Reality check I still hear sucking sound jobs leaving Rochester ny as 400000 people retire replace with temp jobs 230000
The gross inequality in incomes and wealth that has grown since Ronald Reagan became president is largely responsible for slow growth. Trickle down economics does not work -- except for the wealthy. The rich get richer -- and they have more money to control politics and policy to make them even more wealthy -- and gives the rest of us no benefit from the economic "recovery." Virtually all of the economic gain, in terms of income, has gone to the top 1 percent since 2010. Check the numbers -- this is accurate.
Consumers are the real job creators in our economy and they have been crippled by the effects of tax cuts for the wealthy (who don't spend as much of their income as low and middle income people do) and billions upon billions of dollars of wasteful defense spending and corporate welfare (crop subsidies, goodies for oil companies, etc.).
Consumers are the real job creators in our economy and they have been crippled by the effects of tax cuts for the wealthy (who don't spend as much of their income as low and middle income people do) and billions upon billions of dollars of wasteful defense spending and corporate welfare (crop subsidies, goodies for oil companies, etc.).
1
Read the article. The only reason there is a "good employment level" is because of the millions of people who have given up looking for a job.
1
The "rebound" be revised downward in a few months as has every supposed good piece of economic news under our current President. The propaganda machine continues.
For an average citizen this growth will pass almost unnoticeable, but democrats must be doing their best to improve the situation, at least if we compare it to the previous period.
Both too slow and too fast are not good for the economy and for average consumers. We have a good employment level now, modest inflation, and modest growth. If the economy ever begins roaring ahead, above 4% growth, we will look back on this period of time as a Goldilocks period, where the porridge was neither too cold, nor too hot. Enjoy your economic porridge, at least if you have a good job, at any rate. Capitalism tends to go through boom and bust cycles, and this one is neither, so it's good. Okay, well, Silicon Valley is in a bubble now, but just ignore them if you can.
2
A growing economy? Where? The economy is stagnant. Manufacturing is shrinking. Research and development of new technology is non-existent. Muti-national companies are looking for more ways to export work, services, technology, and intellectual property. Steel manufacturing, once the backbone of American industry is filing complaints for relief against dumping by China, India, and South Korea. Why must they do that? We know the other guys are cheating. More and more Americans are laid off daily. College graduates cannot find full time employment. Seniors who once depended upon CDs and money market funds are almost bankrupt due to low interest rates. Housing starts are lagging. Mortgages are impossible to buy. Even Ford is looking to move some manufacturing to Mexico. A growing economy? Not in America. We no longer can build a TV here. Or a radio. Or weave textiles. Or make shoes. We don't even make shoe laces! How about another free trade agreement to assure the growth of the economy? This is nothing but a big lie. It is outrageous and disgusting. To grow the economy we must have jobs. Jobs here in the United States. Let's layoff half of the government employees. Start with the Senate the Congress. And Mr. Obama should be awakened from his reverie. This economy and it's growth is a fantasy.
4
Further proof that the central, political control of an economy and so-called Keynesian economics DO NOT work. And the LiberalProgressiveDemocrat administration continues to borrow from China, spend for reelection and demand highe taxes. Same old, same old and the crippling of business and prosperity continues.
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Part of the reason the economy is limping along is that the consumer is trying to pay off the credit card debt. Those who paid of the credit card debt is careful in charging again, because they do not want fall back into the hole. In addition, the baby boomers are not so excited about the gadgets, new cars or houses. Adding to all these, people are slow to acquire new skills that pays well. These are manipulating themselves into low wages and thus further reduced the purchasing power of the consumer. Unless they come out of this vicious cycle, the interest rate increase will further cripple the economy.
1
Maybe those who put these reports together, and the Fed, should get out of their limos and take a trip to the local grocery store. And see how consumers are being stung by high prices. And while they are at it, they should be given raises of 2% or less, which is now the norm in the private sector. Finally, they should try to rent a place and find out that there is very little left to buy anything else.
Salaries have not been keeping pace with what they see is near zero percent inflation. In actuality it is significantly higher. My weekly trip to buy groceries is getting more and more painful, in recent months. I am lucky I do not rent, else my rent would have gone up 5% - 15% this year.
News to the federal government; the economy isn't growing, at a higher rate, because people are trying survive on less and less. That's what happens when a nation's economy is driven by consumer spending, and continue to import cheap labor or export labor.
Salaries have not been keeping pace with what they see is near zero percent inflation. In actuality it is significantly higher. My weekly trip to buy groceries is getting more and more painful, in recent months. I am lucky I do not rent, else my rent would have gone up 5% - 15% this year.
News to the federal government; the economy isn't growing, at a higher rate, because people are trying survive on less and less. That's what happens when a nation's economy is driven by consumer spending, and continue to import cheap labor or export labor.
6
Eat less meat. Cook from scratch. Buy what's in season, and only what's in season. You're welcome!
Right where it should be.
With population growth below 1%/year (0.8% last year) and productivity growth between 1 and 2%, the economy is stuck in a 1.8%-2.8% annual growth band.
And 2.3% just so happens to be the exact midpoint of that band.
