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%

JC Callender said:

All of your points have to do with bad government decisions, which are the basis for my arguments on this thread....private industry doing a better job than the government can. If your point is that tax cuts aren't the sole solution for our problems, I agree. My initial statement on this thread regarding taxes included Gov. Snyder's cuts in income tax deductions and credits as well, like the cut in the EITC, which helps to ween people off of government aid to learn to be strong on their own. I think a lot of our high unemployment is due to people on welfare, almost endless unemployment, disability, and other government programs. If we didn't have these programs, I guarantee you our unemployment numbers would be much lower.

Click to expand...

Three points:

1. Bad policy clearly contributed to Detroit's situation, but bad policy alone is not responsible.
2. My point on Michigan's tax relief is that it is difficult to say that it is the reason for Michigan's performance. At this point in time, I do believe it made a contribution, though a modest one given firms' cost structures, but even that is subject to a degree of uncertainty.
3. In Michigan and elsewhere, an area in need of tax policy reform entails the transition from public assistance to work. One has to be careful that the effective marginal rates during that transition are not so high that they create a disincentive to make the shift.

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

donsutherland1 said:

In general, tax revenue = tax base * tax rates

Hence, tax revenue can increase when rates are cut if the tax base expands more than tax rates are cut. Hypothetical example for illustrative purposes:

A society has a tax base (income) of $1,000 and an effective tax rate of 25%. Tax revenue amounts to $250.

The tax rate is cut to 22.5%. Five years later, the tax base has increased to $1,250. Tax revenue now amounts to $281.25.

Under this illustration, the tax rate was cut 10%. Tax revenue had increased 12.5%.

Click to expand...

This is what I told him less academically. I said tax rates go up because population increases. He ignored that and made several sentences of how liberals are too stupid to understand and offered nothing.

I also explained to him that this is why tax revenues increased more before reagan's tax cuts than after. Again he retorted with how liberals are too stupid to understand and offered nothing.

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

poweRob said:

This is what I told him less academically. I said tax rates go up because population increases. He ignored that and made several sentences of how liberals are too stupid to understand and offered nothing.

I also explained to him that this is why tax revenues increased more before reagan's tax cuts than after. Again he retorted with how liberals are too stupid to understand and offered nothing.

Click to expand...

You both need to get together because one of you doesn't understand what the other is saying. Tax revenue goes up when there are more people paying taxes as don stated. Population increases have nothing to do with tax rates, Congressional and Presidential economic policy determines rates not population changes. What you seem to have a problem with and I understand all liberals like you have problem with is that Reagan cut income tax rates three years in a row and govt FIT revenue grew. How do you explain it?

Population does continue to grow but unemployment is the problem today as unemployed people pay very little in FIT or didn't you know that? how much FIT do you believe the 22 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are paying today? Can you explain why the labor force increased 3 million people, the employment numbers decreased 3 million and what effect that had on Federal Income tax revenue?

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

Conservative said:

You both need to get together because one of you doesn't understand what the other is saying. Tax revenue goes up when there are more people paying taxes as don stated. Population increases have nothing to do with tax rates,

Click to expand...

No one said that it did Sir Strawman. We both said population increases means more people are paying taxes genius.

Conservative said:

Congressional and Presidential economic policy determines rates not population changes. What you seem to have a problem with and I understand all liberals like you have problem with is that Reagan cut income tax rates three years in a row and govt FIT revenue grew. How do you explain it?

Click to expand...

The population grew and therefore even though their tax rates were lower, there were more people paying taxes. Therefore an increase in revenue... mind you they were lower increases than before his tax cuts.

Conservative said:

Population does continue to grow but unemployment is the problem today as unemployed people pay very little in FIT or didn't you know that? how much FIT do you believe the 22 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are paying today?

Click to expand...

Well would ya look at that. Unemployment issues and all... as soon as Bush got booted tax revenues began increasing. Stupid liberals at it again I suppose.

Conservative said:

Can you explain why the labor force increased 3 million people, the employment numbers decreased 3 million and what effect that had on Federal Income tax revenue?

