• 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 Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Did you read your own article? It's one guy's spin.



Youth unemployment is at 16%

Black youth unemployment is near 50%

We're not running out of workers

Anyways, don't let reality get in the way of your narrative.

Now that is really early retirement on the part of so many. Sad isn't it that liberals cannot admit when wrong and their ideology and economic policies are failures.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Many folks are loyal to California like they are to New York City....they'll put up with incredibly high taxes, begrudgingly, in order to live in their favorite environment. They've been paying outrageous amounts for property and regulations for years as well.

Simply question: If you owned a business, would you rather pay high taxes or low taxes? If your business was struggling through a recession, would you find a tax cut a welcome relief that could put much needed money back into your business? If you were considering shutting your doors or were on the verge of laying employees off, could the tax relief be an incentive to not do that?


You're missing my point. My point is that one cannot empirically attribute the changes to the tax cuts. Cost structure evidence argues that the tax changes likely had a modest impact, but it's premature to try to be more certain.

In other words, early attribution that gives credit to the tax changes can be far off the mark. For example, compare the contrasting fortunes of California and New Jersey with respect to the unemployment rate.

California:
February 2011 12.2%
February 2012 10.9%
February 2013 9.6%

New Jersey:
February 2011 9.2%
February 2012 9.0%
February 2013 9.3%

The above figures are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

California, which adopted substantial tax increases has experienced a large drop in the unemployment rate. New Jersey, with its aggressive tax relief, has had little change in its unemployment rate. The argument that tax hikes drove California's unemployment rate down would, as has been the case with the argument concerning Michigan's tax relief, almost certainly have been an early attribution of a trend to coincidence in timing, not a proper representation of cause and effect.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Many folks are loyal to California like they are to New York City....they'll put up with incredibly high taxes, begrudgingly, in order to live in their favorite environment. They've been paying outrageous amounts for property and regulations for years as well.

Simply question: If you owned a business, would you rather pay high taxes or low taxes? If your business was struggling through a recession, would you find a tax cut a welcome relief that could put much needed money back into your business? If you were considering shutting your doors or were on the verge of laying employees off, could the tax relief be an incentive to not do that?

Of course I'd prefer to pay lower taxes. My point overall is that one can't automatically attribute a reduction in unemployment to tax relief. Tax relief probably gave a modest boost but larger sector-specific factors are involved (the state's economy was well-positioned to take advantage of the auto/manufacturing recovery). Business climate depends on many factors, only some of which are policy-related. That's why one sees, for example, big job growth in Michigan (tax cuts took place) and in California (big tax hikes took place) and little change in New Jersey (aggressive tax relief was provided). Moreover, the business climate is not homogeneous. Industry clusters can make the environment particularly favorable for certain activities i.e. creative activities in CA (entertainment-technology convergence), etc.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

:lamo
In five years the population would have increased.

I don't disagree. Tax base, depending on how it is defined, can change due to numerous factors including population, productivity changes, innovation, valuations, etc.

There is also the argument that tax changes impact economic behavior. However, aside from pointing out that cuts from very high rate e.g., 90% to 60% have a greater marginal impact than those from low rates, say 30% to 20%, and that such a marginal impact diminishes as one makes cuts from lower rates, such changes are not very well measured. The same applies broadly to general efforts to forecast highly complex behavioral-related phenomena, including economics (the recent large miss by the consensus forecast on the level of job creation for March is one example).
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Okay, if the auto industry is a large part of Michigan's recovery, why is Detroit (the Motor City) going bankrupt?


Of course I'd prefer to pay lower taxes. My point overall is that one can't automatically attribute a reduction in unemployment to tax relief. Tax relief probably gave a modest boost but larger sector-specific factors are involved (the state's economy was well-positioned to take advantage of the auto/manufacturing recovery). Business climate depends on many factors, only some of which are policy-related. That's why one sees, for example, big job growth in Michigan (tax cuts took place) and in California (big tax hikes took place) and little change in New Jersey (aggressive tax relief was provided). Moreover, the business climate is not homogeneous. Industry clusters can make the environment particularly favorable for certain activities i.e. creative activities in CA (entertainment-technology convergence), etc.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

the participation rate drop has nothing to do with the sequester.

