View Full Version : About those jobs....
Docthehun
03-31-2018, 09:25 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/86d51f8e-8491-3a1d-8785-effaf8734e6a/the-companies-offshoring-jobs.html
I thought I heard someone say something about how those corporations were going to use their tax cuts.
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 09:34 AM
And the number of new jobs keeps climbing while the unemployment rate continues to decline. Plus the labor participation rate continues to climb.
Liberals do not welcome good economic news.
Dr. Who
03-31-2018, 09:48 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/86d51f8e-8491-3a1d-8785-effaf8734e6a/the-companies-offshoring-jobs.html
I thought I heard someone say something about how those corporations were going to use their tax cuts.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that they would use them to increase domestic employment when their interests are better served by increasing shareholder dividends. It's not like the tax cuts were contingent on hiring more Americans.
And yet more corporations, and company are increasing wages and hiring more people. Which doesn't count small business. The list keep on continuing to grow.
Hence the lack of coverage by the Lame Stream.
Dr. Who
03-31-2018, 10:11 AM
And the number of new jobs keeps climbing while the unemployment rate continues to decline. Plus the labor participation rate continues to climb.
Liberals do not welcome good economic news.
The employment rate was climbing before the election. The decline had been in great part due to the effects of the global financial crisis which was abating before Trump took office. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/
The employment rate was climbing before the election. The decline had been in great part due to the effects of the global financial crisis which was abating before Trump took office. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/
Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy.....
Trump and Obama (and their admirers) are slugging it out, both claiming that it is their policies that have led to the ongoing economic expansion, steady job growth and higher stock prices.
The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-credit-trump-as-tailwind-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893) asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.
A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.
The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.
A year ago in the same survey, economists awarded President Obama mixed grades. Most saw his policies as positive for financial stability, but neutral-to-negative for GDP growth and negative for long-term growth. By contrast, Trump was seen as neutral to positive for long-term gains.
Why would Trump rate higher than Obama with this group? Economists point to the upturn in business confidence (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/us/politics/trump-businesses-regulation-economic-growth.html?mtrref=undefined) that accompanied Trump’s election, and tie that to increasing business investment. Spending on capital goods accelerated sharply over the first three quarters of last year, growing at an annualized rate of 6.2 percent.
Such outlays will spur productivity gains and lead to wage hikes, creating a virtuous circle complete with rising consumer confidence and spending.....snip~
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 12:23 PM
The employment rate was climbing before the election. The decline had been in great part due to the effects of the global financial crisis which was abating before Trump took office. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/
Dont try to give Obama credit for our improving economic conditions.
Dr. Who
03-31-2018, 12:48 PM
Dont try to give Obama credit for our improving economic conditions.
Why not give credit where credit is due? The improvement didn't just start with Trump.
Why not give credit where credit is due? The improvement didn't just start with Trump.
Why not admit that BO peeps regulations were holding up growth and that the Demos taxes kept that growth from taking off? Why is it that the left tries to give credit to BO the peep even when the same economists validate just how much BO the peep was a failure.
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 01:02 PM
Why not give credit where credit is due? The improvement didn't just start with Trump.
The only credit Obama should get is the fact that after his failed stimulus debacle, he did nothing. The conditions got much better after Obama was replaced.
Had it not been for Obama's hard headed incompetence, we could have started experiencing these contains eight years ago.
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 01:03 PM
Why not admit that BO peeps regulations were holding up growth and that the Demos taxes kept that growth from taking off? Why is it that the left tries to give credit to BO the peep even when the same economists validate just how much BO the peep was a failure.
Because they worshipped Obama.
Dr. Who
03-31-2018, 01:17 PM
Why not admit that BO peeps regulations were holding up growth and that the Demos taxes kept that growth from taking off? Why is it that the left tries to give credit to BO the peep even when the same economists validate just how much BO the peep was a failure.Do you really want to argue with statistics that show employment was improving prior to the election? What Trump inherited: (figures as of the beginning of January 2017)
Jobs — The economy has added nearly 2.2 million jobs in the most recent 12 months. It has gained jobs for 75 straight months – the longest streak on record.
President Barack Obama was not so fortunate. When he took office, the economy had already lost 4.4 million jobs in the preceding 12 months.During Obama’s first 13 months, the economy continued to shed another 4.3 million jobs. But as Trump enters office, employers are eager to hire millions more. The number of job openings continues to hold at near record levels.
