Total jobs hits new record high, erasing Great Recession losses

The tax loopholes and write offs that existed during that time would have made it impossible for people to make the money they would have made without utilising these tactics. Depreciation in assets and an accumulation of net losses could totally eliminate ones tax lability during that era (except during the 70's). Today, such writeoffs do not exist. They only work with a net loss of up to $3,000 a year.

Not to my knowledge. Interest Rate Swaps were introduced in the 80's, Collateral Debt Obligations started in 1987, Flash Trading became really popular in the 80's, just to name a few. Even economist such as Paul Krugman and Thomas Piketty mentioned the growth in the financial industry may be attributed to the amount of financial innovation during the decade, rather than real productive innovation.

The idea of the reforms was not to get the wealthy to pay lower taxes. It was a way to get the wealthy to pay some taxes, any taxes, at all. In 1969, Secretary of the Treasury Joseph Barr testified to congress that in 1967 there were 155 Americans making over $200,000 who paid no income taxes at all, including someone making over $20 million dollars a year.

As a result of rich person tax avoidance you had the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which included the concept of a minimum alternative tax that you still have to this day.

How is it only a portion?

All I see is the Top 10% earning a greater share of income. Where is this income that is supposedly diverted from the middle class to the rich?

You do have a period high spending, lower savings. Historically, higher spending typically is accompanied by lower investment spending, and vice versa. It is really no different than what is happening here. During the 80's, 90's and 2000's, Consumer Spending was typically higher than investment spending. It is still typically higher than investment spending even to this day. Because of long term growths in consumer spending, long-term growth may have deteriorated, to the point where consumer spending alone is no longer effective.

Overtime, consumer spending becomes weaker and weaker as it becomes a larger portion of GDP (as in all advanced economies). In order to maintain long-term growth prospects, economy must continuously invest in new capital goods and structures in order to grow.

There is actually less than 3 unemployed persons for every job opening and yes, there are plenty of job openings. During an expansion, unemployment is supposed to be low when job openings are high. However, unemployment is still relatively high, even though job openings are at the highest level since 2006. It's not an indication of improvement, but greater labour market inefficiencies.

That would be my paraphrase of what you said. You mentioned that 2.2 million jobs a year beats the average when Reagan and Bush were president.

I know it's the total growth over 27 years. I said since 1985. And that is normal, considering that real median incomes grows slower the more economies growth. You have more growth when you're near the bottom. This phenomenon occurred in all advance economies.

That is normal.

More families are moving into higher quintiles because their incomes have increased. This is a percentage distribution of families, according to income.

The middle class is shrinking, but it isn't becoming part of the lower class. The distribution of families making less than $25,000 is relatively the same.

The focus is on the net over month changes, as it shows the amount of people moving each matrix every month. The purpose is to determine whether or not the number of 65+ and older is influencing the EN, UN, or NN.

 

I did read the original post, and apparently I understood the complexities far better than you have. What I was saying, and what I’m still saying is that the REAL unemployment rate is 20% higher in May 2014 than it was in January 2009 when Obozo took over. What I was saying, and what I’m still saying is that the number of people between 15 and 64 has increased by 3.8% in May 2014 versus January 2008, whereas those in that age group who are no longer looking for work has increased almost 200%! What I was saying and am still saying is that I applaud the record number of jobs created, but the record doesn’t measure up to the increase needed to accommodate those who should be working and aren’t.

What I wasn’t saying, but what I will say now is that the number of citizens who’ve given up looking for work has A LOT to do with the issue in question. Workers who should be working and aren’t are strains on the economy that shouldn’t exist. Unless those citizens have jobs and work, they’re not contributing to a growing economy. If the newly created jobs don't start setting major records, they'll never be working.

Liberals by nature are confused, so I forgive you for running true to form. Citizens between the ages of 15 and 64 constitute those of working age. In January of 2009 those citizens totaled 204.42 million. 1.99% of those citizens were NOT in the Labor Force Participation total. In May of 2014 those citizens totaled 212.12 million, but 5.63% were NOT in the Labor Force Participation total. That amounts to 7.9 million citizens who’ve given up looking for work. Explain to us why we have 2 times as many citizens of working age who aren’t working and aren’t looking for work????