If you want the economy to grow faster, there are only two options:
1 - Promote faster population growth - babies and immigration
2 - Massive public and private investment in productivity.
I see neither in the cards. So be happy with the 2.3% and move along.
With population growth below 1%/year (0.8% last year) and productivity growth between 1 and 2%, the economy is stuck in a 1.8%-2.8% annual growth band.
And 2.3% just so happens to be the exact midpoint of that band.
If you want the economy to grow faster, there are only two options:
1 - Promote faster population growth - babies and immigration
2 - Massive public and private investment in productivity.
I see neither in the cards. So be happy with the 2.3% and move along.
1
The other thing that could enhance growth would be debt, but we already played that hand from the early 1980s through 2007.
The rather disappointing recent reports for GDP growth by the US economy are partly attributed to deleveraging, or "debt reduction primarily by households and banks," in this article. An article from The NY Times of Sunday, July 26, 2015, entitled: "Twilight of a Trading Hub," elaborates on the economic consequences of this deleveraging. To better grasp the accounting basics of these articles, consider the fundamental accounting equation. It simply states: [Assets = Debt + Stockholders' Equity (SE)]. In discussing this deleveraging by banks, this Sun. Times article states: the Basel III rules have been employed by the Fed to "require banks to hold capital as a buffer against trading losses." These rules are illustrated as follows: "A bank trading $100 billion of corporate bonds, for example, now needs to hold around $10 billion of capital, in comparison with the $3 billion to $5 billion it would have needed before the crisis." Now, plug this $3 billion capital need into this equation: [Assets: +$100b = Debt: +97b + SE: + $3b]; and compare it to the Basel III rules: [Assets: +$100b = Debt: +$90b + SE: +$10b]. To cover this investment, the bank will probably need to "raise more money from shareholders or put aside more of its profits, with all the costs that entails." With less bank money in play, this factor has aided declines in the economic milieu for some trading centers, such as Stamford, as per the 7/26 article, and negatively impacted GDP as noted, too. [7/30 1:31p]
1
Just so everybody knows, you can't compare GDP growth from yesteryear to today's growth. From 1949 to 2012 annual GDP growth averaged 3.3% (4.3% under Democratic administrations and 2.5% under Republican administrations). Going forward, the CBO predicts annual GDP growth of 2.2% over the next 25 years. Why the difference? Demographics. Population growth is slower, women are no longer joining the work force in huge numbers, and baby boomers are leaving the work force in large numbers.
2
Why all the game playing with percentages (the one-size fits all liar's tool) to try to fool the public that robust economic growth has set in when in fact it likely that any upward activity is largely influenced by war profiteering at NATO's heels and Wall Street tap dancing with Silicon Valley.
We have millions who have given up looking for jobs in this "robust" economy and shuffling percentages to indicate that we are back on the track to a healthy economy is just another way of lifting the media rug and sweeping the facts under the rug.
We have millions who have given up looking for jobs in this "robust" economy and shuffling percentages to indicate that we are back on the track to a healthy economy is just another way of lifting the media rug and sweeping the facts under the rug.
4
"We have millions who have given up looking for jobs..."
Nah. We do have a real problem with inequality, but the percentage of people counted by the BLS as "not in the labor force, want a job now" is actually LOWER than it was at comparable points following the milder recessions of 1981-82 and 1990-91. GDP growth is a function of productivity growth plus population growth. 2.3% is about what we should expect unless productivity growth exceeds 1.5% or unless people start racking up lots of debt like they did from 1980 to 2007.
Nah. We do have a real problem with inequality, but the percentage of people counted by the BLS as "not in the labor force, want a job now" is actually LOWER than it was at comparable points following the milder recessions of 1981-82 and 1990-91. GDP growth is a function of productivity growth plus population growth. 2.3% is about what we should expect unless productivity growth exceeds 1.5% or unless people start racking up lots of debt like they did from 1980 to 2007.
As long as "growth" is mistaken for "greed," because greed is the concept that conservative regressives can't wrap their willfully-ignorant minds around, and used as a code word for short term GREED, this quarterly/yearly discussion will continue to mean nothing to the majority of the USA.
Somewhere during the last 50 years, growth; long term, sensible growth was replaced by short-term, "take all you can get NOW while it's available" greed. Doesn't seem like that's going to change any time soon.
Somewhere during the last 50 years, growth; long term, sensible growth was replaced by short-term, "take all you can get NOW while it's available" greed. Doesn't seem like that's going to change any time soon.
5
Much like the sequester stupidity of 2011-12 the Republican warfare on the transportation bill will lower economic activity and cost jobs. Their attempts to hold the economy hostage to their screwed up libertarian view of governance will eventually cause permanent damage to the US economy.
4
Nine of the ten states with the lowest quality of life, as measured by the OECD, are red states while nine of the ten states with the highest quality of life are blue states. The damage to GOP-dominated areas may not be permanent, but it's likely to be long-lasting.
1
Obama can walk around and brag, meanwhile working an middle class are still suffering & struggling.
4
So you would rather have the Bush2 economy then?
12
No. I'd rather have Obama do his job. He has tried to cut S. Security several times.
