When the New York Times has to reluctantly admit the existence of an economic boom, while doing everything in their power to minimize and distract from the basic facts, you know that a strong economy has really arrived.
First we had unemployment reported at a 6 year nationwide low of 4.7% - well under 4% in many areas of the country. A rate so low that only two years in the last 40 have had lower unemployment. In addition, the actual rate of employment is at a record high of over 66%, a rate exceeded by only 3 years in the last 40. That's good news, but the latest reports on the economy show even more encouraging data.
Job growth goes hand in hand with low unemployment, and in the first quarter of this year we've seen an unprecedented total of 590,000 new jobs added to the workforce. This continues the trend of massive job growth which has produced an impressive increase of 2.7 million new jobs since the first quarter of last year.
Another bit of good news in the job sector is that the trend for hourly wages to increase which began last year has continued, with the average non-farm hourly wage up $.55 an hour from March of last year, meaning more than $1000 a year in additional earnings for the average worker. Gains were strongest for highly skilled workers, with computer manufacturing jobs increasing by $.76 an hour on average, utility workers gaining $.81 an hour, those providing professional and business services going up $.93 an hour and the big winners were those in information services who gained $1.17 an hour. Overall this is the second largest rate of wage increase in any year since records started being kept in 1964. The average rate of wage increases in the last 40 years has been $.33 per year.
In the latest report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis the raw quarterly growth rate in the Gross Domestic Product for the first quarter of this year is reported at an unprecedented 8.2%. That's an incredible rate of economic growth, a full 3 points higher than the very impressive 5.2% reported in the fourth quarter of last year. Adjusted for the current value of the dollar the GDP growth was even better relative to last year, at 4.8% compared to 1.7% in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RedTard
At least we won't have to worry about having irrational exuberance with a republican in office.
2 - Lumpy
Wow. This is going to put the scare into the left. Last I checked people still voted their pocketbooks and with the economy so strong it's going to be grim for the donkeyboys at the polls in November.
3 - Dave Nalle
I went to a funeral this morning, and on the way back had the odd experience of listening to someone on Air America Radio called "The Credit Master" whose website at thecreditmaster.org doesn't work, so that's all the info I have on him. He was ranting and raving about the growth in credit card borrowing and how endangered consumers were and how everyone was going to be bankrupt before we knew it. Well, I knew there was something wrong with that perspective, so I did a little additional research, and now I've added a bit more to this article.
Check out paragraph #8 which has the correct info on borrowing growth, which is actually at its lowest level in 13 years. So much for the ongoing disinformation campaign of AAR.
Dave
4 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks Dave, you've inspired my next post.
Love Jet
5 - Matthew T. Sussman
My company in particular took a big hit right after 2001 (it involved people travelling to places, so you can imagine why it would) and suffered layoffs but right now they're hiring left and right. They want to almost double the amount of staff who train the product I train from 4 to 7.
6 - gonzo marx
example...in 1980 the unadjusted average wage for someone in the meat packing industry ( a very high risk production job) was between $16-19 an hour...
now it is between $8-10
to me, this Article should go right next to another by the same Author...titled "no one died in Iraq today"
both paint rosy pictures that bear a Picasso like view of Reality
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
7 - Jet in Columbus
Fear not gonzo and Matt, I've got an article in the process of being approved right now that started out as a response to this, but I figured I'd expand it and it was too long to be posted here.
What worries me a little is that Dave's probably the one who will approve it (yikes)
NO STRIKE THAT I'd like to put in writing right here andand now that despite differences in political opinions, Dave Nalle is one of the most fairminded editors this site has. And I mean that.
Stay tuned...
Respectfully
Jet
8 - Matthew T. Sussman
Gonzo, I wonder if this is like an Iraq war post -- because then that means that Bush created the economy. I wonder.
(I got a C in econ, so let's give this a shot) Perhaps business is increasing because of innovation and marketing, and not one guy in a suit in D.C.?
