PDA

View Full Version : Is Obamacare killing Jobs?



genglandoh
01-11-2014, 12:23 PM
We were told that Obamacare was a job killer.
Many then argued that it would not kill jobs.

Well the new jobs report is very bad.
The experts expected 193,000 job but we only created 74,000 jobs.


2013 ends with weakest job growth in years
Hiring slumped sharply in December, as the economy added only 74,000 jobs, according to the government. This was the weakest month for job growth since January 2011 and came as a huge surprise to economists, who were expecting an addition of 193,000 jobs.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/economy/december-jobs-report/

Paul Pless
01-11-2014, 12:26 PM
fart

Gerarddm
01-11-2014, 12:28 PM
I will follow Paul's lead and lift a cheek.

What has been killing jobs is regressive obdurance.

Reynard38
01-11-2014, 12:36 PM
I think it's too soon to tell the cause. My company is hiring, but it already offers health insurance.
A friend of mine owns 15 restaurants. He says he won't expand beyond that due to the ACA.
Of course the restaurant industry has a very high percentage of low wage unskilled workers so you'd expect it to be one of the most affected.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-11-2014, 12:38 PM
Right-wing buzzword. Nothing more. The right-wing is getting ready for Hillary and is trying out whatever cheezey criticisms they can come up with. It will be useless. With Christy going down the toilet they have nobody.
BTW. We have all read that stuff. How come the only one seeing dire results is you?
What you should be worrying about is the lack of viable presidential candidates in your party.

genglandoh
01-11-2014, 12:45 PM
I think it's too soon to tell the cause. My company is hiring, but it already offers health insurance.
A friend of mine owns 15 restaurants. He says he won't expand beyond that due to the ACA.
Of course the restaurant industry has a very high percentage of low wage unskilled workers so you'd expect it to be one of the most affected.

I agree that it maybe too early to come to a conclusion.

I am just trying to hold the people to made a prediction about Obamacare and jobs accountable.
So far (based on 1 jobs report) their prediction is accurate.

bogdog
01-11-2014, 12:48 PM
The ACA will create new jobs even if Obamacare doesn't...

Paul Pless
01-11-2014, 12:49 PM
A friend of mine owns 15 restaurants. He says he won't expand beyond that due to the ACA.What's his rationale? He's already over the staff limit which will force him to comply with the ACA.

Flying Orca
01-11-2014, 12:59 PM
So far (based on 1 jobs report) their prediction is accurate.

Is it? How do you know the ACA is the cause of weak job growth? Seems to me there have been periods of weak job growth before the ACA, too. How 'bout you demonstrate a causal link, since you seem so sure it exists...

David G
01-11-2014, 12:59 PM
http://media.photobucket.com/user/boring_egg/media/GIF/thermalcamfart.gif.html?filters[term]=fart%20gif&filters[primary]=images&filters[secondary]=videos&sort=1&o=0

David G
01-11-2014, 01:04 PM
http://media.photobucket.com/user/boring_egg/media/GIF/thermalcamfart.gif.html?filters[term]=fart%20gif&filters[primary]=images&filters[secondary]=videos&sort=1&o=0

G'd'oh is simply stepping up his campaign for votes in the RW troll poll. It signifies nothing... as usual.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
01-11-2014, 01:04 PM
Jobs died October 5th 2011 - can't see that Obama was to blame....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

Reynard38
01-11-2014, 01:45 PM
What's his rationale? He's already over the staff limit which will force him to comply with the ACA.
What the final effect will be. Too soon to tell.
He's got 24 months until he sells the biz and retires. I imagine he doesn't want to make a move until he knows exactly what will be required. It's still in flux

Soundbounder
01-11-2014, 02:02 PM
He's got 24 months until he sells the biz and retires.

That's the reason right there, I'm guessing. It's fairly common for a company to not add additional expenses when it is preparing to sell. And that was true long before Obama.

Garret
01-11-2014, 02:07 PM
Ummm... The job #'s (which many debate by the way) were for December. No ACA yet......

Dan McCosh
01-11-2014, 02:10 PM
The only job killer is not having a need for the work, or being unwilling to pay for it.

ccmanuals
01-11-2014, 02:26 PM
So the individual part has been in effect for 11 days and the business compliance part doesn't take effect till 2014 and according to gop congress critters it's killing jobs. If they ever had any credibility they just cashed it in.

Garret
01-11-2014, 03:01 PM
So the individual part has been in effect for 11 days and the business compliance part doesn't take effect till 2014 and according to gop congress critters it's killing jobs. If they ever had any credibility they just cashed it in.

Yeah, but plenty will believe it because they want to. Repeat it enough & it becomes the story.

Keith Wilson
01-11-2014, 04:41 PM
Genglandoh still has not figured out the difference between signal and noise.


http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_2003_2013_all_period_ M12_net_1mth.gif

Tom Montgomery
01-11-2014, 04:46 PM
Why not a thread title with a simple declarative sentence, Graham? Such as, "The ACA is killing jobs."

After all, it is not as if you are undecided and looking for info with which to form an opinion.

S.V. Airlie
01-11-2014, 05:56 PM
I went on the Obamacare web page. The first thing I found out was that I didn't exist. Called the appropriate hotline to find out what the glitch is/was. After 40 minutes, got a REAL person. To me, he sounded like he came from India...same accent, same word usage. So jobs are being created somewhere!

Boater14
01-11-2014, 06:11 PM
Right. I'm sure someone here is qualified to answer that question.

S/V Laura Ellen
01-11-2014, 07:25 PM
Steve Jobs passed on October 5, 2011 of pancreatic cancer. Obamacare had nothing to do with it.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-11-2014, 08:28 PM
I agree that it maybe too early to come to a conclusion.

I am just trying to hold the people to made a prediction about Obamacare and jobs accountable.
So far (based on 1 jobs report) their prediction is accurate.

The purpose of ACA was never to create jobs. It was something most Right-wingers have no experience with . Compassion!
It was a herculian task getting it thru' the congress and it will be equally difficult to make it work properly. But while the problems are worked out people who had no health insurance will get some.
ACA will be here as long as your are and, probably, much longer. Live with it.

Willin'
01-11-2014, 08:35 PM
Today the ice in my yard melted. Obamacare is clearly causing global warming too.

Chip-skiff
01-12-2014, 01:41 AM
Wow. Another spectacularly dumb thread.

I'll answer in words you might understand:

NO!

Chip-skiff
01-12-2014, 01:42 AM
Or did you mean Steve Jobs? :d

wardd
01-12-2014, 01:49 AM
and is obama care killing women, infants and senior citizens?

LeeG
01-12-2014, 03:33 AM
Puppies?

slug
01-12-2014, 05:01 AM
Does obama care destroy jobs ?

history shows that company provided health care destoys jobs..

"Indeed, the United States’ broken health care system puts enormous burdens on all employers — and has both helped create the Big Three’s current financial troubles as well as fueled the overall economic downturn.

Health care costs add $1,525 to the price tag of every GM car; the company spent $4.6 billion on health care in 2007, more than it paid for steel.
Warren Buffet has called GM “a health and benefits company with an auto company attached.”



Enormous — and rapidly increasing — health care costs cripple the Big Three’s ability to stay competitive with foreign automakers. For instance, Toyota, which benefits from Japan’s universal health system, “paid $1,400 less per vehicle on health care” and makes $2,400 more per car than American manufacturers. In both Japan and Germany, the government, employers, and individuals all share in the responsibility of paying for health care, leaving American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Paul Pless
01-12-2014, 08:05 AM
Genglandoh still has not figured out the difference between signal and noise.there's a lot that genglandoh still hasn't figured out, but god bless him, he's still asking questions. . .

S/V Laura Ellen
01-12-2014, 08:32 AM
there's a lot that genglandoh still hasn't figured out, but god bless him, he's still asking questions. . .

And we can hope that someday he will actually listen to the answer.

John Smith
01-12-2014, 09:27 AM
The ACA will create new jobs even if Obamacare doesn't...

Governor of Kentucky seems to believe it will create 17k new, good paying jobs, in his state. He embraced it, has worked to implement it properly in his state and has first hand experience. That translates to he knows what he's talking about.

genglandoh
01-12-2014, 09:37 PM
The current jobs number is the lowest since January 2011, almost 3 years ago.

If anyone wants to see the number here is the link
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

John Smith
01-12-2014, 09:43 PM
The current jobs number is the lowest since January 2011, almost 3 years ago.

If anyone wants to see the number here is the link
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

We've seen the numbers. The disagreement, to the extent we have one, is as to the cause of the low numbers. Some of us feel that Obamacare is low on the list of causes, if it is on the list at all.

ljb5
01-12-2014, 11:23 PM
The current jobs number is the lowest since January 2011, almost 3 years ago.

If anyone wants to see the number here is the link
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

I'm not quite sure why you decided that December 2013 must be the definitive month to gauge Obamacare.

Obamacare was passed in March of 2010. Since then, we have 43 months of employment data, averaging a gain of 165,000 jobs per month.

In the previous 43 months, the average monthly jobs loss was 145,000.

Therefore, we must* conclude that Obamacare has caused* an increase of over 300,000 jobs per month.

Keith Wilson
01-12-2014, 11:30 PM
The current jobs number is the lowest since January 2011, almost 3 years ago.You're correct, it is. The distinction between signal and noise really is a useful concept. You might consider learning about it sometime.

Eleven years of monthly jobs figures.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_2003_2013_all_period_ M12_net_1mth.gif

Chip-skiff
01-13-2014, 12:51 AM
Steve Jobs passed on October 5, 2011 of pancreatic cancer. Obamacare had nothing to do with it.

And Obamacare was passed in 2010.

Cause and effect.

:D

S/V Laura Ellen
01-13-2014, 11:54 AM
And Obamacare was passed in 2010.

Cause and effect.

:D

Not so fast there.
Jobs was diagnosed with cancer before Obamacare was passed.
So if there is a cause and effect relationship, its the other way around.
Jobs (by having cancer) created Obamacare!:D

David G
01-13-2014, 12:16 PM
Not so fast there.
Jobs was diagnosed with cancer before Obamacare was passed.
So if there is a cause and effect relationship, its the other way around.
Jobs (by having cancer) created Obamacare!:D

Did you travel to Ohio to get the lessons in logic and critical thinking that you so admirably display here... or were you able to take lessons via the interwebs? :rolleyes:

S/V Laura Ellen
01-13-2014, 12:34 PM
Did you travel to Ohio to get the lessons in logic and critical thinking that you so admirably display here... or were you able to take lessons via the interwebs? :rolleyes:

I learned it all right here on the forum.:D

John Smith
01-13-2014, 12:42 PM
Wonder how long the list would be of things that impact the job market.

energy prices. weather. I expect it would be a long list of things. To single out a single item is just silly.

ljb5
01-13-2014, 02:38 PM
Wonder how long the list would be of things that impact the job market.

energy prices. weather. I expect it would be a long list of things. To single out a single item is just silly.

Although it is far too silly to pick just one item, I think any reasonable person would consider the Fed's tapering of bond buying to be near the top of the list.

This article doesn't even mention Obamacare once. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/10/jobs-report-federal-reserve/?iid=obnetwork

Landrith
01-13-2014, 04:23 PM
But don't we have to admit that the Fed cutting back on "buying" bonds is a response to policy decisions by the administration that make it unlikely that the economy will recover or that the government printing of currency through this Fed trick won't risk hyperinflation. If Obamacare had not created more uncertainty or risk for employers to grow jobs at the bottom of the economy where they were needed the most, the Fed could have continued its stimulus.

ccmanuals
01-13-2014, 04:47 PM
But don't we have to admit that the Fed cutting back on "buying" bonds is a response to policy decisions by the administration that make it unlikely that the economy will recover or that the government printing of currency through this Fed trick won't risk hyperinflation. If Obamacare had not created more uncertainty or risk for employers to grow jobs at the bottom of the economy where they were needed the most, the Fed could have continued its stimulus.

Any evidence of this? (in bold above)

Using the phrase "grow" jobs is kinda funny. How does one grow a job?

PeterSibley
01-13-2014, 04:48 PM
I've always thought business would welcome totally government funded and organised health insurance as it is in Australia. Attaching insurance costs and administration to individual businesses sounds quite insane to me .

ljb5
01-13-2014, 05:13 PM
But don't we have to admit that the Fed cutting back on "buying" bonds is a response to policy decisions by the administration that make it unlikely that the economy will recover...

Absolutely the opposite. The Fed decision to taper the bond buying was based on evidence that the economy is improving (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/business/fed-decided-bond-buying-program-served-purpose-account-says.html?_r=0).

Increased uncertainty about employment or unease about the economy would make the Fed more likely to continue buying bonds, not less likely.

Inflation remains low. Years of panic about "hyperinflation" have turned out to be unfounded.

S.V. Airlie
01-13-2014, 07:45 PM
And we can hope that someday he will actually listen to the answer.I'm sure he will appreciate being brainwashed by the left.:)

PeterSibley
01-13-2014, 07:49 PM
Absolutely the opposite. The Fed decision to taper the bond buying was based on evidence that the economy is improving (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/business/fed-decided-bond-buying-program-served-purpose-account-says.html?_r=0).

Increased uncertainty about employment or unease about the economy would make the Fed more likely to continue buying bonds, not less likely.