Working and middle class people did it to themselves when they elected Republican presidents. Since Obama took office, the pace of private sector job creation has been 15 times as fast as it was under the last two Republican administrations. I haven't seen Obama spike the football over this. Perhaps he should.
4
Of all the entertaining blow-by-blow coverage of the Greece temper tantrum, it's mostly just a side-show, deep down everyone knows that Greece will relent and Germany will forgive, and euro will continue its feet dragging. Nothing much is new. More of a worry is really China, its being the second largest economy in the world now, even just a moderating slowdown in growth can drag the whole region, if not the profit outlook of international companies that have come to rely on China as the main source of growth in their bottomline. Just ask Apple.
One can be sure that, with the slowdown in China and the excessive inventory from its huge manufacturing machines, it's going to hold down our inflation. Stockmarket is not doing the "irrational exuberance" thing, and while selected property markets like NY and SF are heating up like crazy, the rest of the country is only getting back on track. Salary and wages are going nowhere, unlike the late 1990s. If anything, Yellen is an envious position to hold off rate hike for a tadbit longer to allow the economy to build up some more. It's July already, and the Fed can afford to wait for a bigger rate hike in 2016, rather than tiny snip of multiple small rate hikes starting late 2015. Either way, the markets have fully factored this in, it's more just for decorative purpose.
One can be sure that, with the slowdown in China and the excessive inventory from its huge manufacturing machines, it's going to hold down our inflation. Stockmarket is not doing the "irrational exuberance" thing, and while selected property markets like NY and SF are heating up like crazy, the rest of the country is only getting back on track. Salary and wages are going nowhere, unlike the late 1990s. If anything, Yellen is an envious position to hold off rate hike for a tadbit longer to allow the economy to build up some more. It's July already, and the Fed can afford to wait for a bigger rate hike in 2016, rather than tiny snip of multiple small rate hikes starting late 2015. Either way, the markets have fully factored this in, it's more just for decorative purpose.
3
If only all that new income and corporate profits were taxed at the historic average, the government would have a surplus in the current account, and could start paying down the debt. And pay back the Social Security trust fund.
Instead, we have corporate profits hidden overseas, and new income at special rates for the swells. Tax all income at the same rates, and junk the special treatment of carried interest, micro-term capital gains, and phase out the tax expenditures.
Bernie, are you listening? The groundswell of public support is growing.
Instead, we have corporate profits hidden overseas, and new income at special rates for the swells. Tax all income at the same rates, and junk the special treatment of carried interest, micro-term capital gains, and phase out the tax expenditures.
Bernie, are you listening? The groundswell of public support is growing.
10
The recovery from the 2009 depression has been abysmal because the GOP in Congress has a vendetta against Obama in general and had a misplaced fear of the National debt (yet still refuses to raise taxes to pay for the Government that we have). We, in the United States, live in the greatest economic engine ever to be created on the face of the earth, and yet we have GOP Congressmen running about claiming will are going to fail and leave a broken economy for our children's children. Their beliefs are consistent with the brown substance that comes from the aft end of a bull. Their beliefs have handicapped the working poor and the middle class, trapping most into stagnant wages which result in ever decreasing standards of living. Their beliefs have left the United States with an infrastructure which is not up to the standards of the infrastructure of some developing countries. Their beliefs and actions have resulted in the squandering of opportunity to grow our economy, of raising the poor and middle class, and insuring our future economic well being. Time has come to change all of this; to rid our Government of Congressmen who have the vision and resolve consistent with the substance ejected from the aft end of a chicken. Time for real investment in infrastructure, education, and civil institutions. Write your Congressman and tell them you want new roads, better water and sewage treatment facilities, better mass transit. Tell them you want the United States to be great.
18
There were 2 tax increases under Obama. The capital gains taxes were increased. And the PPACA raised taxes as well.
2
Sure profits are up. J However, with the loopholes and congress protection the money is sequestered to a few. Trillions in corporate profits but low revenue due to loopholes. Lower wages and benefits due to corporations tricks. No, the figures are good for a few but mean nothing for many.
5
The big news in the article was buried:
"In annual revisions that were also part of the report on Thursday, government statisticians revised their view of economic growth for the last several years, underscoring just how disappointing growth has been for much of the period. The initial estimate of 2.3 percent growth for 2011 through 2014 was lowered to 2 percent, a level generally believed to be too weak to cause wages to rise significantly for most workers."
Talk to me when the new numbers are not revised downward.
"In annual revisions that were also part of the report on Thursday, government statisticians revised their view of economic growth for the last several years, underscoring just how disappointing growth has been for much of the period. The initial estimate of 2.3 percent growth for 2011 through 2014 was lowered to 2 percent, a level generally believed to be too weak to cause wages to rise significantly for most workers."
Talk to me when the new numbers are not revised downward.
4
Who remembers President Obama signing the executive order creating the bipartisan "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" better known as the Simpson Bowles Commission? After signing the EO creating the Commission, President Obama could just could not live with its findings. None of Obama policies allowed the American economy to grow, but our debt grew significantly. In fact, it doubled during the Obama presidency. Higher interest rates will only make it harder to service the debt.
