Jobs

[RebLem]

I agree with those who say the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) report is not the last word on what is happening in the US economy with regard to employemnt. A liberal radio talk show host named Norman Goldman has turned me on to the fact that ADP, the payroll and business services company, which Mr. Goldman uses for his own business operations, also does a jobs report. Its report for September is extremely enlightening.

ADP says that in September, the US added not 114,000 jobs as the BLS says, but 162,000. We didn't, as BLS says, lose manufacturing jobs, but added 4,000. We added, they say, 144,000 jobs in the private or business services sector, and 18,000 in the goods-producing sector, 10,000 construction jobs, indicating confidence in the growth prospects of the country, and 7,000 in financial services.

Small businesses, those with less than 50 employees, added 81,000 jobs. Now here's something very interesting: Republicons have been going around the country saying many small employers are deathly afraid of going over 49 employees because that's where the Obamacare mandates kick in. ADP, however, says that businesses with 50-499 employees added 64,000 jobs. Then we come to what, I suspect, really bothers the Republicons. Big businesses, those with 500 or more employees, only added 17,000 jobs. Big business is, ever so slowly, ADP suggests, losing its iron grip on the American economy.

See for yourself @
http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/adp-research-institute/research-and-trends/ner-research-item-detail.aspx?id=F623B47A-BAEA-4FC8-875C-542699DB1CF8 

[Sammy]

I agree with those who say the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) report is not the last word on what is happening in the US economy with regard to employemnt. A liberal radio talk show host named Norman Goldman has turned me on to the fact that ADP, the payroll and business services company, which Mr. Goldman uses for his own business operations, also does a jobs report. Its report for September is extremely enlightening.

ADP says that in September, the US added not 114,000 jobs as the BLS says, but 162,000. We didn't, as BLS says, lose manufacturing jobs, but added 4,000. We added, they say, 144,000 jobs in the private or business services sector, and 18,000 in the goods-producing sector, 10,000 construction jobs, indicating confidence in the growth prospects of the country, and 7,000 in financial services.

Small businesses, those with less than 50 employees, added 81,000 jobs. Now here's something very interesting: Republicons have been going around the country saying many small employers are deathly afraid of going over 49 employees because that's where the Obamacare mandates kick in. ADP, however, says that businesses with 50-499 employees added 64,000 jobs. Then we come to what, I suspect, really bothers the Republicons. Big businesses, those with 500 or more employees, only added 17,000 jobs. Big business is, ever so slowly, ADP suggests, losing its iron grip on the American economy.

See for yourself @
http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/adp-research-institute/research-and-trends/ner-research-item-detail.aspx?id=F623B47A-BAEA-4FC8-875C-542699DB1CF8

Does this mean you're going to switch your vote from Romney to Gary Johnson?

[Gurn Blanston]

Does this mean you're going to switch your vote from Romney to Gary Johnson?

But still, we use ADP for our payroll too and get that jobs report. I don't know if long-range trends are going to continue on this upward path, but right now things are going quite nicely indeed at our small business.

FYI, RebLem, in the event you don't know this; the jobs report from the BLS is invariably revised to its final state within a couple of months after release. The summer months this year saw large revisions upward from the initial numbers. It is entirely likely that after that is finalized, the BLS and ADP numbers will look fr more the same.

[Coopmv]

But still, we use ADP for our payroll too and get that jobs report. I don't know if long-range trends are going to continue on this upward path, but right now things are going quite nicely indeed at our small business.

FYI, RebLem, in the event you don't know this; the jobs report from the BLS is invariably revised to its final state within a couple of months after release. The summer months this year saw large revisions upward from the initial numbers. It is entirely likely that after that is finalized, the BLS and ADP numbers will look fr more the same.

