• 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. Payrolls Gain More-Than-Expected 200,000; Jobless Rate Falls to 8.5%

j-mac said:
Consumer based economy is what progressives have been moving this country toward since the 70s as a way to destroy capitalism.
j-mac
Click to expand...

Nonsense. A consumption driven economy is self-sustaining and is the norm for any massive post-industrial society.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Nonsense. A consumption driven economy is self-sustaining and is the norm for any massive post-industrial society.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. It is in fact the opposite. If you as a society are not producing what you buy, you are not productive. And if you cannot increase productivity, you cannot increase your standard of living. If you are not producing, you are in fact raising the standard of living somewhere else, that is producing what you are purchasing, while lowering yours.
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
No, it is not. It is in fact the opposite. If you are not producing what you buy, you are not productive.
Click to expand...

Simple analysis of international trade tells a different story; that the U.S. consumes outside of its ability to produce is simply a matter of fact. Doing so INCREASES the nations standard of living!

And if you cannot increase productivity, you cannot increase your standard of living. If you are not producing, you are in fact raising the standard of living somewhere else, that is producing what you are purchasing, while lowering yours.
Click to expand...

I cannot even follow your line of thought. Clear up the incoherent statements and maybe we can have a discussion.
 
iguanaman said:
What Reagan did to increase revenues was increase SSI payments leading to the 2 trillion SS surplus which his GOP sucessors promptly spent. That act alone caused the economy to languish until Clinton. Taking money from those that would spend it in th economy is self defeating. Taxing money not spent boost the economy when the Govt. spends what the individual cannot. In a consumer economy spending=growth.
Click to expand...

Again, a glaring falsehood. Start to finish, but particularly with this notion of being a consumer. One must be a producer, to then become a viable consumer. Otherwise, one is only creating debt, and eventual devaluation, which means even less consumption. Whether you take the money from someone else, and distribute it to yourself to spend, or just run the printing presses, both are to put liens on all future productivity, while also eventually devaluing your dollars, usually seen as inflation.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Simple analysis of international trade tells a different story; that the U.S. consumes outside of its ability to produce is simply a matter of fact. Doing so INCREASES the nations standard of living!
Click to expand...

Complete BS. What you see now is a $16 trillion debt, that will absolutely lower our standard of living in 1000 ways.

I cannot even follow your line of thought. Clear up the incoherent statements and maybe we can have a discussion.
Click to expand...

And you can stick the smarmy where the sun don't shine. The concept of increasing one's productivity as being the only true way to increase one's standard of living is older than dirt. Whether it be one person, or an entire society. All other means head for a cliff. We have now put ourselves $16T in Federal debt, plus all the cumulative personal debt in every household, postponing when we go off a cliff. It ain't far now. Its actually pretty darn close.
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Complete BS. What you see now is a $16 trillion debt, that will absolutely lower our standard of living in 1000 ways.
Click to expand...

Now you are flip flopping on your premise. What does federal debt have to do with "producing what you buy"?

And you can stick the smarmy where the sun don't shine.
Click to expand...

Personal attack noted.

The concept of increasing one's productivity as being the only true way to increase one's standard of living is older than dirt.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that suggests that productivity in the United States is in any way stagnant, let alone NOT of the highest in the entire world?

Whether it be one person, or an entire society. All other means head for a cliff.
Click to expand...

Incoherent rants are of no interest to me.
 
Of course its good news but the problem is its not the kind of news the GOP want to hear at the start of an election year...
 
Higgins86 said:
Of course its good news but the problem is its not the kind of news the GOP want to hear at the start of an election year...
Click to expand...

Name for us the economic program obama implemented that created the unemployment in December 2011, Christmas??
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Do you have any evidence that suggests that productivity in the United States is in any way stagnant, let alone NOT of the highest in the entire world?
Click to expand...

Dalio does a good job of explaining what Eighty Deuce is talking about.

As shown below in chart 1, real per capita GDP has increased at an average rate of a shade less than 2%
over the last 100 years and didn’t vary a lot from that. This is because, over time, knowledge increases,
which in turn raises productivity and living standards. As shown in this chart, over the very long run,
there is relatively little variation from the trend line. Even the Great Depression in the 1930s looks rather
small. As a result, we can be relatively confident that, with time, the economy will get back on track.
However, up close, these variations from trend can be enormous. For example, typically in depressions
the peak-to-trough declines in real economic activity are around 20%, the destruction of financial
wealth is typically more than 50% and equity prices typically decline by around 80%. The losses in
financial wealth for those who have it at the beginning of depressions are typically greater than these
numbers suggest because there is also a tremendous shifting of who has wealth.
Click to expand...