Our economy only looks good because the global economy is so weak, but in the words of Erskine Bowles (in 2010) we are "The cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry basket.
Our economy only looks good because the global economy is so weak, but in the words of Erskine Bowles (in 2010) we are "The cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry basket.
2
Who remembers that the Simpson Bowles commission did not issue a report or any formal findings, because they did not have the required votes to do so. Simpson and Bowles got together and issued their personal opinions, but there was never a formal report voted out of the commision or reported to Congress.
Commissions make only recommendations. Maybe you wish it were otherwise?
Economic 'growth' does not mean things are better for most people. 95% of all profits made in the 'recovery' since the 2008 collapse have gone to the top 1%. In such an environment, ‘growth’, ‘consumer spending’, and such mean very little to the average person. ‘The economy’ being measured here is that of the rich. Too, the unemployment claims figure represents only the tip of the iceberg of unemployment and underemployment. And even a gain in the number of jobs doesn’t mean much where those jobs pay a poverty wage, offer miniscule opportunity for advancement, have no security and offer little-to-no benefits - - things that are characteristic of a progressively greater proportion of jobs as time goes on. The article’s ‘measures’ of ‘how well the economy is doing’ are disjointed from the reality of most people's lives.
28
0 interest rates for 7 years, Deficits > 3% of GDP for 7 years, energy boom, tech boom and the economy is still not growing close to long term trend. After 7 years of the Obama administration, it is time for liberals to stop blaming George Bush, Paul Ryan etc and concede that socialism does not work
7
Socialism?
This isn't socialism. Oh, and BTW, The house that GW Cheney & Company LLC destroyed will take longer to rebuild than it took to destroy.
This isn't socialism. Oh, and BTW, The house that GW Cheney & Company LLC destroyed will take longer to rebuild than it took to destroy.
18
Its not socialism old buddy its the corrupt Capitalism that is at work. A buying of the government, changing laws so you are now "legal" to hide and steal money. Reducing living wages, passing on health care and retirement to the government. No, its capitalism at its best.
9
Sorry 'buddy,' socialism equals corrupt capitalism and that is exactly what Obama has brought us
2
Slow and steady wins the race, and makes me berry, berry happy. If the indexes could gain 20 points every day, or even every week, we would all be better off.
4
We need 4% GDP growth to keep the debt from exploding. We haven't had that in a long time.
2
I still see the lack of realization in this country that we have entered into the economy of less working-age population in addition to the impact from deleverage for the balance sheet adjustment after the bubble collapses, one dot-com bubble and the other housing bubble. Slow growth of economy is normal as our economic policy is handled by 4th best politicians with 3rd best economic advisors. US, Japan, Spain and Ireland all experienced bubbles of household assets, stocks and homes, before the ratio of working-age population to the total population peaked out. China is experiencing bubbles before they become a developed country. China is facing this ratio peaking out right now.
Therefore, Fed should be very careful about the rate-hike. I don't see the reason why they have to raise interest rate even though their staff foresee inflation rate to reach Fed's target 2% level in 5 years.
Therefore, Fed should be very careful about the rate-hike. I don't see the reason why they have to raise interest rate even though their staff foresee inflation rate to reach Fed's target 2% level in 5 years.
1
I object to your remark that American politicians are "4th best." The United States has the most skilled politicians in the world, they just aren't good leaders.
The other headline that The Times isn't reporting, 6500 jobs being lost at Shell. Economy regaining its footing? I think not.
The annual rate is far lower than Obama's economists expected and I love to look back at 2010 when Biden famously said that the US will be creating 500,000 jobs a month. Even Jon Stewart can't write a joke that funny!
The annual rate is far lower than Obama's economists expected and I love to look back at 2010 when Biden famously said that the US will be creating 500,000 jobs a month. Even Jon Stewart can't write a joke that funny!
5
Shell is the economy? Ha ha ha - that's the best joke yet! Post again soon - I could use a few more laughs.
I'm guessing YOU wouldn't laugh if you were one of the 6500 losing a job. ANY corporation who has to let go that many people IS the economy. Who has the last laugh now?
Just this week I attended a job fair featuring Equifax at Roswell United Methodist Church in Roswell, GA. The HR reps from Equifax were clearly overwhelmed by the number of people there, most of them middle aged job seekers desperate for work. So until the unemployed, middle aged job seekers can find jobs, there really is not a recovery.
7
Really?
Could it be that their jobs have moved overseas, by companies that could pay their wages, but sought to make more by outsourcing they? And that these people vote for republicans that encourage these practices of outsourcing so owners make more and workers get LESS???
Could it be that their jobs have moved overseas, by companies that could pay their wages, but sought to make more by outsourcing they? And that these people vote for republicans that encourage these practices of outsourcing so owners make more and workers get LESS???
2
You mean those free-trade Republicans like Clinton (NAFTA) and Obama (TPP)?
My dad taught me years ago, that one of the biggest problems we face with our economy is politicians who want a lot of growth so the economy will improve fast enough for them to get reelected, when what we really need is slow and steady growth over a long period of time.
