|
Economists, please rip this apart.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| priveye03 |
From someone arguing that the economy is in fact getting better.
A great example of how dumb poles can be when used in Economics. This happens alot, especially with how unemployment and others "facts" are shown. Most have 2 poles, one republican, one democrat. Which do you see?
Here are a couple graphs from the Heritage Foundation. A very reliable source to show what in actuality it has done over the years.
Not much of a change between discouraged workers or unemployment. You do see it lower than 94 however and going down!
But look at chart 2. Do you understand what is happening? More jobs have been made and more people have become employed. But still the rate is high? Maybe transportation problems, maybe child-care, maybe even parents homeschooling. Maybe even discouraged workers. Those are very small numbers I agree but what about 911? Do you understand what happened? I guess I shouldn't use that as an excuse but I think we may use it for something?
You see on graph 2 the jobs created and you see the workers. The real problem here is unemployment, not Bush.
Another fun story is that the unemployment is because we are giving Jobs to overseas. Maybe some don't like NAFTA. They blame Bush for supporting this but who created NAFTA? Thats right, Bill Clinton! |
|
|
| imokruok |
While it's no solace for those who have lost their jobs or are looking for work, what is happening in the economy is actually quite good for its long term health. The economy is growing at an annualized 4-5% rate -- one of the highest for any developed Western economy right now. Instead of taking on new workers, productivity numbers have soared, which is an excellent base indicator for long term growth.
So the Democrats trot out the argument that this President has the worst record on jobs since Herbert Hoover. Well, while that's technically accurate if you look at real numbers (the "3 million" number) it completely ignores the employment rate. During the Great Depression, unemployment was at 25% and growing higher in a poor economy. In today's economy, not only do we have growth, but a stable unemployment rate at 5.6% -- also one of the best numbers in any industrialized Western economy.
If I were a moderate Democrat, it would really irk me that the Democrats have set themselves up politically so that the only way they gain votes is if the economy gets worse. That's not the way it used to be, when both parties competed on how they could best improve the economy without slamming American industry in the process. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
While it's no solace for those who have lost their jobs or are looking for work, what is happening in the economy is actually quite good for its long term health. The economy is growing at an annualized 4-5% rate -- one of the highest for any developed Western economy right now. Instead of taking on new workers, productivity numbers have soared, which is an excellent base indicator for long term growth.
So the Democrats trot out the argument that this President has the worst record on jobs since Herbert Hoover. Well, while that's technically accurate if you look at real numbers (the "3 million" number) it completely ignores the employment rate. During the Great Depression, unemployment was at 25% and growing higher in a poor economy. In today's economy, not only do we have growth, but a stable unemployment rate at 5.6% -- also one of the best numbers in any industrialized Western economy.
If I were a moderate Democrat, it would really irk me that the Democrats have set themselves up politically so that the only way they gain votes is if the economy gets worse. That's not the way it used to be, when both parties competed on how they could best improve the economy without slamming American industry in the process. |
Rrrrrrriippp! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Rrrrrrriippp! |
oh oh I wanna be a communist too.. bah a economist too!
rippings fun |
|
|
| The Greek |
| if you have 2 buildings to construct and you have 10 people working on one and 100 on the other, wouldnt productivity be much higher in the building with 10 than the one with 100 workers? isnt this how productivity is measured? by the output per worker? so isnt todays high productivity just less emplyoees doing more work? please correct me if im wrong im not sure on this. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
So the Democrats trot out the argument that this President has the worst record on jobs since Herbert Hoover. Well, while that's technically accurate if you look at real numbers (the "3 million" number) it completely ignores the employment rate. During the Great Depression, unemployment was at 25% and growing higher in a poor economy. In today's economy, not only do we have growth, but a stable unemployment rate at 5.6% -- also one of the best numbers in any industrialized Western economy. |
That is just one of the many irrational, out of context, blown waaaay out of prop. bombs the Dems have thrown that the left just suck up and runs with.
The Dems are foaming at the mouth for some kind of powerbase to regain after losing just about every majority in national and state gov. over the years. They will spin anything and everything from now until Nov. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Greek
isnt this how productivity is measured? by the output per worker? so isnt todays high productivity just less emplyoees doing more work? please correct me if im wrong im not sure on this. |
Well, in the case of the US, it's not fewer employees doing more work. It's roughly the same number of employees doing more work, and even a few more employees being added to the system, since the unemployment rate is actually falling, albeit slowly.
In the manufacturing field, the number is very easy to measure -- output per worker. But it doesn't mean that the worker's arms are moving faster. Reasons for gains include new equipment, new technology, more efficient production schemes, etc. All of that combined with an increasingly educated workforce, and you have an economy that will look to increase productivity before it takes on more workers.
Outside of manufacturing, the measurements are harder to make, but can be done when you piece together all of the information that the US labor bureaus get. One of the indicators is wage growth, and that's been growing too. But along with many other factors.
The reason productivity is important, and particularly good for the long term health of the US, is that you need productivity in a growing society to increase your standard of living. When productivity is going up, wage growth normally outpaces inflation, which means that people's purchasing power increases. Since this has been occurring for several years in the US, the past few years have meant higher overall living standards for the population. |
|
|
| Dupz |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Greek
if you have 2 buildings to construct and you have 10 people working on one and 100 on the other, wouldnt productivity be much higher in the building with 10 than the one with 100 workers? isnt this how productivity is measured? by the output per worker? so isnt todays high productivity just less emplyoees doing more work? please correct me if im wrong im not sure on this. |
I'm pretty sure that your example is a definition of "output per worker" but i think that when we're looking at productivity we look at "output per effective unit of labor". In other words we take into account the effects of technological change on the production process.
Relating that to your example it would be saying that these 10 people are doing LESS work, than the 100 people, but are still doing the exact same job.. (simply because they have better machines, or building techniques etc etc )
Now that's productivity... |
|
|
| occrider |
| Well I usually try to separate the spin from the facts by posting the weekly raw data in the econ thread. While I may agree with some of the above arguments with respect to the true state of unemployment, gdp, productivity, etc., perhaps the biggest reason I am not voting for Bush is due to the deficit. Mark my words ... it's going to be rearing it's big ugly head. One "short-term" example: OPEC is, in part, raising prices due to the weak dollar ... that effect is essentially a tax on the American consumer since it is a non-elastic good. Chain store sales snapshot is down this week due to higher gasoline prices ;). Although there has been some relatively decent unemployment data ... anyway I'll post the week's results monday. |
|
|
| Dupz |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well I usually try to separate the spin from the facts by posting the weekly raw data in the econ thread. While I may agree with some of the above arguments with respect to the true state of unemployment, gdp, productivity, etc., perhaps the biggest reason I am not voting for Bush is due to the deficit. Mark my words ... it's going to be rearing it's big ugly head. One "short-term" example: OPEC is, in part, raising prices due to the weak dollar ... that effect is essentially a tax on the American consumer since it is a non-elastic good. Chain store sales snapshot is down this week due to higher gasoline prices ;). Although there has been some relatively decent unemployment data ... anyway I'll post the week's results monday. |
Talking about OPEC, I've heard that they're cutting production because of a forecast drop in demand for the end of the year. It's just a measure to prevent a severe drop in oil prices, and isnt occuring so much because of the week US dollar (which i'm suspecting will gather momentum over the next year..) but i might be wrong |
|
|
|
|
