of others. Nothing you posted recognizes that reality.

Further regulations cost my corporation money, compliance money, Obamacare costs my company benefit money which increases payroll costs, higher taxes mean my operating expenses have to be adjusted or I have to collect more revenue to pay those higher taxes. Get it yet?

Posting about personal income taxes does not address business expenses and the effect of those expenses on hiring employees
 
Conservative said:
Let me see if I can educate someone who claims they actually ran a business. For example, I am a business owner who incorporates for legal protection. In that corporation I have monthly operating expenses including payroll. I pay myself a salary out of that corporation and that salary is subject to personal income taxes as well as payroll taxes all going to the Federal Govt. If that corporation makes money then the govt. collects corporate taxes on the profit. If the company loses money then I have to adjust my operating expenses including my salary and then the salary of others. Nothing you posted recognizes that reality.

Further regulations cost my corporation money, compliance money, Obamacare costs my company benefit money which increases payroll costs, higher taxes mean my operating expenses have to be adjusted or I have to collect more revenue to pay those higher taxes. Get it yet?

Posting about personal income taxes does not address business expenses and the effect of those expenses on hiring employees
Click to expand...

You can't prove your claims, so I'm not interested. But you should read closer what I gave you. They spoke to business tax as well.

As for regulations, let me start with this:

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.

Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.

In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.

Does government regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal. - Washington Post
 
Boo Radley said:
You can't prove your claims, so I'm not interested. But you should read closer what I gave you. They spoke to business tax as well.

As for regulations, let me start with this:

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.

Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.

In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.

Does government regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal. - Washington Post
Click to expand...

Wow, so because this study says the loss of jobs due to regulations is small that is ok to you whereas anyone who really cares about jobs wouldn't want anything to kill jobs. Further Obamacare is a regulation that isn't factored in at all but your statement that you aren't interested says it all. It has been shown that you have no clue how to run a business or the items that drive up business costs thus are part of the financial statement. Unfortunately for many neither does Obama who is a walking advertisement for the death of liberalism when it comes to economic policies.
 
Boo Radley said:
You can't prove your claims, so I'm not interested. But you should read closer what I gave you. They spoke to business tax as well.

As for regulations, let me start with this:

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.

Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.

In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.

Does government regulation really kill jobs? Economists say overall effect minimal. - Washington Post
Click to expand...

LOL.

0.3% Lost their job because of government regulation but 25% lost their job because of a drop in business demand. LOL. Without connecting the dots, that may be a true statement. Most people would be able to connect them though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom