PDA

View Full Version : Economics New jobless claims up sharply as layoffs persist


petegz28
06-17-2010, 12:03 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits jumped last week after three straight declines, another sign that the pace of layoffs has not slowed.

Initial claims for jobless benefits rose by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 472,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the highest level in a month and overshadowed a report that showed consumer prices remain essentially flat.

A rise in first-time jobless claims, combined with this week's report that said new home construction plunged in May after government incentives expired, highlighted fears about the strength of the economic rebound.

If layoffs persist, there's a concern that the June employment numbers may show a decline in private-sector jobs after five straight months of gains, said Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets.

"We've definitely seen the economic recovery hit a wall," Lee said.

First-time jobless claims have hovered near 450,000 since the beginning of the year after falling steadily in the second half of 2009. That has raised concerns that hiring is lackluster and could slow the recovery.

The four-week average for unemployment claims, which smooths volatility, dipped slightly to 463,500. That's down by 3,750 from the start of January.

Kevin Logan, an economist with HSBC Securities, said many economists have been expecting claims to fall below 450,000 for several weeks now.

"The wait is getting longer and longer," said Logan. "As each week goes by, doubts about the underlying strength of the economic expansion grow."

A separate Labor report said consumer prices fell for the second straight month. The 0.2 decline in the Consumer Price Index was pulled down by falling energy prices -- most notably a 5.2 percent drop in gasoline prices.

But core consumer prices, which strip out volatile energy and food, edged up 0.1 percent in May, after being flat in April. Core prices are up only 0.9 percent over the past year -- below the Fed's inflation target.

Additionally, the Commerce Department said Thursday that the broadest measure of U.S. trade rose during the first quarter to the highest point in more than a year. Much of the widening deficit was due to higher prices on imported oil during the first three months of the year. Those prices have since come down.

And a private research group said its gauge of future economic activity rose 0.4 percent in May, signaling slow growth in the U.S. economy through the fall. Turmoil in stock markets and a troubled housing market weighed on the Conference Board's leading economic index, while measures related to interest rates and an increasing amount of money in the economy tugged it higher. The index is designed to forecast activity in the next three to six months.

Still, layoffs remain one of the biggest concerns for the recovery. Just this week, casino owner Wynn Resorts laid off more than 260 workers in its two Las Vegas casino hotels in a move expected to save nearly $8 million.

Economists have said they don't expect to see sustained job creation until first-time jobless claims drop below 425,000 per week.

But Julia Coronado, senior U.S. economist with BNP Paribas in New York, said she expects they will actually stabilize at around 450,000. That's because weaker segments of the economy are shedding jobs while stronger sectors are hiring.

The number of people continuing to claim benefits rose by 88,000 to 4.57 million. That doesn't include about 5.2 million people who receive extended benefits paid for by the federal government.

Congress has added 73 weeks of extra benefits on top of the 26 weeks typically provided by states. All told, about 9.7 million people received unemployment insurance in the week ending May 29, the most recent data available.

The extended benefit program expired this month. The House has approved an extension of the benefits through November. The Senate has yet to act.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans and a dozen Democratic defectors rejected a catchall measure combining jobless aid for the long-term unemployed, aid to cash-strapped state governments and the renewal of dozens of popular tax breaks. Despite the loss, Democratic leaders predicted that a scaled-back version of the measure could pass, possibly later this week.

Adding to worries about the job market, the Labor Department said earlier this month that the economy generated only 41,000 private-sector jobs in May. That was down from 218,000 in April.

Temporary hiring by the Census Bureau added another 411,000 jobs. The unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent from 9.9 percent.

AP Business Writers Jeannine Aversa and Martin Crutsinger in Washington and Tali Arbel in New York contributed to this report.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-claims-for-jobless-apf-1639241920.html?x=0&.v=3

chiefsnorth
06-17-2010, 12:23 PM
Summer recovery, eh?

Somebody better hurry up and hire some more Census temps to boost the stats!!

petegz28
06-17-2010, 12:26 PM
Summer recovery, eh?

Somebody better hurry up and hire some more Census temps to boost the stats!!