Inflation remains low. Years of panic about "hyperinflation" have turned out to be unfounded.

That in itself is something of a mystery . Perhaps the paper the Fed is churning out is just replacing the grossly inflated values of paper that Wall Street held then saw vaporised ?

Any other explanations ?

Landrith
01-13-2014, 08:02 PM
ljb5 I agree the Fed in the past has allowed interest rates to rise at the end of a recession as the economy recovers. However what we were all looking at in relationship to the Fed's announced policy to buy bonds monthly was how the Fed was moving non performing assets out of the banks and into taxpayer responsibility(Derivatives: The Real Reason Bernanke Funnels Trillions Into Wall Street Banks http://seekingalpha.com/article/251375-derivatives-the-real-reason-bernanke-funnels-trillions-into-wall-street-banks ). Yes they are tapering what was an outrageous subsidization of the too big to fail banks http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-usa-fed-reverserepo-20140108,0,7919623.story But their real tool is interest rate adjustment.

The conspiracy fringe says that the Fed cannot allow interest rates to slightly increase and therefore restore jobs and buying power because doing so would crash the banks due to their derivative exposure. Deutsch Bank provides an example of how fragile Europe still is http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-29/728-trillion-presenting-bank-biggest-derivative-exposure-world-hint-not-jpmorgan . That junk becomes really toxic if the central banks allowed a real market for capital to exist. But, without the choices and trade offs a market provides for whether savings is productively invested, there is just no reason to risk or grow.

More conventionally the problem is explained:

"The Federal Reserve has reduced interest rates to unprecedented levels and, through quantitative easing (QE), augmented bank reserves by purchasing financial assets. But inflation – which rapid money-supply expansion inevitably fuels – has so far remained subdued, at roughly 2%, because banks are not using their swelling reserves to expand credit and increase liquidity. While this is keeping price volatility in check, it is also hindering employment growth.
Rather than changing its approach, however, the Fed has responded to slow employment growth by launching additional rounds of QE. Apparently, its rationale is that if expanding reserves by more than $2 trillion has not produced the desired results, adding $85 billion more monthly – another $1 trillion this year – might do the trick.
America’s central bankers need not search far to find out why QE is not working; evidence is published regularly for anyone to see. During QE2 (from November 2010 to July 2011), the Fed added a total of $557.9 billion to reserves, and excess reserves grew by $546.5 billion. That means that banks circulated only 2% of QE2’s contribution, leaving the rest idle. Similarly, since QE3 was launched last September, total bank reserves have grown by $244.1 billion, and excess reserves by $239.4 billion – meaning that 99% of the funds remain idle.
Given that banks earn 0.25% in interest on their reserve accounts, but pay very low – indeed, near-zero – interest to their depositors, they might choose to leave the money idle, drawing risk-free interest, rather than circulate it through the economy. At current interest rates, banks lend to the government, large stable corporations, and commercial real-estate dealers; they do not extend credit to riskier borrowers, like start-up companies or first-time home buyers. While speculators and bankers profit from the decline in interest rates that accompanies the Fed’s asset purchases, the intended monetary and credit stimulus is absent.
At some point, the Fed must realize that its current policy is not working. But developing a more effective alternative requires an understanding of the US economy’s actual problems – something that the Fed also seems to lack. Indeed, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke often says that his goal is to prevent another Great Depression, even though the Fed addressed that risk effectively in 2008.
The US economy has not responded to the Fed’s monetary expansion, because America’s biggest problems are not liquidity problems. As every economics student learns early on, monetary policy cannot fix problems in the real economy; only policy changes affecting the real economy can. The Fed should relearn that lesson.
One major problem, insufficient investment, is rooted in President Barack Obama’s effort to increase the tax paid by those whose annual incomes exceed $250,000 and, more recently, in his proposal to cap retirement entitlements. While such proposals have been met with opposition, Obama cannot be expected to sign a deficit-reduction bill that does not include more revenue. As long as that revenue’s sources, and the future effects of new regulations, remain uncertain, those whom the policies would most harm – the country’s largest savers – are unlikely to invest.
Likewise, Obama’s health-care reform, the Affordable Care Act, has hampered employment growth, as businesses reduce their hiring and cut workers’ hours to shelter themselves from increased labor costs (estimates of the rise vary). Meanwhile, the faltering European economy and slowing GDP growth in China and elsewhere are impeding export demand.
While subdued liquidity and credit growth are delaying the inflationary impact of the Fed’s determination to expand banks’ already-massive reserves, America cannot escape inflation forever. The reserves that the Fed – and almost all other major central banks – are building will eventually be used."

http://occupythefednow.com

If you are a senior citizen living on retirement savings, I bet you feel the inflation or loss of demand for the US Dollar where interest rates are low when you buy gasoline or food. I know entrepreneurs who are not being funded because liquidity seems to be removed from the system, so they are not creating new jobs. I am starting to be shocked at the rise in prices on even marginal collector's cars and other things fairly distant from daily production and consumption. So I have started to believe in a substantially devalued US Dollar.

