| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Kerry and Bush; will vie to be the next US President. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 2 2004, 11:05 PM (445 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 5 2004, 10:48 AM Post #31 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Agreed. You should be counted, but they need an accurate way to do so. Apparently they consider the payroll survey to be the most accurate. When I looked into how these numbers are counted, I was surprised to find that the BLS calculates household survey employment by multiplying its survey's employment-to-population ratio by Census estimates of population. Estimates? Employment-to-population ratio? This is disappointing. The Census takers count every home individually. Why do they need estimates and ratios? I'm glad you brought up your point AB because I honestly didn't realize self-employed people were left out of the unemployment estimates and this does make the numbers misleading. Unfortunately, the household survey seems to be worse so it doesn't help. It's hard to believe that with the extensive data available from the Census and today's computers and databases that they can't do better than this. However, from the information we do have, it seems that 2.3 million payroll workers lost their jobs during Bush's administration. What happened to those people from there is quite unclear. And no, I didn't know about the nine months late part either. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Mar 5 2004, 12:08 PM Post #32 |
Admiral
|
I've been looking at the way we do this in the UK. It seems we used the ILO standard definition of unemployment to calculate the primary figure, which is all those able to work, and seeking work, who are currently not working (currently 4.9% of working age pop.). Figures are also published for the number of people claiming unemployment benefits (currently 2.9% of working age pop.), which is easier to measure but not so useful as people can be out of work but choose not to claim. We also have statistics for the employment rate, ie the number of people able to work who are doing so. That is currently 74.5% of working age population. According to the Office for National Statistics, both employees and self employed people are included in the employment rate figures and are not included in the unemployment figures. They are catagoried differently, as are HM Armed Force, so aprox 87% of the work force are employees, 12% self employed and 1% military personnel. All the figures are calculated through the regular Labour Force Survey, which I believe is done by the ONS on a 3 month basis. It seems then that US figures are measured differently, and so may not be comparable although the point of the ILO method is it is supposed to be used across nations so that you CAN compare. I guess its also easier to measure these things in a nation like the UK. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Mar 5 2004, 01:07 PM Post #33 |
Time to put something here
|
Just to go on a tangent from the line of thought being discussed here. Does it not matter to people that these jobs looses (what ever the figures are) have a great deal to do with the last administration and 9/11? Or is it ok to blame the guy in charge now for what happened before he became president. Because he cant bring the economy back to the criminal level we had under Clinton we automatically say he is failing no matter what gains he makes? From where I am sitting (as some one who did lose his job) and I am sure (in fact I now) I am not alone, I lost my job under Clinton, and Bush got it back for me. He fixed my economic problems as well as millions of other Americans. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 5 2004, 07:49 PM Post #34 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Was everyone in the Bush administration completely tied up dealing with 9/11 and doing nothing else?  I seriously doubt that and, if so, that speaks poorly for the administration. While I understand some extra resources being devoted there, it's inexcusable to focus exclusively on that while the rest of the country falls apart.I've said it before and I'll say it again, the economic problems coming out of the Clinton administration were not that bad. It was mostly a national confidence issue stemming from a few events - the Microsoft lawsuit, the Clinton impeachment procedings, the 2000 election year, etc. This was nothing that couldn't be turned around reasonably easily, but it took Bush 2 1/2 years to even show the first signs of improvement. Today, over 3 years into his term, things are still a long way from where they should be. Yes, 9/11 happened, wasn't Bush's fault, and didn't help. But the main problems that I blame Bush for are his tax cuts and the war in Iraq. Neither of those were necessary and both were harmful. Without them, with a lot more attention to economic matters, and with better economic policy, the economy could have improved a long time ago. That would have resulted in enormously fewer jobs lost to begin with and many that would have been lost might have been gained back by now too. So no, I don't blame Bush for any of Clinton's mistakes. I blame him for his own. As for 9/11, I recognize it as a factor, but not as an excuse. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Mar 5 2004, 09:04 PM Post #35 |
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Dandandat, the guy sitting the Oval Office is always going to get the blame (or the credit) whether it is deserved or not.