One has to wonder where the 400k jobs were that Pelosi promised with the signing of the HC bill? :hmmm:

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 12:31 PM
One has to wonder where the 400k jobs were that Pelosi promised with the signing of the HC bill? :hmmm:census jobs fit that bill

talastan
06-17-2010, 12:34 PM
One has to wonder where the 400k jobs were that Pelosi promised with the signing of the HC bill? :hmmm:

census jobs fit that bill

She never promised that they would be permanent jobs.:rolleyes:

talastan
06-17-2010, 12:38 PM
So the summary of this article is:

Government is using taxpayer dollars to artifically prop up economy.
Taxpayer money was used to create temporary government jobs.
Temporary government jobs have served their purpose.
The artifical prop for the economy has failed.
We need more taxpayer money....

Pretty much sums it up IMO.

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 12:43 PM
So the summary of this article is:

Government is using taxpayer dollars to artifically prop up economy.
Taxpayer money was used to create temporary government jobs.
Temporary government jobs have served their purpose.
The artifical prop for the economy has failed.
We need more taxpayer money....

Pretty much sums it up IMO.

You left out the part where all of those newly unemployed are now eligible for 99 weeks unemployment. :D

HonestChieffan
06-17-2010, 12:57 PM
There is no reason to expect different. The economy does not spontaneously change direction. There is so many things going on right now. The foreclosures are building again, the commercial development is zero, construction companies being sold at auction weekly. No heavy equipment being sold till all the used stuff gets washed through, demand for consumer products is weak at best, companies afraid to hire even if they need to with fears of what the admin will do next, taxes about to skyrocket taking money out of the pool available to spend, and this just goes on.

The entire effort by Obama has failed. Its time to admit it. And its time to admit spending more wont work any better. Time to cut our losses.

chiefsnorth
06-17-2010, 12:59 PM
His economic policies and "stimulus" activities are complete failures, it's now beyond the range of political spin.

Detoxing
06-17-2010, 01:01 PM
Hello

KC native
06-17-2010, 01:05 PM
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Recession-Recovery.png

talastan
06-17-2010, 01:05 PM
You left out the part where all of those newly unemployed are now eligible for 99 weeks unemployment. :D

Thanks, I did forget that. :cuss: Dammit Obama!!

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 01:11 PM
This is utterly predictable. Bad economic news comes out, and the right-wing circle jerk forms.

Human suffering is FAP-tastic. JFC

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 01:17 PM
You left out the part where all of those newly unemployed are now eligible for 99 weeks unemployment. :D

Those unemployment fat cats, just living the dream. F those guys.

Donger
06-17-2010, 01:21 PM
This is utterly predictable. Bad economic news comes out, and the right-wing circle jerk forms.

Human suffering is FAP-tastic. JFC

Are you new to politics, or something?

KC native
06-17-2010, 01:21 PM
This is utterly predictable. Bad economic news comes out, and the right-wing circle jerk forms.

Human suffering is FAP-tastic. JFC

Yup, it is quite predictable. We have quite a classy bunch out here in DC.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 01:25 PM
This is utterly predictable. Bad economic news comes out, and the right-wing circle jerk forms.

Human suffering is FAP-tastic. JFCYou're rght. Everyone just jumps the gun. As BRC would prove, everything is just peachy and the economy is just steaming along.

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 01:30 PM
Are you new to politics, or something?

Nope. I held a Katrina party in 2005 after W's incompetence and nepotistic staffing of FEMA led to all those people dying.

It was a blast.

mlyonsd
06-17-2010, 01:31 PM
This is utterly predictable. Bad economic news comes out, and the right-wing circle jerk forms.

Human suffering is FAP-tastic. JFC

Just speaking for myself here.....but that trillion dollar stimulus boondoggle passed by the dems last year, done on borrowed money, was not the answer.

Getting the message out how stupid it really was so we never go down that path again is important IMO.

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 01:32 PM
Just speaking for myself here.....but that trillion dollar stimulus boondoggle passed by the dems last year, done on borrowed money, was not the answer.

Getting the message out how stupid it really was so we never go down that path again is important IMO.

Pretty sure the real problem was that big economic downturn in 2008, but hey, focus on what makes you happy.

mlyonsd
06-17-2010, 01:39 PM
Pretty sure the real problem was that big economic downturn in 2008, but hey, focus on what makes you happy.

