9.8%

• QuakerOats

  The administrative dictatorship of the socialists/marxists in power continues to fail miserably, with the possible exception of achieving their goal of eternal dependancy on the state.
  
  Change we can believe in............................
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'm not surprised. This is going to be a long haul. Things are not going to get worse, just hover around 9.5-10% for a little while. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B14SW20101203
• I Wear Pants

  So when it goes up these numbers mean something but when it goes down the numbers are flawed. I see how it works.
• I Wear Pants

  They didn't. I just remember hearing tons of arguments about how the numbers aren't reliable because people don't report and stuff like that. It's funny that you then go and say "Holy Jesus! The number went up!". All I was getting at.
  
  This isn't a good sign but it isn't a harbigner of death either.
  
  I don't know exactly how the number is calculated but if it has to do with who is actively looking for a job, doesn't it make sense that around the holidays and with cold weather starting that people are looking a little bit more seriously for a job?
  
  That's why I'm not surprised by this. It isn't good, but it makes sense.
• QuakerOats

  The calculation is secondary; there are a couple tens of millions looking for work and we just added about 39,000 last month --- BFD.
  
  The issue is, the radicals in charge HAVE NO CLUE as to how jobs are created ........ they have never done it in the private sector. Their experience is in such wondrous backgrounds as 'advocating', 'activism', and 'agitating'.
  
  They continue to either legislatively or administratively RAM through just about every anti-job, anti-investment, anti-capitalism policy initiative they can dream up.
  
  IT IS A NATIONAL TRAGEDY OF UNPARALELLED PROPORTION. WAKE UP!
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Talk to any serious economist and they say the unemployment rate is going to hover or minority improve over the next year or so. I'm not surprised. We are in a period of stagnation that will continue for a few years. We won't gain back the jobs we lost from 2006 till at least 2013-2014.
  
  Besides, the rate is lagging indicator, not a predictor.
• BoatShoes

  That is not an exciting number but you would think by the way Conservatives act that that number will go down to 4% by keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35% after Dec. 31st.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;586187 wrote:That is not an exciting number but you would think by the way Conservatives act that that number will go down to 4% by keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35% after Dec. 31st.

  
  We know for a near certainty that failure to do so will have an upward pressure on it. That there may or may not be forces pushing from the other direction doesn't change this.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;586184 wrote:Talk to any serious economist and they say the unemployment rate is going to hover or minority improve over the next year or so. I'm not surprised. We are in a period of stagnation that will continue for a few years. We won't gain back the jobs we lost from 2006 till at least 2013-2014.
  
  Besides, the rate is lacking indicator, not a predictor.

  
  Correct about the indicator/predictor. It's like the 4th quarter scoreboard that tells you how your gameplan worked out in the first half.
  
  Regarding the hovering for the next 3 or 4 years: Is this something we should just sit back and say...oh well, there's nothing we can do about it? Are we doomed to this many unemployed? There is much that can be done to spur growth, but Obama is not about growth, he's about re-distribution and social justice. Growth occurs when government gets out of the way, not making more laws/regulations/roadblocks, which are tenets of the Obama administration.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;586216 wrote:Correct about the indicator/predictor. It's like the 4th quarter scoreboard that tells you how your gameplan worked out in the first half.
  
  Regarding the hovering for the next 3 or 4 years: Is this something we should just sit back and say...oh well, there's nothing we can do about it? Are we doomed to this many unemployed? There is much that can be done to spur growth, but Obama is not about growth, he's about re-distribution and social justice. Growth occurs when government gets out of the way, not making more laws/regulations/roadblocks, which are tenets of the Obama administration.

  We can foster innovation, (a government action-less taxes, subsidies, etc) but I'm not sure how we can do that, or if anyone has an actual plan to present.
  
  I also would say, like many on here, the economy runs in cycles, and that if we let the markets rebound, in time they will uptick. It is just the downturn was so heavy, it will take time to raise back up.
  
  So, to answer, yes, in a sense we sit back, invest in innovation somehow, and let the markets grow. That will slwoly lead to jobs, in new sectors, to emerge.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "We can foster innovation, (a government action-less taxes, subsidies, etc)"
  
  I can add to the etc. Less government regulation of new businesses, and that includes loosening antiquated labor laws). It is damn near impossible to get a business of the ground with the usual regulations coupled with tax/health care uncertainty, and the private capital markets are cognizant of this fact. And its even more difficult getting a start-up to employ the labor it requires.
  
  We're in the process of selling our home and are trying to "spiff it up" a bit putting $50-75,000 in to get it market-worthy. We've interviewed at least two dozen contractors in various fields and none of them have started their business before 1990. How weird is that?
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;586187 wrote:That is not an exciting number but you would think by the way Conservatives act that that number will go down to 4% by keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35% after Dec. 31st.

  
  You mean the way the Prez acted when he said that # wouldn't go below 8% if we passed the $800 Billion stimulus?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  jhay78;586307 wrote:You mean the way the Prez acted when he said that # wouldn't go below 8% if we passed the $800 Billion stimulus?

  
  A somewhat cheap, yet fair shot. I can understand the administration claiming that they couldn't stop the UE increase in first 2 quarters '09, but in November '10 there is no argument as to how it continues to rise.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;586211 wrote:We know for a near certainty that failure to do so will have an upward pressure on it. That there may or may not be forces pushing from the other direction doesn't change this.

  
  Look, I've stated before that I think that tax rates of the bush era should be extended for everyone at the very least until we've moved beyond the recession and things pick up a bit. But, I don't think that's true that it will have much "upward pressure." Less than 2% of small businesses would be affected by an increase in the top marginal rate from 35% to 39.6% for individuals; Surely doesn't help things IMO, but it really wouldn't be the end of the world. And, it's not going to increase demand as much as extending unemployment benefits or personal debt bailouts or stimulus checks for lower income brackets for instance and that's straight out of Milton Friedman.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;586312 wrote:A somewhat cheap, yet fair shot. I can understand the administration claiming that they couldn't stop the UE increase in first 2 quarters '09, but in November '10 there is no argument as to how it continues to rise.