9 - gonzo marx
well Suss, i neither credit nor blame the hrub for much of it
however, if you look at the breakdowns, it appear that those whose income is already over the $200k mark are doing great, those between $75k and 200k are doing well...those between $50k-75k are holding their own....and those under $50k are having problems
now, factor in the Debt carried by those groups as well...as well as the Debt carried by what passes for Industry left in our Nation
abnd the picture could be argued to be very different
i cited the other Post because the same Author likes to take what data suits him and paints the picture he views...his perogative, of course
but due to un-accounted for Variables in the Iraq post...the situation is no where near as cheery today as that article would have one believe...and i do not think anyone could argue differently
my Thought is that this Article may suffer the same problems over time as more unaccounted for Variables make themselves known
and that this remains nothing more (like the other) than another Apologist puff piece for partisan,political purposes during a campaign year
just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
10 - Dave Nalle
example...in 1980 the unadjusted average wage for someone in the meat packing industry ( a very high risk production job) was between $16-19 an hour...
now it is between $8-10
Gonzo, if you checked the links in the article you'd see that they include a link to detailed wages broken down by industry area, including meat packing under the food processing category. It's shown as having remained stable over the past year at $13 an hour. It is indeed one of the weakest employment areas, but that doesn't change the overall trend in wage growth. It's one of very few industries which have remained stable.
to me, this Article should go right next to another by the same Author...titled "no one died in Iraq today"
both paint rosy pictures that bear a Picasso like view of Reality
Then I suggest you didn't read the other article you refer to, since the title was not intended to be an accurate description of the contents. In this case you certainly can't be trying to make the argument you are in any serious way. The facts are too overwhelming to deny. Like the NYT you can bring up irrelevancies and misrepresentations, but there's just too much positive news for you to effectively minimize it.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
however, if you look at the breakdowns, it appear that those whose income is already over the $200k mark are doing great, those between $75k and 200k are doing well...those between $50k-75k are holding their own....and those under $50k are having problems
Once again, if you checked the sources you'd see how incorrect this is. That's why I provided the links. The largest increases in wages were in professions earning in the area of $35,000 a year, well under your $50,000 threshold. In fact, the job gains I addressed were ONLY those for people earning a quantifiable hourly wage, the highest of which earn about $48,000 a year. So the entire sector of the workforce addressed in the article falls in your lowest income group. You can distract, distort and deny all you like, but the facts are the facts.
now, factor in the Debt carried by those groups as well...as well as the Debt carried by what passes for Industry left in our Nation
The debt growth figures in the article don't take into consideration the growth in working and spending population. Overall debt has increased because the number of debtors has increased, not because individuals are necessarily in more debt.
abnd the picture could be argued to be very different
If you choose to ignore the facts, sure.
Dave
12 - gonzo marx
comment #10 sez...
*It's shown as having remained stable over the past year at $13 an hour. It is indeed one of the weakest employment areas, but that doesn't change the overall trend in wage growth. It's one of very few industries which have remained stable.*
note the "remained stable" bit...
now, add in the Variables of inflation, cost of living, rise in health insurance costs to the employee
and you will see that this "stable" means that such a worker actually Nets LESS now than he did a few years ago with his stagnant "stable" wage
THAT is my point..."growth" in some places does NOT mean that famous "rising tide that lifts all boats"
merely making a point, i'll leave the Thread be and let the gentle Readers find their own Question and formulate their Thoughts on veracity
Excelsior?
13 - gonzo marx
P.S.
my INdustry for non-management, and in the technical non-management (under engineer level) for ALL the US telecoms got between .25 and .30 ccents an hour raise for their "cost of living"
MUCH less than the Variables i mentioned above..
nuff said
Excelsior?
14 - Jet in Columbus
You know, I have to theories
1. Dave forgot to check the box marked "Satire" when he posted this
2. Dave is serious.
Either way, it's a very scary thought!
15 - gonzo marx
no Jet, neither is the case...
the Original Poster is quite serious, and firmly believes in what he has put forward....and that is not a bad thing in and of itself
the problem here resides with a simplistic viewpoint that does not account for all the Variables or the Factors that skew simplified numbers
example: much of the data suggested counts not only managers, but exectutive's and CEO's compensation packages as well...
so, if your CEO of 10,000 employess makes 10 million, that skews your average, doesn't it?
add in those managers and executives and you see hwo the numbers wind up higher still
so, they DO indicate raw averages, but have nothing to do with the vast majority of per-hour workers for the most part
the original Poster is pretty careful with his numbers, but a bit more cavalier sometimes with his interpertations...colored as they are by his partisan objectives and viewpoints
that does NOT mean there is no worthwhile data here, just that it shoudl be examined more closely before reaching conclusions, and taken with a volkswagon sized grain of salt
Excelsior?
16 - Reader
You, sir, are an idiot.
