Max, I was kidding, so you can move out of full traderjorge/bigtexx defense mode. (although technically was it not correct? The headliner of you article wasn't less people filing for unemployment, it was fewer INITIAL claims) But anyway, to get serious for a second, the economy has to have a net addition of something like 30-50k jobs a month just to remain at the same level of unemployment. (note the last sentence of your article which basically confirms this) I agree that the fact that there is not the same level of job loss as for the past three years is good. However, whether the productivity gains that people are talking about will result in job creation (serious job creation means a net gain of about 200k per month or so) or instead continue the "jobless recovery" that has been seen so far is still an open question.
Go back to grade school. We had INITIAL unemployement claims, i.e., people who just lost their jobs, of 348,000. That's only one part of the equation, eh? PAYROLLS (NET of losses, gains, and changes in 'employable' folks) are expected to rise 55,000 per week.
No, I think it is good that the rate at which people are losing their jobs is slowing is a good thing, but y'all (specifically, bigtexxx) are making it out like the administration is golden when we will still lose over a million jobs this month. I wouldn't be peeing on your parade if you weren't parading on a street made of dung.
Pardon... ...PAYROLLS (NET of losses and gains) are expected to rise 55,000 per week. Changes in 'employable' folks is a factor in the overall unemployment rate, not the absolute value.
we are still at the genesis phase of a recovery...i think this a positive reflection of that...and, as i said before, job growth lags behind other economic indicators of recovery. this mirrors that.
Here's Allan Greenspans take on the recent news Greenspan: Economy Set to Create Jobs 34 minutes ago Add Business - AP to My Yahoo! By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) delivered an upbeat assessment of economic prospects, saying Thursday the odds "increasingly favor" a revival in job growth. However, he also warned about long-term threats posed by the soaring federal budget deficit. If that red-ink problem is not brought under control by the time Baby Boomers start retiring, it could have "notable, destabilizing effects" on future growth prospects, he said. In the debate over how to fix the deficit problem, Greenspan sided with President Bush (news - web sites) and the Republicans, who argue that government spending should be cut to deal with the deficit rather than raising taxes. On the economy, Greenspan cited a number of favorable recent developments pointing to stronger economic growth and said that even the job market, which has continued to shed jobs this year, seems to be finally turning around. "The odds ... increasingly favor a revival in job creation," Greenspan said in a speech to the Securities Industry Association. He cited such hopeful signs as the need of businesses to replace inventories, which have dropped to extremely low levels, given the strong buying spree consumers went on during the third quarter. In economic reports Thursday, the government said the productivity of U.S. companies in the third quarter registered the best showing since early 2002. Also, new claims for unemployment benefits last week plunged to the lowest level in more than two years. Also, sales by the nation's largest retailers registered only a modest gain in October, the largest merchants reported Thursday, as consumers took a break after several months of robust spending. The Federal Reserve has left a key short-term interest rate it controls at a 45-year low of 1 percent and Greenspan repeated on Thursday assurances that the central bank will not feel the need to quickly start raising interests rates at the first signs of economic growth. Greenspan said that unlike earlier recovery periods, inflation pressures are still non-existent. "In these circumstances, monetary policy is able to be more patient," Greenspan said in remarks delivered by satellite to the securities conference in Boca Raton, Fla. Greenspan noted that consumer inflation is currently running around 1 percent, such a low level that the central bank still believes that the remote possibility that the country could face a destabilizing bout of deflation, falling prices, outweighs the risks of higher inflation. Greenspan said the current situation is far different from past U.S. history in which, even after recessions, inflation remained at higher levels than the Fed wanted to see. "As a consequence, with some risk to economic activity, monetary policy typically had to move aggressively in the uncertain early stages of past economic recoveries to ensure that inflation would be contained," Greenspan said. The Fed chairman said the "relatively optimistic short-term outlook for the U.S. economy" was playing out against a growing concern in financial markets about the surging federal budget deficit. He said that it was critical for Congress and the administration to address this problem and he again urged the reinstatement of budget rules that require any future tax increases to be offset by either spending cuts or increases in other taxes. He also urged reinstatement of caps on the amount that discretionary government spending could rise in any year. Greenspan said the nation's budget problems would become even more acute in just five years, when the first wave of Baby Boomers hits the age of 62, the time when about half of prospective Social Security (news - web sites) beneficiaries choose to retire early even though it means taking reduced benefits. While Democrats have blamed much of the current budget woes on Bush's tax cuts, Greenspan cautioned against relying on increased taxes to reduce the deficit. "Tax increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base," he said. Greenspan said it was difficult to estimate the exact magnitude of these risks but that they were of enough concern to warrant reducing the budget deficit "primarily, if not wholly, from outlay restraint."