Exactly, one month data does not suggest a trend.  That Dodd-Frank Act must be in full compliance by mid January for all banks.  BankAmerica is in the midst of eliminating 30,000 jobs and other large banks are not far behind.  Many of these folks who will lose their jobs may NEVER find jobs that will pay them the same salary.  Lets face it, a person who works multiple part-time jobs is considered employed, even if he may be severely underemployed.  The bottomline: the quality of many of the jobs that are created is pretty crummy.  We will not find many people who are happy juggling multiple part-time jobs and I know a few people who are doing just that with zero benefits.   

[The new erato]

[Todd]

Big business is, ever so slowly, ADP suggests, losing its iron grip on the American economy.

Looks like some seriously wishful thinking.  Small businesses are great (I work for one now) but they don't deserve the devotion heaped upon them.  They pay less than big companies on average, they offer less generous benefits, and in contractionary periods they shed more jobs than big companies.  Rarely do advocates of small business mention this fact.  They also have little to no presence in especially capital intensive industries. 

As for the jobs number, sorry, but they are just weak, whether one chooses ADP or the BLS.  (I'll stick with the BLS here.)  For an idea of how weak, head to the Fed and see what it would take to reach "full employment."  Using the ADP numbers of 162,000 jobs a month, we are about 44 months away from 6% unemployment, and about 70 months away from 5% unemployment.  Looks pretty dismal to me.

[DavidW]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking that growth was quite weak.  Not sure why Reblem was all excited about it.

[drogulus]

     Growth is slow, and will stay slow. It wouldn't surprise me if it takes 10 years to full employment, so that would be 2018-19. What worries Repubs is that it isn't slow enough to elect Romney.

     Romney has a former boss advisor who actually wrote a book saying what Repubs really think, that it's good that the poor are highly taxed and the rich hardly at all. A 15% tax on the poor can be a crushing burden, while for the wealthy evading or deferring 15% is a sport, just another measure of natural superiority to those who can't avoid paying. What a bunch of losers the poor are!

     Like most (probably nearly all) Darwinists, I despise Social Darwinism, which says we ought to copy nature. Real Darwinism says no such thing. What can be inferred from culture is it has evolved towards outcomes unknown to nature before. Culture is nature in reverse, a new kind of nature that has "changed its mind". So we have progressive taxation, aid to the poor and sick, public education. Perhaps Romney is supernatural, and nature has flip-flopped!

     It turns out the author is a former Bain partner, not the boss of Mitt. If the book interests you, you can find it.

     

[Todd]

that it's good that the poor are highly taxed and the rich hardly at all.

You need to spend less time in fantasy land.  Here's what the CBO has to say about tax rates:

Between 1979 and 2007, the average tax rate for federal taxes combined declined for all income groups. The average individual income tax rate also declined over those years; the largest decrease occurred for the fifth of the population with the lowest income. (That decline in average tax rates is based on a comparison of rates for different income groups at different points in time but does not reflect the experience of particular households, which may move up or down the income scale over time.)

The share of taxes paid by the top fifth of the population grew sharply between 1979 and 2007. Almost all of that growth can be attributed to an increase in that group's share of before-tax income. In 2007, households in the highest quintile earned 55 percent of before-tax income and paid almost 70 percent of federal taxes; for all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the share of income.

[drogulus]

     I'm not that dumb, Todd. The rich have incomes that have grown more than their taxes. The poor have incomes that are flat or declining, and the taxes they pay are not progressive. My landlord pays little or no income tax, he's in his 80's and property taxes and other poor taxes are flat in the Repub-approved manner. Property taxes go down as a percentage of income as you go up the scale, as do sales taxes. Payroll taxes have been cut, but remember there's an income cap. The richer you are, the less you pay by percentage. Everyone got the cut, but only the rich get the cap.

[Todd]

The rich have incomes that have grown more than their taxes.

The share of "federal taxes combined" rose for the top quintile.  That includes income tax and federal payroll taxes.  It fell for everyone else.  For the lowest quintile, the effective overall federal tax rate is negative.  Facts are facts.

