Even if he cut all of public sector jobs and eliminated all other federal spending, it would not be enough to compensate for the deficit created by defense spending + decrease in taxes for the wealthy. A raise of taxes on the middle class would be a last resort, and ofcourse that would be some of the worst economic policy at the moment. This is the time to invest in the public sector, put people to work and drive the economy. The infrastructure created by investing in the public sector will not only put people to work now, but also improve efficiency of the country for the future. In contrast to Romney's economic plans which relies completely on trickle down theory. The trickle down theory has already been shown to be obsolete, because of the global market. A company can always extend its profits by hiring outside of the U.S., which is basically whats happened in the last decade. Even through this recession, the top 1% have had the highest profits they have seen in decades, while the middle class is significantly worse. U.S is ranked at around 100th in the world in income inequality, which is pathetic for "the greatest country in the world".
Politics aside, Romney's economic plan is not only vague and unexplained fully (tax loop hole removals?), it is also illogical and irresponsible. From a personal perspective, I have always valued education, infrastructure and research to be the highest of importance after economic stability. The way the plans are proposed from both candidates, it is an easy choice for me personally. Romney's lack of solid stance on any of the important topics is also very troublesome. Atleast having an opinion to critique is important, how can we even consider a candidate running for the greatest nation if he is afraid of putting his ideas forward?
What broken thinking. This will only take away from the labor pool that could be working else where in the private sector. Building roads would be contracted from government organizations that will get comfy with construction companies and would end in lots of deals and only enhance government corruption.
Instead the government should give incentives to job creators that actually put people to work. We have a huge lack of manufacturer in this country, with most jobs being created going to the service sector which generally pay less.
We really don't have a huge lack of manufacturing in this country. It may be declining, but it's still huge. But you're implying that that manufacturing should be our strength, when realistically that's only one part of our massively powerful economy. If we don't need more manufacturing or we don't have the comparative advantage then who cares?
So you don't think that infrastructure is a worthwhile idea? I'm so confused here. Infrastructure makes the economy more efficient and powerful. Even conservatives agree with this kind of thing. Public projects to enhance infrastructure is not a controversial idea at all. You're acting fringe.
I was also amused by his fears of the labour pool drying up. No doubt a serious concern in a country with such a low unemployment rate.
We really don't have a huge lack of manufacturing in this country. It may be declining, but it's still huge. But you're implying that that manufacturing should be our strength, when realistically that's only one part of our massively powerful economy. If we don't need more manufacturing or we don't have the comparative advantage then who cares?
So you don't think that infrastructure is a worthwhile idea? I'm so confused here. Infrastructure makes the economy more efficient and powerful. Even conservatives agree with this kind of thing. Public projects to enhance infrastructure is not a controversial idea at all. You're acting fringe.
We need more manufacturing and to say it's in decline is wrong. It has tumbled due to over regulation and involvement in the industry to the point where its not economical in any way to own and operate a plant in the United States.
I should also add that expanding our infrastructure is a worthwhile idea, but because it will ultimately come down to complete control by the government it will fail and be a waste in the end. Government has proven so many times that it is totally incapable of building and maintaining our infrastructure.
Hahahahaha, you think the government actually controls our infrastructure? You're hilarious. We have almost exclusively a privatized government system. Private companies build and maintain our infrastructure, licensed and supported by the government as necessary. This has been the case for a looong time now.
This idea that private companies are more efficient and magically better is total bullshit, by the way. The private sector can have horrible inefficiencies compared the government. People just tend to ignore some of the serious issues that the private sector can have so that they can continue lambasting how terrible government is. Don't get me wrong, the government can be pretty bad too, I just want some realism here.
Hahahahaha, you think the government actually controls our infrastructure? You're hilarious. We have almost exclusively a privatized government system. Private companies build and maintain our infrastructure, licensed and supported by the government as necessary. This has been the case for a looong time now.
This idea that private companies are more efficient and magically better is total bullshit, by the way. The private sector can have horrible inefficiencies compared the government. People just tend to ignore some of the serious issues that the private sector can have so that they can continue lambasting how terrible government is. Don't get me wrong, the government can be pretty bad too, I just want some realism here.
What I bolded is obvious, Mr Sherlock. It's what I've said.
And your second part is so incredibly ridiculous I think you are trolling. You really have to be screwing with me here if you think the private sector has horrible inefficiencies compared to the government. They are not able to do so without government being cozy with them because they would lose their price and quality advantage that they must maintain in order to be competitive
The first minute in this video made me laugh out loud. It comments about Obama's use of Executive Privilege. Then shows a well known senator that backs Obama speaking out against it, to which Obama had no reply.
