People with more spendable income help increase corporate profits and create more employment thus more taxpayers.
Hogwash. The figure from this last month is way out of line with the trend. Any reasonable person would know as much.
yeah I'm familiar with the concept. Examining the split one might get a sense of a) time to impact of personal cuts b) corporate tax cuts effects on personal taxes c) maximal and minimal split on gdp growth and a few other neat things to know when discussing such topics as taxation as an economic tool.
when working Americans get a tax cut a couple things can happen, they can pay less in taxes or work more
A total of 200K jobs was in the jobs report from bls.gov. 114K from Sept and revisions for July and August that totaled 86K.Hogwash. The figure from this last month is way out of line with the trend. Any reasonable person would know as much.
Last paragraph of the Employment Situation Summary said:The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from +141,000 to +181,000, and the change for August was revised from +96,000 to
+142,000.
A total of 200K jobs was in the jobs report from bls.gov. 114K from Sept and revisions for July and August that totaled 86K.
Employment Situation Summary
Well, then unemployment couldn't possibly have dropped by 0.3%.
Do you guys feel good about yourselves writing apologia for this nonsense?
that doesn't really address my rationale for examing the split, now does it?
If you truly want the split here is where you can go to get the numbers by year.
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
Are you saying the folks at the Bureau of Labor Statistics don't know what they are doing or are they just corrupt?Well, then unemployment couldn't possibly have dropped by 0.3%.
Do you guys feel good about yourselves writing apologia for this nonsense?
Well, then unemployment couldn't possibly have dropped by 0.3%.
Do you guys feel good about yourselves writing apologia for this nonsense?
I mentioned that population growth lead to more people paying taxes. Can we assume that I understand that taxes which are not paid do not contribute to tax revenue?It does seem that you have a reading comprehension problem and don't know the difference between population growth and job growth. Population growth means more deductions from taxes, job growth means more taxpayers. let me know if that still isn't clear.
I only said that population growth leads to the general trend upward.Apparently we didn't have any population growth when tax revenue dropped in your example.
Now to me, that doesn't seem like the right question.If you are truly interested in revenue data then you obviously see that revenue went up AFTER the tax cuts so how can that be? Obama supporters seem to have a problem with that reality.
What's the relevance of me ignoring that argument?Seems like you are getting into the weeds and ignoring the basic arguments of liberals and that is that tax revenue dropped after tax cuts.
How coy.When you figure out the four components of GDP you will get your answer. Human behavior drives economic activity and tax revenue
After you explain about why I would know the answer to that question I'd be glad to imagine something for you. But, if you skipped the middle man, you could just imagine something up for yourself I s'pose. My imagination isn't one of my best features.I look forward to anyone here pulling something out of their to explain that one
I mean where did you get them? What parameters did you have to put into what web site to generate them?The first set of numbers includes SS and Medicare which LBJ in his wisdom put on budget
I find the figures unbelievable because Gallup's unemployment poll numbers are unchanged...
Well, "big" is kind of a vague word.I don't see a big drop in Gallup's numbers, so apparently you're blowing smoke up my ass.
And remember: Just last year, we first thought we created a grand total of zero jobs in August. Zero. Economists and policymakers experienced a collective nervous breakdown. But BLS now says we created 85,000 jobs that month. What explains such madness? Not a conspiracy. Not a cover-up. Just stats and revisions.
Well, "big" is kind of a vague word.
If we can agree to some other way of looking at it than "big vs little" or what have you...
Maybe if we examined the percentage points of change to see how in accord with each other the numbers of Gallup vs the numbers from the BLS are we could find a common middle ground as to whether or not the Gallup numbers provide and obvious reason to be suspicious of the BLS numbers. Maybe
BLS has the numbers going from 8.1% to 7.8%, a 0.3 percentage point drop, and Gallup has the numbers going from 8.1% to 7.9%,a 0.2 percentage point drop.
0.3% vs 0.2% => 0.1 percentage point difference
As I have stated elsewhere I have no special training in statistics or otherwise handling these sorts of data. So as a layman, I may be making a serious error somewhere. But, it seems to me that in this instance where the margin of error is an entire percentage point, (Gallup same link), that being within one tenth of a percentage point is actually a sign that Gallup's numbers are in relative accord with the BLS numbers.