By growing jobs, I mean net increases in numbers of American adults working. The unemployment numbers have become meaninglessly manipulated to me. I think we went to a real 23%, improved and are now creeping up again.

ljb5
01-13-2014, 11:52 PM
Landrith, it's is the prerogative of every amateur economist to see a dark cloud under every silver lining.

I certainly won't argue that our economy is perfect, but if you look at the major metrics, it could be worse. I just refinanced my house so my monthly payments are lower than my rent was eight years ago.

It costs less to fill my gas tank now than a year ago, two years ago or even six years ago. Employment is ticking up. The cost of popcorn in the movie theater is as appalling as ever. The banks are run by jerks, but that's nothing new in your lifetime or mine.

The economy has only three possible problems: Insufficient investment, insufficient savings or insufficient spending. After a year in which the DOW gained 3,600 points, anyone who complains about "insufficient investment" is not so much very, very wrong as they are missing out on two very big opportunities to complain.

As ever, there are only two things to worry about with the US dollar -- that it might be too strong (and hurt exports) or might be too weak (and hurt our ability to buy imports). Both of these are worth worrying about but nobody has the strength to worry about both at the same time.

The fed, of course, cannot affect the "real economy" in the same way that a stern-mounted rudder cannot steer the front of a boat. But, believe you-me, if you need to steer a boat, and the only thing you have to steer it with is a stern-mounted rudder, you're going to do your best to use it.

I know more than enough entrepreneurs who are hiring people to start amazing new companies. And I regard the price of 'collectors' cars' as a cancer upon those without idle money for fancy toys.

skipper68
01-15-2014, 01:51 AM
My Dad pays $100.00 a month
They asked for all his cards Numbers. He didn't have part B. Obama care saved him $200,00 down to under $3.95.
It works well.

slug
01-15-2014, 03:19 AM
Landrith, it's is the prerogative of every amateur economist to see a dark cloud under every silver lining.

I certainly won't argue that our economy is perfect, but if you look at the major metrics, it could be worse. I just refinanced my house so my monthly payments are lower than my rent was eight years ago.

It costs less to fill my gas tank now than a year ago, two years ago or even six years ago. Employment is ticking up. The cost of popcorn in the movie theater is as appalling as ever. The banks are run by jerks, but that's nothing new in your lifetime or mine.

The economy has only three possible problems: Insufficient investment, insufficient savings or insufficient spending. After a year in which the DOW gained 3,600 points, anyone who complains about "insufficient investment" is not so much very, very wrong as they are missing out on two very big opportunities to complain.

As ever, there are only two things to worry about with the US dollar -- that it might be too strong (and hurt exports) or might be too weak (and hurt our ability to buy imports). Both of these are worth worrying about but nobody has the strength to worry about both at the same time.

The fed, of course, cannot affect the "real economy" in the same way that a stern-mounted rudder cannot steer the front of a boat. But, believe you-me, if you need to steer a boat, and the only thing you have to steer it with is a stern-mounted rudder, you're going to do your best to use it.

I know more than enough entrepreneurs who are hiring people to start amazing new companies. And I regard the price of 'collectors' cars' as a cancer upon those without idle money for fancy toys.



The US economy doesn't lack money. The US lacks products that can compete in the global marketplace.

cheap money and financial stimulus dont increase competitiveness, they encourage yet more debt and and even more consumption of imported goods..

the people who benifit live on Wall Street or own big chains like walmart who import all the junk so that their minimium wage employees can feed it to the public.

germany produces 5.5 million cars a year...the US produces 2.7 million.

Solve this problem and America will have a more balanced economy and a healthier middle class.

ljb5
01-15-2014, 09:11 AM
The US economy doesn't lack money. The US lacks products that can compete in the global marketplace.

cheap money and financial stimulus dont increase competitiveness, they encourage yet more debt and and even more consumption of imported goods..

the people who benifit live on Wall Street or own big chains like walmart who import all the junk so that their minimium wage employees can feed it to the public.

germany produces 5.5 million cars a year...the US produces 2.7 million.