Some people care where their tax dollars go. If you don't, fine, whatever makes you happy.

Donger
06-17-2010, 01:41 PM
Nope. I held a Katrina party in 2005 after W's incompetence and nepotistic staffing of FEMA led to all those people dying.

It was a blast.

Well, I'm sure that you didn't take part in the Bush bashing whenever something icky came up during his eight years, right?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 01:52 PM
Pretty sure the real problem was that big economic downturn in 2008, but hey, focus on what makes you happy.

Pretty sure spending trillions of borrowed $'s didn't make things better.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 01:53 PM
Well, I'm sure that you didn't take part in the Bush bashing whenever something icky came up during his eight years, right?

You mean like the media and Dems pimping daily body counts from Iraq?

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 01:55 PM
Well, I'm sure that you didn't take part in the Bush bashing whenever something icky came up during his eight years, right?

Absolutely, I was critical of his policies. But I wasn't out celebrating when they led to deaths in Iraq and New Orleans.

Y'all are stoked about almost half a million people losing their jobs. It's gauche to the n-th degree. The difference between the two is the president has a tangential impact on the economy, whereas wars and natural disasters are directly under his influence.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 01:56 PM
The difference is the president has a tangential impact on the economy, whereas wars and natural disasters are directly under his influence.Except when Bush caused the recession, right?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 01:57 PM
Except when Bush caused the recession, right?

LMAO

Donger
06-17-2010, 02:02 PM
Absolutely, I was critical of his policies. But I wasn't out celebrating when they led to deaths in Iraq and New Orleans.

Y'all are stoked about almost half a million people losing their jobs. It's gauche to the n-th degree. The difference between the two is the president has a tangential impact on the economy, whereas wars and natural disasters are directly under his influence.

I don't see anyone celebrating the job losses. I do see people pointing out that Obama's policies could be having an influence on the economy and the lack of job creation, however.

I don't see how that is any different than what you just wrote and admitted you did under Bush.

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 02:10 PM
Except when Bush caused the recession, right?

I guess I need to clarify. Tangential in the short term.

The great recession did start under W, and it occurred after years of anemic job growth and the continuation of decades of policies that weakened the middle class, promoted greater accumulation of wealth in the top 1-5%, and presided over an economy largely based on unsustainable home price growth.

Btw, guess which side does better at job and stock market growth. I'll give you a hint.... it ain't you guys.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/20/lowest-job-growth-since-wwii-under-george-w-bush/

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 02:13 PM
whereas wars and natural disasters are directly under his influence.A natural disaster is the effect of a natural hazard (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Natural_hazard) (e.g. flood (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Flood), tornado (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Tornado), hurricane (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Hurricane), volcanic eruption (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Volcanic_eruption), earthquake (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Earthquake), or landslide (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Landslide)) that affects the environment, and leads to financial, environmental and/or human losses.


So, now Presidents can directly influence a natural disaster??? How about they can influence the "effects" and "recovery" of the natural disaster in its aftermath?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 02:13 PM
I guess I need to clarify. Tangential in the short term.

The great recession did start under W, and it occurred after years of anemic job growth and the continuation of decades of policies that weakened the middle class, promoted greater accumulation of wealth in the top 1-5%, and presided over an economy largely based on unsustainable home price growth.

Btw, guess which side does better at job and stock market growth. I'll give you a hint.... it ain't you guys.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/20/lowest-job-growth-since-wwii-under-george-w-bush/

The stock market hit its all time high under Bush.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 02:19 PM
I guess I need to clarify. Tangential in the short term.

The great recession did start under W, and it occurred after years of anemic job growth and the continuation of decades of policies that weakened the middle class, promoted greater accumulation of wealth in the top 1-5%, and presided over an economy largely based on unsustainable home price growth.

Btw, guess which side does better at job and stock market growth. I'll give you a hint.... it ain't you guys.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/20/lowest-job-growth-since-wwii-under-george-w-bush/ I ain't one of "you guys". I support neither party.

