Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 06, 2011, 12:02:10 AM
-
the unemployment rate being over 7.2 percent. Heard someone say today that no president has won reelection when the unemployment rate is over 7.2 percent. Found this 2008 article that seems to confirm the importance of this threshold.
Unemployment and presidential elections
By 12:30 a.m., Sunday, May 25, 2008
With overwhelming majorities of voters and other survey respondents telling pollsters that the economy is the most important issue during the 2008 election year, the unemployment rate, as it has in comparable periods, will play a major role in the presidential election. As history has demonstrated, not only will the level of the unemployment rate be a major factor; so, too, will its trend.
The April unemployment rate was 5 percent, which is relatively low by historical standards. Indeed, the current unemployment rate is comfortably below the average unemployment rates for the 1970s (6.2 percent), the 1980s (7.3 percent) and the 1990s (5.75 percent). The April unemployment rate of 5 percent is the same as the 2000-07 average rate.
The April unemployment rate is also near or below prevailing unemployment rates in November of many presidential-election years. The November unemployment rates for elections since 1960 were as follows: 6.1 percent (1960), a recession year when John F. Kennedy defeated two-term Vice President Richard Nixon; 4.8 percent (1964), when President Lyndon Johnson won a full term after completing Kennedy’s first term; 3.4 percent (1968), when Nixon defeated then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey; 5.3 percent (1972), when Nixon won a second term in a landslide over George McGovern; 7.8 percent (1976), when Jimmy Carter defeated incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford, who replaced Nixon after he resigned; 7.5 percent (1980), a recession year when Ronald Reagan defeated Mr. Carter; 7.2 percent (1984), when Reagan won re-election in a landslide over Walter Mondale; 5.3 percent (1988), when then-Vice President George H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan by beating Michael Dukakis; 7.4 percent (1992), when Bill Clinton defeated incumbent Bush; 5.4 percent (1996), when Mr. Clinton won re-election by beating Bob Dole; 3.9 percent (2000), when George W. Bush defeated then-Vice President Al Gore; 5.4 percent (2004), when President Bush won re-election by beating John Kerry.
According to the preceding review of the last 12 presidential elections, today’s unemployment rate of 5 percent is lower than nine and higher than three (1964, 1968 and 2000). Interestingly, the party out of power won the White House in 1968 and 2000 when the unemployment rate (3.4 percent in 1968 and 3.9 percent in 2000) was well below today’s rate of 5 percent. What is especially striking about the prevailing unemployment rate for the 2000 election (3.9 percent) is the fact that Mr. Gore failed to retain the White House for the Democratic Party despite the fact that the unemployment rate (and, for that matter, the budget balance as well) improved for eight consecutive years during the Clinton-Gore administration. During the 1968 campaign, the Vietnam War overshadowed the fact that the unemployment rate for the September-November period (3.4 percent) was the lowest it had been since October 1953.
On Election Day 1972, 1988, 1996 and 2004, the unemployment rate stood between 5 percent and 6 percent. In all four cases, voters retained the party occupying the White House. Three times they re-elected the president (1972, 1996 and 2004); and once voters promoted his vice president (1988).
On Election Day 1960, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1992, the unemployment rate was higher than 6 percent. In four of those elections, voters evicted the party occupying the White House. Only in 1984, when the November unemployment rate stood at 7.2 percent, did the incumbent party retain the White House. That accomplishment perfectly illustrates the role that the trend in the unemployment rate plays. While the level of the unemployment rate on Election Day in 1984 (7.2 percent) was relatively high by the Election Day standards, the fact is that the monthly unemployment rate had not been lower than 7.2 percent since April 1980.
Moreover, the unemployment rate had plunged 3.6 percentage points from its cyclical peak of 10.8 percent that had been reached two years earlier (November 1982), which coincided with the bottom of the deepest post-World War II recession. During 1980 and 1992, when incumbent presidents resoundingly lost their bids for re-election despite the fact that the November unemployment rates (7.5 percent in 1980 and 7.4 percent in 1992) were not much higher than November 1984’s 7.2 percent, the unemployment rate had been steadily climbing for some time. Specifically, the jobless rate increased from 5.7 percent in July 1979 to 7.8 percent a year later and from 5.2 percent in June 1990 to 7.8 percent in June 1992.
If the rate continues to rise between now and November, Republican John McCain will likely have difficulty retaining the White House for his party. That would be true even if the jobless rate tops out at 5.3 percent or 5.4 percent (the two levels at which voters retained the White House party four out of four times since 1972). If the economy falls into recession (if it has not already done so), Mr. McCain’s chances will deteriorate further. Since 1960, voters ousted the party occupying the White House during the two presidential-election years that the economy was in recession (1960 and 1980).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/25/unemployment-and-presidential-elections/
-
this makes sense..I kinda agree with this
-
UE is still at 9%, still far higher than when obama came in to office.