Click to expand...

Can you?

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

Detroit's downfall is due to bad policy and corrupt government, imo. Can you think of any other reasons?

Tax relief gives hope to businesses, and that hope transfers to the desire to take risks again, which often leads to growth and employment. The auto industry rebounding is helping to regain some lost jobs, but the trouble with bailing out poorly run companies is that there's not a real stable future for them unless they totally reform themselves. Did they?.....we'll see. And my point in bringing up Detroit's misfortunes and questioning why they aren't cashing in on the auto industry rebounding is interesting to me because the epicenter of liberal big government policies somehow wasn't a recipient of the windfall that was supposed to be reaped by the big government auto bailout. It seems like a major bragging point on the left that Obama saved the auto industry, but Detroit just got assigned an emergency manager.

donsutherland1 said:

Three points:

1. Bad policy clearly contributed to Detroit's situation, but bad policy alone is not responsible.
2. My point on Michigan's tax relief is that it is difficult to say that it is the reason for Michigan's performance. At this point in time, I do believe it made a contribution, though a modest one given firms' cost structures, but even that is subject to a degree of uncertainty.
3. In Michigan and elsewhere, an area in need of tax policy reform entails the transition from public assistance to work. One has to be careful that the effective marginal rates during that transition are not so high that they create a disincentive to make the shift.

Click to expand...

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

Conservative said:

You both need to get together because one of you doesn't understand what the other is saying. Tax revenue goes up when there are more people paying taxes as don stated. Population increases have nothing to do with tax rates,

Click to expand...

No one said that it did Sir Strawman. We both said population increases means more people are paying taxes genius.

Conservative said:

Congressional and Presidential economic policy determines rates not population changes. What you seem to have a problem with and I understand all liberals like you have problem with is that Reagan cut income tax rates three years in a row and govt FIT revenue grew. How do you explain it?

Click to expand...

The population grew and therefore even though their tax rates were lower, there were more people paying taxes. Therefore an increase in revenue... mind you they were lower increases than before his tax cuts.

Conservative said:

Population does continue to grow but unemployment is the problem today as unemployed people pay very little in FIT or didn't you know that? how much FIT do you believe the 22 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are paying today?

Click to expand...

View attachment 67145681

Well would ya look at that. Enemployment issues and all... as soon as Bush got booted tax revenues began increasing. Stupid liberals at it again I suppose. Looks like you're bitching up the wrong tree again.

Conservative said:

Can you explain why the labor force increased 3 million people, the employment numbers decreased 3 million and what effect that had on Federal Income tax revenue?

Click to expand...

Can you?

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

poweRob;1061662053]No one said that it did Sir Strawman. We both said population increases means more people are paying taxes genius.

Click to expand...

Wrong, genius, we have more people today with less paying taxes. Population only matters if it is working population.

The population grew and therefore even though their tax rates were lower, there were more people paying taxes. Therefore an increase in revenue... mind you they were lower increases than before his tax cuts

Click to expand...

.

Wrong, population doesn't equate to employment as evidenced by the situation today. We have a labor force that is three million more than when the recession began and employment 3 million less which again shows you have no idea what you are talking about

Well would ya look at that. Unemployment issues and all... as soon as Bush got booted tax revenues began increasing. Stupid liberals at it again I suppose.

Click to expand...

Really, Bush only was President in 2008? How was there record tax revenue in 2007? It really is a shame that far too many have been brainwashed by a failed ideology called liberalism

Can you?

Click to expand...

Obviously it destroys your opinion that population growth means higher tax revenue. Working population growth means higher tax revenue

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

JC Callender said:

Detroit's downfall is due to bad policy and corrupt government, imo. Can you think of any other reasons?

Click to expand...

In a business landscape marked by a lack of industry diversity, the auto manufacturers made choices ranging from contracts to destructive mergers that led to rigidities, enormous waste, and decline. That rippled through to suppliers and others doing business with them and had an adverse economic impact. In turn, that contributed to the socioeconomic decay and associated problems that helped drive the unprecedented population decline. Today, thanks to restructuring, the auto manufacturers have regained competitiveness. However, they are not as Detroit-centric as they were in the past, so the benefits are much smaller than they would otherwise have been.

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

Conservative said:

Wrong, genius, we have more people today with less paying taxes. Population only matters if it is working population.

.

Wrong, population doesn't equate to employment as evidenced by the situation today. We have a labor force that is three million more than when the recession began and employment 3 million less which again shows you have no idea what you are talking about





Really, Bush only was President in 2008? How was there record tax revenue in 2007? It really is a shame that far too many have been brainwashed by a failed ideology called liberalism





Obviously it destroys your opinion that population growth means higher tax revenue. Working population growth means higher tax revenue

Click to expand...

Putting my name on your straw man posts must make you feel accomplished. If only you'd address what was actually being said and if only you'd ever back up anything you ever said maybe you could be taken seriously.

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

JC Callender said:

...but Detroit just got assigned an emergency manager.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the State didn't fire Detroit's elected officials. Those officials, whose political interests may diverge wildly from what's needed to restructure the city's operations and finances, have the potential to do much to undermine a successful turnaround effort.

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

DA60 said:

The fact remains that you typed: ''Cutting govt spending in a time of lowered spending overall leads to MUCH SLOWER REBOUND.'

And the fact that spending was drastically cut during the 1920/21 depression shows that history does not back up your claim.


Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

You have a nice day too, your problem is that you think that every recession/depression is the same, so every solution is the same. Obviously, one size does not fit all. As far as your "austerity works", that is not what "cured" the '20 depression. In fact it was a major cause, govt spending in WWI caused prices in the US to rise, when war spending ended, deflation happened. This was not some massive loss of household income (like today) resulting in large personal spending cuts. Fed govt spending in the period before WWI was @ 3% of GDP, peaked to 23% in 1919 and was cut to less than half that the following year. Between '21 and '31 it had stabilized to @ 5% of GDP. Since the economy throughout this period had fed spending as a small component of the total economy (save the the 2 years of '17 thru '19), one would expect a fairly quick recover along with the larger (albeit just a couple of points higher) level of fed spending after the war. And it was.

So I don't think you can say "austerity did not hurt", it did, it was the major cause of the '20 depression. And as I said before, we have been experiencing a local govt austerity situation since 2007, local govt firings have been the largest sector of job losses and that has all been due to declining state/local revenues. Those govts have no choice but the layoff/fire, they cannot go into debt. Those workers (along with housing sector workers) have not been absorbed back into the workforce, again, the combining of govt firings (forced austerity) with non-govt firings has created a perfect storm. More austerity at the fed level is not going to get those state/local govt workers rehired.

But as I keep saying, you cons and libertarians should be rejoicing in this, you are getting fewer govt workers and you are getting less total govt spending. Your problem is that the private market has not responded in snapping up all this excess labor......but then why should it when it is able to still make massive profits while squeezing even greater productivity from the existing workforce.

Again, this is a great time for you pure capitalists, don't be concerned about high unemployment, it keeps your labor costs low.

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

Gimmesometruth said:

You have a nice day too, your problem is that you think that every recession/depression is the same, so every solution is the same. Obviously, one size does not fit all. As far as your "austerity works", that is not what "cured" the '20 depression. In fact it was a major cause, govt spending in WWI caused prices in the US to rise, when war spending ended, deflation happened. This was not some massive loss of household income (like today) resulting in large personal spending cuts. Fed govt spending in the period before WWI was @ 3% of GDP, peaked to 23% in 1919 and was cut to less than half that the following year. Between '21 and '31 it had stabilized to @ 5% of GDP. Since the economy throughout this period had fed spending as a small component of the total economy (save the the 2 years of '17 thru '19), one would expect a fairly quick recover along with the larger (albeit just a couple of points higher) level of fed spending after the war. And it was.

