By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 22 May 2012
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

To further the point earlier about the 1995 starting date.

In 1987 the Tax rate dropped. Unemployment dropped as well. 7.0 to 6.2.

1988, another tax drop. Another unemployment drop. 6.2 to 5.5

Tax increase in 1993. Unemployment? Increased of course. 6.8 to a 7.5... of the course of the years, this trend is more prevelent then the one he tried to show, though oddly didn't because his graphs didn't seem to get the numbers right.

 

Additionally his numbers don't take into account that the particpation rate INCREASED. 

Particiaption rate being the number of people that are in the economy and that have jobs.  Account for participation rate, and unemployment very well could have increased.

 

As an example.  We currently have an 8.1 unemployment rate.   We had an 8.1 Unemployment Rate when Obama was in office.  The participation rate however has dropped tons of people have given up on finding jobs.

 

If the participation rate was equal to what it was when he entered office it would be 11.1% unemployment.

Bush cuts taxes, private sector job creation flatlined last decade.  The cutting of taxes didn't lead to new jobs.  The bulk of job creation during last decade was due to government hiring.  If you can figure out how the heck cutting taxes leads to public sector job creation, and express it, that would be interesting to hear.

This article from Business Week, goes into it:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html

Job creation under Clinton was better, with higher tax rates.

The reallity is that the economy is an ecosystem.  If it gets unhealthy, by fallout from overleveraging, you can derail everything.  But, the part of saying it is an ecosystem isn't to just say that wealth needs to be spread around.  What is fundamental to the economy is goods and services get produced in order to justify money flowing somewhere.  It is also possible that money can flow in a manner that is counter-productive and leads to standards of living declining.

Thing is that productivity gains merely free up labor for other things.  It is important, and critical, that this labor find other things to do that are constructive.  But it isn't the job of business to do job creation, it is the job of business to make sure resources get allocated in society in the best possible manner, through a properly run market.  Anything else, really is the realm of other areas, including proper governance, and civic organizations to fill in the gaps and have people reevaluate their lives on what they are doing.  In this, government can play a role to help make things so.  What that role is, is subject to very LONG debates.

I didn't say those tax cuts created jobs.  I said his facts were wrong... which they were.

Jobs created by goverment hiring... further disproves his point.


Government jobs are a negative because they have to draw from the private economy to fund them and don't really create real value on their own.

 

Job Creation before was MOSTLY due to rich people... in the form of IPOS.  Ideas created by creators of all income groups.  Backed by the rich.  Which were killed by government regulation. 

Tax cuts are really pointless... a roll back on IP regulation is what would create jobs at this point.  Right now IPO legislation unfairly tips the markets to established big companies, who buy up any decent IPO unless it's TOO huge like facebook or GM or the owners specifically want an IPO rather then fast easy money.