http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/ Looks pretty bad. [result]How long until a red-state blue-state comparison?[/result]
Don't worry. Come January 20th, they'll somehow get much better. Look on the bright side. If the unemployment rate is about 7%, which is still pretty good compared to other recessions, that means 93% of us are still working.
No one with half a brain thinks that the economy is going to magically get better overnight with an Obama administration. It took us decades to get into this mess - we're looking at the net result of nearly 30 years of "supply side" economics. It's going to take a long time to dig us out of this hole. I don't think we'll see much in the way of a real "recovery" until at least the end of 2010.
Is it fair to lay the blame of this mess on "supply side" economics? And if by supply side, you mean "trickle-down" then it's easy to make a case as to why it - trickle-down - works. Is it safe to assume that you're a believer in Keynesian economics?
The US also doesn't count "underemployed," "discouraged" or "marginal" workers in their unemployment statistics. The BLS counts self-employed as employed.
No, I meant "supply-side." If I meant "trickle-down" I would have written "trickle-down." And yes, I believe that Keynes' theories are a lot more correct than Laffer's.
The BLS does their statistics in accordance with ILO standards. You might say they don't give us an accurate picture of our problems, but you can't say that they give us an unfair advantage in comparison with other nations, because we use the same standard.
Enlighten us. What is your evidence that lowering taxes on the employer/investor class, rather than on the worker/consumer class, works?
Things will get better in 1Q09 if only because every company whose fiscal year ends on 12/31 is trying to cut inventories to the bone. Plus, it takes 3-6 months for these stimulus packages to work.
Fair enough, but I've seen people use the two interchangeably. Aren't there 3 main types of unemployment? Structural, cyclical, and frictional. Anyone who has questions about the US unemployment numbers should read up on these. Also, while the BLS numbers aren't a true reflection of the current unemployment rate, it does give you a mark to measure against previous years, months, etc.
Well, the current situation would be a great place to start. In a condensed version the big companies start to fail, banks freeze their lending, companies can't make payroll, jobs dry up, the consumer suffers. It would be easy to say that because the big companies lack the money for new jobs, they should receive the tax breaks, creating more money in their pocket thereby creating more jobs for the consumers/workers. For Keynes theory, taxing the companies creates more cash in the consumer/working class pockets. With more cash in their pockets, they are able to increase demand - assuming they increase spending. This leads to an increase in the supply needed creating more jobs. Both are right and both are wrong. Raising taxes on the employer/investor class in a recession further complicates the problem. Cutting taxes for the worker/consumer class in a recession only puts more money in their pocket, they won't increase the amount they buy/spend. For example: OPEC recently choked back its production by 2 million barrels per day. This did little to raise the price of oil. Why? B/c in hard times, people already weren't driving, a cut does nothing to alter their behavior. The same can be said for any of OPEC's cuts in a similar economic environment. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929599488205129.html Cut back on the taxes for employer/investor, to create more cash on hand to make payroll, to stop future unemployment. Only in a strong economy should you raise the taxes for an employer and lower it for the consumer.
We did cut all their taxes - wages went down, their own exec/mgmt compensation went up, and all the companies suddenly ran out of money. Fail.
Yep, and the guy from Merrill Lynch asking for his bonus was an epic fail. Greed's a bitch - one reason for regulation. But, how many jobs were created in that time?