Economy added 255,000 jobs in July

You have problems with a some laws. You think they are unfair... then work to remove those laws. That's your right. Heck, fixing broken things in this country is a responsibility that comes with citizenship. If you make a compelling enough case that I believe you, many of us might even try to help.

What I don't agree with is your suggestion we add something obviously broken, because it could balance out another possibly broken thing. That you don't want to do the work to fix. You got a problem with vampires, put a stake in them. Don't bleed your neighbor to feed them.

I don't see your vampires, I see you trying to cut me.




​

 

This must be what it would be like to hold a discussion with a fence post.

There is nothing wrong with renegotiating trade deals that haven't worked out the way we hoped.

There were assumptions when Clinton changed the way GATT operated that allowed countries like China in, who were not under FDR, Truman, Ike, Nixon, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Papa Bush. We could simply go back to that.

You don't like tariffs and they are not the only tool in the tool box. I suggested alternatives and they apparently bounced right off your head.

And you have this oozing patronizing goo that permeates your remarks that does not serve you well as an alternative to critical rational thought.

 

Your problem with me is that I'm "oozing goo" and you wonder why people don't understand you?

There is a problem. Joe wants solutions, other people do not want the solutions Joe is offering enough for him to trade for what he wants. Your solutions seem to be put up a barrier (either by prohibiting imports, adding tariffs to imports or otherwise making it harder to get alternatives) so people near Joe have to settle for what Joe is offering. Allowing Joe to get what he wants.

If that is not accurate, correct me. Try not to swear at me or be insulting while you do.




​

 

Sure. I told you that when folks are benefiting from America that I don't want them to take from us and then give their business to those who surf our benefits and then undercut our prices. Instead of listening and paying attention, you responded by claiming I wanted "charity" at which point you got from me what you richly deserved.

Now a real life example:

A friend of mine was operating a plumbing business: He handled the trucks, the insurance, the licensing. He paid the taxes, the payroll taxes, provided the insurance, the meal breaks, carefully calculated the hours and paid the overtime, paid the health insurance, the unemployment insurance. He advertised the business, put logo's on the trucks, kept them clean and maintained, provided the driver a gas card a uniform, tools supplies and gave him the calls to run with the customers procured after they called in and were captured by the call center that he also maintained and paid for. He carried all the insurance underwrote all the risk and warranted all the parts and service. He put a fully equipped equipped technician, also covered with workers comp insurance on the porch of a paying customer with a plumbing problem.

The tech presented the company price, and then told him what he could do it for, if the customer paid him directly. Why did he do this? "The Free Market he said, my price was better than yours, so the customer went with me!"

Now I know all analogies are imperfect and breakdown. I was honestly and earnestly trying to explain my position to you which replied: "Be honest, you want charity."​

 

Asking Bill to pay more for what he wants or needs, so Joe can deliver less is asking for charity. If Joe needs charity, we have systems. Hiding that charity by taxing people for choosing better solutions than Joe is providing creates problems that don't need to exist.

It wastes part of the charity Bill is providing. It hides Joe's failure from himself and others. That tricks Joe into thinking he is succeeding and discourages Joe from finding a way to really contribute.

We cannot afford that dishonesty anymore. Our economy is slowing down, other economies are more efficient. We need to burn up less of what we produce protecting peoples egos and get those not producing real value to find new ways to contribute. The alternative is we will fall farther behind and both Joe and Bill will get less of what they will want or need in the future.



​

 

Thanks, Fence-post! This is why the GOP is in revolt. You folks have memorized your lines, you don't listen to the conversation, and at every break you spit out your canned comments. Paying little attention to how well they fit, or don't fit with the flow the discussion. It's like trying to have a discussion with someone that has not a thought in his head, but has memorized a pile of flash cards. All you do is listen enough to figure out which flash card to repeat into the discussion.

Sad!

 

The points I made are real. Like a fence post. Ignoring reality that you do not like creates problems. Like running into fence posts.



​

 

Which is why they need to be paid more.

When you eliminate half a million government jobs and cut federal spending, you're not doing a good job of that.

Money isn't being lent or spent in the economy for the same reasons I've stated. Middle class gutted by "trickle down", business doesn't invest if there's not the demand for expansion, and a tax code that greatly favors speculative investing over earning and production.

What specifically about may statement do you claim is horse(*)(*)(*)(*), and why? Everything I stated is accurate and factual.

A deficit is a measure of expenditures exceeding revenues, not spending in the economy. The deficit could be reduced by raising taxes.