Solve this problem and America will have a more balanced economy and a healthier middle class.

No argument there.

It's interesting that you noted the difference between the German and US auto industries. One of the main differences is that Germany has strong unions and mandatory universal health care. In the US, the cost of health care has traditionally been borne by the employer, which makes US cars comparatively more expensive and reduces production.

Another factor, which is particularly evident when comparing US production to Japan is that Japanese makers were quick to use innovation to respond to customers' demands for more efficient cars. The US got off to a slow start, after initially belittling hybrids. That was a failure of management.

There are some hopeful signs that some of the US is catching up, or even ready to lead... the Tesla looks to be a winner (despite overblown fears about fires). I hear the Lincoln MKZ is great. The Chevy Volt could certainly be a winner (in its market segment). But we're years behind where we could be, due to poor management leadership. And we're still burdened by a costly healthcare model that adds costs directly to the price of production.

Paul Pless
01-15-2014, 09:14 AM
It's interesting that you noted the difference between the German and US auto industries. One of the main differences is that Germany has strong unions and mandatory universal health care. In the US, the cost of health care has traditionally been borne by the employer, which makes US cars comparatively more expensive and reduces production.

Another factor, which is particularly evident when comparing US production to Japan is that Japanese makers were quick to use innovation to respond to customers' demands for more efficient cars. The US got off to a slow start, after initially belittling hybrids. That was a failure of management.

all true, but we might also point out that germany protects its auto industry from foreign competition to a much larger extent than does the u.s.

slug
01-15-2014, 09:39 AM
all true, but we might also point out that germany protects its auto industry from foreign competition to a much larger extent than does the u.s.


Huh ? Do you know the " chicken tax " ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

this is a trade distorting protectionist measure that enabled the US auto industry to avoid competion .

without competion the US auto industry fossilized

wardd
01-15-2014, 10:33 AM
The US economy doesn't lack money. The US lacks products that can compete in the global marketplace.

cheap money and financial stimulus dont increase competitiveness, they encourage yet more debt and and even more consumption of imported goods..

the people who benifit live on Wall Street or own big chains like walmart who import all the junk so that their minimium wage employees can feed it to the public.

germany produces 5.5 million cars a year...the US produces 2.7 million.

Solve this problem and America will have a more balanced economy and a healthier middle class.

the most lucrative sector of the us economy is shuffling money and paper, as long as that is so there is no incentive in jobs or production

slug
01-15-2014, 11:19 AM
This is what happens in a democracy when you allow wall street to rule main street.

genglandoh
02-09-2014, 02:48 PM
Well another low jobs number.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/07/news/economy/january-jobs-report/
Job growth remains weak
The U.S. economy added 113,000 jobs last month, according to the government. That's an improvement from December, but was far weaker than hoped. Economists had been expecting an addition of 178,000 jobs.

wardd
02-09-2014, 02:58 PM
Well another low jobs number.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/07/news/economy/january-jobs-report/
Job growth remains weak
The U.S. economy added 113,000 jobs last month, according to the government. That's an improvement from December, but was far weaker than hoped. Economists had been expecting an addition of 178,000 jobs.


178,000 is low, a lot lower than under bush

Durnik
02-09-2014, 02:59 PM
for genglandoh (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?173692-The-statement-quot-Government-is-the-problem-quot-is-the-problem)

Waddie
02-09-2014, 03:38 PM
I'm sure all the brainiacs in the Bilge have read Mulligan's research on the subject of whether Obamacare is killing jobs....... I know Krugman has...... and the CBO has.

regards,
Waddie

johnw
02-09-2014, 04:34 PM
Inflation remains low. Years of panic about "hyperinflation" have turned out to be unfounded.


That in itself is something of a mystery . Perhaps the paper the Fed is churning out is just replacing the grossly inflated values of paper that Wall Street held then saw vaporised ?



Any other explanations ?


It's simple, textbook economics. To get inflation, you either need extraneous shocks like a big increase in oil prices, or an economy that is overheating, so that companies are bidding on scarce resources. Neither of those currently apply, so you should not expect high inflation.

Those claiming cheap money would lead to inflation even with a slack economy never described a mechanism by which this would occur.

Too Little Time
02-09-2014, 04:56 PM
We were told that Obamacare was a job killer.
Many then argued that it would not kill jobs.

Well the new jobs report is very bad.
The experts expected 193,000 job but we only created 74,000 jobs.


