Postman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:15 AM
Original message |
|
I heard this phrase used to describe the so-called recovery. If this is true, rich people are making money without an increase in job creation. Or it could mean those that Do have a job are working harder and longer for the boss without the boss having to create more jobs.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:19 AM
Response to Original message |
1. More wealth is being created - and the jobless get zero, others more |
|
and the top 1% get most. So we must lower their taxes so they are happy, and make up the difference between what we spend on Defense and out tax intake via those reduced taxes by borrowing from our children.
In effect, we decrease the tax on the rich so as to increase the birth tax - the national debt.
|
XNASA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:21 AM
Response to Original message |
2. The Repubs would love a Jobless Recovery. |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-25-03 10:23 AM by XNASA
They feel that a 6-7% unemployment rate is best for corporate America.
That way, nobody bitches about not getting a raise because everyone feels lucky just to have a job.
Remember what happened during the Clinton years? Low unemployment and job growth meant that corporations had to pay their employees to keep them from moving on to better positions with higher pay. Corporate America doesn't like that.
|
Shadoobie
(904 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
As the unemployment rate drops, it approaches the point where prices start to rise (inflation). This is called the nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU). Conservatives feel the unemployment rate should be about 6.5%. From what I understand, the policy from the Federal Reserve can influence the unemployment rate. Clinton challenged this notion which led to the unemployment rate dropping to ~4%. No inflation occurred but wages had to increase as the supply of workers dropped. The number of jobs that pay at or near minimum wages probably helped to reduce the price pressures (i.e. more people working did not necessarily lead to a significant increase in personal spending which would cause prices to increase and inflation)
Once Bush was selected, he met with Greenspan and, sure enough, the Fed policy was changed and unemployment rose to 6-6.5%. The lack of concern from the administration on unemployment is not surprising.
BTW, after the low unemployment during the Clinton years, the Repubs actually love this jobLOSS "recovery".
Greg
|
fedupwithbush
(159 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:27 AM
Response to Original message |
3. You are exactly right. |
|
People who have jobs are scared to say no to overtime and are doing more to keep their jobs. Raises are almost nonexistent. Why give a raise when you don't have to? And then because everyone is overworked, and won't quit because of the possibility of no job to go to, there is no incentive to hire new workers. Typical Republican economy. It happened to me in the 80's with Reagan, with my husband and I both in the late 80's and early 90's with Bush and now again.
My husband is salaried, so he already gets screwed. But now there have been a few lay-offs in his company. It's a small company. He is now averaging 60 hours a week. No raise for the last 2 years either, even though he has got glowing yearly reviews. What's funny (ironic) is he changed jobs during the Clinton years twice. Both times only sent out one resume to a position he really wanted, both times got the job, and both times got a pay hike of between $8000 and $10000 dollars when he switched. What a difference a president makes:crazy: One thing that he's greatful for is the fact he really likes the company he's working for now. During Bush I, he was with an employer he hated, did the unthinkable, took a voluntary lay-off, laid off for 10 looonnnngggg months before he got hired again. And then it was part-time. It took us years financially to get over that lay-off.
|
bif
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:29 AM
Response to Original message |
4. So much for the "Trickle down" theory |
|
Many economists predicted that the tax cut for the rich wouldn<'t help the economy at all and that rich people tend to put their extra money in the market, not into job creation or fueling the economy. It's the middle-class and lower classes who tend to spend thed money. Looks like they were right on the money, so to speak. [br />
|
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. What's wrong with Trickle-Down? Just ask the |
|
farmer whose crops are dying downstream from the guy who built a dam so he'd have his own private swimming hole.
Rush, er, fatboy's idea of trickle-down is the concept of watering the lawn (a fallacy, since it involves a lot of spreading small amounts over a widely scattered area). Unfortunately, trickle-down implementers seem to be interested in watering the creek at the healthy end of the yard in hopes that it would, just by its presence, encourage the surrounding grass further and further away to think it's being nourished and watered.
|
JHB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. The REAL "trickle down economics"... |
|
...is progressive taxation, sensible regulation, and strong labor laws.
The top is a sponge. It won't "trickle down" unless its squeezed.
|
PurityOfEssence
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 10:34 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Late January 2005: former Chief Expletive Junior checks into Betty Ford |
|
Now THAT'S a jobless recovery. (Well, it's at least another attempt.)
What this regressive tax code really is is "trickle up" economics. His daddy coined the term "voodoo economics", this has to be "vampire economics".
|
ProfessorGAC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 11:28 AM
Response to Original message |
9. For The 100th Time. There IS NO RECOVERY |
|
The economy is still underperforming all but 3 quarters of the last 15 years in terms of unemployment, real GDP growth, ratio of real to nominal GDP growth, M2 as percent of nominal GDP, productivity per worker and percent of GDP as gov't spending.
The only thing about the last 2 quarters was they weren't as dreadful as the prior 4. That's not a recovery of any sort and the economists who claim it so are dullards. The Professor
|
priller
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. But Larry Kudlow said the economy is about to catch fire |
|
Said it just last night. Just like he's been saying it every night for over a year. I'm sure it will come true one of these days, sometime after Bush leaves town.
|
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-25-03 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Yup, Christmas is coming. Gotta beef up the idea that |
|
by the time those February bills come in, you'll have a job, after that seasonal employment bump runs dry and you're let go.
Give people the hope that the economic news means that you'll still be working AFTER 12/25. Funny, you'll be hearing about all the layoffs that will occur in the days leading up to 12/25.
Can you pass me a glass of that "irrational exuberance", 1999 vintage?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 12:50 AM
Response to Original message |