-
good points - BUT - what was the ENTITLEMENT rates in those years?
If you gave 2% more unemployed people - but 5% more people getting a govt check for doing nothing - then he might be good.
Perhaps he knows this 7% figure and has been pushing for entitlements so hard as a means for offsetting the UE rate. Hell, anyone getting an Obama check (when they know the repub will cancel it) is going to vote Dem.
-
GOP ties job numbers to anti-tax stance in debt talks
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
July 8, 2011
Washington (CNN) -- Top congressional Republicans on Friday used the new dismal jobs report to blast Democrats' push for more tax revenue in the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations, arguing that such a move would derail an already shaky economic recovery.
Federal officials reported Friday that the economy added only 18,000 jobs in June -- far below the number predicted by most economists. Unemployment inched up another tenth of a point to 9.2%.
"Today's report is more evidence that the misguided 'stimulus' spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "A debt limit increase that raises taxes or fails to make serious spending cuts won't pass the House."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said the jobs figures "serve as a warning that as we address the debt limit increase we shouldn't do so in a way that raises taxes and impedes the ability of small businesses to create jobs and get people back to work. ... Let me be clear: Republicans will not agree to tax increases. Period."
. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/08/debt.talks/index.html
-
CBO: Unemployment won't improve much by Election Day
By: Brian Hughes | Examiner Staff Writer Follow Him @BrianHughes_ | 08/24/11
A report from the Congressional Budget Office indicates that the nation's unemployment rate will be nearly 9 percent by the time President Obama attempts to win re-election in 2012.
President Obama will face a nearly 9 percent unemployment rate well into his re-election bid next year, according to a new report that amounts to a warning flag for an incumbent who had banked on a vastly improved jobs situation by the time voters flock to the polls.
Projections released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office say the unemployment rate will hover around 8.5 percent during the final three months of 2012, meaning Obama will still be at the helm of a stagnant economy by the November 2012 election.
The 8.5 percent unemployment rate would be an improvement over the current 9.1 percent rate and the CBO does not expect another recession. However, Obama will be forced to overcome an unemployment rate that no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has been able to shake during a re-election campaign.
"The United States is facing profound budgetary and economic challenges," the CBO report says. "With modest economic growth anticipated for the next few years, CBO expects employment to expand slowly."
Political analysts dispute whether the president can effectively point to modest growth when he makes his case to voters already skeptical of his economic acumen.
"Laying blame for the economy on Obama is neither economically true or politically effective," said Simon Rosenberg, founder and president of the left-leaning think tank NDN. "Republicans aren't going to be able to run on 'Obama failed' and [the president] can't say he totally succeeded. It creates a ground for robust debate."
But others say the level of joblessness may be too staggering for the president to overcome.
"I've always said that if unemployment is over 9 percent, Obama loses," Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said. "If it's under 8 percent, there's no way he loses. If it's between 8 percent and 9 percent, it's anybody's guess."
Both Mitchell and Rosenberg, however, agreed that Republican policies under President George W. Bush would undercut arguments that Democrats and Obama were solely responsible for today's stagnant economic climate.
That didn't stop Republicans on Wednesday from pouncing on Obama.
"Where are the jobs?" asked House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
While the CBO report offered little encouragement on jobs, it did predict a slight decrease in the federal budget deficit to $1.28 trillion this year.
According to the report, just one in 10 consumers are expecting real gains in their income in the year ahead, matching a "level of pessimism last seen in 1980."
And even that minor improvement could prove overly optimistic since the report was completed in July before the first-ever downgrade of the nation's credit rating and shaky stock market.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/cbo-unemployment-wont-improve-much-election-day
-
White House Projects 9 Percent Jobless Rate Ahead of 2012 Election
Published September 01, 2011
FoxNews.com
The White House projects that the unemployment rate will still be above 9 percent next year as President Obama seeks to win a second term.
The new figures from the White House budget office predict that the economy will grow by just 1.7 percent this year, a full percentage point less than the
administration predicted at the beginning of 2011. The economy grew by just 0.7 percent in the first half of the year, the slowest pace since the recession ended two years ago.
But the White House does not forecast the economy sliding back into recession.
The White House report also sees the budget deficit topping $1.3 trillion for the fiscal year that ends at the end of this month. That is $300 billion less, or 20 percent lower, than the White House's estimate in February of $1.65 trillion, but slightly higher than last year.