What has 4% growth gotten you in the past" a great economy so everyone has a job and then a recession where fewer people have jobs and it's harder to make money and therefore we pay less in income tax, so the government runs a deficit. What we need is slow and steady growth that lasts a long time.
The government, I think has the same problem investors have. Where the government relies on tax dollars which fluctuate a great deal with the economy, Investors ride the stock market up and down and barely recover from one recession before it's time to head into the next one.
What has 4% growth gotten you in the past" a great economy so everyone has a job and then a recession where fewer people have jobs and it's harder to make money and therefore we pay less in income tax, so the government runs a deficit. What we need is slow and steady growth that lasts a long time.
The government, I think has the same problem investors have. Where the government relies on tax dollars which fluctuate a great deal with the economy, Investors ride the stock market up and down and barely recover from one recession before it's time to head into the next one.
2
It's called GREED. It's not growth, it's GREED. Short term GREED that drives our economy. An economy where the rich make less and everyone else makes more is better than the boom and bust scenarios of the last 75 years. Slow growth will always take a back seat to fast greed.
1
GDP growth is only part of the picture of whole economy.
How is this growth being distributed also matter a lot.
I guess 90% is going to 10% and the rest are scrambling
for the crumbs-10%. For these 90% growth rate
high or low don't really matter.
How is this growth being distributed also matter a lot.
I guess 90% is going to 10% and the rest are scrambling
for the crumbs-10%. For these 90% growth rate
high or low don't really matter.
2
The economy is regaining its footing, what balderdash...this is like saying the economy has surfaced briefly for a gulp of air after a shark attack that has been going on for the last 6 years. During the last 6 years the GDP has rarely been above 2 percent, compared to a historical average of 3-4 percent and recovering GDPs of 4-6 percent. The writers of the article are perpetrating more liberal economic spin. I doubt they ever even took econ 101 at some ivy league school if they ever even went to school ha ha...
Stupid is as stupid does has been obamas economic policy for last 6 years.
hilarious Hilary offers nothing better in her latest blah blah speech on raising taxes which wont achieve anything significant in improving the GDP. When the GDP increases, employment and wages increase but that is probably too technical for the authors of this article. Remember in 2016, vote for NO democrats because they are economically ignorant and profoundly incompetent.
Stupid is as stupid does has been obamas economic policy for last 6 years.
hilarious Hilary offers nothing better in her latest blah blah speech on raising taxes which wont achieve anything significant in improving the GDP. When the GDP increases, employment and wages increase but that is probably too technical for the authors of this article. Remember in 2016, vote for NO democrats because they are economically ignorant and profoundly incompetent.
4
And you offer? Names? Labels? And anti-democratic partisan drivel?
3
Here's how another major American media outlet characterized GDP. You get none of this historical perspective from the Times, which, as usual, is cheerleading for the Admin.:
"Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has advanced at a 2.2% annual pace through the end of last year. That's more than a half-percentage point worse than the next-weakest expansion of the past 70 years, the one from 2001 through 2007. While there have been highs and lows in individual quarters, overall the economy has failed to break out of its roughly 2% pattern for six years."
"Since the recession ended in June 2009, the economy has advanced at a 2.2% annual pace through the end of last year. That's more than a half-percentage point worse than the next-weakest expansion of the past 70 years, the one from 2001 through 2007. While there have been highs and lows in individual quarters, overall the economy has failed to break out of its roughly 2% pattern for six years."
5
If you want to go there, the figures you cite are also without context. The global economy has changed since World War II. Whereas the United States was the dominant manufacturer of goods in the post-WW II boom, its economy has changed as have those of other countries. Without going into what would need to be a dissertation, it is important to understand that the United States will probably never have the kind of growth rate it experienced decades ago.
A growth rate of 2.5 or 3 percent, with a very occasional variation as the economy emerges from a recession, particularly a deep one as it experienced in 2008-2009, is likely all that will ever be possible again.
Or perhaps healthy.
As another commentator noted here, higher growth often leads to cycles of boom and bust. That is what the Fed is always searching for : the Goldilocks economy, meaning neither too hot nor too cold.
At the moment the problems with the growth rate have less to do with the size than with the distribution of the benefits, which are going, in disproportionate amounts, to those at the top of economic ladder.
A growth rate of 2.5 or 3 percent, with a very occasional variation as the economy emerges from a recession, particularly a deep one as it experienced in 2008-2009, is likely all that will ever be possible again.
Or perhaps healthy.
As another commentator noted here, higher growth often leads to cycles of boom and bust. That is what the Fed is always searching for : the Goldilocks economy, meaning neither too hot nor too cold.
At the moment the problems with the growth rate have less to do with the size than with the distribution of the benefits, which are going, in disproportionate amounts, to those at the top of economic ladder.
