The unemployment rate declined to 4.4%, below the NAIRU. Are we heading towards cost push inflation, or are there people dropping out of the workforce?
Friday, November 03, 2006
Unemployment down. Is Employment up?
The unemployment rate declined to 4.4%, below the NAIRU. Are we heading towards cost push inflation, or are there people dropping out of the workforce?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Tax cuts have led to a strong and growing economy, and this morning we got more proof of that."
-President Bush
Well Mr. Bush, last night we all got proof that you're full of crap
Although certain areas of the economy have shown slight improvement recently, I don't take this as a sign that anything Bush has done is working. The fact is that there is no reason to give tax cuts to the wealthiests americans. I dont see how this policy makes sense from any economic standpoint. Lower unemplyment does not always mean more jobs, it may mean more workers have given up.
I find it very shocking that our economy is entering a recession especially with the labor success we are having. But I guess this data goes hand in hand with the material we learned last chapter of how too low of an unemployment rate hurts our economy. Hopefully Richter is right and our economy will speed back up during the holidays if the currently employed people are benefiting so well from the low unemployment rate.
If the number of new jobs created was less then what economists expected, and our unemployment rate is at a low, cant it be assumed that people are giving up on looking for jobs and are leaving the labor force?
Pierce, I am unable to understand your logic, logic that seems to be quite clear to you. The wealthiest Americans must either be the smartest and most ingenious or just the luckiest, but either way don’t you think they deserve to keep their money? How would you like to work harder only to get a greater proportion of your money taken by the government? I don’t think that rich people should be taxed by a smaller percentage than poorer people, but I do not think that they should be taxed by a drastically higher percentage either. And who’s to say that the government can spend their money more efficiently than they can?
And why do you think the policy makes NO sense? It seems to me that if richer people are allowed to hold more of their money, they will naturally spend more and invest more and help the economy grow and progress. The government would supposedly use the money for good means as well, but bureaucracy is always less efficient than individual actions. "Two heads are better than one," so wouldn’t the hundreds of thousands of heads of the wealthy people in question (who are most likely intelligent) be better than the heads of the bureaucrats and politicians (who are most likely not as smart)?
And what was the solid proof the other night that Bush is full of crap? Just a few election results?
It is very scary that our economy is getting hurt by low unemployment and by cutting back taxes from the rich. The low unemployment could lead us into inflation, but we also have to think about the discouraged workers that could be leveling the unemployment rate. The money that could have been obtained from the taxes that were cut back would have helped the economy in the long run, because once the war is over the United States is going to have a huge debt.
Income taxes are a flat after a certain income, I think around the 150th K dollar. after thta each additional $ is taxed the same. So to say that a geater proportion of your income is taken by the government as your income level is only true to a point. And I would say 10% of your first thousand hurts more than 10% of your hundreth, or thousand thousandth dollars. Rood
Unemployment may be down, but the number of new jobs that have been created was lower than economists expected. This statistic alone is a hint that these lower unemployment numbers are not necessarily from an expanding job market, and are possibly because workers are giving up. Also, as for tax cuts for the top 1% if richest Americans, does that really do anything to encourage them to spend more? If they're making millions of dollars a year, how much effect does a tax cut actually have? The line between encouraging them to invest and having them sit on a barely larger income is something that needs to be considered.
Post a Comment