I just know for a fact that we were steered into the recession by a Congress fully under the direct control of the the Democratic party since 2006. Bush certainly had a part to play in our downfall as he went along with all of the UNNECESSARY SPENDING requests made by said Congress. He signed off on spending that was horrible however your lord and savior has signed off on the same Congressional spending on a much grander scale and continues to ask for more (nice try with Pay-Go, f'n joke). One, that eventually will unfortunately lead to the worthlessness of the US dollar. That is my fear and your community organizer is doing nothing but make it worse.

fan4ever
06-17-2010, 02:20 PM
Absolutely, I was critical of his policies. But I wasn't out celebrating when they led to deaths in Iraq and New Orleans.

Y'all are stoked about almost half a million people losing their jobs. It's gauche to the n-th degree. The difference between the two is the president has a tangential impact on the economy, whereas wars and natural disasters are directly under his influence.

Wow. You haven't a clue. We'd much rather be seeing unemployment at 7% and a real recovery underway while admitting we were wrong about Obama.

Obviously that's not the case.

It seems folks like you can't see that YOU were the ones wrong about Obama...no matter how badly things are handled...and how much debt we incur.

BucEyedPea
06-17-2010, 02:21 PM
I ain't one of "you guys". I support neither party.

I just know for a fact that we were steered into the recession by a Congress fully under the direct control of the the Democratic party since 2006.

It was caused by the Fed. The Ds are turning it into another Great Depression worse than that one....again with the help of the enabling Fed.

BucEyedPea
06-17-2010, 02:22 PM
The stock market hit its all time high under Bush.

That was just the artificial boom created by the Fed. The boom/bust cycle is a symptom of Keynesianism which is mainstream economics today. Both sides play the game too.

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 02:23 PM
The stock market hit its all time high under Bush.

You're still wrong, Pete.

http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/10/16/stock-market-returns-by-presidential-party/

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 02:24 PM
So, now Presidents can directly influence a natural disaster??? How about they can influence the "effects" and "recovery" of the natural disaster in its aftermath?

Quit being obtuse. Disaster response is a executive function.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 02:25 PM
Quit being obtuse. Disaster response is a executive function.You are correct, RESPONSE

FD
06-17-2010, 02:26 PM
I ain't one of "you guys". I support neither party.

I just know for a fact that we were steered into the recession by a Congress fully under the direct control of the the Democratic party since 2006. Bush certainly had a part to play in our downfall as he went along with all of the UNNECESSARY SPENDING requests made by said Congress. He signed off on spending that was horrible however your lord and savior has signed off on the same Congressional spending on a much grander scale and continues to ask for more (nice try with Pay-Go, f'n joke). One, that eventually will unfortunately lead to the worthlessness of the US dollar. That is my fear and your community organizer is doing nothing but make it worse.

You seem to be arguing that high federal spending caused the recession. I've never heard that theory before, could you elaborate?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 02:28 PM
You're still wrong, Pete.

http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/10/16/stock-market-returns-by-presidential-party/

Chart says I'm right.

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 02:41 PM
Chart says I'm right.

I'm sure that unintelligible chart you posted is right and all the experts that have studied this are wrong, Pete. JFC.

Btw, even that sweater-wearing pussy Carter beat W in job growth. Handily.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 02:45 PM
You seem to be arguing that high federal spending caused the recession. I've never heard that theory before, could you elaborate?Nope, not arguing that at all. Many other things such as deregulation, cheap and bad loans made by banks at the insistence of our gov't, excessive state and federal spending, excessive business taxation in states, many other things caused this recession. I am stating that now, spending is going to ensure that we delay any meaningful recovery and fall even further down at a later date.

Oh, and greed at EVERY level

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 02:47 PM
You seem to be arguing that high federal spending caused the recession. I've never heard that theory before, could you elaborate?

Dante, it was actually Carter's Community Reinvestment Act that caused our housing bubble. /tea-party wacko

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 02:50 PM
Dante, it was actually Carter's Community Reinvestment Act that caused our housing bubble. /tea-party wackoChagned my avatar too soon it appears. I never, ever said that Act caused the housing bubble. I do believe that it had a small part to play but the insistence that every American own his own home by the gov't certainly helped cause this fiasco.

here you go.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 02:56 PM
I'm sure that unintelligible chart you posted is right and all the experts that have studied this are wrong, Pete. JFC.

Btw, even that sweater-wearing pussy Carter beat W in job growth. Handily.

Unintelligable??? I guess your eyes don't work? The fact is, and you can go look at any chart you want too, the Market hit it's all time high under W.

It's not my fault you made such a stupid comment and don't want to see the truth of what I said. That's your problem. But the facts are the facts.

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 03:10 PM
Chagned my avatar too soon it appears. I never, ever said that Act caused the housing bubble. I do believe that it had a small part to play but the insistence that every American own his own home by the gov't certainly helped cause this fiasco.

here you go.

Wasn't referring to you specifically, yo.

FD
06-17-2010, 03:14 PM
Nope, not arguing that at all. Many other things such as deregulation, cheap and bad loans made by banks at the insistence of our gov't, excessive state and federal spending, excessive business taxation in states, many other things caused this recession. I am stating that now, spending is going to ensure that we delay any meaningful recovery and fall even further down at a later date.

Oh, and greed at EVERY level

I guess I still don't understand your point about spending. How does spending more delay recovery? We are in a recession because aggregate demand has fallen sharply and is far below (potential) aggregate supply. In the short term we need more federal spending, not less. The medium and long-term is another story, of course.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 03:16 PM
I guess I still don't understand your point about spending. How does spending more delay recovery? We are in a recession because aggregate demand has fallen sharply and is far below (potential) aggregate supply. In the short term we need more federal spending, not less. The medium and long-term is another story, of course.

It isn't the spedning more, necessarily, though most people with a sound financial plan don't go out abd borrow a shitload of money during hard times, but it's what the money gets spent on.

And speaking about the short term, we have spent more in the last year than we did in just about the last eight. Why is this so hard to understand? You don't create long term growth by throwing cash at a problem. You create tax and labor laws and incentives for companies to build on.

blaise
06-17-2010, 03:21 PM
I'm with Pittsie- You conservatives are classless. I remember when there was bad economic news under Bush all the liberals would start threads about it that said how sad they were and how we should rally around Bush. There were people putting together plans on how we could help our President. But now, it's sickening. It's completely and totally different. It's like 100 times more negative. We should all do exactly what liberals did under Bush, not this negativity.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 03:22 PM
It isn't the spedning more, necessarily, though most people with a sound financial plan don't go out abd borrow a shitload of money during hard times, but it's what the money gets spent on.

And speaking about the short term, we have spent more in the last year than we did in just about the last eight. Why is this so hard to understand? You don't create long term growth by throwing cash at a problem. You create tax and labor laws and incentives for companies to build on.This and that the spending would have a much greater effect if on incentives for private business not public monkey business. Relatively small things spent such as the housing tax credit had a good effect while throwing large things, Billions down state-funded ratholes did not. Shovel-ready projects, they said? Remember? What a joke.

How many public sector jobs created last month? In the past 6 months? I guess if we just trust our Congress and Administration to create another 2-3 million temporary public sector jobs (ie, census) by more wild spending, we'd be in full recovery mode, right?

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 03:23 PM
We should all do exactly what liberals did under Bush, not this negativity.
What spend more tax dollars like that Democratic Congress did???

blaise
06-17-2010, 03:26 PM
What spend more tax dollars like that Democratic Congress did???

The Democrats did it out of compassion and love. Bush did it for evil and money.
Halliburton and no war for oil and stuff, you know? Like the environment and stuff- Bush killed the earth and stuff.

FD
06-17-2010, 03:29 PM
This and that the spending would have a much greater effect if on incentives for private business not public monkey business. Relatively small things spent such as the housing tax credit had a good effect while throwing large things, Billions down state-funded ratholes did not. Shovel-ready projects, they said? Remember? What a joke.

How many public sector jobs created last month? In the past 6 months? I guess if we just trust our Congress and Administration to create another 2-3 million temporary public sector jobs (ie, census) by more wild spending, we'd be in full recovery mode, right?

You aren't really answering my question, which is how would spending delay or prevent a recovery? It seems to defy basic economic logic.

What you argue here is that the stimulus spending didn't create many jobs. The vast majority of economists disagree with you, and think that the stimulus created a large number of jobs, though the exact number is debatable. Creating few jobs is a different thing entirely from delaying recovery.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 03:33 PM
You aren't really answering my question, which is how would spending delay or prevent a recovery? It seems to defy basic economic logic.