That would still be the third-highest deficit on record.
The White House attributed the revised estimate to a combination of higher-than-expected tax revenues and lower-than-expected government spending.
The White House also projected that deficits over the next decade will fall by $1.45 trillion mainly because of last month's deal to reduce government spending in exchange for increasing the nation's borrowing limit. Now a congressional "super committee" will try to find another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Thanksgiving.
"We need to get back on a sustainable fiscal path and we must invest in long-term economic growth and job creation," White House budget director Jacob Lew said.
Obama plans to outline his ideas for jump-starting the economy and creating jobs in a primetime address to a joint session of Congress and the nation on Sept. 8. That date was negotiated only after the White House and House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, disagreed over Obama's request to give the speech a day earlier -- Sept. 7 -- at a time when the Republicans had scheduled a presidential debate.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that Obama's proposals will improve the economic forecast if it's passed.
"Economists will be able to look at this series of proposals and say that based on history, based on what we knew, based on their collective expertise, that it would add to economic growth and it would cause an increase in job creation," Carney said.
The nationally broadcast address from Congress will put Obama face to face with conservative Tea Party Republicans who are sure to fight any new "stimulus" spending that he might propose.
"By its own admission, the Obama administration's record on job creation and fiscal responsibility is abysmal," said Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee.
"Today's report confirms that the president's policies have failed to deliver on his promises of job creation, deficit reduction, and much needed economic growth," he said. "Since taking office, the president's policies have made a difficult situation worse."
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democrat on the Budget Committee, said the report is another reminder that the super committee must focus on job creation as it searches for savings.
The White House report said that higher oil prices, an economic slowdown in Europe, continuing weakness in the housing sector and the disruption in global supply chains after the devastating earthquake in Japan have dragged down the economy. Uncertainty over raising the U.S. debt ceiling hurt as well, the report said.
"In sum, economic growth and job creation, while positive, have not been strong enough to bring the unemployment rate down to an acceptable level," the budget office reported.
No president in modern times has won re-election with unemployment as high as 9 percent, and Obama's poll numbers have suffered in recent weeks amid a steady drumbeat of bad economic news.
The White House delayed released of the report, which was due in mid-July, as the debate over the debt limit and accompanying budget deal wore on. The delay caused a need to factor in new economic data released over the summer -- including downward revisions in the growth in gross domestic product -- and the result was a gloomier forecast than it would have issued based on information available in June.
Fox Business' Peter Barnes and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/01/white-house-projects-percent-jobless-rate-ahead-2012-election/
-
I don't get it
the Bush tax cuts have been going for 10+ years now and Obama added his own tax cuts
I never quite figured out how tax cuts create demand which would necessitate jobs but given all the tax cuts we should be drowning in jobs
-
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/&sa=U&ei=WRxhTu2HCsbG0AGeyOwk&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNERBDO8Ew4kTA_QvBWrAqxZkcQtbQ
It’s a mainstay of conservative orthodoxy that tax cuts create jobs. In fact, the complexity of the tax code does create jobs for high-priced tax attorneys and accountants. But do tax cuts create “real” jobs?
The answer appears to be no for companies big and small. After all, U.S. public companies pay well-below the official 35% tax rate while 13.5 million American workers search unsuccessfully for jobs And start ups tell me that tax cuts don’t affect whether they’ll create new jobs. In short, the tax cut rhetoric, while effective politics, is lousy economics.
George H. W. Bush wisely pointed out in his 1980 debate with Ronald Reagan that expecting to balance the budget with tax cuts and defense spending increases was “voodoo economics.” But along with Reagan’s ascendancy came the rise of huge budget deficits — that Bush wisely helped end when he agreed to raise taxes in 1990.
Despite $858 billion in December 2010 tax cuts, companies still complain that they pay too much in tax. General Electric (GE) has become famous for paying no taxes on its $5.1 billion in 2010 U.S. profits while keeping a big staff of lawyers on hand to make sure it pays as few of them as possible. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that GE is not alone and that the prevailing estimate for the actual U.S. corporate tax rate is 25% — costing the U.S. about $100 billion in lost revenue.
But corporations have absolutely no reason to complain about taxes. After all, they earned record 2010 profits of $1.68 trillion and 85% of them are beating their first quarter 2011 earnings estimates as 70% are growing revenue faster than expected while their operating margins stand at a near record 19.8%.
And companies are achieving that record profitability by squeezing workers. After all, 2010 productivity rose 3.9% while unit labor costs fell 1.5%. To get more work out of the same number of workers while paying them less, it helps to have 13.5 million people out of work and the easy ability to hire part-time labor and outsource to countries that pay much lower wages.
