Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will tell you how his policies are killing jobs. Folks who create jobs will not invest in hiring until they know what their costs will be. Already they know the cost of health care will be very high. Congress is talking about passing cap and tax in the lame duck session, more costs for business. Obama is also regulatory happy. Until this administration signals to the business community that he understands that they create jobs, the $1.7 trillion will continue to sit it out.
In addition tax policy is killing job creation, we have among the highest corporate taxes in the world, we are not competitive. Additionally taxing the wealthy is also a job killer. If capital is going to the government, it can't go to private job creation.
By any measure this is a very weak recovery, there are no technicals that point to any substantial job creation. There is much talk about "the new normal" persistent high unemployment.
No, you start with the questions I have asked. Without having a perspective of the past, we can't move forward. Try again.
Sigh, the left really doesn't understand economics.
Ah, this member of the left understands economics very well, I just don't understand nebulous terms thrown around by those who prefer to cut and paste and rely on talking points and jargon, so I often ask for clarification just so that we both know what the discussion is going to be about.
For example:
Quote:
This is corporate cash, capital that is not being put to work because of political uncertainty.
Your article states "economic" uncertainty" which isn't surprising since this is the very definition of a liquidity trap.
So what are we left with, unnamed sources "complaining" about the uncertainty over healthcare cost. Is that it?
Oh wait...
I also love this line buried in the story which is more telling than any argument over Obama policies, none of which you have outlined as requested.
"Huge gains over the last year in worker productivity -- output per hour worked -- also have reduced the need for additional staff in the near term. The harder people work, the less their employers may feel the need to add to payrolls."
Ah, except the unemployment rate does not show job growth, or at least not directly. At the BLS website, navigate instead to the "payroll employment" tab, which shows how many jobs were added to the economy for every month since 1939. From the beginning of the recovery at the end of 1982 to the last month of Reagan's term in January of 1989, 18.3 million jobs were added to the economy. Most of those jobs were in financial/business services. The 80s is the decade where "white collar" jobs first emerged on a large scale.
In any case, the original question was whether or not Reaganomics was good for job growth. That question is answered with an undeinable "yes".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
A faster drop in unemployment happened in the early 1920's. Unemployment went from just over 11 in 1921 to under 4 in 1923.
I do not doubt your numbers, but the BLS unemployment measure only tracks back to 1948.. Still, the 1983 - 1985 period was the largest drop since the rate criteria was changed in 1948.
Ah, this member of the left understands economics very well, I just don't understand nebulous terms thrown around by those who prefer to cut and paste and rely on talking points and jargon, so I often ask for clarification just so that we both know what the discussion is going to be about.
For example:
Your article states "economic" uncertainty" which isn't surprising since this is the very definition of a liquidity trap.
So what are we left with, unnamed sources "complaining" about the uncertainty over healthcare cost. Is that it?
Oh wait...
I also love this line buried in the story which is more telling than any argument over Obama policies, none of which you have outlined as requested.
"Huge gains over the last year in worker productivity -- output per hour worked -- also have reduced the need for additional staff in the near term. The harder people work, the less their employers may feel the need to add to payrolls."
"AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.
A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing."
"(July 8) -- At a speech in late June, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said that if you want to know why businesses aren't hiring, look to Washington. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses," he said."
OK let me explain this to you increasing hours worked is not necessarily a good indicator. If means employers are reluctant to hire so they are working existing workers harder. Industry is saying again, and again, yet the left refuses to believe them.
I outlined the policies that lead us here in a previous post go back and look.
Whenever possible I include sources for my statements. It is the left that follows talking points with no evidence.
Liquidity trap. LOL. Isn't the left complaining that the banks are working the carry trade and not lending. I wish you guys would make up tour mind.
I also love this line buried in the story which is more telling than any argument over Obama policies, none of which you have outlined as requested.
"Huge gains over the last year in worker productivity -- output per hour worked -- also have reduced the need for additional staff in the near term. The harder people work, the less their employers may feel the need to add to payrolls."
Gains in productivity normally occur in times of layoffs, with fewer workers available, the work still must get done.