If you can explain how this 0.1 percentage point variance--which is well w/in Gallup's margin of error--is actually a significant discrepancy, I might learn something.
I find the figures unbelievable because Gallup's unemployment poll numbers are unchanged...
I made a mistake, that is true.You appear to be using the numbers that are not seasonally adjusted.
Where does this idea come from?... dropping off unemployed people from the roles because their government subsidy ended...
Where does this idea come from?
It's certainly not in accord with what the BLS say they do.
The BLS say that they count everyone who reports that they are "actively looking for work." The BLS lays out their criteria for "actively looking for work." AFAICT, being on UI is not one of the criteria for being counted as "actively looking for work."
Since the info that people whose UI has run out are taken off the rolls of people "actively looking for work" does not come from the BLS--in fact it is seemingly contradicted by the info from the BLS about their methods, definitions, and criteria--I am curious where this mis-information comes from? This particular mis-information seems to be widely dispersed.
Where did you get this idea?
Could not possibly have dropped by 0.3%? Is it like the speed of light or something? Some law of physics that says the unemployment rate can't fall three tenths of one percent?
The right seems to have suffered a collective psychotic break.
And where does it say that people who are no longer eligible to receive UI are dropped from the rolls of the unemployed? I am not finding that part.The idea as you put it is clear. If you read the BLS press release on this subject which breaks down the different sectors, here: Employment Situation News Release You can see that there were 114K jobs created in Sept. Now, all experts say that you need between 125K, and 150K just to keep up with population growth in this country. The jobs created were in the areas of Temp jobs, part time, Transprotation, and Health care. The real back bone jobs like Manufacturing, and construction were lagging. And other indicators like GDP are dismal. This conclusion by the BLS using a volatile survey like the "Household survey" is a horrible way to arrive at any discernible conclusion other than those 66K households they asked were doing better...This is manipulation as far as I can tell, but I am a layman in economics, you know, the average guy out there, but it smells to me.
...dropping off unemployed people from the roles because their government subsidy ended, so they don't count...
And where does it say that people who are no longer eligible to receive UI are dropped from the rolls of the unemployed? I am not finding that part.
I did find this at the link you posted:
"Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey."
Now, to me, that seems to directly contradict what you said here
I does not, imho, say that the BLS drop people from the rolls because their government subsidy ended. Ymmv I s'pose.
Are you sure you got the impression that the BLS drop people from the rolls because their government subsidy ended from that page you linked to and not from somewhere else?
I have found where the BLS give us their version of the criteria they use for deciding who is and who is not actively seeking a job. I can post it again if you like.
I can go ahead and tell you that they don't mention anywhere that running out of UI benefits means that you're removed from the rolls of people actively seeking a job.
Where did you get your version of the criteria the BLS use for deciding who is and who is not actively seeking a job--the set of criteria which include receiving UI benefits? I really don't think it came from BLS.
I have enough information to make you look foolish and if that isn't class so be it. I have posted the bls.gov charts that you have ignored. I have even explained the so called deficit chart to you but apparently you lack the ability to comprehend how wrong you are. It really is amazing how history doesn't seem to include the last four years in your world.
I have admitted when wrong, you have yet to prove me wrong because you don't seem to understand the data posted. Get some help and then get back to me explaining where I am wrong.
The idea as you put it is clear. If you read the BLS press release on this subject which breaks down the different sectors, here: Employment Situation News Release You can see that there were 114K jobs created in Sept. Now, all experts say that you need between 125K, and 150K just to keep up with population growth in this country. The jobs created were in the areas of Temp jobs, part time, Transprotation, and Health care. The real back bone jobs like Manufacturing, and construction were lagging. And other indicators like GDP are dismal. This conclusion by the BLS using a volatile survey like the "Household survey" is a horrible way to arrive at any discernible conclusion other than those 66K households they asked were doing better...This is manipulation as far as I can tell, but I am a layman in economics, you know, the average guy out there, but it smells to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?