So tax cuts have not spurred big companies to create jobs. But what about start ups? Based on my October 2010 interviews with 17 start up CEOs, my conclusion is that not a single one of them would create a job based on tax cuts. All of them told me that their decision to create a new job would be based on whether the long-term cost of that new job would be offset by higher revenues and profits.
As Dick Cheney famously pointed out — deficits don’t matter. And his supporters are probably profiting from the weak-dollar, commodity-inflation bet whose profitability depends on the persistence of those deficits.
-
I don't get it
the Bush tax cuts have been going for 10+ years now and Obama added his own tax cuts
I never quite figured out how tax cuts create demand which would necessitate jobs but given all the tax cuts we should be drowning in jobs
OK, then what's the solution?
-
OK, then what's the solution?
It's certainly not tax cuts is it?
I personally believe it's the breaks we give in import tariffs.
Why would you make stuff in other countries just to be sold here if it was just as much to import them.
You wouldn't.
-
OK, then what's the solution?
I'm not really sure but the problem was 20 years in the making (decimation of our manufacturing base, corporate loopholes that incentivize companies to manufacture and book profit overseas, etc..) is not going to be a quick or easy fix
I also think the real estate and credit markets are going to continue to be a big drag on our economy for quite some time and I don't have an easy fix for that because I think the banks are benefitting just as much from the foreclosures as they did from the bail outs.
I think a good start would be a comprehensive and long term (i.e longer than a few months) infrastructure initiative. EVen Repubs are starting to get on board with this.
Money out in the economy and in the hands of working people will get spent and that will foster demand.
-
It's certainly not tax cuts is it?
I don't know...maybe it is tax cuts.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm far too ignorant on economics to have the answers.
But, nothing ever happens in a vacuum where we can isolate things down. I have read things like CBO and GAO reports that almost always point out a myriad of factors all going on at once that affect things like unemployment, the economy, etc. And they typically just hit the major shit...who knows how many smaller factors all play a contributing role.
Brilliant economists from both sides always argue their points well. So, what's the solution?
-
Its the cost of doing business overall. We have out priced ourselves economically.
-
I think a good start would be a comprehensive and long term (i.e longer than a few months) infrastructure initiative. EVen Repubs are starting to get on board with this.
Money out in the economy and in the hands of working people will get spent and that will foster demand.
I think a lot of people, myself included, would get behind that. Not so sure a politician, on any side, could sell it in our "fix-the-problem-right-now" country.
-
I think a lot of people, myself included, would get behind that. Not so sure a politician, on any side, could sell it in our "fix-the-problem-right-now" country.
How does spending 800k for ball washing Africans comport with this?
-
How does spending 800k for ball washing Africans comport with this?
lol, I don't think that was what he was referring to.
-
lol, I don't think that was what he was referring to.
Well - supported that so he needs to explain how the ball washing aids the economy.
-
I don't get it
the Bush tax cuts have been going for 10+ years now and Obama added his own tax cuts
I never quite figured out how tax cuts create demand which would necessitate jobs but given all the tax cuts we should be drowning in jobs
Stunning response. You can just as easily say, "I never quite figured out how tax increases create demand which would necessitate jobs but given tax increases we should be drowning in jobs."
Why is it that places like Hong Kong and Singapore, who have some of the lowest tax rates in the world (along with the two freest economies) are so much more economically successful than tax-burdened Europe? If more taxes are the answer then why are all these EU countries bankrupt and incapable of producing any sort of economic growth? They've taxed themselves right into irrelevance with nothing whatsoever to show for it (beyond rioting and bloodshed, of course). ::)
It's not surprising that you don't understand simple economics as you're nothing more than a Keynesian stooge. Japan has really "stimulated" their economy by spending their way to a 220% public debt-to-GDP ratio. Two lost decades and counting for them.
You Keynesian fucktards can't produce one single modern-day example of it actually working. It's always, "We just need to spend MORE." Of course, "more" is completely subjective as evidenced by your claims that the trillions already spent by Obama weren't enough. Your entire life is driven by the theoretical concept of a multiplier, which is why you have no rebuttal for the argument that the multiplier produced by food stamps indicates that we could food stamp our way to prosperity. After all, "every $1 in food stamps returns $1.84 to the economy." ::)
-
It's certainly not tax cuts is it?
I personally believe it's the breaks we give in import tariffs.
Why would you make stuff in other countries just to be sold here if it was just as much to import them.
You wouldn't.
ive said this as well but you also need to make our corp tax rate comparable to those countries we outsource to.
Also the amount of tarrif we would have to levy to make our labor force comparable to them would be alot and this would cause them to levy tarrifs on our exports.