But this is a fleeting effect, and does not correlate to any technological breakthrough or any systemic success that can be credited to our federal administration.
It was humorous to me when the media began (well before 500 political commentary shows were born) "reporting" derisively that Reaganomics (originally itself intended as a derogatory term) was actually "trickle down economics". What they never admitted was that their preferred form of federal policy was "snatch and grab economics" (currently referred to as Obamanomics).
We have always enjoyed the neutral perspective of our darling media, haven't we?
I'm inclined to agree. I think supply side and trickle down economics are a fine idea but their real world application leave a lot to be desired. To be fair, I believe Reagan was an honest and good man and as president he did a good job overall. Unfortunately the economic policies he is best known for have been corrupted and used to break the back of the American middle class.
In my humble blue collar opinion the only way to improve the economy in any meaningful way is to abandon our current service based economy and take back our industrial and manufacturing capabilities from China.
The way I see it, our current system only shuffles money around, it does very little to actually generate income.
Secondly, this is part of the reason why energy independence is essential to not just our national security, but to our whole economic structure. We are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries (some of whom HATE us) for oil. We need to keep those dollars in America!
- we must get the federal budget under control and eliminate our national debt as quickly as possible ( this will be the painful part)
- we must immediately halt off shoring of American jobs.
- we must start manufacturing our own durable goods and other consumer products domestically again.
Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but a guy doesn't have to be a mechanic to know he's got a flat tire. Some things are just obvious...
http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...-take-how.html This thread has some info on my take at how to make tranceportation cheaper in the long run and to reduce our dependance on forin oil. Sorry for my spelling that is not my strong point. http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...ed-bubble.html This thread has some info on my plan for getting the economy going the way it was and could be. There are some simple things that we need to be doing and the powers that be don't want us to be doing them. It is time that we became the powers that be.
Well said. America must find a way to create wealth. Spending based economy is NOT sustainable. Even services have been finding their way out. Unemployment (not measurable via unemployment rate which is something I consider a sham) is a HUGE reason we're in the current mess. The economy simply never did recover after 2001 recession. Only lipstick on pig was applied with fervor and with regularity.
And to create wealth, a focus has to be placed back on the middle class. Rich and poor classes are natural, middle class, however, requires a design, and discipline. Both were dismantled, beginning sometime in the 1970s and have accelerated since.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...tribution.html The time was at least as far back as 1967. In 1981 the curve took a sharp turn for the rich getting richer. We need polisieze that are built for making the middle class richer and bigger.
A high savings rate.
Energy independence (PV 4 EV)
A tax code that will keep us from having another debt bubble.
Undoing the wealth trancefer that has gone to the rich. Uping the minimum wage to $20 per hr would help a ways with that. A steep tax on the top income earners would also help.
The Reagan revolution was both an economic retrenchment to a simpler time when there were servants, workers, servitors and the properly privileged rich leisure class. The goal of Reganomics was to destroy the leading edge of the growth of middle class wealth. They have succeeded very well. They will no longer be bothered by workers or bureaucrats showing up at their favorite alpine spas.
INHO Reganomics, followed by the Bushistas, was not good for the country because it diverted money from much needed infrastructure to weapons development and manufacture, and it restarted the concentration of wealth from the people that create it to the people that manipulate the money for their own gain. All in all I think the last forty years was the beginning of the end for our Republic and for the wealth of our working classes.
The Reagan revolution was both an economic retrenchment to a simpler time when there were servants, workers, servitors and the properly privileged rich leisure class. The goal of Reganomics was to destroy the leading edge of the growth of middle class wealth. They have succeeded very well. They will no longer be bothered by workers or bureaucrats showing up at their favorite alpine spas.
INHO Reganomics, followed by the Bushistas, was not good for the country because it diverted money from much needed infrastructure to weapons development and manufacture, and it restarted the concentration of wealth from the people that create it to the people that manipulate the money for their own gain. All in all I think the last forty years was the beginning of the end for our Republic and for the wealth of our working classes.
What has been done can very easily be undone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