Productivity.JPG

Most importantly, major swings around the trend are due to expansions and contractions in credit – i.e.,
credit cycles, most importantly 1) a long-term (typically 50 to 75 years) debt cycle (i.e., the “long wave
cycle”) and 2) a shorter-term (typically 5 to 8 years) debt cycle (i.e., the “business/market cycle”).
Click to expand...

In the third stage countries are rich and think of themselves as rich.

...
However, they eventually transition to a stage in which debts rise faster than incomes and
incomes rise faster than productivity. Inflation rates rise because rapidly rising income growth
leads to rapidly increasing spending on many items that cannot be correspondingly increased in
supply via productivity gain
Click to expand...

In the fourth stage countries become poorer and still think of themselves as rich.

Since they are reluctant to constrain their spending in line with their reduced income growth rate, they lower their savings
rates, increase their debts and cut corners. Because their spending continues to be strong, they
continue to appear rich, even though their balance sheets deteriorate. The reduced level of
efficient investments in infrastructure, capital goods and R&D slow their productivity gains.
Their cities and infrastructures become older and less efficient than those in the two earlier
stages. Their balance of payments positions deteriorate, reflecting their reduced
competitiveness. They increasingly rely on their reputations rather than on their
competitiveness to fund their deficits.
Click to expand...

As Kyle Bass explains in his recent quarterly letter, over the last decade global debt has grown at a CAGR of 11% while GDP has averaged 4%. Hayman_Nov2011

As for the US's global competitiveness, it's deteriorating quickly.

USA output.JPG

Consumption fueled by debt and income growth that outpaces productivity growth leads to long-term debt cycles and eventual deleveragings. Thinking we can borrow enough money to throw at the problem in an attempt to temporarily prop up demand doesn't fix a problem that was brought on by overleverage in the first place.

Because these cycles evolve slowly over long time frames – over at least 100+ years – they are
imperceptible to most people. They are also essentially irrelevant to rulers who typically have time
horizons of a couple of years. As a result, they are not controlled, which is the main reason that they are
destined to occur. If human nature was different so that debt growth doesn’t outpace income growth
and income growth doesn’t outpace productivity growth, these cycles would be pretty much eliminated.
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...MHtnCNhpVCxs9s3tg&sig2=dQgW6A7oSeWLBvxzWhnrig

https://www.bwater.com/home/disclai...=http://www.bwater.com/ViewDocument.aspx?f=50
 
Conservative said:
Name for us the economic program obama implemented that created the unemployment in December 2011, Christmas??
Click to expand...

Tough to say if it was just the Christmas effect or if the economy is actually improving, we will have to wait and see what happens over the next couple of months.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Now you are flip flopping on your premise. What does federal debt have to do with "producing what you buy"?
Click to expand...

Explain the flip flop. That you do not understand how we have propped up our standard of living for four decades, while also sending more of our dollars overseas by purchasing goods made there, is a problem with your current level of education. PayPal me $100, and I will give you a one-hour internet lesson on the relationship between productivity and standard of living.

Personal attack noted.
Click to expand...

Then don't start calling folks incoherent. Hey, if you can't take it, don't dish it.


Do you have any evidence that suggests that productivity in the United States is in any way stagnant, let alone NOT of the highest in the entire world?
Click to expand...

Tomorrow, go to our #1 retailer. WalMart. Start looking at "made in" labels. Then Target. Then Home Depot. Etc. Then look to see if we have a trade deficit still. Then try to figure out how we maintain our standard of living being a country of pizza delivery folks. (exageration, but maybe it will help you)

Incoherent rants are of no interest to me.
Click to expand...

Then boredom follows you like the plague.
 
Productivity stagnant? I don't think so.

WAGES-PRODUCTIVITY.jpg
 
AdamT said:
Productivity stagnant? I don't think so.

WAGES-PRODUCTIVITY.jpg
Click to expand...

Link please? I'd like to know how they measure productivity and why it increased dramatically during the financial crisis.
 
AdamT said:
Productivity stagnant? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

No, of course not. Trade deficits in the tens of billions every month. Products all through your house, and mine, made outside the USA, with our money paying those foreign wages when we made the purchase. 11.4% non-fudged unemployment. Tax intake down under 16% of GDP because so many folks are producing nothing, and consequently have no income on which to pay taxes. $16 trillion in debt, and it will be over $20 T in no time.

