Is the economy good or bad right now?

[riceowl]

I'm trying to get some answers to some very basic questions in current events - though I know they are very broad and unspecific.

IMO, the US economy has not been bad since the late '70's, excepting a blip in 1992 and in 2000.

eh?

[opebo]

IMO, the US economy has not been bad since the late '70's, excepting a blip in 1992 and in 2000.

Jeez, have you forgotten the early 1980's recession which was far worse than either 1992 or 2000?

Right now the economy is, as usual, good for the top 20% and bad for the bottom 80%.

[riceowl]

Sorry, should have clarified a late 70's - early 80's period.

[jacob_101]

overall good

[Smash255]

Not that good.  Was getting better, but things have taken a turn for the worst.  Pretty much every report this week was a bad one poor manufacturing news, high layoffs in may, job report of 78,000, worst report in two years.  Not as bad as it was in late 02/ early 003, but not that good.

[phk]

In May the Bush economy eked out a paltry 73,000 private sector jobs: 20,000 jobs in construction (primarily for Mexican immigrants), 21,000 jobs in wholesale and retail trade, and 32,500 jobs in health care and social assistance. Local government added 5,000 for a grand total of 78,000.

Not a single one of these jobs produces an exportable good or service.

[MaC]

at this moment, I think I heard we're at 5.1% unemployment.  Wow, that's rather good considering 5% is full employment.  But it really doesn't mean crap.  How were gonna be doing in 5 years is the important question we should be asking.

[phk]

at this moment, I think I heard we're at 5.1% unemployment.  Wow, that's rather good considering 5% is full employment.  But it really doesn't mean crap.  How were gonna be doing in 5 years is the important question we should be asking.

Oh thats largely because people are dropping out altogether.

[Jake]

My personal economy is doing fine. I won't presume to guess how the overall economy is doing just as long as it stays up for me.

[Richard]

Very good in the States I'd say.  Probably 1/3 of the co-op students at my school work in the United States this year, the highest ever.

[Dave from Michigan]

it's doing ok the unemployment rate keeps droping at least that is good.  And I keep hearing about how the unemployment rate is falling only because people are dropping out can anyone back this up with some actual evidence. 

[A18]

If they're not seeking employment, they shouldn't be counted as unemployed for the unemployment rate.

If they dropped out, they obviously are not exactly starving or anything.

[TomC]

Right now, in general, things are pretty good. Good GDP growth, decent unemployment historically, decent market return over a 3 year period.

But I believe we are in a peak right now. Oil prices, interest rates are going to cause profit margin pressures on businesses; layoffs and price increases will ensue. Consumer confidence is dropping and the aforementioned increases won't help. The rising deficit will spark more general inflation. That, and rising health care costs (incl insurance) will squeeze the middle class, and some industries will be adversely affected. 2006-7 will be hard for many.

The market is due a more substantial correction than it's gotten in 2.5-3 years; I expect one late this year or early next. I won't be like the drop from 2000-2002, but it could hit those lows (just not falling from the same height.)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The American economy has been in shambles since 1981, and since 2001 it's only gotten worse. (Gee, I wonder why.)

[opebo]

Wow, that's rather good considering 5% is full employment. 

Your assumption that 5% is 'full employment' is debatable.  Ideally there would be slightly more jobs than workers, which would create a sellers market for labour.

If they're not seeking employment, they shouldn't be counted as unemployed for the unemployment rate.

If they dropped out, they obviously are not exactly starving or anything.

Starving may be precisely what they are doing.  Some go homeless, some live in their parent's basements.  Certainly they should be counted as unemployed, as long as they are not employed.  The only reason they have 'ceased looking' in the eyes of the government is that they are no longer recieving unemployment benefits or registering with government run employment services.  The State cannot keep track of whether they ask their friends if they've heard of work, etc.  No, the reason these people are long term unemployed is due to the dearth of livable jobs, not any decision on their part.

The American economy has been in shambles since 1981, and since 2001 it's only gotten worse. (Gee, I wonder why.)

Good for you Populist, you are precisely correct for the bottom 80% of Americans.

[Smash255]

it's doing ok the unemployment rate keeps droping at least that is good.  And I keep hearing about how the unemployment rate is falling only because people are dropping out can anyone back this up with some actual evidence. 

Well when 78,000 jobs are created & according to economists you generally need 150,000 to keep of with the labor force & unemployment drops its quite strange.  Basically what happens is someone is once a person loses their unemployment benefits they are dropped from the statistics till they get a job.  So a person could be out of work, looking for a job, but if they no longer or don't get unemployment benefits they are no longer counted in the unemployed statistics even though they are unemployed.

[Beet]

Total nonfarm employment over the past year (the rate used by the media to get its 78,000 jobs figure) has increased by 1.279 million, or an average rate of 106,500 jobs per month.

http://ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt

By contrast,

248,000 jobs per month created under Clinton/Gore
167,000 jobs per month created under Reagan
218,000 jobs per month created under Carter
105,000 jobs per month created under Nixon/Ford
129,000 jobs per month created during Nixon's first term
206,000 jobs per month created under Lyndon Johnson
122,000 jobs per month created under John F Kennedy
113,000 jobs per month created under Harry Truman's second term.

The population of the country in 1952 when Truman left office was only 157 million, yet he has a better job creation record than Bush in the past year.

http://www.iamawll2410.org/

[A18]

Since presidents don't create jobs, no president has a job creating record. Well, okay, I guess there are cabinet positions, and Wilson did start the IRS.

Even so, far more relevant than that is the employment rating. If absolutely everyone had a job, and no one changed jobs at all in a year, you would blame the president for not "creating" jobs.

What an idiotic analysis.

[MaC]

Since presidents don't create jobs, no president has a job creating record. Well, okay, I guess there are cabinet positions, and Wilson did start the IRS.

Even so, far more relevant than that is the employment rating. If absolutely everyone had a job, and no one changed jobs at all in a year, you would blame the president for not "creating" jobs.

What an idiotic analysis.

thanks for debunking this myth A18

[Beet]

Since presidents don't create jobs, no president has a job creating record. Well, okay, I guess there are cabinet positions, and Wilson did start the IRS.

Even so, far more relevant than that is the employment rating. If absolutely everyone had a job, and no one changed jobs at all in a year, you would blame the president for not "creating" jobs.

What an idiotic analysis.

Obviously you have never heard of FDR. Of course, thinking rationally about the man would drive you insane, so it's not surprising.