So I don't think you can say "austerity did not hurt", it did, it was the major cause of the '20 depression. And as I said before, we have been experiencing a local govt austerity situation since 2007, local govt firings have been the largest sector of job losses and that has all been due to declining state/local revenues. Those govts have no choice but the layoff/fire, they cannot go into debt. Those workers (along with housing sector workers) have not been absorbed back into the workforce, again, the combining of govt firings (forced austerity) with non-govt firings has created a perfect storm. More austerity at the fed level is not going to get those state/local govt workers rehired.

But as I keep saying, you cons and libertarians should be rejoicing in this, you are getting fewer govt workers and you are getting less total govt spending. Your problem is that the private market has not responded in snapping up all this excess labor......but then why should it when it is able to still make massive profits while squeezing even greater productivity from the existing workforce.

Again, this is a great time for you pure capitalists, don't be concerned about high unemployment, it keeps your labor costs low.

Click to expand...

Where exactly did I type the highlighted quotes that you attribute to me?

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

DA60 said:

Where exactly did I type the highlighted quotes that you attribute to me?

Click to expand...

Is that it? That is your rebuttal? Where did you say or imply that austerity is not a problem?

Gee, I dunno....I must have made it up.

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

Gimmesometruth said:

Is that it? That is your rebuttal? Where did you say or imply that austerity is not a problem?

Gee, I dunno....I must have made it up.

Click to expand...

Duh, ya think so?

Not only did you attribute words to me that I never typed - you actually were ridiculous enough to put quotations around it.

Do it again to me and you go on my ignore list.


As for your ideas.

What I typed stands:

The fact remains that you typed: ''Cutting govt spending in a time of lowered spending overall leads to MUCH SLOWER REBOUND.'

And the fact that spending was drastically cut during the 1920/21 depression shows that history does not back up your claim.

Which was my point in so far as you were concerned.


As for what caused the 1920/21 depression? Many major wars result in recessions/depressions after wards. This may have been no different.

The fact that the removal of massive government spending may have resulted in a recession/depression afterwards just shows now stupid the concept of government stimulus is.


And it just shows what I have long stated - imo, as soon as the Fed starts raising interest rates and ends QE, America will fall into a much larger recession then in '08.

Massive government stimuli do little but put a band aid on an economy, prevents it from finding it's proper price floor and generally makes the economy lazy and dependent on government money - which leads to huge problems when the government money tap is turned off (which it always has to be eventually).


Any other points you want to make that I do not care much about due to their source and concept (in that order)?



Have a nice day.

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

DA60 said:

Do it again to me and you go on my ignore list.

Click to expand...

Oh no, please, don't go, really, don't go, really...

The fact that the removal of massive government spending may have resulted in a recession/depression afterwards just shows now stupid the concept of government stimulus is.

Click to expand...

Uh, it wasn't a "stimulus", it was spending for WWI.

Try again.

Massive government stimuli do little but put a band aid on an economy, prevents it from finding it's proper price floor and generally makes the economy lazy and dependent on government money - which leads to huge problems when the government money tap is turned off (which it always has to be eventually).

Click to expand...

If this is an argument against massive fed govt war material spending (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Reagan's debt tripling, GW1, AFPAK), I agree!!!!

Any other points you want to make that I do not care much about due to their source and concept (in that order)?

Click to expand...

Hey, don't go, you have a wonderful way of making my point.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Nitey nite.

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

Gimmesometruth said:

Oh no, please, don't go, really, don't go, really...


Uh, it wasn't a "stimulus", it was spending for WWI.

Try again.


If this is an argument against massive fed govt war material spending (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Reagan's debt tripling, GW1, AFPAK), I agree!!!!


Hey, don't go, you have a wonderful way of making my point.



Nitey nite.

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah

So your answer to my question 'Any other points you want to make that I do not care much about due to their source and concept (in that order)?'' is no.

Good.


Have a nice day.

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

DA60 said:

Blah blah blah

So your answer to my question 'Any other points you want to make that I do not care much about due to their source and concept (in that order)?'' is no.