Yeah, we are surging with productivity. Kicking butt. :roll:

No go out and try to buy something made in America besides pizza.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
No, of course not. Trade deficits in the tens of billions every month. Products all through your house, and mine, made outside the USA, with our money paying those foreign wages when we made the purchase. 11.4% non-fudged unemployment. Tax intake down under 16% of GDP because so many folks are producing nothing, and consequently have no income on which to pay taxes. $16 trillion in debt, and it will be over $20 T in no time.

Yeah, we are surging with productivity. Kicking butt. :roll:

No go out and try to buy something made in America besides pizza.
Click to expand...

In economics, productivity has a specific definition which you seem to be unaware of. I agree that it's a problem being a net import economy, but using terminology incorrectly does not clarify your argument.
 
AdamT said:
In economics, productivity has a specific definition which you seem to be unaware of. I agree that it's a problem being a net import economy, but using terminology incorrectly does not clarify your argument.
Click to expand...

Go tell it to your unemployed neighbor.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Go tell it to your unemployed neighbor.
Click to expand...

I don't have any unemployed neighbors, but if I did I would hope that they had at least a highschoolers understanding of economics.
 
AdamT said:
The data surce is noted on the graph.

U.S. Wages Aren't Keeping Up With U.S. Productivity, EPI Says

http://epi.3cdn.net/3b7a1c34747d141327_4dm6bx8ni.pdf
Click to expand...

I went to EPI's website before you posted the link and was quite amused by the site's design. I read the report anyway though and nowhere in the paper do they cite their productivity figure, the only reference of the paper that wasn't an EPI book was a dead link. I've searched BLS's website and can't unearth the figure. I'm very curious the type of productivity measure that would skyrocket during the recessions of 2008, 2001, and 1991.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
I went to EPI's website before you posted the link and was quite amused by the site's design. I read the report anyway though and nowhere in the paper do they cite their productivity figure, the only reference of the paper that wasn't an EPI book was a dead link. I've searched BLS's website and can't unearth the figure. I'm very curious the type of productivity measure that would skyrocket during the recessions of 2008, 2001, and 1991.
Click to expand...

Here's the BLS data:

MPU491007_49488_1325915418005.gif
 
AdamT said:
Here's the BLS data:

MPU491007_49488_1325915418005.gif
Click to expand...

Hah, take a look at the two graphs you posted and tell me if you notice the difference.

It doesn't make sense to my why they would use Multifactor Productivity in a study against hourly compensation. The generally accepted measure of productivity is Labor Productivity measuring output per hour.

Can you send me BLS link that shows productivity grew 62.5%?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Hah, take a look at the two graphs you posted and tell me if you notice the difference.

It doesn't make sense to my why they would use Multifactor Productivity in a study against hourly compensation. The generally accepted measure of productivity is Labor Productivity measuring output per hour.

Can you send me BLS link that shows productivity grew 62.5%?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the graphs aren't identical but they both show significant productivity growth over the last 20+ years. Unfortunately BLS doesn't let you link to their data pages, but you can get to it from here: Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, the graphs aren't identical but they both show significant productivity growth over the last 20+ years. Unfortunately BLS doesn't let you link to their data pages, but you can get to it from here: Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link I haven't been to that page. There is no data on BLS to back up the data of that report. The multi-factor productivity index only shows a gain 24.09% (much closer to the compensation growth they posted) while the report claims one of 62.1%. Labor Productivity of output by hour (Productivity - Dictionary Definition of Productivity) would be the preferred definition and I can't find any data that supports that number. In the study I posted the author looks at inflation-adjusted GDP growth rates to show the long term productive growth rate of the country. Excess consumption leads to debt growth outpacing income growth and income growth outpacing productivity growth.
 
AdamT said:
In economics, productivity has a specific definition which you seem to be unaware of. I agree that it's a problem being a net import economy, but using terminology incorrectly does not clarify your argument.
Click to expand...

AdamT said:
I don't have any unemployed neighbors, but if I did I would hope that they had at least a highschoolers understanding of economics.
Click to expand...

LOL .... then tell us all why its not a good produced by a productive American for sale on the shelves across the land, but rather an imported product ? We are not competing well enough with our productivity, primarily with our high labor and tax costs.

Good luck with the HS classes, btw. ;)
 
Probably the best definition of Obama and his supporters that I have seen, they all promote ineptocracy

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected mostly by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom