US Economic Performance

[Guest eureka]

Thanks for the link. I think that the figures do not suggest any real reduction in hours worked, particularly since 1980. I do not know the methodolgy in this, but I wonder does this accommodate the increase in part time work. If not, then I suggest that the figures would actually demonstrate an increase in hours for full-time workers.

I know that I have read of an increase in comparison to the European experience of reduction. One book that may have had the figures in it is Jeremy Rifkin's "The End of Work." I have it but don't know where it is in my disorganized library.

How do these figures bear on the increase of two worker families in calculating family incomes?

[Toro]

Thanks for the link. I think that the figures do not suggest any real reduction in hours worked, particularly since 1980. I do not know the methodolgy in this, but I wonder does this accommodate the increase in part time work. If not, then I suggest that the figures would actually demonstrate an increase in hours for full-time workers.

I know that I have read of an increase in comparison to the European experience of reduction. One book that may have had the figures in it is Jeremy Rifkin's "The End of Work." I have it but don't know where it is in my disorganized library.

How do these figures bear on the increase of two worker families in calculating family incomes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its a survey. The survey incorporates all hours worked so part-time would be included in that.

The percentage of part-time workers in America has not risen, or at least not materially. It has in Europe, and it may have in Canada. In restrictive and high-cost labour markets, there is greater incentive to hire part-time. In less restrictive and lower-cost labour markets, there is less incentive to hire part-time. There was a good article in the WSJ a few weeks back about how part-time work has exploded in Spain, thus driving down the unemployment rate, because of this.

In the BLS statistics, there is a labour force participation data stream. I'll find it and post it. But again, on a per capita basis, real wages have been rising. If the more people are entering the workforce to maintain the same level of wage growth, you would expect per capita real wages to be falling. That has not happened.

[Toro]

Here is the labour participation survey

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

Its pretty much as one would expect. The percentage rose as more women entered the workforce. Then the rate of growth slowed in the mid-to-late-80s.

Percentage of the population participating in the labour force

1970 - 60.4%

1975 - 61.2%

1980 - 63.8%

1985 - 64.8%

1990 - 66.5%

1995 - 66.6%

2000 - 67.1%

2004 - 66.0%

Percentage of the population employed

1970 - 57.4%

1975 - 56.1%

1980 - 59.2%

1985 - 60.1%

1990 - 62.8%

1995 - 62.9%

2000 - 64.4%

2004 - 62.3%

"Civilian noninstitutional population" is the population who are not children or senior citizens.

[dollar]

1/3 destitute below poverty line

1/3 middle class fast becoming destitute

cornerstone companies like GM and FORD about to go under

1/3 elite rich are already cashing in their $ for the Euro

it is sliding fast

companies like walmart selling chinesse goods by the tons

it is the end of the line as you know it

proof is all around only the fools can't see it

[Montgomery Burns]

And the US economy continues to rock and roll. From the BBC:

"The US economy strengthened in the third quarter, driven higher by strong government and consumer spending, and despite damage caused by hurricanes. Gross domestic product (GDP) expanded by an annual rate of 3.8% in the three months from July through September, the Commerce Department said. That compares with 3.3% in the second quarter and topped market estimates.... There had been concerns that the cost of rebuilding after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, coupled with record oil prices, would slam the brakes on growth. It now looks as if the US economy will keep motoring through to the end of the year, analysts said. "This is a very positive, strong report and encouraging because it included Katrina and a spike in oil prices and we still just seem to have a lot of momentum going into the fourth quarter," said Kurt Karl, an economist at Swiss Re.... Friday's GDP report also contained inflation figures that showed a decline in the core level of price growth. Excluding food and energy prices, the core inflation rate was 1.3% during the quarter, down from 1.7% in the previous quarter."

But but but...everyone does not make the same income, not everyone has the "right" to free unlimited healthcare, and many are two-income families--ergo this economic report is a disaster...i.e., if you're a leftie.

Why can't Canada and the EUtopia make life better for their citizens, instead of the grinding destitution that is so common here and across the pond?

[Montgomery Burns]

US economy roars despite hurricanes; growth upgraded to 4.3 percent

Damn that Bush and his Evil Tax Cuts! :angry:

[moderateamericain]

US economy roars despite hurricanes; growth upgraded to 4.3 percent

Damn that Bush and his Evil Tax Cuts!  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why shouldnt the top 20 percent earners rake in the most, they have the most to lose. Your top 20 percent are the ones that employee most of america. How many people did bill gates put to work with Microsoft?

[tml12]

US economy roars despite hurricanes; growth upgraded to 4.3 percent

Damn that Bush and his Evil Tax Cuts!   :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why shouldnt the top 20 percent earners rake in the most, they have the most to lose. Your top 20 percent are the ones that employee most of america. How many people did bill gates put to work with Microsoft?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah I believe it...

[Toro]

The Most Important Economic News of the Year 

By Arnold Kling : BIO | 29 Dec 2005

"[P]roductivity is the best single measure of what leads to differences in economic performance. Even though GDP per capita is the all-encompassing measure, GDP per capita is determined primarily, almost entirely, by productivity. People basically work in order to have a place to sleep and something to eat and so on and so forth. The huge differences around the world are the efficiencies with which they work -- their productivity."

-- William Lewis

...

My favorite indicator of the state of the U.S. economy is productivity, as measured by output per hour for the nonfarm business sector. This information is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and it only comes out four times a year.

...

The table below presents annualized productivity growth for various five-year periods, starting with the period 1955-1960 (from the fourth quarter of 1955 to the fourth quarter of 1960).

Five-year average annual productivity growth, first quarter to first quarter:

Period  Average Productivity Growth

1955-1960  2.03

1960-1965  2.79

1965-1970  2.09

1970-1975  2.31

1975-1980  1.55

1980-1985  1.38

1985-1990  1.65

1990-1995  1.59

1995-2000  2.28

2000-2005  3.39

What the table says is that the economy today is in great shape. The average productivity growth rate in the last five years is the highest over the past half century.

...

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122805C

[YankAbroad]

Some interesting details about the "Bush economy":

1) Over half of the new jobs created since 2001 are government jobs (i.e. outside of the productive sector);

2) The growth in overall economic activity closely mirrors the decline in the value of the US dollar (erasing the real-world spending power which the growth is supposed to deliver);

3) Government spending and government employment under the "conservative" Bush administration has grown at a level unparalleled in modern times, with government employment growing over twice as quickly as during the New Deal and Great Society eras.

And an interesting detail about the Canadian economy:

1) Without new government employment, total employment in Canada since 2000 would have declined.

Neither economy is doing very well, overall. Both are overtaxed.

Canada is overtaxed to pay its existing debts and social programs.

The USA is passing stealth tax increases in the form of unbridled deficit spending. A tax "cut" with soaring deficit expenditure is really a long-term tax increase, since tax levels over time will have to remain higher than average (and even elevate over time) to make the interest payments and principle payments on the debt.

George W. Bush's administration has increased taxes in two ways:

1) Deficit spending (with its resulting longer term higher tax rates);

2) Unfunded mandates, which shift taxation and spending from the federal government to state and local governments -- which increase taxes in order to pay for the mandated programs.

Of course, Republi-Crats don't like this sorta discussion!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear YankAbroad,

3) Government spending and government employment under the "conservative" Bush administration has grown at a level unparalleled in modern times, with government employment growing over twice as quickly as during the New Deal and Great Society eras.

This is why many 'right-wingers', including some on this forum, do not see Bush as a true 'conservative'.

George W. Bush's administration has increased taxes in two ways:

1) Deficit spending (with its resulting longer term higher tax rates);

2) Unfunded mandates, which shift taxation and spending from the federal government to state and local governments -- which increase taxes in order to pay for the mandated programs.

Actually Bush is deficit spending without raising taxes...some don't see this as a problem. It's just a new form of 'Reaganomics'.

[YankAbroad]

My second point you quoted is that deficit spending IS a form of tax increase -- that debt has to be serviced with interest payments which come from taxes and eventually have the principle repaid with tax money as well. If the debt wasn't taken out, that's cash flow which could be used to provide tax relief. The result is longer term higher tax rates.

Also, Bush has most certainly raised taxes -- just not income taxes.

Check out your US mobile phone bill sometime. Or your US landline phone bill. Both have seen federal taxes soar. And state/local taxes have seen tremendous increases the last couple of years due to unfunded mandates like "No Child Left Behind."

George W. Bush is a bigger "tax and spend liberal" than Bill Clinton!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear YankAbroad,

Check out your US mobile phone bill sometime. Or your US landline phone bill. Both have seen federal taxes soar.

I am not in the uS, I'll have to take your word for it. I would expect, though, that the increases here and elsewhere don't even make up a small part of the 'War on Terror' (including the Military) budget increase.

My second point you quoted is that deficit spending IS a form of tax increase -- that debt has to be serviced with interest payments which come from taxes and eventually have the principle repaid with tax money as well.

This is what is supposed to happen. Bush, and his father before him, and Reagan before that, decided that it wasn't important to pay off the debt. They decided to use debt as a source of income, and are banking that there will be no consequences.

[August1991]

Small Dead Animals provides a link to this:

Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium.

Real Clear Politics

Let me check this:

US nominal GDP (annual basis) 1st quarter 2003 $10,717.0 billion

US nominal GDP (annual basis) 2nd quarter 2006 $13,042.3 billion

Difference? About $2.2 trillion as quoted. Data here.

Of course, this doesn't take into account inflation or population growth.

[Shady]

More good news!

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit

WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.

NY Times

Damn Bush tax-cuts! :angry:

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

Looks like it is a double-edged sword...

But budget analysts, supporters and critics of Mr. Bush alike, cautioned that this year's windfall would do little to improve the government's long-term budget woes.

Government spending under Mr. Bush continued to climb rapidly this year, more than twice as fast as the economy. Spending on the war in Iraq has accelerated, to about $120 billion this year.

Far more ominously, the nation's oldest baby boomers will be eligible for Social Security benefits in just two years. Conservatives and liberals alike predict a huge escalation in costs of Social Security and Medicare over the next several decades.

"The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former White House economist under President Bush.

I believe that on another thread, someone here denied that there was any sort of 'baby-boomer' issue, that it was a myth...

August1991,

'Small dead animals' is an incredibly partisan, right-wing conspiracy site. I wouldn't trust information from that site to be presented in an 'unbiased light' anymore than 'Fox News'.

[Toro]

The link between the end of the recession and the tax cuts are tenuous at best. The tax cuts occured pretty much when the economy was turning. Since fiscal policy has a lagged effect, the tax cuts most likely had little or no effect on the ending of the recession.

However, they would have had an effect on the magnitude and the duration of the expansion. Likewise, since this administration has been spending like a drunken sailor, government spending would have also had the same effect.

Deficit spending and government expansion. Keynes would have been proud.