Good.


Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

This....from the poster whining about about "attribution".

If this is your conceding the argument about "austerity" not mattering, so be it.

I just hope for your sake you learn the difference between planned demand side stimulus and war spending.

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

Gimmesometruth said:

This....from the poster whining about about "attribution".

If this is your conceding the argument about "austerity" not mattering, so be it.

I just hope for your sake you learn the difference between planned demand side stimulus and war spending.

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.

Actually, why am I wasting my time on you?

You know little to nothing about real world macroeconomics.

You blatantly put words in people's mouths.

And - judging from your posts to others - you are deliberately childish acting.

Life is too short for people like you.

You are on my ignore list.


Have a VERY nice day.

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

DA60 said:

Blah blah blah.

Actually, why am I wasting my time on you?

You know little to nothing about real world macroeconomics.

You blatantly put words in people's mouths.

And - judging from your posts to others - you are deliberately childish acting.

Life is too short for people like you.

You are on my ignore list.


Have a VERY nice day.

Click to expand...

LOL....pointing out your silly mistake over "stimulus" vs war spending caused you to put me on ignore! After you warned me about false attributes.....when you just did it?

LOL.

Like I said, I wish you wouldn't go, you kept on making my point. Now I'll have to do it all by myself.

Sniff.....

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

Are you saying the auto industry and suppliers moved out of Detroit with the people in the beginning year or two of the recession?

donsutherland1 said:

In a business landscape marked by a lack of industry diversity, the auto manufacturers made choices ranging from contracts to destructive mergers that led to rigidities, enormous waste, and decline. That rippled through to suppliers and others doing business with them and had an adverse economic impact. In turn, that contributed to the socioeconomic decay and associated problems that helped drive the unprecedented population decline. Today, thanks to restructuring, the auto manufacturers have regained competitiveness. However, they are not as Detroit-centric as they were in the past, so the benefits are much smaller than they would otherwise have been.

Click to expand...

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

I agree, but sadly, the citizens will probably vote in more of the same.

donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, the State didn't fire Detroit's elected officials. Those officials, whose political interests may diverge wildly from what's needed to restructure the city's operations and finances, have the potential to do much to undermine a successful turnaround effort.

Click to expand...

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

JC Callender said:

Are you saying the auto industry and suppliers moved out of Detroit with the people in the beginning year or two of the recession?

Click to expand...

No. The exodus (relocating and failures) was underway from at least the 1990s. The acceleration in the city's population decline began afterward.

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

poweRob said:

Putting my name on your straw man posts must make you feel accomplished. If only you'd address what was actually being said and if only you'd ever back up anything you ever said maybe you could be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Apparently you pay no attention to what you post before hitting send. Cannot tell you how much it concerns me that you don't take me seriously. Most liberals use that same argument when wrong and you do it quite well. Your claim that population growth is the reason for tax revenue increases is typical of someone who doesn't understand tax laws and even basic economics

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

Conservative said:

no, I make you look foolish, you will never get the entire field of economists to agree on anything and for every one that predicted success of the stimulus there were those who predicted failure. Those that predicted failure were right on.

Click to expand...

Wow, you are just making stuff up. Show me evidence that 50% of economist that thought the stimulus was a bad idea. (You can't)

If anything, the biggest disagreement was that that the stimulus was not big enough, and that was the consensus if Obama's economic team that the $800b was at the very low end of an effective stimulus plan, but that was felt to be the best we could get through Congress.

Accepting the conclusions of 92% of economists is not the point of view of a narrow minded partisan, ignoring the economists because they don't support the opinion you wish to be true is the position of a narrow minded ideologue, ie; a minion.

Our economy crashed, the stimulus was the airbag, the GOP and Blue Dogs prevented us from getting a better airbag, so we were injured in the crash, but without the stimulus and TARP the crash would have been much worse. You can deny this until you are blue in the face, but you can't support your argument with anything but a fringe of economists.

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

It's been a bad month for both of us: