|
Bush's National Economic Policies (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Calculations have been done that a NRST of about 17% would give the government the same revenue it gets today, without all of the hassle. And yes, I know that this means the poor will pay the 17% tax like everyone else. But there is a societal benefit - it gives everyone a stake in the system. Right now, the poor don't give a damn about national economic policy, because as long as they don't pay taxes, they don't care that taxes get raised on everyone else. Make them part of the system and give everyone an interest. The "rich" will pay their fair share as well, when they buy big ticket items. |
I agree, I'm all for a national sales tax instead of income. It will also give the citizens a base to curtail government spending.
As for the poor, you can make certain products such as basic foods and clothing tax-free so they do not have to suffer from this burden. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Great, we've got a little stimulus on our economy. No about those jobs:
| quote: | Job-cut announcements jump
U.S. companies set 172,000 job cuts last month, the highest in a year, outplacement firm says.
November 4, 2003: 10:13 AM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. job-cut announcements rose in October to their highest level in a year, according to a report Tuesday by an outplacement firm that keeps track of job cuts.
U.S. businesses announced 171,874 job cuts in October, up 125 percent from September's level of 76,506, according to Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas. It was the greatest number of job cuts since 176,010 in October 2002.
Challenger CEO John Challenger noted that October has in recent years become one of the worst job-cutting months of the year, since it's a time when many companies are finalizing budgets and plans for the following year.
Nevertheless, Challenger said he doubted new jobs would be quick in coming.
"With factors like technology, outsourcing and consolidation working against job creation, any job market rebound we see in the near future will be relatively small," Challenger said.
Though unemployment is typically a lagging economic indicator, the U.S. economy has enjoyed eight straight quarters of economic growth, including a growth rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter of 2003, without significant job creation.
In fact, since the declared end of the latest recession, in November 2001, more than a million payroll jobs have been lost, according to the Labor Department.
Challenger's firm also surveyed about 50 human resources executives and found that 78 percent don't expect to see a "significant" upturn in hiring until the second quarter of 2004.
Eleven percent of those surveyed said the pick-up would be delayed until the third or fourth quarter of 2004. Another 11 percent said there would be no hiring rebound at all in 2004.
So far this year, there have been 1.04 million job-cut announcements, making 2003 the third straight year in which more than a million cuts have been announced.
The automotive industry led the payroll-trimming, with 28,363 announced cuts. Retail followed with 21,169 cuts, the long-suffering telecommunications sector announced 21,030 cuts, the "industrial goods" sector announced 17,484 cuts and the consumer products sector announced 12,077 cuts.
Among U.S. states, Michigan had the most job-cut announcements, with 31,105. Texas followed with 21,033 cuts, New York had 20,486 cuts, New Jersey had 10,750 cuts and California had 10,719 cuts.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/04/new...dex.htm?cnn=yes |
Sorry, but I just can't see a pot of gold at the end of this Admin's economic policies' rainbow. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| thats because you haven't been eating your lucky charms like everyone else! they're magically delicious!;) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Great, we've got a little stimulus on our economy. No about those jobs:
Sorry, but I just can't see a pot of gold at the end of this Admin's economic policies' rainbow. |
Some time is needed to be able to tell anything...
| quote: |
Jobless Claims Plunge, Productivity Soars
Thu November 6, 2003 09:30 AM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
By Tim Ahmann
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing first-time claims for jobless benefits took an unexpectedly sharp plunge last week, reaching a level not seen since before the economy tumbled into recession in 2001, a government report showed on Thursday.
A separate report showed U.S. business productivity soared in the third quarter, suggesting little risk inflation will flare despite signs the economic recovery is on firmer ground.
Initial claims for state unemployment aid fell 43,000 to 348,000 in the week to Nov. 1 from a revised 391,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. It was the lowest level since late January 2001, two months before the recession began.
Stocks were poised to open higher on the data, which suggested an improvement in corporate profits and offered hope a jobs recovery may finally be at hand. Prices for U.S. Treasury securities fell sharply, while the dollar rose.
Economists had expected claims to slip to 380,000 from 386,000 -- a figure boosted by a grocery store strike in California -- initially reported for the week to Oct. 25.
"The large drop in claims ... confirms that firms have begun to hire and employment has turned up," said Jade Zelnik, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital Markets.
A spokesman for the department said he could not account for the big drop in claims last week, but said problems with seasonal adjustment of the data could be a factor.
"Every week we encourage (looking at) the four-week average. This is certainly one of those weeks," he said.
The four-week average, which smoothes weekly volatility to present a clearer picture of labor-market trends, fell 10,000 to 380,000 last week, its lowest level since March 2001.
Initial claims and the four-week average have been below 400,000 for five weeks. Economists see that level as a divide between an improving and deteriorating labor market.
Last week, the government reported that the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter, the strongest pace in nearly two decades.
Despite that, the economy shed 41,000 non-farm jobs as gains in productivity enabled firms to meet increased demand for goods and services without expanding their workforce.
The Labor Department said on Thursday non-farm business productivity climbed at an 8.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter, accelerating from an upwardly revised 7.0 percent gain in the prior three months.
The increase reflected a rise in output that was the strongest in over 10 years, and only a small increase in the number of hours workers put in on the job.
The productivity gain pushed unit labor costs -- a gauge of potential wage pressures -- down at a 4.6 percent pace, suggesting a good quarterly performance for corporate profit.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast an 8.5 percent gain in productivity and a 4.7 percent drop in unit labor costs.
Analysts say the recent productivity pace is unsustainably strong, and some said the fall in jobless claims suggested firms were finally having to hire to meet demand.
On Friday, the department releases its employment report for October. 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. Previous 1| 2
|
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....68&pageNumber=0
We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out in the long run. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Those unemployment figures can get kind of tricky/confusing sometimes. There are continuing claims, initial claims, non-farm payrolls, etc. Not to mention that some people drop off the list completely if they decide to stop looking for work--they are technically not 'unemployed' anymore. Nothing is as transparent as we'd like it to be!:D |
|
|
| biodigit |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Initial claims for state unemployment aid fell 43,000 to 348,000 in the week to Nov. 1 from a revised 391,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said. |
Well, this might be because they used up all their benefits, and they have no reason to claim anything anymore. Thats what happened to me exactly few years ago, when i was un-employed. my benefits ran out around the same exact time of the year. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: |
Well, this might be because they used up all their benefits, and they have no reason to claim anything anymore. Thats what happened to me exactly few years ago, when i was un-employed. my benefits ran out around the same exact time of the year.
|
Well, I can't really comment on the payroll changes (especially since I can't access the second article ;)), however, I can comment on the jobless claims situation. Essentially, the weekly jobless claims report is only a measure of initial jobless claims. It's not an indicator of the total number of people in the state of unemployment ... that figure is the unemployment rate which is a monthly indicator. One can get a good guess of the unemployment rate, however, by looking at the weekly jobless claims reports. The reason why a jobless claims report of 361,000 is good, despite the fact that 361,000 people still filed for unemployment benefits, is because that figure is below 400,000 therefore it indicates an expansion of the labor market. Don't ask me how the labor department determined that number, it's probably a figure revised every so often taking into account terabytes of economic statistical data. But if you think about it, there will always be a natural level of unemployment regardless of how good the economy is. Companies will always be doing poorly or workers will always be performing crappily and they might get laid off/fired. These workers then file for benefits and then perhaps find a new job in 2 months without the overall condition of the economy changing at all. Therefore although there are jobless claims that month, it does not necessarily indicate that the job market is any worse than it was before. What's important is the rate at which jobless claims are being filed. Any higher than 400,000 then the labor market is doing poorly ... less than 400,000 and then the labor market is doing well. |
|
|
| biodigit |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Companies will always be doing poorly or workers will always be performing crappily and they might get laid off/fired. These workers then file for benefits and then perhaps find a new job in 2 months without the overall condition of the economy changing at all. |
I was under the impression, if you perform poorly and get FIRED, you're not entitled to jobless benefits. But i could be wrong though. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by biodigit
I was under the impression, if you perform poorly and get FIRED, you're not entitled to jobless benefits. But i could be wrong though. |
I'm not certain either, but I do know that if you get fired you probably won't be seeing a severence check. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by biodigit
I was under the impression, if you perform poorly and get FIRED, you're not entitled to jobless benefits. But i could be wrong though. |
Oops yes, if you're fired it's unlikely you can get benefits if the company has good reason to fire you. However, in some instances it is possible for a person to quit and get benefits if the left the company for "good cause" ... basically a serious work related problem that you coudln't resolved. Asides from that it really depends on the state you live in. Some states allow you to quit for personal reasons as well. |
|
|
|
|