Althouth I think b/c we import much more than we export it would probably be a net gain.
-
ive said this as well but you also need to make our corp tax rate comparable to those countries we outsource to.
Also the amount of tarrif we would have to levy to make our labor force comparable to them would be alot and this would cause them to levy tarrifs on our exports.
Althouth I think b/c we import much more than we export it would probably be a net gain.
That is my theory... We buy much more from others than they buy from us, we are the biggest economy, so we would come out on the winning side if we caused them to build more things here because of the tariffs.
-
Stunning response. You can just as easily say, "I never quite figured out how tax increases create demand which would necessitate jobs but given tax increases we should be drowning in jobs."
Why is it that places like Hong Kong and Singapore, who have some of the lowest tax rates in the world (along with the two freest economies) are so much more economically successful than tax-burdened Europe? If more taxes are the answer then why are all these EU countries bankrupt and incapable of producing any sort of economic growth? They've taxed themselves right into irrelevance with nothing whatsoever to show for it (beyond rioting and bloodshed, of course). ::)
It's not surprising that you don't understand simple economics as you're nothing more than a Keynesian stooge. Japan has really "stimulated" their economy by spending their way to a 220% public debt-to-GDP ratio. Two lost decades and counting for them.
You Keynesian fucktards can't produce one single modern-day example of it actually working. It's always, "We just need to spend MORE." Of course, "more" is completely subjective as evidenced by your claims that the trillions already spent by Obama weren't enough. Your entire life is driven by the theoretical concept of a multiplier, which is why you have no rebuttal for the argument that the multiplier produced by food stamps indicates that we could food stamp our way to prosperity. After all, "every $1 in food stamps returns $1.84 to the economy." ::)
I laugh when Keynsians talke a about a "multiplier" effect. Yeah right. More like a DIVIDER effect!!! HAHAHA!!!!
-
Stunning response. You can just as easily say, "I never quite figured out how tax increases create demand which would necessitate jobs but given tax increases we should be drowning in jobs." Why is it that places like Hong Kong and Singapore, who have some of the lowest tax rates in the world (along with the two freest economies) are so much more economically successful than tax-burdened Europe? If more taxes are the answer then why are all these EU countries bankrupt and incapable of producing any sort of economic growth? They've taxed themselves right into irrelevance with nothing whatsoever to show for it (beyond rioting and bloodshed, of course). ::)
It's not surprising that you don't understand simple economics as you're nothing more than a Keynesian stooge. Japan has really "stimulated" their economy by spending their way to a 220% public debt-to-GDP ratio. Two lost decades and counting for them.
You Keynesian fucktards can't produce one single modern-day example of it actually working. It's always, "We just need to spend MORE." Of course, "more" is completely subjective as evidenced by your claims that the trillions already spent by Obama weren't enough. Your entire life is driven by the theoretical concept of a multiplier, which is why you have no rebuttal for the argument that the multiplier produced by food stamps indicates that we could food stamp our way to prosperity. After all, "every $1 in food stamps returns $1.84 to the economy." ::)
Nonsense
no one ever said tax increases created job yet Repubs have said or implied repeatedly that tax decreases create jobs
there is plenty of evidence to suport the claim about things like food stamps, unemployment benefit etc.. returning more $'s to GDP than they cost.
here are a couple of links which themselves have sources
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate-Finance-Committee-Unemployment%20Insurance-041410.pdf
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=863
I know you don't agree on this so do you have anything to support your argument other than your ideology
-
Are you fucking kidding? So why not put the entire nation on food stamps and send ui checks? Everyone could stay home do jack squat and the economy would roar right?
-
Are you fucking kidding? So why not put the entire nation on food stamps and send ui checks? Everyone could stay home do jack squat and the economy would roar right?
no one has ever suggested that but then, of course, you knew that already
right?
-
And? By your measure things should be improving faster in places where everyone is on welfare and food stamps. Not really working out that way in detroit, bronx, etc.
-
And? By your measure things should be improving faster in places where everyone is on welfare and food stamps. Not really working out that way in detroit, bronx, etc.
that's not the point at all
no one has suggested that we should all go on food stamps or some such thing
just that things like food stamps, unemployment benefits etc.. have a greater effect (and actually help people too) than giving rich people yet another tax cut
in an ideal world you would have as few people as possible on food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc... but no one is suggesting that they are a cure to our economic problems
I assume you know this and are just pretending to be ignorant to make some sort of ideological point
-
9.1%
September jobs report: Hiring gains momentum
By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney October 7, 2011
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hiring was stronger than expected in September, a rare piece of good news amid growing worries of a weakening U.S. economy.