  
  Well, Paul Krugman for instance would say that's because the stimulus wasn't large enough. But, I imagine most around here don't care much for his hard line liberalism even if he is respected in his field.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;586343 wrote:Well, Paul Krugman for instance would say that's because the stimulus wasn't large enough. But, I imagine most around here don't care much for his hard line liberalism even if he is respected in his field.

  
  Paul Krugman is a hypocrite. He argued the exact OPPOSITE when W was Prez. He changes his stance based on politics. He's a Democrat shill and has sullied any "respect" he may have gained in the economics academic world.
  
  He's a charlatan. A well paid charlatan with a Nobel Prize and a column in the NYT but a charlatan nonetheless. He's pissed away any relevance he once had.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;586187 wrote:That is not an exciting number but you would think by the way Conservatives act that that number will go down to 4% by keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35% after Dec. 31st.

  
  Find me a conservative who has said this or believes it and at that point discuss, until then give me a break.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;586345 wrote:Paul Krugman is a hypocrite. He argued the exact OPPOSITE when W was Prez. He changes his stance based on politics. He's a Democrat shill and has sullied any "respect" he may have gained in the economics academic world.
  
  He's a charlatan. A well paid charlatan with a Nobel Prize and a column in the NYT but a charlatan nonetheless. He's pissed away any relevance he once had.

  
  I tend to agree
• BoatShoes

  jmog;586362 wrote:Find me a conservative who has said this or believes it and at that point discuss, until then give me a break.

  
  I'm being a bit facetious but just turn on the news and listen to Mitch McConnell mumble about the top bracket. Or, just read the posts of the hard line guys on here. You know who they all are.
• gut

  I believe France's unemployment has historically hovered around 10%. Two large factors in that which are kind of self-sustaining: 1) generous sociial/welfare programs remove incentive to work 2) high taxes to support those social/welfare programs chokes off growth and the creation of new jobs.
  
  As for the unemployment indicator, it can in fact arbitrarily go down if you understand how it is calculated. It is based on the number of people receiving unemployment. When people stop looking or exhaust their benefits, they no longer receive unemployment and are not included in the calculation. The calculation is also flawed in that it doesn't differentiate between people underemployed or who have had hours/wages cut. When this measure goes up it normally indicates newly unemployed who begin receiving benefits.
  
  I think the days of 4-5% unemployment (which is actually considered "full" employment) are gone for a while. Something else people should consider is many more women work today than 30-40 years ago, which makes the labor force much larger, along with people working longer before retirement.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;586436 wrote:I'm being a bit facetious but just turn on the news and listen to Mitch McConnell mumble about the top bracket. Or, just read the posts of the hard line guys on here. You know who they all are.

  
  If the leaders really wanted to stimulate the economy for growth, they'd be talking about dropping all rates maybe by as much as 10% and eliminating Capital Gains taxes for 2 years. That would do it, but then it flies in the face of their dogma. So then we're stuck with 9 to 10% unemployment for 3 or 4 years, stagnation, rising inflation due to the dollars crumbling, and more victims to be paraded in front of Congress for the foreseeable future. Happy happy joy joy.
• gut

  BGFalcons82;586457 wrote:If the leaders really wanted to stimulate the economy for growth, they'd be talking about dropping all rates maybe by as much as 10% and eliminating Capital Gains taxes for 2 years.

  
  
  There's an interesting idea. Reduce corporate taxes, which improves the health of corporations and maybe encourages them to hire more. It creates an environment that promotes growth. You offset those losses by hiking capital gains taxes. Done correctly it's revenue neutral and perhaps the shareholders are even neutral as their higher taxes are offset by higher returns. But what you've done is to lower taxes on productivity, which is usually a good thing. Everyone wins if the pie gets bigger.
• BoatShoes

  gut;586480 wrote: Reduce corporate taxes, which improves the health of corporations and maybe encourages them to hire more. It creates an environment that promotes growth. You offset those losses by hiking capital gains taxes. Done correctly it's revenue neutral and perhaps the shareholders are even neutral as their higher taxes are offset by higher returns. But what you've done is to lower taxes on productivity, which is usually a good thing. Everyone wins if the pie gets bigger.

  
  This is an idea I agree with. It seems to me that a low capital gains rate and low qualified dividend rates relative to a high corporate tax rate encourages divestment rather than investment. People could keep their earnings and profits within their corporate shell in order to have a lower tax burden. That money in turn can be used for productive activity rather than divested and transferred to an emerging market for example. Evil Socialist countries like Germany, the world's largest exporter, despite having high individual rates have lower corporate rates relative to them.
• revgat

  I think I recently read somewhere that China recently passed Germany as the World's largest exporter, but that is probably do to their currency devaluation.
  
  I realize that government spending isn't what most people want right now, but I read this article a month ago. I think infrastructure projects like these are what we should be investing in right now. It would stimulate the economy, and improve our infrastructure.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=corrosion%20herbert&st=cse
• believer

  

  revgat;586525 wrote:I realize that government spending isn't what most people want right now, but I read this article a month ago. I think infrastructure projects like these are what we should be investing in right now. It would stimulate the economy, and improve our infrastructure.

  You mean like the "shovel-ready" infrastructure improvements that Obama claimed would keep unemployment from rising above 8% when he, Pelosi, and Reid ramrodded his bogus $875 BILLION Porkulus Sammich through the Dem-controlled Congress a couple of years ago?
  
  That worked out nicely.