Greenspan in his statement last week credited the tax cuts with helping the economy recover to this point. Where it will go from here remains uncertain. In part, I still believe that there is a big time intangible at work in this recovery. That intangible is the fact that most people have not charged into the stock markets to invest again. We have gone back to a more typical business cycle environment. Right now there is nothing new on the horizon to excite the public and we have a view of the world that has gone from a post Cold War peace to a life during wartime. All of the uncertainty that entails can have chilling effect. I don't think the Bush cuts have been particularly hurtful, but I will concede they have not lit a fire in the economy to mirror anything close to the heady sense that prevailed in the late 1990's. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 5 2004, 10:09 PM Post #36 |
|
Admiral
|
Yes, I know, but I don't agree with a lot of what Greenspan says.
The tax cuts probably haven't hurt the economy directly. But the indirect way they have hurt is by undermining people's sense of well-being. The combination of the money that was given back through the tax cuts together with the large amounts of money being spent on the war on terrorism means there is a lot less money available for other things. In addition, it means an increased budget deficit. These in turn make people feel like the economy is still weak even if it really isn't. Thus, confidence is not returning very rapidly which is largely why, as you pointed out, people aren't running back to invest in the stock market. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Mar 6 2004, 02:10 AM Post #37 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ One of the basic premises to fight a recession is deficit spending. Remember the cuts were part of a stimulus package. The idea being that once the recovery then gets under way actual revenue collection goes up (oddly enough this is exactly what happened in the early to mid-80's and Congress subsequently went on an unbelievable spending spree as a result). You make one very key point above. With certain interested politicians making as much hay as they can out of the idea that the deficits are such a threat in situations like this, it does have the effect of making the economy seem worse than it really is. While I expect that you believe the amount money spent on the war on terrorism is worth it, I also expect that where it was spent is a point you find debatable. There was no way we could not spend substantial amounts of money to fight terrorism. Thus, yes, such an expenditure means we are going to again begin racking up debt unfortunately. I don't know if we need to develop further stimulus for this economy or if we should wait for it to adjust itself and begin to grow at a greater rate. I just don't expect that we will see a return to a rate of growth that will excite a majority of the public to attempt to play the markets they way they were doing 5 or 6 years ago. I think that if there is an undermining of the sense of well being it stems more from the lack of job growth; not the actual unemployment rate. Though at 5.6% unemployment we are still around the number that economists tend to think of as maximum employment. The Fed kept cutting interest rates in the last few years due in part to the ever falling unemployment rate and the fear that (prior to tech bubble bursting) it could spark a serious run up in inflation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Mar 6 2004, 09:11 PM Post #38 |
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Bush Jr competency electronic pole. Interesting eh ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Mar 6 2004, 09:19 PM Post #39 |
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
^^It would be more interesting if those voting in the poll were Americans. However, since the poll is off of the AU version of MSN news, the poll is most likely all Australian opinion. Which I am afraid doesn't really count since you guys can't vote here in the US. 
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 7 2004, 03:23 PM Post #40 |
|
Admiral
|
I agree only in so far as it could be shown that the amount of money was necessary to spend. The money that has been spent on cleaning up New York City, supporting the families, etc. was necessary. Money spent on increasing national security here in the U.S. (at the airports, certain public facilities, etc.) was necessary. The money we spent going after Bin Laden was necessary. The money spent on rounding up Al Queda members and stopping their related activities was necessary. Then we come to Iraq. While I believe the cause was worthwhile, given the amounts of money we were already spending elsewhere, I believe that one could have waited and could have been funded much more from more countries if handled differently. I realize suggesting waiting is easy for me to say when I'm not an Iraqi citizen, but speaking strictly in terms of the good of the U.S., it could have waited. Did that money need to be spent elsewhere to fight terrorism specifically for the good of the U.S.? Maybe, but I doubt it, because if so, we most likely would already be spending that too anyway. So there is money spent that I wouldn't agree was worth it at all.
I agree that the lack of job growth is a significant factor in undermining the sense of well-being. I see this as intertwined with the unemployment rate and not really a separate issue. The whole thing has been a big snowball. It started with the events that undermined confidence which then caused investment habits to change. That affected employment and spending and then all this together reinforced the feeling of weakened well-being. So investments continued to slow down, employers continued to refrain from hiring or maybe even layed some workers off, etc. It's a vicious cycle. We need confidence back in order to fix it, but I agree, even then people will be more cautious. So we won't go back to the type of investing we saw in the middle to late '90's anytime soon. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
6:20 AM May 22