2013 ends with weakest job growth in years
Hiring slumped sharply in December, as the economy added only 74,000 jobs, according to the government. This was the weakest month for job growth since January 2011 and came as a huge surprise to economists, who were expecting an addition of 193,000 jobs.

There are a number of very fine economists, Steve Jobs, Carl Ican, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates to name a few. Lots of job and wealth creation.

The president and Congress don't create jobs or wealth. They only make the economic rules. With the current rules it looks like it is difficult or unnecessary for the economic players to create jobs. It is good that it is still easy to create wealth.

johnw
02-09-2014, 05:12 PM
There are a number of very fine economists, Steve Jobs, Carl Ican, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates to name a few. Lots of job and wealth creation.

The president and Congress don't create jobs or wealth. They only make the economic rules. With the current rules it looks like it is difficult or unnecessary for the economic players to create jobs. It is good that it is still easy to create wealth.

None of the people you named are economists. All are very good at what they do, but when they want the advice of an economist, they hire one.

Government can foster conditions that encourage job creation, or conditions that discourage job creation. For example, when congress decides to play with the debt limit and shut down the government, this creates uncertainty which discourages investment. President Eisenhower thought his greatest accomplishment was the Interstate Highway System, an investment in public capital that he knew would open up opportunities.

John Smith
02-09-2014, 07:04 PM
There are a number of very fine economists, Steve Jobs, Carl Ican, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates to name a few. Lots of job and wealth creation.

The president and Congress don't create jobs or wealth. They only make the economic rules. With the current rules it looks like it is difficult or unnecessary for the economic players to create jobs. It is good that it is still easy to create wealth.

It is true that all things are paid for by taxing the wealth created by the private sector. It's also true that government makes the rules under which the private sector functions. The private sector is not allowed, supposedly, to pollute our air/water. The private sector cannot function without the government provided infrastructure, which is not limited to those things that aid transportation and shipping, but include such things as patent/contract laws and a court system to enforce them.

The government can contribute a great deal to private sector job growth. All those people working in factories making things the government buys are indirectly government hires.

If we were to spend money to rebuild/modernize our physical infrastructure using domestically supplied materials, it would mean a lot of contracts with private companies and a lot of people would be working for those companies. All those workers would spend the money they make, and that would create demand for products and services from other companies, and the spiral goes up, rather than down.

wardd
02-09-2014, 07:18 PM
it's the nation that creates the possibility for private wealth

one can only be wealthy in context

slug
02-10-2014, 07:04 AM
It is true that all things are paid for by taxing the wealth created by the private sector. It's also true that government makes the rules under which the private sector functions. The private sector is not allowed, supposedly, to pollute our air/water. The private sector cannot function without the government provided infrastructure, which is not limited to those things that aid transportation and shipping, but include such things as patent/contract laws and a court system to enforce them.

The government can contribute a great deal to private sector job growth. All those people working in factories making things the government buys are indirectly government hires.

If we were to spend money to rebuild/modernize our physical infrastructure using domestically supplied materials, it would mean a lot of contracts with private companies and a lot of people would be working for those companies. All those workers would spend the money they make, and that would create demand for products and services from other companies, and the spiral goes up, rather than down.


Infrastructure spending sounds nice but it doesn't work.

A simple bridge may take 15 years of planning to satisfy special interest groups. Then once it approved the lawyers move in........Are the contractors LGBT friendly ?..how many minority contractors ? Is that steel pipe sourced in the US ? what about those snowy owls? then there are the NIMBY groups to fight....

slug
02-10-2014, 07:15 AM
That in itself is something of a mystery . Perhaps the paper the Fed is churning out is just replacing the grossly inflated values of paper that Wall Street held then saw vaporised ?

Any other explanations ?


With low demand you don't get inflation.

Super low borrowing costs and gov stimulus still cant create consumer demand.

You are seeing deflation. Too many products, not enough consumers. The government will have to continue to prop up the market for a long time.

John Smith
02-10-2014, 10:02 AM
Infrastructure spending sounds nice but it doesn't work.

A simple bridge may take 15 years of planning to satisfy special interest groups. Then once it approved the lawyers move in........Are the contractors LGBT friendly ?..how many minority contractors ? Is that steel pipe sourced in the US ? what about those snowy owls? then there are the NIMBY groups to fight....

Our infrastructure is in bad shape and will HAVE TO BE WORKED ON EVENTUALLY. There will be a cost to simply putting it off. The fact that it takes time to go from "let's do it" to when it is done is no excuse to not get started. The first stage, I'm sure, of fixing a bridge, is hiring some engineers to figure out how. Or just putting the project up for bids.

John Smith
02-10-2014, 10:04 AM
With low demand you don't get inflation.

Super low borrowing costs and gov stimulus still cant create consumer demand.

You are seeing deflation. Too many products, not enough consumers. The government will have to continue to prop up the market for a long time.

Continue? We are dropping the number of government employees. We are cutting food stamps. We are not extending unemployment.

We are doing everything but propping up the economy.

Too Little Time
02-10-2014, 10:17 AM
None of the people you named are economists.

Many people play economist. Just look at those who comment on the government's economic policies on this board. Some are good at economics. Some are not. I listed some who understand economics well enough to play the game well.


Part of the governments' problem in making rules for the economy is that individuals and businesses read and follow the rules. The economic game that individuals and businesses play is not the one that the government thought they would play. Individuals and businesses are much better economists than the government.


You know how to play hide and seek don't you? You hide in the laundry basket. I eat lunch, watch tv, and around supper time I find you. I play a much different game than you expect.


You need to be a really good rule maker to have the game played the way you want. The president and Congress are not good at that.

I don't think rule changes will create jobs. I don't think a growing economy will create jobs. I think jobs are gone for good. I hope I am wrong.

johnw
02-10-2014, 02:07 PM
Infrastructure spending sounds nice but it doesn't work.

A simple bridge may take 15 years of planning to satisfy special interest groups. Then once it approved the lawyers move in........Are the contractors LGBT friendly ?..how many minority contractors ? Is that steel pipe sourced in the US ? what about those snowy owls? then there are the NIMBY groups to fight....


The way we do infrastructure, it's hard to make it work as a short-term stimulus. And it would be more effective over the long term if we could build our government projects as cheaply as, say, Germany.

But over the long term, you've got to invest in infrastructure. Workers and products sitting in a traffic jam represent wasted labor and inventory. We've neglected our infrastructure since the 1970s, with the Republicans demanding ever lower taxes and the Democrats more interested in defending programs like Social Security than in investing in roads, bridges, water treatment plants, etc.

As to whether stimulus can create demand, I don't see why not. A grant for a strapped school district to hire back some teachers creates jobs directly, and they spend their salaries as businesses that can use the additional custom. Not all stimulus is infrastructure projects. But infrastructure projects have longer-term benefits for productivity, and we should be working on those projects when the economy is slow and contractors are hungry, because we'll get a better price.

We had a stimulus bill in 2009 that was about the size of the spending cuts happening at the state and local levels of government. I'm of the opinion that we'd have been a lot worse off if we hadn't had that, and if you look at how long this recession has dragged on, I'd say there was plenty of time for infrastructure projects to start while labor markets are still slack.

johnw
02-10-2014, 02:13 PM
Many people play economist. Just look at those who comment on the government's economic policies on this board. Some are good at economics. Some are not. I listed some who understand economics well enough to play the game well.


Part of the governments' problem in making rules for the economy is that individuals and businesses read and follow the rules. The economic game that individuals and businesses play is not the one that the government thought they would play. Individuals and businesses are much better economists than the government.


You know how to play hide and seek don't you? You hide in the laundry basket. I eat lunch, watch tv, and around supper time I find you. I play a much different game than you expect.


You need to be a really good rule maker to have the game played the way you want. The president and Congress are not good at that.

I don't think rule changes will create jobs. I don't think a growing economy will create jobs. I think jobs are gone for good. I hope I am wrong.

I'm a businessman who likes reading economics, and there is no doubt in my mind that these are two different fields. Nor is economics all about setting rules. Much of it is about understanding empirical evidence. Making policy recommendations is only a small part of the field.

Too Little Time
02-10-2014, 03:36 PM
As to whether stimulus can create demand, I don't see why not. A grant for a strapped school district to hire back some teachers creates jobs directly, and they spend their salaries at businesses.

The economy is in such a condition now that a newly hired teacher will not spend much of her money. Social Security may not be around for long. School pensions may not be around for long. A job created by a 5 year stimulus plan might not be around for long. A smart new hire is going to save all they can.

Infra structure projects have similar problems.

It is really hard to pick winners and losers. The government has never been good at it.

Let's spend a lot and put fiber optic internet everywhere. Great idea unless a better idea comes along in 5 years. That happened in cell phones. At some point you make a mistake. Then the government (taxpayers) is stuck with a big bill some saw coming.


My daughter asked me to give $5K to start a music program at a school for away from either of us. I did it. If they need more next year, I will provide it. I give to the local schools also. I am all in favor of helping schools, but I not going to ask others to pay for my mistakes.