Actually, after reading the article again, they said that "Financial market economists are looking for U.S. payrolls to rise 55,000 after a 57,000 gain in September. They expect the jobless rate to hold steady at 6.1 percent." That was a figure for a month, not a week. Sorry I misunderstood you, but as Sam pointed out, there has to be 50K or so jobs added just for unemployment to remain flat. Again, I hope the economy is improving, I could use the boost. However, this news is not exactly horns trumpeting as Americans enjoy a horn-'o-plenty. I admit that this might signify good news, but you have to admit that it is not exactly all that texx is trying to make it out to be.
Okay w/ me. Anyone here disagree w/ Alan? BTW, sounds like Alan believes that the tax cuts benefitted the economy, no?
It appears like you don't mind misleading people with the title of the thread. This news does mean that the economy is doing better and may be a precursor to job growth. The patient is bleeding less but not recovered.
Actually, he says that reducing the deficit ONLY by raising taxes would be a bad thing. I agree that we need to reduce discretionary spending, but there are some elements of the tax cut that should be jettisoned.
Oh, I absolutely agree that bigtexx exagerrates, but I think he and TJ do that more to get ya'lls goat. As the job market turns, a net gain is required to offset the folks who gave up and left the job market (along with the natural growth in our employee supply). As job growth continues, the first effect will diminish and the rate will improve. Major positive points: lowest level in 2 years, 5 weeks below the 'threshold', net gain in jobs, Greenspan likes what he sees. We should also recognize the awesome improvement in productivity. It may create an initial drag on new job creation, but it helps our economy compete in the global marketplace, which ultimately would lead to job creation, just not as quickly as past recoveries. (I am still somewhat concerned about the amount of skilled jobs that went overseas.)
My boat is sinking! My Boat is sinking! Oh look the leak just got smaller! Joy to the world! A slowdown in an economic downturn does not necessarily indicate a recovery.
hope is a good thing, No Worries. you're all big boys...i figure you can read the article for yourself and spin it your own way
I think he believes that the tax cuts benefitted the economy in the short run, but he has drawn distinctions between short run and long run effects of these cuts in the face of the mounting deficits. At any rate, Greenspan gave this speech at my work today... Who knew that even he got some secret service escorts! Maybe the just escorted his limo over.
Cohen, way to oversimplify things. Any college freshman economics class will tell you that tax cuts pretty much always provide an economic stimulus. Nobody was ever seriously arguing that. Anyway, if you rewind to last spring, Greenspan supported tax cuts too, as a disciple of Ayn Rand, this is not surprising. However, if you also look at his testimony; Greenspan said that thre should be tax cuts, but they should be accompanied by spending cuts aas well. As you know, the administration did the exact opposite. It cut taxes and increased spending. Buy now, pay later. The result: massive deficits in future years and a fiscal crisis that will have immediate impact on the economy, as it did in the early 90's after the first failure of supplysiding. (massive debt = crowding out, etc) Cohen, I am not going to criticize the president for short term fluctuations in the business cycle, nor will I give him credit for such as it is largely beyond his control. Longterm wise though, he is planting the seeds of disaster by mortgaging our future for short term political gain. The big crunch will not occur until the beginning of the next decade; during which he will be sitting on his ranch counting his money, thanking god he doesn't have to rely on social security or medicare (which will be bankrupt) Andymoon: non-military discretionary spending (including everything from public assistance to homeland security) isn't the problem, it's a small part of the budget and has remained steady or dropped as a % of GDP in recent years. (although homeland security has givenit a bit of a bump) Nondiscretionary spending and recent increases in military spending (a lot of it with the Iraqi escapades) are what present the problem. (although the cbo did estimate that bush tax cuts were responsible for around 150b or so of this year's deficit)
by the way Sam...I'm on record of saying a president can't affect an economy nearly as much as people would have you believe. so i'm not saying what bigtexx said ("hooray for bush"). but i am an optimist...and my hope is this is the beginning sign of a recovery that includes the creation of new jobs.