 

Starbucks raised wages and they have cut schedules. That is why now every time you go to Starbucks the wait is much longer than before. And the workers are complaining that they didn't increase their disposable income.

I certainly don't think Government workers are the key growth, but even though it looks to me like Federal Workers increased by 163,000 last year. And I don't think we had a shortage before.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. But I disagree that a net reduction in 1.4 million jobs doesn't have an impact on an economy with high unemployment struggling to recover from the worst recession in 80 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

See the difference?

 

The facts are that before 2000, on average we gained 2 million jobs per year. NAFTA, outsourcing, newer technology created so many jobs that are now gone forever. New college graduates are having a hard time getting a high paying job of they majored in and are experiencing longer periods of being unemployed that will impact their future. Plus we are bringing in so many immigrants both legally and illegally that are willing to work for lower wages.

Our economy should have added 22 million jobs from 2000 to 2016 to remain healthy for our country. Obviously we are no where close to that number so any media telling the public that jobs are improving are not telling the whole truth. Of course, after a recession, we are going to increase job numbers, although most of those jobs are part time jobs or jobs that require a higher education or someone that obtains an education that is specific to that type of job. The jobs that require a higher education are going to those immigrants that obtained their education in their country and moved here to get those jobs that should have been given to people born here in this country. This is why our college grads cannot find a job. Many of the lower paying service jobs are increasing but with so many people competing for those jobs, the employers knows this and they are taking advantage of this power by making their employees miserable so they quit and can easily be replaced with another victim.

 

Nafta was passed in Jan 1994. We had full employment until the housing bubble blew up and collapsed.

Our problem is that we need to get back $3/hr jobs building the crap Chinese are building for us.

Our problem is that we are not paying people good wages for the jobs they are working, because or policies have gone against the middle class to pamper the richest.

Clinton didn't even produce 2 million a year (close) and he was the best. During his tenure the UR dropped from 7.8% to 3.2%. We could not possibly sustain a rate of 2 million jobs per year growth.

However, you are correct that job growth has not has been a strong as it could be, and the GR is largely to blame for that. But we are slowly getting back to where we should be. If we don't (*)(*)(*)(*) things up, within a few years the problem will be not enough workers.

But the other problem is we need to increase workers' wages so that a typical middle class worker earns a middle class income more like in the 1940s - early 1980s.

How can we do that? That is the question we should be asking.

 

Let me check those spending numbers:

2008 - $2,982.5B
2016 - $3,951.3B est.

That's a 32% increase. That is not austerity.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist01z3.xls

 

You're using estimates and blaming Obaaaama for 2009 spending?


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/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

2009-2014 when the economy was recovering from the worst recession in 80 years, spending actually decreased. Unprecedented in modern history.

That's austerity.

But if you want to compare:

1980 590.9
1988 1,064.4
That's an 80.3% increase

2000 1,789.0
2008 2,982.5
That's a 66.7% increase

See the difference

 

Of course. He signed most of the budget bills into law. And why wouldn't I use the WHITEHOUSE estimates for 2016? You want to put Stimulus and Cash for Clunker's in Bush's column? These are Obama's signature policy prescriptions, but before we jump down that rabbit hole, let's step back a moment and consider that really it doesn't matter if you put them in Bush's or Obama's ledger, the spending occurred in 2009. If it had stimulation effect, that stimulation effect took place in 2009.

In terms of stimulus, why would it matter who signed the budgets so long as the money was spent in 2009?

We did meet the Great recession with a sharp ramp up in government spending, that really began in 2008 under Bush and Paulson.

2007 was our last normal year before spending was distorted in an attempt to combat the GR and real spending, in order to stimulate the economy has grown immensely compared to our last normal year in real terms.

2016 spending is expected to come in at 145% of 2007 spending, even after adjusting for inflation. To describe a 45% spending increase intended to combat the GR as "austerity" is, imho, to strip the term of all meaning.

 

As Cato, Marketwatch, Forbes and Politifact all determined, about 95% of the spending was already locked in place before Obama took office. The cash for clunkers and stimulus spending were a couple hundred billion. You can tag him for that. Because of the recession he inherited.

Estimates aren't fact and are often erroneous.

No, not really.

And we saw the economy turn around and go from crashing to growing.

In the crucial recovery years of 2009-2014, we had austerity. During equivalent time periods under Reagan and Bush spending increased over 40% and government employment increased by more than 800,000. Under Obama spending decreased and over half a million jobs were eliminated.

I didn't claim we had austerity in 2008 or 2016. But if you want to compare:

1979: 504.0
1988: 1,064.4
111% increase.