Good, not great. Interestingly the stage is set for one of the biggest economic policy challenges in a generation: whether the Fed should raise rates in 2015 or wait. While the majority opinion, and the signaling from the Fed, is expecting the lift-off of rates in September 2015, it could prove a mistake of epic proportions. The US economy is churning along, doing fine but not great. Inflationary pressures, particularly on wages is nowhere to be seen. Globally, in the last years, we've seen recoveries that where quickly killed by a premature increase in rates from Central Banks --which had to be embarrassingly reversed, but leaving their economies stagnant. The Fed faces asymmetric risks. If it raises rates too slowly, inflation might pick up later (which is bad, but not terrible, and can be quickly fixed). If it raises rates too fast, the recovery can be crippled and unemployment would increase again (which would be worst and then, with interest rates close to zero, almost impossible to fix). Let's hope patience and cool, steady hands, win the day.
3
Just think where the economy would be is we a) raised the minimum wage, b) actually invested in our decaying infrastructure, c) invested publicly and privately in clean energy, d) fully rolled out the ACA (meaning Medicaid expansion in those recalcitrant red states? There would be lower unemployment, upward wage pressure better than 3% growth and probably an interest rate hike or two from the Fed. Sadly, to quote John Belushi..."But NOOOO". The Party of NO, the Republicans, have thwarted opportunity after opportunity to help the economy (not to mention the American people).
15
I was going to comment but you summed it up perfectly. Stop reading my mind.
1
Yea. 2-3% is pretty much what we can expect from here on out. Not too bad considering. I don't think we are going to see the growth that we saw in the 60-70s in my lifetime. Which is fine. Still a great country.
4
Regressive republicans everywhere want the bitter, left behind & unable to change think that those days are possible again when they're gone for good and they're never, baring a world war from which America once again survives with NO global competition, returning. There's NOTHING wrong with 2%-3% growth per year, except that the short-term greedy won't see results as fast as they wish, or demand.
I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with 2-3% growth. However, CBO projections tend to use 4%, and still show horrible deficits down the road. We aren't willing to address them with a 4% projection, how do we address them with a 2% reality?
Saw a piece in Market Watch( WSJ), about the governemnts new method of calculating GDP. Hope we can believe this modest GDP growth. I intend to do some more research of the reporting structure.
3
I do believe that Obama brought us back from the brink of another great depression. Just look back, if you can stomach to, and see how far we have come. That being said, not until wages rise enough to keep up with the cost of living, will the majority of Americans feel they have been successful in achieving the American dream.
3
I am retired. That said, while somewhere there may be a recovery, and somehow someone might feel it, surely it is not I. I am losing ground. Anyone gone to the supermarket lately? Property tax bills are falling right? The Euro has lost what, 20% against the dollar, but that is not reflected anywhere. The only thing I see as "recovered" are executive wages and corporate profits.
No, I am not starving but really ....
No, I am not starving but really ....
5
You do realize that in a booming economy, inflation would rise and prices would increase faster and as a retiree your fixed income's buying power would plummet rapidly...
Euro? It's loss is reflected in EUROPE, where one uses Euro's to purchase goods and services. Not in NYC.
Yes, I've been to the supermarket. The prices I pay for the food I eat haven't budged in the last five years.
What's in your cart, and whose name is on it?
What's in your cart, and whose name is on it?
You say this recovery began 6 years ago. What else began 6 years ago? Thanks Pres. Obama!!!
11
And, like clockwork, give it a few days, and then they will "re-adjust" it, and we find out that it really was not that good. It happens more times than not that we find out that these first estimates of the numbers are WAY over estimated. I am guessing, the REAL growth might be more like 1.5%.
3
You're guessing? Mind if the rest of us side with the economists. If the administration was going to lie, wouldn't they exagerate better numbers than these.
Obama and the Fed have tied our economy and the stock market to a zero based interest rate. That is the price they paid to stabilize the economy after Obama was elected. Any economic growth is now controlled by that same official Fed lending rate. If the Fed dares to raise rates, the economy will tank. Meanwhile the Fed continues to buy U.S. debt at record rates, and our long term debt has reached $18 trillion, up $7 trillion since Obama took office. This is what liberal Democrat economic policy has wrought. It will be a long, long time the economy shows any honest sustainable growth.
3
Where are you getting this information from?
1
Why was this necessary? Reminder: Bush tanked the world economy with his wars and incompetence.
5
A large portion of the debt increase to $18 trillion is due to the cost of the wars being put on the books.....
5
The "recovery, which began exactly six years ago" is for the wealthy, as previous NYT articles have shown. By transferring trillions of tax dollars and lost interest on savings from the middle classes and seniors to Wall Street, the self-serving Fed has suppressed spending, labor participation, and wages for all but the wealthy, while simultaneously increasing income inequality. Without Fed policy designed to to boost the 1%, the economy would have grown at a much higher rate.
6
Thanks Obama!
No, seriously, thanks. By not letting the Paul Ryan budget become reality, you saved millions of peoples' livelihoods, and gave more than a few people I know who had given up on life a chance to work again.
No, seriously, thanks. By not letting the Paul Ryan budget become reality, you saved millions of peoples' livelihoods, and gave more than a few people I know who had given up on life a chance to work again.
26
China is down to the kitchen sink trying to Micky-Mouse a fix for it's bursting bubble. They must have learned every move from the west's historical interventions. (Or they googled it). Can the market be bought off on margin like they're doing? Is the fix to a market crash simply to loan government money to investors to buy more shares? Has the west misunderstood human nature? Are the chinese insuring the brokerages and investors the way the FDIC insures savings deposits? HUH? The Chinese world economy is inconceivabe! Stock market crash? It ain't a crash till the commies SAY it is.