Unemployment does, as does a lack of jobs. And the sequester effects those things. So, the sequester does have an effect.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Okay, if the auto industry is a large part of Michigan's recovery, why is Detroit (the Motor City) going bankrupt?

Detroit has suffered from a 25% population drop over the past decade (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/us/23detroit.html), a lack of diversified economic base, bad public policy, etc. The last element is part of the reason I believe that the State's emergency measures should also have included removing all of Detroit's elected officials. They have been part of the problem and they could well undermine the turnaround effort.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Did you read your own article? It's one guy's spin.
Youth unemployment is at 16%
Black youth unemployment is near 50%
We're not running out of workers
Anyways, don't let reality get in the way of your narrative.

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf--
"The steady decline of the LFPR since its peak at the turn of the
century is also related largely to demographic factors. The primary factor behind this decline is the rising share of older workers in the population as the baby-boom generation ages and life expediencies increase.
The rising share of older workers pulls down the LFPR because older
workers have lower participation rates than prime-age workers. A second factor behind the gradual decline of the LFPR has been a steady reduction in labor force participation among young people over the
last decade, resulting in large part from rising school enrollment"
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I don't disagree. Tax base, depending on how it is defined, can change due to numerous factors including population, productivity changes, innovation, valuations, etc.

There is also the argument that tax changes impact economic behavior. However, aside from pointing out that cuts from very high rate e.g., 90% to 60% have a greater marginal impact than those from low rates, say 30% to 20%, and that such a marginal impact diminishes as one makes cuts from lower rates, such changes are not very well measured. The same applies broadly to general efforts to forecast highly complex behavioral-related phenomena, including economics (the recent large miss by the consensus forecast on the level of job creation for March is one example).

Thanks, for your response. I am a little embarrassed though, I inadvertently added an emoticon on my tiny hand held device for which I apologize. :3oops:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Unemployment does, as does a lack of jobs. And the sequester effects those things. So, the sequester does have an effect.

it's only been 35 days since the sequester. hardly enough time for it to actually have an affect over a very short period of time.

i suspect you buy into the dire consequences of the sequester BS. i don't of course
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

it's only been 35 days since the sequester. hardly enough time for it to actually have an affect over a very short period of time.

i suspect you buy into the dire consequences of the sequester BS. i don't of course

I can tell you we are already seeing the effects here. People who would have been hired were not, and cuts are on the horizon.

As for dire? Well, that's all in how you look at it. I merely suggest that actions have consequence. And that it is somewhat illogical to support actions that cost jobs and then blame those who either didn't get those jobs or lost them. Seems very much wrong headed thinking to me.
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I can tell you we are already seeing the effects here. People who would have been hired were not, and cuts are on the horizon.

As for dire? Well, that's all in how you look at it. I merely suggest that actions have consequence. And that it is somewhat illogical to support actions that cost jobs and then blame those who either didn't get those jobs or lost them. Seems very much wrong headed thinking to me.

BHO bears responsibility for both the sequester (his idea) and management of the economy (The buck stops there). All unemployment is to BHO's account.:cool:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

BHO bears responsibility for both the sequester (his idea) and management of the economy (The buck stops there). All unemployment is to BHO's account.:cool:

Responsibility is shared. If Obama was king, you'd have a point. But divided government means shared credit and shared blame.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Responsibility is shared. If Obama was king, you'd have a point. But divided government means shared credit and shared blame.

What divided?

He approves the massive deficits...wants them bigger.

He re-appointed Bernanke and has put spending Doves on the Fed board...guaranteeing that the massive QE spending and record low interest rates (that Obama approves of) continue to flourish.

Despite all this, the unemployment rate is worse today then the day he took over.
And if you used the same participation rate as the day he took over...it is far, far worse (it would be over 10%).

He is in charge - that means it is his responsibility (like it or not - that is what good leaders do, they take responsibility).

Since he took over, the unemployment rate is worse, housing prices are worse, the deficit is MUCH worse and food stamp usage is up over 40%.

By any reasonable, unbiased standard - as POTUS (like GWB before him), he is a huge failure.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Very easy to determine the success or failure of the stimulus, look at the economic results, jobs created, economic growth numbers. In addition

Review & Outlook:Why the Stimulus Failed - WSJ.com

Please tell me how anyone can say that the stimulus reduced joblessness when there are 3 million less employed today than when the recession began and 3 million more in the labor force? I rely on data not economist opinions

Data would REQUIRE that you had certain knowledge of what the rebukes would have been had the tumulus not been been enacted or another policy had been enacted. You do understand this, don't you.