1999: 1,701.8
2008: 2,982.5
75% increase.

What's your point?

 

Who cares? I'll certainly stipulate that stimulus spending began under Bush. There was none in 2007. That was our last normal year before the great recession. In real, inflation adjusted terms, federal spending in 2016 will clock in right at 145% of 2007 spending. In what world is a real spending increase of 45% "austerity"?

 

Where did I claim 2007 was austerity?

 

Neither of us claimed that. Increased spending as a result of the GR began in 2008 under Bush. Federal spending has vastly outstripped GDP growth, Median Household Income growth, Inflation, Population growth. You name it, Federal Spending has far outpaced it. I'm just lost on how such a massive ramp up in spending, that continues to this day, could reasonably be described as "austerity".

 

Year - Spending % GDP
2009 24.4%
2010 23.1%
2011 23.2%
2012 21.9%
2013 20.7%
2014 20.1%

Total government employment:
Jan 2009: 22579
Jan 2014 21807
Decrease: 772,000

Federal government spending dropped an unprecedented 4.3 percentage points compared to GDP over five years. By 2014, the federal government was spending less, as a percentage of GDP, than every year Reagan or Bush1 were in office.

At a time the economy had high unemployment and was trying to recover from the worst recession in 80 years, we had massive cuts in spending and massive cuts in government employment.

I don't know how that could reasonably not be called austerity.

It sure isn't Keynesian policy, like was practiced under Reagan and Bush during their recoveries.

 

I don't understand your start dates for comparisan. The GR happened in 2008 (actually Dec 2007). Stimulus spending began in 2008. In fact Federal spending jumped 9% in 2008 compared to 2009, yet you seem to be starting your measurement at 2009, more than a year after the GR started and spending ramped up. Today it's running 145% of our last year before the Great Recession. That far outpaces inflation, population growth, gdp growth, median household income growth pretty much any comparative measure you could come up with. How that is "austerity" is certainly beyond me. Well, if that's "austerity" what would be "not austerity"?

I also don't under stand the reference to Government workers which includes State and Local employees rather than Federal employees since the topic is Federal spending.

In Nov of 2007 before the onset of the Great Recession there were 2,744,000. Federal workers. Today there are 2,792,000 which is more not less. But I have to wonder, is the measure of national health how many Federal Workers we employ? Why would that be the metric that tells us the health of the economy?

Now to be fair, there certainly has not been a great deal of growth in the Federal Workforce about 1.8% compared to 5.4% for private employees over the same period, but still, why is this the critical measurement of national prosperity?

 

The GR was going full blast in FY2009 and when Obama took office. It wasn't until early 2010 that jobs losses stopped and job started growing, and we had about 10% unemployment. 2009 -2014 were the years the economy was trying to recover from the damage done in the recession. At a time when the economy was slack and we had over ten million unemployed workers, we should have been added government workers and spending more on job programs. Like under Reagan and Bush.

Instead spending was cut and hundreds of thousands of government jobs were eliminated. Which didn't help the recovery at all, but made things worse.

Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

See the difference?

No, the topic is austerity. Hundreds of thousands of government jobs were eliminated by the states (which also cut spending) which made the employment situation worse, not better, and the slack certainly wasn't picked up by the federal government.

Why would you think that?

How said it was?

 

Keynesian economics may have worked back in the 1930's when our economy was very much a closed one. If there was a need for goods created by government spending, those needs were fulfilled by manufacturing located right here in the United States, stimulating the economy. Unfortunately, this is 2010 and a very much global economy.

Keynesian economics in a global economy:

1 five gallon pail of water poured into a small flower planter creates an abundance of moisture (the 1930's localized U.S. most everything manufactured here economy).

Now dump a 2 five gallon pails of water and spread it out over a 5 foot by 30 foot flower garden (1970's increasingly global economy, manufacturing a moderate amount overseas), it adds needed moisture for sustenance, but not enough for real growth.

Now, take that 3 five gallon pails of water and spread it around a 20,000 sq ft lawn full of grass (today's global economy, very little manufactured in U.S.) and what happens?

Our government simply can't spend enough money to stimulate the entire world when it's in a recession. Sorry, it's just a fact of life. For some odd reason, they just can't grasp that concept, I hope my explanation helps.

For some odd reason, they just can't grasp that concept.

 

We did?

In Jan 2009 there were 2,786,000 Federal workers. In Dec 2014 there were 2,740,000. That is a modest drop of 46,000 to be sure, but in no sense of the word is it "hundreds of thousands."

 

Ya think?

Seemed to work pretty well with Reagan. Let's compare.

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000



Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000