1
I love how they put pictures of workers on these upbeat economic stories. The truth is, this has been a Wall Street recovery that hasn't reached Main Street.
28
That's a great talking point, but it's false. The recovery has been somewhat uneven, but the employment picture has improved dramatically.
4
So, if the economy is so good, why dont the big banks give us any interest on our money they are investing to make such big profits? Why dont the Republicans raise the minimum wage, if the economy is so good? Goldman Sachs destroyed the U.S. economy along with their partners who partied together, and now they have destroyed Greece. They are now supporting Hillary Clinton, the same way they all supported Obama in 2008 and 2012. I mean, how long can we take this charade?
15
Any fair person would have to say that today's announcement was a mild disappointment. A 2.3%growth rate is pretty low, particularly when forecasts were 3% only a few months ago. And the first half grew at a 1.5% rate, with the last 6 years of 2% per year. When one considers that the population grows ~0.8% per year and productivity 1-2%, there is not a lot of space for improving real income.
The parties will probably spend their time and energy blaming each other, but there is an opportunity for someone to pursue a growth an agenda, which would actually help the middle class. The rich certainly do not need more tax reductions, as they have done very well, but a soak the rich policy, which might make one feel good, is not likely to lead to growth either.
The parties will probably spend their time and energy blaming each other, but there is an opportunity for someone to pursue a growth an agenda, which would actually help the middle class. The rich certainly do not need more tax reductions, as they have done very well, but a soak the rich policy, which might make one feel good, is not likely to lead to growth either.
3
6 Year Recovery?
I'm sure no Republican would get such high praise for such poor results.
I remeber article lambasting Bush when his job creation nubers fell below 400,000 per month. I guess standards change depending on your political leanings.
And or those of you who keep thinking this is the Republican's fault, don't understand economics at all
I'm sure no Republican would get such high praise for such poor results.
I remeber article lambasting Bush when his job creation nubers fell below 400,000 per month. I guess standards change depending on your political leanings.
And or those of you who keep thinking this is the Republican's fault, don't understand economics at all
5
At the beginning of George W Bush's term, 64.4% of American adults were employed. By the end of his term, that number had dropped to 59.3%. The unemployment numbers show a similar story, with things getting noticeably worse between 2000 and 2002, and then nosediving in 2008. Obama turned that around, so now we're at 59.5% employed: not great, but much much better than Bush.
Obama has had to deal with the worst economic situation of any president since Franklin Roosevelt. He could have done a lot worse.
Obama has had to deal with the worst economic situation of any president since Franklin Roosevelt. He could have done a lot worse.
8
What about when Bush's job destruction number were above 800.000 per month? How many jobs net were created under Bush? Nada.
6
Um, you might want to get your facts straight before you go mouthing off about things you clearly do not understand. The best month of job creation during the Bush administration was 375,000 in July 2005, which was also during the early period of the bubble that would burst three years later.
Indeed, during his first term, Bush became one of the only presidents to have net job losses, though admittedly, that was because the economy lapsed into a relatively (compared to the crisis in 2008-2009) mild recession just after he took office, partly because of the attacks on 9/11.
However, the debacle that Bush helped cause in 2008-2009, the worst crisis and economic downturn since the Depression, meant that at the end of his presidency, there had been overall net job losses for his years in office. A first for any two-term president.
In contrast, Obama inherited the worst mess since Roosevelt and, despite that, the economy has now had a net creation of jobs since he took office. Could it be better? Of course, if the economic stimulus package for infrastructure investment had been put in place. But that was blocked by who exactly? Oh, yes, the party of job growth.
Next time you want to check your facts, they are relatively easy to find on the BLS Web site:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Indeed, during his first term, Bush became one of the only presidents to have net job losses, though admittedly, that was because the economy lapsed into a relatively (compared to the crisis in 2008-2009) mild recession just after he took office, partly because of the attacks on 9/11.
However, the debacle that Bush helped cause in 2008-2009, the worst crisis and economic downturn since the Depression, meant that at the end of his presidency, there had been overall net job losses for his years in office. A first for any two-term president.
In contrast, Obama inherited the worst mess since Roosevelt and, despite that, the economy has now had a net creation of jobs since he took office. Could it be better? Of course, if the economic stimulus package for infrastructure investment had been put in place. But that was blocked by who exactly? Oh, yes, the party of job growth.
Next time you want to check your facts, they are relatively easy to find on the BLS Web site:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
6
2.3% is something developed economies can only dream of attaining. GDP increase takes the previous established base as a benchmark.
3
You are reporting on a cruel charade. Lives were shattered, incomes forever disrupted, ground will not be regained. I will never work again. There is no and will be no recovery for me and millions of others.
28
I am very sorry about what happened to you and I know you're not the only one who is dealing with this but the country has a whole has been recovering and that's a good thing.
It's important to keep this recovery going by voting for Democrats. Republicans will not only plunge us into another recession but they will eliminate the safety net for people like yourself.