What you argue here is that the stimulus spending didn't create many jobs. The vast majority of economists disagree with you, and think that the stimulus created a large number of jobs, though the exact number is debatable. Creating few jobs is a different thing entirely from delaying recovery.GOV'T JOBS not private sector jobs. I merely point out that I believe that the spending in large part delays a recovery because it is wasteful gov't spending that does almost nil for the private sector where most sustainable job growth should be.

That is when our recovery will get legs, when private companies add jobs not when the gov't adds wasteful and many times temporary jobs by excessive nonsensical spending programs.

mlyonsd
06-17-2010, 03:37 PM
GOV'T JOBS not private sector jobs. I merely point out that I believe that the spending in large part delays a recovery because it is wasteful gov't spending that does almost nil for the private sector where most sustainable job growth should be.

That is when our recovery will get legs, when private companies add jobs not when the gov't adds wasteful and many times temporary jobs by excessive nonsensical spending programs.

Government jobs that will either have to be budgeted for again, or eliminated.

It appears very little of that $862 billion or whatever it was went for long term jobs. It for the most part was just pi**ed down a hole.

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 03:41 PM
Government jobs that will either have to be budgeted for again, or eliminated.

It appears very little of that $862 billion or whatever it was went for long term jobs. It for the most part was just pi**ed down a hole.yep, and the one thing and probably the biggest factor to this recession that I did not mention is the entitlement sense in this country. People went way into debt because they were "entitled" to a large, flat screen TV, new Escalade, home theatre surround sound system and 3500 sq.ft. homes.

People are clearing away that debt and that will take time. Once it does, spending will most likely shoot up again. I place a lot of blame on idiot Americans who bought with reckless abandon and created so much debt that they HAD to stop spending.

FD
06-17-2010, 03:44 PM
GOV'T JOBS not private sector jobs. I merely point out that I believe that the spending in large part delays a recovery because it is wasteful gov't spending that does almost nil for the private sector where most sustainable job growth should be.

That is when our recovery will get legs, when private companies add jobs not when the gov't adds wasteful and many times temporary jobs by excessive nonsensical spending programs.

CBO estimates that in the 1st quarter of 2010 the stimulus bill "Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)"

It also "Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million."

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=967

These estimates are roughly in line with almost all other major macroeconomic estimators.

bsp4444
06-17-2010, 03:47 PM
My company just added 10% to its manufacturing workforce. Come on, step up to the plate!

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 03:47 PM
CBO estimates that in the 1st quarter of 2010 the stimulus bill "Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise.
They also estimated that the Health Care bill was deficit neutral. I didn't believe that either...

Hydrae
06-17-2010, 03:49 PM
You aren't really answering my question, which is how would spending delay or prevent a recovery? It seems to defy basic economic logic.

What you argue here is that the stimulus spending didn't create many jobs. The vast majority of economists disagree with you, and think that the stimulus created a large number of jobs, though the exact number is debatable. Creating few jobs is a different thing entirely from delaying recovery.

In my opinion (as uninformed as it may be), the problem with the spending is that it seems like most people have forgotten that the government has no money of it's own, it all comes from the people. The more the government spends, the less the people have to spend.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 03:51 PM
CBO estimates that in the 1st quarter of 2010 the stimulus bill "Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)"

It also "Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million."

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=967

These estimates are roughly in line with almost all other major macroeconomic estimators.

Data on actual output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed, because isolating those effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, there is no way to be certain about how the economy would have performed if the legislation had not been enacted, and data on its actual performance add only limited information about ARRA’s impact.

FD
06-17-2010, 03:54 PM
They also estimated that the Health Care bill was deficit neutral. I didn't believe that either...

Thats like saying "I don't like what this group of non-partisan economists say because they said something else I don't like, too."

Its not really an argument.

What specifically about how they make their estimates do you take issue with?

While we can never be certain about economic counterfactuals, we have a lot of data and methods with which to make informed estimates. If you don't specify what you think is wrong with those methods or data you can't dismiss the estimates.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 03:56 PM
They also estimated that the Health Care bill was deficit neutral. I didn't believe that either...

Actually that was their preliminary report. That report said that once ALL the data was input, data the Dems purposely witheld from the CBO for a period of time, it would send us into the red.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 03:57 PM
Thats like saying "I don't like what this group of non-partisan economists say because they said something else I don't like, too."