I was quoting an average for GW’s last year in office and Obozo’s average for this year, whereas you quoted his last month in office. Nevertheless, let’s address your point, shall we? The data used in this response are those from January 2009 when Obozo took office and from May 2014, the last month for which data are available. You and I are now on the same sheet of music, and my argument is as strong as in my earlier post.

I just did tell you again, kid!

 

Obviously your understanding of the definition of the word "austerity" differs from reality.

Outside your inability to understand the definition of a single word, which comments of mine addressing economics do you disagree with?

 

"In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

Obviously not.

 

You're being intellectually dishonest again.


The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit


Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

In didn't said they did. Quit being intellectually dishonest.

 

And where has this government cut anything? They haven't.

They spend more every year. Nothing is cut. The only thing cut is the rate of increase. If a budget item is scheduled to increase by 7%, but increases only 5%, you call that a 2% cut. Only with a liberal can a 5% increase be called a spending cut.

 

False.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=359565&page=26&p=1063966626#post1063966626

Consider getting your information from more reliable and objective sources than Fox New and RW propaganda radio talking heads.

 

No once again that is you and your sources, doesn't matter what day he took the oath office, the FY2009 Omnibus bill was delayed until his election and was passed by the Democrat controlled Congress INCLUDING OBAMA who fully supported it and voted for it with his and the spending levels included and HE as PRESIDENT signed into law. Bush and the Republicans had nothing to do with it. So so much for the intellectually dishonesty of pretending he rode into town in January of 2009 and had nothing to do with the FY2009 budget which followed his support and voting for the FY2008 budget.

If you are going to compare spending increases by Presidents Obama's starts with the increase from FY2008 to FY2009 and his hands are not completely clean from the increase from the last Bush/Republican deficit of a mere $161B to the Democrat FY2008.

When you post it in the manner in which you do, comparing Presidential performance, you most certainly are saying it else what is your point "trivia"?

 

Like I said, only a liberal could spin an increase in spending as a cut.

 

Got it. "My sources" like Cato, Forbes and Factcheck are all being intellectually dishonest, because you say FY2009 is s all Obama's doing, even though he didn't take office until the fiscal year was already a third over.

Meanwhile, you sit there and claim that Clinton was responsible for the falling revenues and surplus in FY2001, even though the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.

Quit being intellectually dishonest.

My post wasn't to compare presidential performance at all. Quit being intellectually dishonest. My post specifically stated it was total government employment. It compared how federal spending and total government employment in the country soared when Reagan (and Bush) were in office, while being cut dramatically during the same time period in office, to show the austerity we've been under.

- - - Updated - - -

Year - spending - % of GDP
2009 3,517.7 24.4%
2010 3,457.1 23.1%
2011 3,603.1 23.2%
2012 3,537.1 21.8%
2013 3,454.6 20.6%

Source data: BEA.gov; CBO.gov

Only a conservative could say that is an increase in spending.

 

Meaning all the money everyone would have made working those eight years is what the fart-suckers of Satan got to scoop up.

 

That isn't what it means at all, IMO.

 

I have no need to keep repeating myself, not only did he support and vote for the FY2008 budget and it's spending the FY2009 was delayed, forcing Bush to sign a CR, until his election so that it included his spending request and HE SIGNED IT INTO LAW. Your inability to refute that remains.

Which he supported and voted for and were put in place FOR HIM TO SIGN. Which he could have said no pass another budget and cut the spending. But then it was his spending wasn't it. It's his deficit and to leave that out of his record and try to divorce him and his party of that spending is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

"The FY 2009 continuing resolution was a measure designed to allow Congressional leaders to work around the 2008 presidential election and deflect spending fights with President Bush during his last months in office. Foreseeing a repeat of budget fights over FY 2007 and FY 2008, the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate chose not to pursue several appropriations bills leading up to the 2008 summer recess. The only appropriations bill sent to President Bush for his signature was the 2008 Defense authorization bill
Main article: Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2008"
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Co...ce,_and_Continuing_Appropriations_Act_of_2008

So they could wait until President Elect Obama could voice his wishes and then President Obama sign the actual budget, HIS budget, into law.

Even singing another CR in order to get all that spending in Omnibus bill.