Employers added 103,000 jobs in the month, the Labor Department reported Friday. And July and August were both revised higher, showing an additional gain of 99,000 jobs over the summer.
For the last several months, there have been widespread concerns about the economy falling back into recession. So Friday's report was welcome news. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had predicted an overall gain of just 65,000 jobs in the month.
Still, September's report was considered relatively weak. So far, the economy has recovered only 2.1 million of the 8.6 million jobs lost since the recession began. And economists often say the economy needs to add at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth.
"It's hard to get too excited even about the positive news," said Tig Gilliam, president of the North American unit of job placement firm Adecco. "In the long-term we're still treading water. No one is hiring unless they absolutely have to."
While Businesses added a respectable 137,000 jobs, that number was bolstered by 45,000 Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) strikers who returned to work last month. And that hiring was slightly offset by a loss of 34,000 public jobs, mostly at the local government level.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.1%, in line with economists' forecasts.
Economists expect relatively modest hiring and no change in unemployment for the rest of this year, according to a CNNMoney survey, and only a slight pickup next year, bringing unemployment down to 8.6% by the end of 2012.
"This is a positive report, but employers are definitely still cautious in general," said Scott Melland, CEO of Dice Holdings, a leading provider of specialized career web sites. "This is definitely not the recovery everyone hoped it would be."
0:00 / 3:47 The great government job purge
Hiring was uneven across different parts of the economy as just over half of the industries tracked by the Labor Department added jobs, while the rest trimmed payrolls. Construction, retailers and professional and business services added jobs, while employers in manufacturing, financial services and leisure and hospitality cut staff.
And there was more pain for those who are struggling to find work. The average time that the unemployed have been without work hit a record 40.5 weeks in September. Just under half of those jobless have been out of work for more than six months.
The number of workers who are stuck in part-time jobs but want full-time work rose to 9.3 million, up 444,000 from August and the biggest jump in two years.
Those workers, combined with discouraged job seekers who are no longer counted among the unemployed because they're not actively looking for work, make up the so-called underemployment rate, which rose to 16.5%, the highest rate so far this year.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/07/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm
-
Again - we went backwards again!
-
where are the 11, 12, 13% UE rates that getbiggers predicted? is 9% essentially the ceiling?
no offense, but the 9% number won't be as impactful each month. By next year, this american idol moron generation of swing voters will think it's always been 9%.
Sure, the old timers will remember a time when it was lower, but they're already voting GOP regardless ;)
-
where are the 11, 12, 13% UE rates that getbiggers predicted? is 9% essentially the ceiling?
no offense, but the 9% number won't be as impactful each month. By next year, this american idol moron generation of swing voters will think it's always been 9%.
Sure, the old timers will remember a time when it was lower, but they're already voting GOP regardless ;)
Using the birth death index- we still missed a step. Things are getting worse, not better
-
Using the birth death index- we still missed a step. Things are getting worse, not better
of course they are. but that doesn't really matter, now does it?
the PERCEPTION is what matters.
I contend that over time, the impact of numbers like 9% is less and less. People get used to being poor (i know damn well) and a lower standard of life has LESS of an impact. You move to a smaller place, learn to steal comcast form your neighbor, and get used to eating McD. You adapt/
Dropping to 9.1% in electoin year means obama loses.
But moving from 9% this year to 8.7% next year? (or something similar)...
It won't be as impactful. And I don't want some bitch ass "repub" telling me that people will be just as mad next year at numbers. Poverty fatigue is real. I grew up in projects then trailer. Suck one if you want to lecture on being poor.
I hope cain destorys obama in 47 states. But on this factor - the UE number... I think people will be used to it, incredibly.
-
i say it's because of 333386 60,000 post about obama on getbig ;D
-
i say it's because of 333386 60,000 post about obama on getbig ;D
You can attribute it to the man in the moon - your messiah is going to be sent packing for kenya and hopefully he takes you communist marxists with him.
-
Bump.
-
Still way above 7.2. Was 8.2 in May. http://www.bls.gov/cps/
-
You can attribute it to the man in the moon - your messiah is going to be sent packing for kenya and hopefully he takes you communist marxists with him.
when are you going to get a job??????????
-
8.3
Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short
Published August 03, 2012
FoxNews.com
The unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3 percent in July, reflecting a stagnant economic picture as hiring improved but not by enough to make a dent in the sea of unemployed Americans.
The Labor Department report, in a glimmer of positive news after three straight months of dismal jobs numbers, showed that hiring reached its best level since February, with 163,000 jobs added.