On June 21 2012 13:13 Epocalypse wrote: The first minute in this video made me laugh out loud. It comments about Obama's use of Executive Privilege. Then shows a well known senator that backs Obama speaking out against it, to which Obama had no reply. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d8WsaDbifQ&feature=g-all-u
Incredible. I heard about this earlier but that inheriting comment is just inane.
The executive branch has gotten so damn powerful it really is worrying.
You realize the unemployment rate is probably as high as 15%, right? Probably not because you are willing to believe what is told.
The unemployment rate has been manipulated so very much.
according to labor statistics unemployment rate is 8.1%
why would the rate be 15%? do you have a better source?
There are a lot of different metrics of unemployment. U-3 (what you cited) is the most commonly used, it's definition has remained pretty constant over time, and Eurostat uses a similar definition which produces a close result to what the US reports for itself. So yes, it should be clear that the unemployment rate isn't being "manipulated" in some devious or conspiratorial sense.
However, there are other metrics of unemployment, the broadest of which (and this counts some part-time workers towards the total, so it's really broad) is 14.8% right now. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
No, U-6 counts people with a part-time job who want to work full-time as "unemployed." Even though they have a job. It's a useful metric to have, but it isn't the best measure of unemployment.
Also, even using this metric it's not like the unemployment rate shot up from 6% to 15%. (it's unclear if you're implying this or not) At no point during 2008 was U-6 under 9%. Using this metric would make past estimates of unemployment larger as well as present estimates.
There are a lot of different metrics of unemployment. U-3 (what you cited) is the most commonly used, it's definition has remained pretty constant over time, and Eurostat uses a similar definition which produces a close result to what the US reports for itself. So yes, it should be clear that the unemployment rate isn't being "manipulated" in some devious or conspiratorial sense.
However, there are other metrics of unemployment, the broadest of which (and this counts some part-time workers towards the total, so it's really broad) is 14.8% right now. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Wrong.
The ILO is the organization that gives the definitions to the different measurements which has changed the definition, and it has not been "pretty constant over time".
You realize the unemployment rate is probably as high as 15%, right? Probably not because you are willing to believe what is told.
The unemployment rate has been manipulated so very much.
according to labor statistics unemployment rate is 8.1%
why would the rate be 15%? do you have a better source?
There are a lot of different metrics of unemployment. U-3 (what you cited) is the most commonly used, it's definition has remained pretty constant over time, and Eurostat uses a similar definition which produces a close result to what the US reports for itself. So yes, it should be clear that the unemployment rate isn't being "manipulated" in some devious or conspiratorial sense.
However, there are other metrics of unemployment, the broadest of which (and this counts some part-time workers towards the total, so it's really broad) is 14.8% right now. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Yeah, gotta take into account those that really want to find a full time job, but can't find it, so forced to accept a part time position with the accompanying lifestyle change. Companies in some sectors respond to a poor economic climate by laying off full-time workers and offering increased part-time positions (as well as increasing the responsibilities of full-time workers). U6 is a means of estimating how people seeking full time employment settle for part time.
No, U-6 counts people with a part-time job who want to work full-time as "unemployed." Even though they have a job. It's a useful metric to have, but it isn't the best measure of unemployment.
Also, even using this metric it's not like the unemployment rate shot up from 6% to 15%. (it's unclear if you're implying this or not) At no point during 2008 was U-6 under 9%. Using this metric would make past estimates of unemployment larger as well as present estimates.
I would always use the U-6 measurement through time, it's only reasonable to do so for sake of consistency.
I believe the U-6 is the most accurate because of the relevant representation of work sought in the labor pool. I wouldn't doubt a correlation of retraction in the economy and a high U-6 rate.
There are a lot of different metrics of unemployment. U-3 (what you cited) is the most commonly used, it's definition has remained pretty constant over time, and Eurostat uses a similar definition which produces a close result to what the US reports for itself. So yes, it should be clear that the unemployment rate isn't being "manipulated" in some devious or conspiratorial sense.
However, there are other metrics of unemployment, the broadest of which (and this counts some part-time workers towards the total, so it's really broad) is 14.8% right now. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Wrong.
The ILO is the organization that gives the definitions to the different measurements which has changed the definition, and it has not been "pretty constant over time".
That's (partly) why the BLS keeps track of 6 unemployment rates, not just the U3 (ILO) rate. They can count U1 as U1 and U6 as U6 without having to significantly alter the metrics themselves.
