Three out of every eight Americans are unemployed

If the person that earned $1Million actually earned it (software royalty, profit on his company, great sales, stock investments, etc), then good for him.

But if the person got his $1Million because he made a $250,000 bundled campaign donation to a politician, and in return his company received $50Million in govt stimulus money of which $1M ended up as his "salary", then he cheated me and everyone else.

Or if his highly paid lobbyist with a generous budget for "entertainment" manages to get the ear of a politician and the IRS or EPA just happens to make a ruling favourable to his company (and unfavourable to his competition) and he reaps a $1M benefit, then he cheated me and everyone else.

We are not talking about the free market or even hard work, we are talking corruption, cronyism, political payback.

 

Nothing above is even close to reality and not worth discussing...

 

Spending shouldn't go down with inflation, GDP and population growth, and especially not in a time when the economy is still recovering from a recession. We may want to reduce spending compared to GDP a bit more, but this budget is in line with that. It increases spending by about 4.5% per year, and GDP is likely to grow 5-6%. Meaning that spending as a percentage of GDP will likely continue to shrink.

Spending is not always more than receipts, witness the Clinton years when after the tax increase (along with relatively lower spending thanks mostly to the "peace dividend" we had a surplus in 2000.

 

"Originally Posted by pjohns
Why do you believe that only the U-3 measure of unemployment is valid?"

You made up that I believe that only the U-3 measure of unemployment is valid. I've never said any such thing.

It doesn't mean that that at all. It means that the author is totally clueless about what "unemployed" means. He is counting as unemployed people who are retired or going to school, or not employed but don't want a job. Unemployed are people who don't have a job but want one. Retired people have never been counted as "unemployed".

Done.

 

No, but you could give middle lower class workers a tax cut by cutting FICA taxes for them.

Prove it.

Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/22/us-offshore-wealth-idUSBRE86L03U20120722

RW propaganda. While the economy did great despite conservatives' claims the Clinton tax increase would wreck the economy and destroy jobs, revenues grew far faster than would be accounted for by economic growth alone because of his tax increase.

You increase tax rates, you get more tax revenues for a given level of income. It's a pretty simple thing. I don't know why conservatives have such a hard time with it. Well, actually, I do.

We did have a surplus.

And yet the country re-elected him for a second term. ROTFL

 

Let's say you have a room were one guy is making $1million and 180 other people making $50k. 30 years later, the one guy is making $2 million and everyone else is still making $50k. That's what we've had.

 

LOL, and yet you are discussing it. There must be truth to it, and it must have hit a nerve. You could not refute it but felt compelled to reply in some way that would would boost your flagging confidence in your dead ideology.

 

The article itself notes that "[t]his number obviously includes some people who are not or never plan to seek employment." So it could hardly be chided for being deceptive.

 

Calling them "unemployed" was deceptive. Or ignorant. My guess is the former.

 

How about 2.5-3.0% GDP growth?

And federal deficits continue on average >$500 billion for several years then rising again to $1 trillion some of which is necessary for Obamacare subsidizing.

Government needs to downsize to levels which allow the tax burdens on people and business to be reduced...not steady increases in spending every single year.

Lastly, comparing spending to GDP is meaningless because taxation has little to do with GDP. The actual and real bottom line is deficits/debt continue as long as we spend more than we take in...this is simple math sans the political BS. And...comparing today to Clinton-time is meaningless because today is so much different on so many levels from then.

Do you actually believe a constantly growing government is going to help create sustainable private sector jobs?

 

Including myself, there is no one I know who has gone 30 years in the labor market and not had their hourly wages increase? Your 180 workers are pretty pathetic if they can't earn a raise from year to year...

 

Why do you think it will remain that low when historically it's been about 6%? This is actual, not real growth we're talking about because we are comparing actual spending.

We should fix that as the economy improves.

Tax burdens have already been reduced.

GDP closely correlates with gross income which is a measure of tax potential.

