T Nation

US Economy 'Stuck in the Mud'

Mr. Pollin. Always on point.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9625#.URJZz6mmDww

Something with a little more credibility.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Mr. Pollin. Always on point.

Hey hey hey quoting the most liberal think tank on earth…The Political Economy Research Institute is bat shit crazy.

We have expanded public union jobs and our economy is in the shitter, and we raised taxes on the rich too.

I didn’t watch the video, but the last-quarter slump was weather-related (Sandy) and it was the exception to the rule of continued, albeit gradual, improvement.

Though, the end of the payroll tax holiday could pose a problem for this quarter.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I didn’t watch the video, but the last-quarter slump was weather-related (Sandy) and it was the exception to the rule of continued, albeit gradual, improvement.

Though, the end of the payroll tax holiday could pose a problem for this quarter.[/quote]

So was the downtick in unemployment also due to hurricane sandy ?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I didn’t watch the video, but the last-quarter slump was weather-related (Sandy) and it was the exception to the rule of continued, albeit gradual, improvement.

Though, the end of the payroll tax holiday could pose a problem for this quarter.[/quote]

So was the downtick in unemployment also due to hurricane sandy ?[/quote]

Last quarter of last year? No, because the unemployment rate bottomed out in September, before the hurricane hit.

Also, the Nov. and Dec. job numbers were revised upward, which is good. Things are as they have been–slowly getting better.

If only they counted the number of people who stopped looking for work, and those who are currently under-employed (the TRUE way to calculate unemployment), we might be able to have a better trust in the government’s perception of the state of our economy.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If only they counted the number of people who stopped looking for work, and those who are currently under-employed (the TRUE way to calculate unemployment), we might be able to have a better trust in the government’s perception of the state of our economy.[/quote]

Unemployment using the definition used prior to 1994

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If only they counted the number of people who stopped looking for work, and those who are currently under-employed (the TRUE way to calculate unemployment), we might be able to have a better trust in the government’s perception of the state of our economy.[/quote]

The most important measure we can discuss is how many people who want to work, can’t. It’s still important to know how many have dropped out of the labor force, but the unemployment rate is specifically meant to measure the limits of the economy’s ability to employ the citizens who seek employment. People who haven’t applied for a job in six months have no bearing on this statistic.

You’re right about underemployment, it should be listed right alongside (though not as a part of) unemployment.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Mr. Pollin. Always on point.

Hey hey hey quoting the most liberal think tank on earth…The Political Economy Research Institute is bat shit crazy.[/quote]

Nice to comment but no counter to their arguments. I guess the clowns at the Heritage Foundation (a corporate think tank) is a much better source of info?

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Something with a little more credibility.[/quote]
Really? In who’s opinion? what are your issues with the arguments made in the interview?