It's important to keep this recovery going by voting for Democrats. Republicans will not only plunge us into another recession but they will eliminate the safety net for people like yourself.
14
What safety net would that be?
2
With an attitude like that of course you'll never work again. Rather than feeling victimized get out there and keep trying, or start a business - do something! Don't sit around feeling sorry for yourself and blaming others. A lot of us took a big hit in the recession and then got back on the horse.
3
Exciting headline, but I'm with Behravesh; this is plodding. We're excited about 1 quarter of 2.5% growth now? Waiting for wage pressure is like waiting for Godot....
Think this recovery is weak? Vote R to remind us of what we're recovering from.
33
On the contrary, if the Republicans take the White House, the house Republicans will take their foot off the economy's brakes and we will get some recovery. People need to ask why the Democrats are not in outrage protesting the Republican's sabotage of the economy for political gain.
6
Right. And some day pigs will fly. Oh, and while they're "job creating" (i.e., channeling even more wealth to the super rich), they'll also be busy dismantling environmental protection laws, promoting gun ownership, and stripping women of their autonomy, starting a war with Iran, and all the other things Republicans like to do in the name of "freedom."
Gimme a break.
Gimme a break.
1
Why President Obama gets no credit for nearly instantaneously resuscitating the world's largest economy is beyond me, although I know race plays a large role.
46
Right, everything is about race. When was the last time you heard ANYONE direct a racial slur towards Obama? For you and most Democrats race is a convenient way to excuse failure. You pull that card so often it has worn itself out.
Because if a flea were President the economy would be just as good or better. Obama had nothing to do with it.
2
Paul - A few weeks ago there was a story about the enormous amount of hate speech and racial slurs directed at President Obama when he went on Twitter.
You really should try reading the news instead of just commenting on it.
You really should try reading the news instead of just commenting on it.
2
Growth: Since the 1970s, polite society's way to say that the rich are getting even richer, and the rest are falling further behind. An obsession for politicians and the media.
Distribution: Since the 1970s, a significantly more meaningful measure than growth for the daily lives of average Americans. Seldom addressed by politicians and the media.
Distribution: Since the 1970s, a significantly more meaningful measure than growth for the daily lives of average Americans. Seldom addressed by politicians and the media.
21
Moderate growth is better for sustained economic improvement, assures that interest rate increases will be very gradual and reduces the potential for shortages and bottlenecks that set the stage for the next downturn.
The 4% growth that Jeb! promises if he is president leads to the kind of economic collapse we saw in FL following his stint as governor. FL remains a leading state in foreclosures and violent crime, even though Baby Boom retirement should have provided a rosy future.
Boom-bust seems to run in the Bush family.
The 4% growth that Jeb! promises if he is president leads to the kind of economic collapse we saw in FL following his stint as governor. FL remains a leading state in foreclosures and violent crime, even though Baby Boom retirement should have provided a rosy future.
Boom-bust seems to run in the Bush family.
39
Of course, Jeb! never says how he would achieve this 4% growth.
I think that with him we would only see the bust part of boom-bust.
I think that with him we would only see the bust part of boom-bust.
15
"Boom-bust seems to run in the Bush family."
What boom? George H.W. Bush never had a boom. Neither did George W Bush for anybody but Wall Street. And Jeb!'s success in Florida is mostly an illusion too.
What boom? George H.W. Bush never had a boom. Neither did George W Bush for anybody but Wall Street. And Jeb!'s success in Florida is mostly an illusion too.
5
Market swings are where Wall Street makes money, up or down. Steady economic conditions are boring, and not very profitable.
And, of course, the National Casino (a.k.a. Wall Street) responds to the "good news" by promptly taking a dive.
26
Time for the republicans to ramp up their USA-destroying antics.
30
Time to roll out those CEO and Wall Street bonuses.
6
It is sad that we cannot take the word of the government when they pronounce things like this. We all know that unemployment is high, yet the government still uses that innacurate figure that has become meaningless. These goverment reports seems geared to whoever is in power at that time. Like I said. It is sad.
8
Please do not be vague and instead please present your statistics and show evidence which would prove your weeping statement, which in fact, is a serious accusation. Do you have any proof?
29
Speak for yourself, buddy. Here is a direct quote from this article:
"new jobless claims are close to a 32-year low"
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNEMPLOY
Their data is computed the same way for all historical data, so it's as meaningful as it can be. And these reports are not affiliated with the administration in any way.
Quit promoting baseless conspiracy theories.
"new jobless claims are close to a 32-year low"
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNEMPLOY
Their data is computed the same way for all historical data, so it's as meaningful as it can be. And these reports are not affiliated with the administration in any way.
Quit promoting baseless conspiracy theories.
45
Michael F remark reminds me of Jack Welch's comment that the unemployment rate drop in the fall of '12 was rigged by Obama to help his electability. Somehow I dont remember Jack retracting his comments, but the data stood up fine.
Conspiracy theorizing is the only recourse if you dont like data. Like creationism for economists.
Conspiracy theorizing is the only recourse if you dont like data. Like creationism for economists.
28