But the number brings the economy back to treading-water status. The economy added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year, roughly the same as last year's pace. That's not enough to satisfy the 12.8 million Americans who are unemployed. It would take 250,000 new jobs a month to rapidly bring the unemployment rate down.
With the rate rising from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent, Republicans amped up their criticism of President Obama's stewardship Friday.
"Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a hammer blow to struggling middle-class families," Mitt Romney said in a statement.
Speaking later in North Las Vegas, he called the sustained high unemployment an "extraordinary record of failure."
"That's the longest period of time, 42 months ... we've had unemployment above 8 percent in American history," Romney said.
Both sides are to using the report to double down on their respective tax plans. House Speaker John Boehner said "any new job creation is welcome news," but that unemployment above 8 percent makes it "insane to raise taxes on small businesses."
Republicans want to extend the Bush-era tax rates for all Americans; Obama and congressional Democrats largely want to extend them for those making less than $250,000, letting rates rise for top earners.
Obama, speaking just minutes after Romney, said Friday that raising taxes on the middle class is "the last thing that we should be doing."
He noted that the jobs report means the economy has created 4.5 million new jobs in the last 29 months, and 1.1 million this year.
"But let's acknowledge we've still got too many folks out there who are looking for work," Obama said.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi touted the fact that July marked the 29th straight month of private sector job growth.
"Last month, 163,000 jobs were created despite Republicans' refusal to work with President Obama and Democrats to create jobs, grow our economy, and ensure the economic security of our middle class," she said. "With too many Americans still out of work, the message remains clear: we must do more."
The government uses two surveys to measure employment. A survey of businesses showed job gains. The unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which showed fewer people had jobs. Economists say the business survey is more reliable.
Investors appeared pleased with the report. Futures tracking the Standard & Poor's 500 index and the Dow Jones industrial average gained about 1 percent. The stock market is coming off four days of losses. Yields on government bonds also rose after the report came out as investors moved money out of low-risk assets.
A better outlook on hiring could prompt the Federal Reserve to hold off taking more action to spur growth. The U.S. central bank, which ended a two-day policy meeting Wednesday, signaled in a statement a growing inclination to take further steps if hiring doesn't pick up.
The job gains were broad-based. Manufacturing added 25,000 jobs, the most since March. Restaurants and bars added 29,000. Retailers hired 7,000 more workers. Education and health services gained 38,000. Governments cut 9,000 positions.
Average hourly wages also increased by 2 cents. Over the past year, wages have increased 1.7 percent -- matching the rate of inflation.
Despite July's job gains, the economy remains weak more than three years after economists declared the recession had ended in June 2009. Growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the April-June quarter, down from 2 percent in the first quarter and 4.1 percent in the final three months of 2011.
Manufacturing activity shrank for the second straight month in July, a private survey said Wednesday. Consumer confidence improved slightly last month but remains weak.
Rising pessimism about the future is taking a toll on businesses and consumers, many economists say. Europe's financial crisis has weakened that region's economy, hurting U.S. exports. Worries have also intensified that the U.S. economy will fall off a "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year. That's when tax increases and deep spending cuts will take effect unless Congress reaches a budget deal. A recession could follow, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned.
Americans are responding by spending less and saving more. A big reason growth slowed in the second quarter was that consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity, slowed to an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. That was down from 2.4 percent in the first quarter.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/03/economy-adds-163000-jobs-in-july-unemployment-rate-rises-to-83-percent/
-
getbiggers predicted we would be in 11 to 12% UE by now. what happened?
-
getbiggers predicted we would be in 11 to 12% UE by now. what happened?
U6 is 15 percent mr. MBA but does not know squat about economics.
-
Still a net loss in terms of creation for Obama.
Obama closer to breaking even on jobs
By Charles Riley @CNNMoney August 3, 2012:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Is President Obama a job creator? Not yet. But he might be by Election Day.
The American economy only has to add another 316,000 jobs to get back to where it was in January 2009, when the president was sworn in.
When the president entered office on Jan. 20, 2009, the economy was issue No. 1. It still is today. Here's a look at where the economy stood then and what's changed since.
View photosHere's the math: 4.316 million jobs were lost in the first 13 months of Obama's presidency. Since he took office, 4 million net jobs have been added back.
Right now, that goal is still within reach, even in spite of still-tepid hiring in July. U.S. employers added 163,000 jobs in the month.
Three jobs reports remain before Election Day. To break even, Obama will need to add just more than 105,300 jobs per month.
That's doable, but by no means a sure thing. So far this year, job growth north of 105,300 was reported in only four out of seven months.