Its not really an argument.

What specifically about how they make their estimates do you take issue with?

While we can never be certain about economic counterfactuals, we have a lot of data and methods with which to make informed estimates. If you don't specify what you think is wrong with those methods or data you can't dismiss the estimates.

What I want to know is if the CBO used the Obama Admin. forumla of considering a person who got a raise due to the stimulus as a job created?

KC Dan
06-17-2010, 04:00 PM
Thats like saying "I don't like what this group of non-partisan economists say because they said something else I don't like, too."

Its not really an argument.

What specifically about how they make their estimates do you take issue with?

While we can never be certain about economic counterfactuals, we have a lot of data and methods with which to make informed estimates. If you don't specify what you think is wrong with those methods or data you can't dismiss the estimates.They are almost always wrong with their estimates. Sure, it's not an argument really but this is a Chiefs message board and you're not James Carville on Crossfire. :D

FD
06-17-2010, 04:00 PM
What I want to know is if the CBO used the Obama Admin. forumla of considering a person who got a raise due to the stimulus as a job created?

It says at the link in my post that they do not.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 04:01 PM
It says at the link in my post that they do not.

It also says in your link, as I posted already, that they have no way of knowing what the impacts would have been without the stimulus. So we very well could be robbing Peter to pay Paul and calling it a success.

FD
06-17-2010, 04:03 PM
It also says in your link, as I posted already, that they have no way of knowing what the impacts would have been without the stimulus. So we very well could be robbing Peter to pay Paul and calling it a success.

Like I said before, while we can never be certain about economic counterfactuals, we have a lot of data and methods with which to make informed estimates. If you don't specify what you think is wrong with those methods or data you can't dismiss the estimates.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 04:05 PM
Like I said before, while we can never be certain about economic counterfactuals, we have a lot of data and methods with which to make informed estimates. If you don't specify what you think is wrong with those methods or data you can't dismiss the estimates.

It's not about what is wrong or right with the methods. It's about whether the plan actually did anything useful or if it just moved a pile of sand from one spot to another and sent us more in debt by doing so?

FD
06-17-2010, 04:09 PM
It's not about what is wrong or right with the methods. It's about whether the plan actually did anything useful or if it just moved a pile of sand from one spot to another and sent us more in debt by doing so?

The CBO estimates explicitly account for that.

From the report, when explaining why they don't use the recipient survey data the president has up on recovery.gov: "Those indirect effects include potential declines in employment in other firms or economic sectors as demand shifts toward the recipients of ARRA funding—a phenomenon often referred to as the “crowding out” effect of government policies."

petegz28
06-17-2010, 04:17 PM
The CBO estimates explicitly account for that.

From the report, when explaining why they don't use the recipient survey data the president has up on recovery.gov: "Those indirect effects include potential declines in employment in other firms or economic sectors as demand shifts toward the recipients of ARRA funding—a phenomenon often referred to as the “crowding out” effect of government policies."

They can't account for it and say so. Right where they say they have no way of knowing what the impacts would have been without the plan.

FD
06-17-2010, 04:19 PM
They can't account for it and say so. Right where they say they have no way of knowing what the impacts would have been without the plan.

They do account for it. Read the report.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 04:24 PM
They do account for it. Read the report.

Let me repost this for you...

Data on actual output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed, because isolating those effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, there is no way to be certain about how the economy would have performed if the legislation had not been enacted, and data on its actual performance add only limited information about ARRA’s impact.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 04:26 PM
And lets look at the hard facts. Government hiring is outpacing private sector hiring. Government wages are outpacing private sector wages. The stimulus bill did little if anything. Sure, it probably would have hurt a little worse for a small time had we done nothing. But that is not to say we wouldn't be better off now. You simply cannot give a business money and expect it to increase their business. You have to increase the number of people walking through the door. And that comes from tax incentives predominantly.

Stinger
06-17-2010, 04:29 PM
You left out the part where all of those newly unemployed are now eligible for 99 weeks unemployment. :D

If you are referring to the US Census jobs then that is incorrect.

The Mad Crapper
07-03-2010, 08:30 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/assets_c/2010/03/26947_382612112091_501387091_3722159_1429837_n-thumb-500x661-1436.jpg