"On Friday, March 6, 2009, the President signed into law:
H.J.Res. 38, which provides FY 2009 appropriations for continuing projects and activities of the Federal Government through Wednesday, March 11, 2009. The Federal Government was currently funded under Public Law 110-329, the "Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009" which was due to expire March 6, 2009, at midnight. By signing this resolution, it allows additional time for the Congress to complete action on H.R. 1105, the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which provides funding for the nine remaining FY 2009 appropriations bills that have yet to be enacted."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/03/06/president-obama-signs-continuing-resolution

 

Irrelevant. As those numerous conservative sources I cited demontrate, all that spending was already passed or locked in before Obama took office. His actions as president only accounted for about 5%.

To try to blame Obama for the spending and deficits that were caused by spending programs Bush signed and the Great Recession he left is as intellectually dishonest as you can get. Well, maybe not for you.

 

Dodge noted. His actions as Senator, as President Elect and as President are responsible. It's his deficit. He fully supported and requested and voted for those appropriations.

 

I agree the huge tax cuts and loopholes that mainly benefited the richest as part of the "trickle down" Reagan revolution were a factor in the redistribution of wealth we've seen.

So your position is that that there were no investment innovations until 1981, when they started happening, that that explains the redistribution to the richest since then. What about things like mutual funds, index investing, 401ks, computers, bank credit cards, automated clearing houses all of which were innovations before the 1980s.

Your argument is preposterous on its face.

The "innovations" that helped the richest get double the share of the nation's wealth included financial institution deregulation (we saw how swell that worked out) tax cuts and the other "trickle down" policies that suppressed wages for the middle class and redistributed virtually all of the growth since 1981 to the rich.

Preposterous. You've got the 1% apologist line down pat.

Along with the tax cuts and loopholes.

Because the middle class doesn't get 100% of the nation's income. Sheesh.

With the top 10%.

You're arguing that we are in a period of higher spending and lower saving?

One job opening for every three unemployed persons is "plenty" is your position. Got it.

1985 - 2012 is 27 years, last I checked.

Your position that the real median family income increasing 0.4% per year, when during the same time frame the top 5% saw their incomes grow at a 3.9% annual average rate is "normal."

"Normal" since trickle down became the dominant policy, I'll agree.

That does not show they are not moving into higher quintiles at all.

Yes, poorer income have been unchanged, the middle class has barely increased its income, while incomes at the top soared.

And how does that prove they are not?

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant notation.

Quit being intellectually dishonest.

 

Doubtful.

"Real" according to you, perhaps. But you're confused.

The number of people who have given up looking for work has decreased since the recession. But that fact has nothing to do with the number of jobs created. Jobs are created when businesses hire. Whether they decide to hire has nothing to do with whether some folks have given up looking for work.

When did you start describing yourself as a "liberal"?

You're confused. I asked you for your source of your claim. By that I mean a link to a reliable source that supports your assertion. Nor more baseless blather.

Sure. It was his last month in office. We were losing 700+ thousand jobs a month in the economy and the UR was 7.8% and skyrocketing.

I agree, you have not improved upon your lame argument in the least.

Just making fun of your confused arguments, son.

 

No it's called milking a statistic with fabricated false information. You see if a person has three jobs, it counts as three people working. The BLS created more fairy tales than the entire Grimm family.

Would you like to swing on a star?
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Just listen to the BLS from afar

 

That would be a good point, if there were more multiple job holders, There are fewer multiple job holders today than before the recession.

Substitute just about any RW propaganda source and you'd be accurate. Just like the RW propaganda talking point you just repeated.

 

Brother and sister conservatives and libertarians, please note this exemplary illustration of left-wing liberal "debating". I provided supporting data along with verbal explanation of what the data illustrated. In response, observe closely how the liberal replied.

That's a very well-reasoned and well-supported response, isn't it? "Doubtful"? Very incisive and enlightening response! Sad!

Another well-supported claim by the liberal; no data, no explanation, simply cute little blurbs that require no thought whatever.

NO, that is NOT true!!! You tell us that "the number of people who have given up looking for work has decreased since the recession". At the beginning of the recession the number of people aged 15-64 who were not working totaled 4.07 million, or 2% of the entire population in that age range. In May 0f THIS year, the number of people aged 15-64 who were not working totaled 11.5 million, or 5.6% of the population in that age range! That's an INCREASE, not a decrease! Can't liberals add, subtract, multiple, and divide???