I'm pretty sure these series all have historical tables you can look up on the BLS website.
There are a lot of different metrics of unemployment. U-3 (what you cited) is the most commonly used, it's definition has remained pretty constant over time, and Eurostat uses a similar definition which produces a close result to what the US reports for itself. So yes, it should be clear that the unemployment rate isn't being "manipulated" in some devious or conspiratorial sense.
However, there are other metrics of unemployment, the broadest of which (and this counts some part-time workers towards the total, so it's really broad) is 14.8% right now. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Wrong.
The ILO is the organization that gives the definitions to the different measurements which has changed the definition, and it has not been "pretty constant over time".
That's (partly) why the BLS keeps track of 6 unemployment rates, not just the U3 (ILO) rate. They can count U1 as U1 and U6 as U6 without having to significantly alter the metrics themselves.
I'm pretty sure these series all have historical tables you can look up on the BLS website.
Yes. I suppose my posts often lack full explanation and clarity. Thanks.
On June 21 2012 13:35 Danglars wrote: Yeah, gotta take into account those that really want to find a full time job, but can't find it, so forced to accept a part time position with the accompanying lifestyle change. Companies in some sectors respond to a poor economic climate by laying off full-time workers and offering increased part-time positions (as well as increasing the responsibilities of full-time workers). U6 is a means of estimating how people seeking full time employment settle for part time.
I think that's useful to track, but I wouldn't count someone without a job and someone working 30 hours a week who wants to work 40 as equally underutilized.
From the other angle, you could really argue that it's the jobs to total working age population ratio that really measures economic strength. ie, just because somebody becomes a grad student doesn't mean the economy is any healthier than if that person simply didn't have a job.
There is no perfect measure of unemployment, and a simplified number will always overcount or undercount in some sense. What's important is the movement of that number and how it compares to the same number's long-run averages or value in other developed economies.
On June 21 2012 13:39 smarty pants wrote: I wouldn't doubt a correlation of retraction in the economy and a high U-6 rate.
I wouldn't doubt that this is true for U1 through U5 as well. All unemployment metrics should rise during a recession.
We really don't have a huge lack of manufacturing in this country. It may be declining, but it's still huge. But you're implying that that manufacturing should be our strength, when realistically that's only one part of our massively powerful economy. If we don't need more manufacturing or we don't have the comparative advantage then who cares?
So you don't think that infrastructure is a worthwhile idea? I'm so confused here. Infrastructure makes the economy more efficient and powerful. Even conservatives agree with this kind of thing. Public projects to enhance infrastructure is not a controversial idea at all. You're acting fringe.
We need more manufacturing and to say it's in decline is wrong. It has tumbled due to over regulation and involvement in the industry to the point where its not economical in any way to own and operate a plant in the United States.
Here is a picture as to how bad the situation is:
I should also add that expanding our infrastructure is a worthwhile idea, but because it will ultimately come down to complete control by the government it will fail and be a waste in the end. Government has proven so many times that it is totally incapable of building and maintaining our infrastructure.
Edit: I should also add that I'm enough intelligent to be a libertarian, unlike most of these brainless posters here.
That's somewhat misleading. While many manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, many have simply been eliminated due to increasing automation. There's plenty of skilled manufacturing jobs in this country, in fact many employers in some parts of the country are constantly scrambling to find skilled welders and die makers. I saw a news story last week about the Manitowac ship building company in north eastern Wisconsin. They've got a bunch of major navy contracts and can barely fulfill them because of the lack of skill welders in the area. I've got a friend from high school who went into custom machining work, he's been doing pretty darn well for himself. Depending on where you are, there are still plenty of skilled manufacturing jobs in many areas.
What there aren't are unskilled manufacturing jobs; that is jobs which require no education or training. Those jobs are gone and they're never coming back. It's simply not economical to pay someone 30k + benefits to do repetitive monkey work and it never will be again. Especially when workers try to unionize and cause trouble, it's simply not worth trying to keep those jobs here. That's not to say there aren't disadvantages to moving jobs overseas; greatly increased lead times, legal issues, and shipping costs do hurt. But the labor is so cheap and you don't have to worry about unions causing issues that it makes sense. If you were to bring the jobs back, any reasonable company would increase automation to the point where few workers are needed. The few remaining steel mills in the US are almost entirely automated; some mid sized ones have only about a dozen people working in them. The "good" manufacturing jobs of the 60s and 70s are a thing of the past.
EPT![[image loading]](http://macromon.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/u-s-employment-in-manufacturing.jpg)