17 - gonzo marx
a perfect example of what i mean is here...
the Original Poster sez...
*Core inflation (not including fuel and food) is also down from the fourth quarter of last year, at 2%. That means that those workers who are earning more and spending more are not seeing prices rise as much as they had been, giving them more purchasing power. Soaring oil prices will likely have a negative impact on overall inflation during the coming year, but they may be balanced out by a projected decrease in housing costs.*
note, he does NOT count food and fuel..both are inherent to the actual calculations, but by removing them from the formula, you skew the final numbers to achieve the results desired, rather than accurately mathematically modelling objective Reality
hope that helps
Excelsior?
18 - fartikus
okay, so even ben bernanke last week said the tax cuts will not pay for themselves. where are we on laffer's curve again? there is a reason gold is getting parabolic. with M3 stats gone we are approaching a weimar era...and they felt good for a time too.
19 - Lumpy
"example: much of the data suggested counts not only managers, but exectutive's and CEO's compensation packages as well..."
I checked the link on wages. Did you? If you had you would have confirmed what the article says. The wage figures given are only for those working on a non-salary or hourly wage basis. That isn't management except maybe at blockbuster.
The numbers in this article look solid and well documented. Read the links before rejecting it all just because it doesn't fit your politics. Right now you're looking like a fool by denying facts when the documentation is right infront of u..
20 - Lumpy
For that matter do a little math yourself and save pain and embarassment. If inflation is at 2% and the avg wage went up 55 cents (3.5%) then the gain in wages far outstrips inflation. So much that if u add in gas and housing ou're still ahead.
21 - Reader
lol, you believe government numbers on inflation? would you like to buy a bridge?
22 - RJ Elliott
Bush's economic record, APART FROM THE DECIFIT, is honestly one of the greatest in history.
He inherited a slumping economy. Don't believe me? Read any serious, legitimate economic report from the second half of 2000. The economy was well on its way towards a recession by this time, thanks in part to the Clinton stock market bubble (which was built in part by the widespread, undiscovered corporate criminality that occurred on Clinton's watch) finally bursting.
The recession of 2001 was one of the shortest, and shallowest, recessions in recent American history. It was replaced with economic growth by the end of the year, DESPITE THE 9/11 ATTACKS.
And the economy has been growing ever since.
The stock market is now higher than when Clinton left office. (And this time, it's not a bubble.) The unemployment rate is lower than when Clinton left office. (Despite millions of illegals flooding into the country since then.)
Part of the credit for this economic boom goes to Bush's tax cuts. Part of the credit goes to his spending hikes (at least if you're a Keynesian). Part of it goes to the American consumer, who spends more than s/he earns, and saves almost nothing. Part of it goes to the housing boom. Part of it goes to the Fed.
So, Bush should not receive ALL the credit for the current economic boom we are enjoying. But it is still a boom of historic proportions, and the media shouldn't ignore that fact.
(Oh, and the deficit came about from many different factors: increased spending, tax cuts, the Clinton recession, a global war, devastating hurricanes, etc. To blame the budget deficit solely on Bush's tax cuts is like blaming a fat man's premature death from a heart attack on the fact that he liked potato chips. Sure, it certainly played a role in his death, but what about his complete lack of exercise, his refusal to take blood-pressure meds, and his cocaine addiction?)
23 - RJ Elliott
"note, he does NOT count food and fuel..both are inherent to the actual calculations, but by removing them from the formula, you skew the final numbers to achieve the results desired, rather than accurately mathematically modelling objective Reality"
Um, isn't it the Fed itself that discounts food and fuel in order to calculate inflation?
Now, you can argue that the Fed's numbers are bogus because of this, but you can't claim DN is cherry-picking his numbers here...
24 - MCH
...Oh, and the deficit came about from many different factors: increased spending, tax cuts, the Clinton recession, a global war, devastating hurricanes, etc..."
Um, actually the "global war" you attempt to cherry-pick is the pre-emptive invasion and following occupation of a sovereign nation, premised on lies, fraud and deceit; at a cost to the U.S. taxpayer of $276.9 billion...and counting...
25 - RJ Elliott
The global war on terrorism ain't just Iraq. It's Afghanistan, too. And it's increased security measures at home (like the creation of the Department of Homeland Security). And other things, too, which all cost money.
But you are correct in saying that the war in Iraq has been very costly, both in terms of blood AND treasure. But it does NOT account for all, or even a large part, of the annual budget deficit.