If you got into a car accident and the airbag deployed and you broke your arm, by your logic, you would argue that the airbag was a failure because you were worse off after the accident, but of course you would have to dismiss the possibility that your injuries may well have been much worse or fatal without the airbag.

Your logic is faulty.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Responsibility is shared. If Obama was king, you'd have a point. But divided government means shared credit and shared blame.

Obama economic policies haven't turned the economy around as promised, the GOP has stopped nothing that he wanted and you should know that
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Data would REQUIRE that you had certain knowledge of what the rebukes would have been had the tumulus not been been enacted or another policy had been enacted. You do understand this, don't you.

If you got into a car accident and the airbag deployed and you broke your arm, by your logic, you would argue that the airbag was a failure because you were worse off after the accident, but of course you would have to dismiss the possibility that your injuries may well have been much worse or fatal without the airbag.

Your logic is faulty.

You have no idea what the results would have been without the stimulus but we do know what the results are now. Obama is a total disaster and unqualified for the office. The results matter except to his minions.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

You have no idea what the results would have been without the stimulus but we do know what the results are now. Obama is a total disaster and unqualified for the office. The results matter except to his minions.
Um, we are seeing what the results are NOW with no stimulus. We are currently seeing and anti-stimulus, sequestration, ie austerity.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Um, we are seeing what the results are NOW with no stimulus. We are currently seeing and anti-stimulus, sequestration, ie austerity.

Are you kidding me? Borrowing and spending over $3 billion per day is now considered to be austerity? :roll:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I can tell you we are already seeing the effects here. People who would have been hired were not, and cuts are on the horizon.

As for dire? Well, that's all in how you look at it. I merely suggest that actions have consequence. And that it is somewhat illogical to support actions that cost jobs and then blame those who either didn't get those jobs or lost them. Seems very much wrong headed thinking to me.

Like the XL pipeline? :roll:
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

You have no idea what the results would have been without the stimulus but we do know what the results are now. Obama is a total disaster and unqualified for the office. The results matter except to his minions.

If you are going to deny logical argument, I can't help you.

It is not me arguing with certitude what the results of an alternate history would have been, it is you.

I acknowledge that we can't know, you don't seem to understand that.

However, I think your dismissal of the entire field of economists is telling. They disagree with you as a whole therefore it is all of them that must be wrong, not you.

And you call me a minion, LMAO.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Um, we are seeing what the results are NOW with no stimulus. We are currently seeing and anti-stimulus, sequestration, ie austerity.

Aw, yes, a program that was Obama's that went into effect in April is the cause of the past poor 4 year's financial performance? Don't you people ever get tired of looking and sounding foolish?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Are you kidding me? Borrowing and spending over $3 billion per day is now considered to be austerity? :roll:
You are kidding yourself if you think we are not in sequestration.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

What divided?

He approves the massive deficits...wants them bigger.

He re-appointed Bernanke and has put spending Doves on the Fed board...guaranteeing that the massive QE spending and record low interest rates (that Obama approves of) continue to flourish.

Despite all this, the unemployment rate is worse today then the day he took over.
And if you used the same participation rate as the day he took over...it is far, far worse (it would be over 10%).

He is in charge - that means it is his responsibility (like it or not - that is what good leaders do, they take responsibility).

Since he took over, the unemployment rate is worse, housing prices are worse, the deficit is MUCH worse and food stamp usage is up over 40%.

By any reasonable, unbiased standard - as POTUS (like GWB before him), he is a huge failure.

By the standards that matter in DC, it has been a huge success; 94% of our congress critters and the POTUS won re-election in 2012. Campaign cash is flowing at record levels, as is federal gov't spending (soon to balloon more for PPACA). The national debt is in the name of J.Q. Public not due and payable by the DC morons that have accumulated it. Obama simply doubled down on Bush policy (borrow and spend) and seeks to make as many as possible dependent on gov't "help". The GOP now considers a 10% reduction in federal deficit spending as a "huge success", putting us "on a path to balance", while still spending a little more each year.
 
Back
Top Bottom