IMO it's worth considering how we went from record deficits to a surplus in the 1990s, and how we went from a surplus to record deficits in the 00s.

Constantly growing compared to GDP? No and I have never suggested such a thing. Constantly growing in actual terms? Sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Real terms.

 

Those who are not employed are, just by definition, unemployed...

 

Completely false.

Those who are not employed are by definition not employed.

People who are not employed but are trying to get a job are "unemployed".

Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm

This is the common and standard meaning of the word. To call people who are retired or otherwise don't want a job "unemployed" is a completely distortion and deception.

Which of course, is what RW propaganda media like that in your OP strive to do.

 

No where does this data show the GDP growth you prefer to use;

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

">$500 billion for several years then rising again to $1 trillion" is not fixing anything? These are Obama's budget forecasts which take into consideration whatever the tax revenues might be in the future.

'Tax burdens reduced'...when did any federal taxation decrease? When did corporate taxation decrease?

GDP has nothing to do with 'gross income' or 'tax potential'?

As long as you prefer a government which operates based on deficit spending, you have not fixed anything...all you are doing is spending our kids and grandkids money on our fling today...

 

3 out of 8 equals 35.5%.

our unemployment rate is 6.6%.

of course, this doesn't include folks who went back to school, retired, deciced to be stay-at-home parents, but the rate is still surely not 35%.

 

Those are real, or inflation adjusted rates. We're talking about actual numbers.

Year - Actual GDP - % change
1986 4,590.1 5.60%
1987 4,870.2 6.10%
1988 5,252.6 7.85%
1989 5,657.7 7.71%
1990 5,979.6 5.69%
1991 6,174.0 3.25%
1992 6,539.3 5.92%
1993 6,878.7 5.19%
1994 7,308.7 6.25%
1995 7,664.0 4.86%
1996 8,100.2 5.69%
1997 8,608.5 6.28%
1998 9,089.1 5.58%
1999 9,665.7 6.34%
2000 10,289.7 6.46%
2001 10,625.3 3.26%
2002 10,980.2 3.34%
2003 11,512.2 4.85%
2004 12,277.0 6.64%
2005 13,095.4 6.67%
2006 13,857.9 5.82%
2007 14,480.3 4.49%
2008 14,720.3 1.66%
2009 14,417.9 -2.05%
2010 14,958.3 3.75%
2011 15,533.8 3.85%
2012 16,244.6 4.58%
2013 16,803.0 3.44%

Average: 4.97%

Obviously they are insufficient based on current tax law.

I don't think they have lately, but your question wasn't limited to the corporate tax.

Why are you asking me that? I never said that. To the contrary.

I don't prefer a government which operates based on deficit spending.

 

In fall 2013, about 50.1 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools.
In fall 2013, a record 21.8 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities,
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

72 million are students. Add in the millions that are pre school. Assume 10 million. That is 82 million people not even in the work pool. Out of 300M.
82/300 = 27.3%. Then we have retirees.
Any wonder why 3/8 are unemployed? 3/8 = 37.5%.

 

Higher wages equal higher products.

 

The title was meant to be deceptive. And the article as well.
You can't include in unemployment numbers people who are not eligible for the work force or don't want to participate.
Well you can, but doing so in the way UE is known is deceptive. Unless the article was to point out how this has changed with other points in history and compared then it would have some validity.

 

Real wages.

 

35% of Americans are looking for work and can't find work?

I don't believe it.

 

In the 1950s and 1960s the rule of thumb was a car that cost a month's wages and a house that cost a year's wages. Now a car costs a years wages and a house costs ten years wages.

 

Data to back that up?

 

The average house in the suburbs cost $12,000 and the average car cost $2,000 in 1960. The median wage was $13,000. Besides all that, I remember distinctly the adults around me talking about that when I was young. It was the mantra of the times, do not buy a car that costs more than a months wages or a house that costs more than a year's. It was OK to buy a Cadillac or a Lincoln if you made $16,000 or $20,000 in our neighbourhood.