(Related: Romney promises 12 million jobs in four years)
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 8.3% in July -- down from its peak of 10% in October 2009, but still up from the 7.8% it was at when Obama was inaugurated.
Alan Krueger, chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, sought to downplay the jump in the unemployment rate, pointing out in a blog post that -- sans rounding -- the rate only rose from 8.217% in June to 8.254% in July.
But Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney characterized the report as a "hammer blow to struggling middle-class families" and said Americans deserve an unemployment rate below 8%.
That's a talking point that should last through Election Day. At this point, getting below 8% by November 6 is rather unlikely.
Most presidents finish their terms with job gains. By the end of Ronald Reagan's first term, the economy had created an additional 5.3 million jobs. In Bill Clinton's first four years, 11.5 million jobs had been added.
George W. Bush is the only recent president to win re-election with job losses under his watch. The economy shed 13,000 jobs in his first four years, but just like in Obama's presidency, most of those job losses came in his first year in office.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/03/news/economy/obama-jobs/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
-
Mitt Romney would cut millionaires’ taxes, Barack Obama says
Share this story:
This Obama campaign ad aired in August 2012.
You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trump’s jet.
A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romney’s economic proposals.
"Now he has a plan," the ad says, "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year."
We know from our previous reporting on Romney’s tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romney’s plan.
So we decided to take a look.
Romney’s tax "plan"
We need to be clear from the start that the problem independent analysts, journalists and fact-checkers have with digging into Romney's tax plan is that much of the "plan" isn't yet known.
Romney has suggested general parameters:
• The rate cuts would be paid for without adding to the deficit.
• People at the high end "will still pay the same share of the tax burden they’re paying now."
• Everyone would see tax rate reductions.
He has outlined specific tax cuts on his campaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent.
To offset those cuts, Romney has hinted that he would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes.
The effect of Romney's plan
Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates, examined the effect of Romney’s tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012.
To try and keep with Romney's guiding principles, the authors eliminated deductions and write-offs -- starting with the deductions for top earners first -- until they came up with enough revenue to offset the $360 billion in tax cuts that are part of Romney's plan.
They determined that people who earn $1 million or more in taxable income would see an average net tax decrease of $87,117. They’d save $175,961 from Romney's tax cut, but lose $88,444 in deductions.
"They would still get a tax cut," said Adam Looney, one of the authors. "The dollar value of the tax cuts is just way bigger than the mortgage interest and other deductions. There’s no way to implement this plan in a way that doesn’t result in a pretty big tax cut for that group (those making more than $1 million)."
People who earn between $500,000 and $1 million would see a cut of about $17,000, and taxes for people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 would decrease by about $1,800, the study found.
But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. They’d save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.
The authors specifically noted that taxpayers with children whose income is below $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $2,041 -- the figure highlighted in Obama’s ad.
The reason for the increase is that the most popular tax breaks heavily benefit middle- and lower-income families, the 95 percent of the population earning less than $200,000 who carry mortgage debt and use employer-provided health insurance.
And though Romney has suggested he would focus on taking the deductions away from the wealthy, the study concluded that alone would not make up the difference of the revenue sacrificed when rates are slashed.
"Somebody has to foot the bill for those tax cuts," Looney said. "You have to tap into middle- and lower-income households."
Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.
Romney campaign’s response
When the study appeared online, the Romney campaign posted a response on its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.
"President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before – and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent," said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.
Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaign’s policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.
"These glaring gaps invalidate the report’s conclusions," Chen said.
The Romney campaign said that the study ignored the assertion that lower tax rates will grow the economy -- which they say will translate into more tax revenues. That will help make the plan revenue neutral even with lower overall tax rates.
Spending cuts, likewise, could help balance the tax cuts without having to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. The study, for the record, did consider that possibility but concluded it was impossible to evaluate the effect of spending cuts without knowing what would be cut. They also noted that "government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households."
We find nothing in the study that distorts Romney’s proposals. It makes assumptions favorable to Romney, namely that his plan would lead to greater economic growth and raise revenues. The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering "objective, third-party analysis."
Our ruling
Obama said Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."
The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers.
The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000.
Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000.
The study is making the point that Romney’s plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan.
We rate the claim Mostly True.
-
U6 is 15 percent mr. MBA but does not know squat about economics.
i'll call the BLS and let them know they're all wrong. thank goodness getbig is here to set the international record straight.
-
i'll call the BLS and let them know they're all wrong. thank goodness getbig is here to set the international record straight.
I would hope you would know by now, whoever is in office, changes the criteria for the way unemployment is counted to make themselves look good. Obama is no different, 8.3 is a fucking joke and you know it.
-
Will not be below 7.2. Will be interesting to see if this holds true.