The most recent figures show that as of the last business day in November, there were more than 5.5 million unfilled job openings — double the number in the month Obama took office in 2009.
The highest ever recorded in the nearly 16 years the Bureau of Labor Statistics has tracked this figure was in April 2016, when job openings topped 5.8 million. The figure has now been above 5 million every month for 22 months in a row.
Unemployment — Obama also leaves Trump an unemployment rate that is well below the historical norm.Currently it stands at 4.7 percent. In all the months since 1948 the median jobless rate was 5.6 percent.
Thus Trump has been dealt a far better hand than Obama, who took office when the jobless rate was 7.8 percent and rising. It hit a peak of 10 percent in October of Obama’s first year. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/what-president-trump-inherits/
The current unemployment rate stands at 4.1% - thus it has improved .6% in the last 15 months.
gamewell45
03-31-2018, 01:20 PM
Why not give credit where credit is due? The improvement didn't just start with Trump.
Some people fail to realize that when Obama became President, he inherited an economy that was basically in the toilet and while he was President it did improve. So I'm in agreement with you that we should give credit where credit is due.
Dr. Who
03-31-2018, 01:24 PM
The only credit Obama should get is the fact that after his failed stimulus debacle, he did nothing. The conditions got much better after Obama was replaced.
Had it not been for Obama's hard headed incompetence, we could have started experiencing these contains eight years ago.
Right. American business would have been immune to the "global" financial crisis, if only Trump were elected 8 years earlier, despite the fact that their international markets were flagging and not spending money. Perhaps Trump would have taken the money out of his own pocket to prop them up.
Right. American business would have been immune to the "global" financial crisis, if only Trump were elected 8 years earlier, despite the fact that their international markets were flagging and not spending money. Perhaps Trump would have taken the money out of his own pocket to prop them up.
Well they sort of would have been immune as then there would have been no BO the peep special Care package with the Regs that affected Small Business. Which is who drives the economy. Not those Big Bad Corporations.
It wasn't those overseas that put US regulations on small business. Nor was it those globalists overseas that Mandated BO the peeps special care package. That caused small business to let people go and put a freeze on hiring.
Dr. Who
03-31-2018, 01:33 PM
Some people fail to realize that when Obama became President, he inherited an economy that was basically in the toilet and while he was President it did improve. So I'm in agreement with you that we should give credit where credit is due.
Exactly - there was a big hole where the economy used to be when Obama took office. It had returned to at least normal before he left office. Was the recovery all Obama's doing? No, no more than any single President totally controls the economy. However, the same is true for Trump. While his tax plan is stimulating some sectors, the recovery that started before he took office is continuing because the global economy is improving. The US is not an economic island that is impervious to the economic woes of its trading partners.
Some people fail to realize that when Obama became President, he inherited an economy that was basically in the toilet and while he was President it did improve. So I'm in agreement with you that we should give credit where credit is due.
Yet it wasn't Bush Jr that cause the US to bleed jobs massively. You must have forgot that came from Bilbo Clintons time and all that balancing of the budget that the Demos tout.
Again, forgetting the fact of those massive regulations and High Taxes on Corporations and Small Business.
gamewell45
03-31-2018, 02:05 PM
Yet it wasn't Bush Jr that cause the US to bleed jobs massively. You must have forgot that came from Bilbo Clintons time and all that balancing of the budget that the Demos tout.
Again, forgetting the fact of those massive regulations and High Taxes on Corporations and Small Business.
Notice that I didn't cast blame for the poor economy, just the fact that Obama inherited an economy that was in the toilet and that it improved under his administration.
Do you really want to argue with statistics that show employment was improving prior to the election? What Trump inherited: (figures as of the beginning of January 2017)
The current unemployment rate stands at 4.1% - thus it has improved .6% in the last 15 months.
Did you really want to try and argue with 68 Economists that pointed out that the Best Peep could do with what he did, was only to gain stability and negative long term growth? The part that is quite interesting is the negative long term growth with his policies. That is if it the Peeps policies could have continued on with Hillary. Note that.....Negative Long Term growth.
Say it with Me.....The Peeps policies would have produced Negative Long Term Growth. Cmon one more time. The Peeps Policies if continued would have Produced Negative Long Term Growth.
The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-credit-trump-as-tailwind-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893) asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.