As for property taxes, sales taxes, etc, those are largely up to state and local jurisdictions.  In general, higher income people tend to own more valuable property and thus pay more in taxes.  It may or may not be a higher overall burden.  Do you actually have anything beyond anecdotal evidence here?  I don't care about your landlord; I'm more interested in the average property tax burden based on income across various states.  Sales taxes are indeed regressive, as are excise taxes (which are assessed at state and federal levels); they do hit lower income people harder.  Perhaps well intentioned "liberals"/"progressives"/lefties could come up with some way to pay rebates to the poor for paying these taxes at the state and local level? 

The fact is that the overall US tax system is slightly progressive, even taking into account the "inequities" you cite.  You want it to be more so, fine.  Don't try to make up stories that it isn't progressive now.

[Scarpia]

Exactly, one month data does not suggest a trend.  That Dodd-Frank Act must be in full compliance by mid January for all banks.  BankAmerica is in the midst of eliminating 30,000 jobs and other large banks are not far behind.  Many of these folks who will lose their jobs may NEVER find jobs that will pay them the same salary.  Lets face it, a person who works multiple part-time jobs is considered employed, even if he may be severely underemployed.  The bottomline: the quality of many of the jobs that are created is pretty crummy.  We will not find many people who are happy juggling multiple part-time jobs and I know a few people who are doing just that with zero benefits.

Generally agree that to take the improved unemployment rate as good news is to ignore the fact that much of the improvement comes from people giving up looking for jobs or accepting part time/poverty level jobs to replace lost middle-class jobs.  But to assume that cutting tax rates and reducing regulation will fix the US economy/jobs market strikes me as even more naive than thinking that the stimulous or 'green jobs' would rescue the US economy/jobs market. 

[snyprrr]

      It wouldn't surprise me if it takes 10 years to full employment, so that would be 2018-19.

Right about the time GovCorp merges with SkyNet. BRILLIANT!

[Scarpia]

The share of "federal taxes combined" rose for the top quintile.  That includes income tax and federal payroll taxes.  It fell for everyone else.  For the lowest quintile, the effective overall federal tax rate is negative.  Facts are facts.

The fact that discussions of economics degenerate into statements like this, which are evasive and so vague that they are "not even wrong" makes it all useless. 

"The share of 'federal taxes combined' rose for the top quintile."  That doesn't address the claim that you imply it contradicts.   The claim was that the incomes of the wealthy rose faster than their taxes.  The statement that the share of taxes paid by the wealthy rose as a fraction of taxes collected does not exclude the possibility that the income of the top quintile rose so fast that the taxes paid by the top quintile increased even though the rate they pay went down.

[Brian]

I got a job this month.

[Todd]

The fact that discussions of economics degenerate into statements like this, which are evasive and so vague that they are "not even wrong" makes it all useless.

I'm not quite sure how I'm trying to be evasive.  Let's take a look at the very first sentence from the CBO that I posted, shall we: Between 1979 and 2007, the average tax rate for federal taxes combined declined for all income groups.  That's pretty clear.  Indeed, I thought the CBO statement was pretty darned clear: average tax rates fell for all groups, but the proportion of total federal taxes paid by the top quintile went up, "sharply", to use the CBO's terms.  That means that the average tax rates for the bottom four quintiles fell at a greater rate than for the top quintile.  And as the CBO states, the reason the top quintile's tax burden rose is because their income rose. 

What was your point?

[Scarpia]

To be honest, reviewing this thread I can't find a statement on either side that proves anything.  I've learned my lesson that it is best to stay out of the Diner altogether.

[Todd]

To be honest, reviewing this thread I can't find a statement on either side that proves anything.  I've learned my lesson that it is best to stay out of the Diner altogether.

So you had no point?

[Scarpia]

So you had no point?

None that I care to make here.

[ibanezmonster]

All tax proceeds shall go to Ubloobideega to fund research into building a Universe Destruction Device (UDD). Once Ubloobideega uses this to destroy the universe, the problems of all debates on taxes shall be solved.