The liberal calls facts "blather", but that's typical of the left. What's also typical of the left is the inability to deal with anything more complicated than a chant led by some brainwashed chant leader. There isn't one single source for this data. There are multiple sources from which data must be drawn, analyzed properly, and then explained. The source for total population comes from http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table. To determine the total population by month, the data must be regressed between the months for which numbers are available in the report. The number of citizens in the age range of 15-64 is taken from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/population-ages-15-64-percent-of-total-wb-data.html. Again, in order to provide numbers for the months not included in that report, the data must be regressed. The labor Force Participation Rate comes from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000. The percentages contained in that report must be applied to the total US population for each month in order to determine whole numbers instead of just percentages. The Unemployment Rate data comes from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000. If you're intelligent enough to know what to do with the data, you will get the results I posted. I have no high hopes that any left-winger on this site can replicate it. All we've heard from you in response to the data is, what did you call it?... oh yeh, "baseless blather".

Partially true, but once again you're missing the point.... what a surprise, huh? The unemployment went up significantly in the early Obozo months. It began stabilizing around April 2010, and has been stagnant since. The comparable rates must include ALL those in the age range of the working population, including those not looking for work. In the last month of GW's Presidency the rate was 9.64%. 64 months later, after more than 5 years of the "great" Obozo, that same rate is 11.6%. At the present rate of improvement, we won't be at GW's numbers while Obozo is still in office. We're already into the longest and most sluggish recovery since the Great Depression. At the rate we're going we'll be halfway into the second term of Obozo's successor before returning to pre-Obozo unemployment rate.... unless of course we elect another left-wing bozo, in which case we may never recover.

Another extremely keen insight into the issue at hand. Very intelligent and helpful.

You're quite a kidder for someone with such little understanding of economics. Do your homework next time and perhaps you won't look so.... foolish?

 

"False" would have perhaps the more accurate response.

You're confused again. You made the claim.

You're confused again. You said people who have given up looking for work. People drop out of the labor force for all kinds of reasons, like retirement, other than giving up looking for work.

I'd ask you for the source for numbers again, but from recent experience I know it is a waste of time.

You're confused again. Baseless blather is when I ask you for a source and you provide nothing but your baseless verbiage.

No, you won't. You're confused again. The "labor force" which you are confusing with your definition of "work force" (as I suspected) is the number of people over age 16 (not just 16-65) who are either employed or not employed and looking for a job. You cannot take "labor force" data and make claims about what you call the "work force." Nor can you take the LFPR, which applies to the labor force, and apply it to the total population and get anything meaningful. The LFPR shows the percentage of people in the Civilian noninstitutional population who are in the labor force. Aside from the fact you've still failed to show the calculations on how you came up with your data claims, you're confused and comparing apples and oranges.

I haven't seen many "left-wingers" who are as confused as you are, so you may be correct about that.

You haven't asked me to source any facts I've presented.

Your confused again. I said nothing about it going up during the early Obama administration.

But as the economy was tanking and losing 700,000+ jobs a month when he took office, it certainly is no surprise to me the UR went up during his first months in office.

You're confused again. The number of unemployed reached a high of 15.3 million in October 2009 and is about 9.7 million now.

You're confused again. "Unemployed" has never included students, stay at home parents, trust fund babies, or retired folks who are not looking for work.

Given the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top 10% and the Republican Tea Party austery, that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's not confused.

We are well beyond the pre-Obama UR.

Appropriate response to your statement.

I'm not kidding at all. I disagree with your opinion as to the understanding or economics or who is looking foolish. I'm not the one who is confusing basic labor statistic data. Others can decide for themseleves.

 

Miss this?

The comparable rates must include ALL those in the age range of the working population, including those not looking for work.
In the last month of GW's Presidency the rate was 9.64%. 64 months later, after more than 5 years of the "great" Obozo, that same rate is 11.6%
the ACTUAL RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT, not the "massaged" and "manipulated" BLS nonsense.

 

Miss this?

You're confused again. "Unemployed" has never included students, stay at home parents, trust fund babies, or retired folks who are not looking for work.

 

Labor participation rate is the ONLY number that matters. Considering that the WH now does unemployment numbers and they changed the definition a few years back whatever they put out is to be considered suspect. LPR is at at all time low since 1970 something. And before some moron says that the baby boomers retiring has an effect that is completely bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Elderly participation in the workforce is actually on they rise.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v72n1/v72n1p59.html

 

Why doesn't the total number of private sector jobs number matter? Why doesn't the total number of government jobs matter?

RW propaganda myth.

Proof please. More seniors maybe working than before, but their participation rate is still much lower than non-seniors.