A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.
The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.
A year ago in the same survey, economists awarded President Obama mixed grades. Most saw his policies as positive for financial stability, but neutral-to-negative for GDP growth and negative for long-term growth. By contrast, Trump was seen as neutral to positive for long-term gains.....snip~
Moreover you should read Bowles/Simpson and what they stated that BO the peep needed to do. That he didn't.
Oh and that 4.1% for unemployment is the lowest in 17 years. Then there are the jobless claims.
Booming: Jobless Claims Hit Lowest Level Since the Nixon Administration.....
The rate of layoffs in the U.S. fell again in late March and dropped to the lowest level since 1973. Initial U.S. jobless claims declined by 12,000 to 215,000 in the seven days ended March 24, the government said Thursday. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had forecast claims to total 230,000. The more stable monthly average of claims dipped by 500 to 224,500...The revisions erased the previous low in jobless claims, a reading of 210,000 last month that would have been the lowest since 1969. But no matter. Layoffs in the U.S. is extremely low, as reflected by a 4.1% unemployment rate that is the smallest in 17 years...The labor market is so strong that it’s even drawing back in people who’ve been out of the workforce for years. And it doesn’t show any sign of letting up. The economy added 313,000 new jobs in February and economists predict another solid gain of around 200,000 in March.
What a paragraph. Feel free to re-read it, and to peruse the February jobs report (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/03/09/feb-jobs-report-n2459279) in anticipation of tomorrow. I should add that it's undoubtedly true that strong momentum is not guaranteed to continue, especially if foolish policies (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/03/06/paul-ryan-to-trump-tariffs-and-trade-wars-are-terrible-policy-n2457783) throw a wet blanket onto the economy, or if Democrats regain power and start to roll back the progress every last one of them (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/20/accurate-headline-every-democrat-in-congress-votes-against-major-progrowth-middle-class-tax-cuts-n2424776) opposed. Yes, Republicans appear to be gaining (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/03/27/poll-gop-narrows-midterm-gap-on-generic-ballot-majority-support-trumps-handling-of-economy-n2464522) the 2018 generic ballot, with another new data point (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/cnn-poll-march-2018-generic-congressional-ballot-midterm-election/index.html) confirming that trend. But as I've argued, there are a lot of factors cutting against the GOP this year, and the scatterplot of actual electoral results (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/03/15/data-this-chart-shows-why-shrugging-off-the-gops-pa18-loss-would-be-a-mistake-n2460856) in the Trump era cannot be wished away. That said, there's a reason why the president's popularity on the economy far outstrips his personal favorability. The country is doing well, and he and his party deserve a good amount of the credit. Whether those outcomes and the resulting optimism end up benefitting them at the polls this fall remains to be seen. I'll leave you with this:.....snip~
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/03/29/jobless-claims-hit-lowest-level-since-the-nixon-administration-n2466020
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 02:15 PM
Right. American business would have been immune to the "global" financial crisis, if only Trump were elected 8 years earlier, despite the fact that their international markets were flagging and not spending money. Perhaps Trump would have taken the money out of his own pocket to prop them up.
Obama was an obstacle to the American economy. He believed the economy needed more regulations placed in their path. Liberal policies gave us the global recession. Obama's regulatory abuse helped sustain it.
Notice that I didn't cast blame for the poor economy, just the fact that Obama inherited an economy that was in the toilet and that it improved under his administration.
Improved to being stable from all that falling off the Cliff. Remember Frank/Dodd that they are still trying to fix.
Dr. Who
03-31-2018, 03:26 PM
Yet it wasn't Bush Jr that cause the US to bleed jobs massively. You must have forgot that came from Bilbo Clintons time and all that balancing of the budget that the Demos tout.
Again, forgetting the fact of those massive regulations and High Taxes on Corporations and Small Business.
The job losses are related to the 2008 financial crisis which was primarily caused by two pieces of legislation. The first was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Congress passed The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 54-44, with 53 Republicans and one Democrat voting in favor.
The second piece of legislation was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was passed to keep financial derivatives, including credit default swaps, unregulated. This piece of legislation was buried in the middle of a 10,000 page authorization bill. Few were even aware that it was there. The bill received fairly even bipartisan support.
Both were the brainchildren of Texas Senator Phil Gramm (R), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs aided by lobbyists Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers as well as Gramm's wife, Enron's former Chairwoman of the Commodities Future Trading Commission. Enron, a major contributor to Gramm's campaigns, wanted to engage in derivatives trading using its online futures exchanges. The big banks, on the other hand, had the resources to make use of these complicated derivatives and those with the most complicated financial products made the most money, allowing them to buy out smaller safer banks. Hence why the banks became too big to fail.
Of course, now the banks were free to start selling high-risk (subprime) mortgages to hedge funds, which in turn bundled the mortgages and sold them as mortgage-backed securities to investors. The investors didn't worry about the risk because they had insurance in the form of credit default swaps. These were sold by major insurance companies liked AIG. As a result, the banks were making a fortune off of subprime mortgages and their percentage doubled from 10 to 20% between 2001 and 2006. Meanwhile, the demand for housing was increasing because of the easy availability of subprime mortgages with low-interest rates leading to an asset bubble. Unfortunately, the Fed doubled the interest rates between 2004 and 2006 and the real estate bubble burst, bringing down the entire house of cards.
While not letting Clinton off the hook - he signed these bills - this financial chicanery was cooked up and promoted by one Republican Senator and his greedy financial backers and was largely opposed by the Democrats. It also doesn't let the Bush administration off the hook either for being oblivious to a runaway real estate market.
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 03:29 PM
Liberals are longing for the days when we had 0.7 to 1% economic growth. During the Obama era that was supposed to be "the new normal".
Mini Me
03-31-2018, 03:43 PM
Why not give credit where credit is due? The improvement didn't just start with Trump.
Tahuy does not allow anyone to say anything positive about Obama!Ever! Verbotten! He thinks he is the supreme Dick Tator of this board!
Mini Me
03-31-2018, 03:46 PM
The only credit Obama should get is the fact that after his failed stimulus debacle, he did nothing. The conditions got much better after Obama was replaced.
Had it not been for Obama's hard headed incompetence, we could have started experiencing these contains eight years ago.
I attribute the improvement to something called "pent up demand" in economics.In other words people had to hold off buying stuff until the economy improved.
Docthehun
03-31-2018, 03:56 PM
Hidden in the job growth numbers over the past year is the fact that a majority of the positions were filled by folks over 55. Boomers have begun to realize how ill prepared they were for retirement and either have to keep working, or actually reentering the work force. 41% of those thinking about retiring this year have $10,000 or less put away for retirement. Tough times ahead for many who thought they were middle class. Good lesson for youngsters. You can't save enough and you'll go from being 25 to 65 in the blink of an eye.
Docthehun
03-31-2018, 03:57 PM
I attribute the improvement to something called "pent up demand" in economics.In other words people had to hold off buying stuff until the economy improved.
The down side of that buying spree has been soaring credit card debt. The average consumer has about $8,500 on their cards. OMG!
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 04:41 PM
I attribute the improvement to something called "pent up demand" in economics.In other words people had to hold off buying stuff until the economy improved.
So, the economy picked up when the conditions became right for increased economic activity. I'll buy that.
Tahuyaman
03-31-2018, 04:43 PM
The down side of that buying spree has been soaring credit card debt. The average consumer has about $8,500 on their cards. OMG!
That might be a lot or very little depending on your income and net worth. Debt isn't necessarily bad.
Docthehun
04-01-2018, 12:06 PM
That might be a lot or very little depending on your income and net worth. Debt isn't necessarily bad.
Credit card debt is fine if you pay off the balance monthly. Otherwise, you generally have too much debt. Your comment about debt in general is true.
The job losses are related to the 2008 financial crisis which was primarily caused by two pieces of legislation. The first was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Congress passed The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 54-44, with 53 Republicans and one Democrat voting in favor.
The second piece of legislation was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was passed to keep financial derivatives, including credit default swaps, unregulated. This piece of legislation was buried in the middle of a 10,000 page authorization bill. Few were even aware that it was there. The bill received fairly even bipartisan support.
Both were the brainchildren of Texas Senator Phil Gramm (R), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs aided by lobbyists Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers as well as Gramm's wife, Enron's former Chairwoman of the Commodities Future Trading Commission. Enron, a major contributor to Gramm's campaigns, wanted to engage in derivatives trading using its online futures exchanges. The big banks, on the other hand, had the resources to make use of these complicated derivatives and those with the most complicated financial products made the most money, allowing them to buy out smaller safer banks. Hence why the banks became too big to fail.
Of course, now the banks were free to start selling high-risk (subprime) mortgages to hedge funds, which in turn bundled the mortgages and sold them as mortgage-backed securities to investors. The investors didn't worry about the risk because they had insurance in the form of credit default swaps. These were sold by major insurance companies liked AIG. As a result, the banks were making a fortune off of subprime mortgages and their percentage doubled from 10 to 20% between 2001 and 2006. Meanwhile, the demand for housing was increasing because of the easy availability of subprime mortgages with low-interest rates leading to an asset bubble. Unfortunately, the Fed doubled the interest rates between 2004 and 2006 and the real estate bubble burst, bringing down the entire house of cards.
While not letting Clinton off the hook - he signed these bills - this financial chicanery was cooked up and promoted by one Republican Senator and his greedy financial backers and was largely opposed by the Democrats. It also doesn't let the Bush administration off the hook either for being oblivious to a runaway real estate market.
[/URL]The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax ... - Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the...
Jul 16, 2012 · The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax ... the Democratic Party suffered historic losses. ... But one created not by raising tax rates on high ...
[PDF]
The Clinton Regulatory Legacy - Cato Institute (https://www.bing.com/search?q=Jpb+losses+created+b+Bill+Clinton+taxatio n+and+regulation&form=PRHPR1&src=IE11TR&pc=EUPP_HRTS#)https://object.cato.org/.../files/regulation/2001/7/clinton.pdf
THE CLINTON REGULATORY LEGACY ... But what about Bill Clinton’s desire for a tax system ... has generated huge tax losses.
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s ... (https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom)
https://[url]www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax...
President Bill Clinton pushed a major tax increase ... Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the ... for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. ...
Safety
04-01-2018, 01:40 PM
The employment rate was climbing before the election. The decline had been in great part due to the effects of the global financial crisis which was abating before Trump took office. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/
The same "employment rate" that they spent the last eight years saying was not real and how nobody can trust the government's numbers....now, they regard it as gospel....
The right is full of partisan hacks.
Dr. Who
04-01-2018, 01:54 PM
The same "employment rate" that they spent the last eight years saying was not real and how nobody can trust the government's numbers....now, they regard it as gospel....
The right is full of partisan hacks.
Certainly, the source of the numbers is exactly the same.
Uh oh.....the emotional left is upset that the Partisan hacks on the Right put the partisan hacks on the left in check again. The Norm.
Oh well. Get them a box of tissues.
Tahuyaman
04-01-2018, 02:50 PM
Credit card debt is fine if you pay off the balance monthly. Otherwise, you generally have too much debt. Your comment about debt in general is true.
You don't need to pay off credit card debt monthly. It doesn't always meant that you have too much if you don't
Cthulhu
04-03-2018, 09:08 AM
You don't need to pay off credit card debt monthly. It doesn't always meant that you have too much if you don'tEngaging in debt when not absolutely necessary is foolish.
Sent from my evil cell phone.
MisterVeritis
04-03-2018, 09:10 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/86d51f8e-8491-3a1d-8785-effaf8734e6a/the-companies-offshoring-jobs.html
I thought I heard someone say something about how those corporations were going to use their tax cuts.
What a goofy thing to say.
MisterVeritis
04-03-2018, 09:12 AM
I can't imagine why anyone would think that they would use them to increase domestic employment when their interests are better served by increasing shareholder dividends. It's not like the tax cuts were contingent on hiring more Americans.
Radical leftists believe the purpose of a company is to provide jobs. It isn't. A company exists to create wealth. Once you realize that many things will become clearer.
MisterVeritis
04-03-2018, 09:14 AM
Some people fail to realize that when Obama became President, he inherited an economy that was basically in the toilet and while he was President it did improve. So I'm in agreement with you that we should give credit where credit is due.
Obama's election moved the economy from the rim of the toilet right into the bowl. That is what happens when the nation foolishly elects a socialist.
Obama's election moved the economy from the rim of the toilet right into the bowl. That is what happens when the nation foolishly elects a socialist.
The good thing is people pressed down on the handle, and then came the flush.
ripmeister
04-03-2018, 02:59 PM
Obama's election moved the economy from the rim of the toilet right into the bowl. That is what happens when the nation foolishly elects a socialist.
:rollseyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.