Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

[joecct]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Wonder why Broadway tickets are a bit much? This article may shed light on one of the causes.

[St. Clown]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Labor force pariticipation rates are lowest in 36 years, 62.8%.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news...html?hpt=hp_t1

Hiring slumped sharply in December, as the economy added only 74,000 jobs, according to the government. This was the weakest month for job growth since January 2011 and came as a huge surprise to economists, who were expecting an addition of 193,000 jobs.

For all of 2013, the economy added 2.2 million jobs -- on par with 2012's gains.

Some economists blamed cold temperatures in December for the weak job gains. The construction sector alone lost 16,000 jobs, which could be partly due to "unusually cold weather in parts of the country," the Labor Department noted.

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 6.7% in December, but the drop came mainly from workers leaving the labor force.

Job market dropouts could be doing other things, like retiring, enrolling in educational programs or taking care of relatives. But many have simply given up hope of finding work.

Only 62.8% of the adult population is participating in the labor market now -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That matches the lowest level since 1978.

In the job market's 2007 heyday, unemployment was under 5%, but in the two years that followed, the recession wiped out 8.7 million jobs. To this day, not all those jobs have returned.

"We're going to have a long-term unemployment crisis for a long time," said Heidi Shierholz, economist with the Economic Policy Institute.

...

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics forecasts it could take until the end of 2016 to get to a 5.5% unemployment rate. Shierholz calculates it could take even longer to get to a pre-recession job market -- when unemployment was below 5%.

"Even we did have 200,000 jobs a month, we would need five years to get there," she said.

[FreshFish]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

another stellar insight from Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow


Make a list of the 10 most pressing problems we face today.

Then, for each problem on the list, using a scale of 1 - 10, indicate how serious each problem is, with 1 being "not that big a deal" and 10 being "extremely urgent, must act."

If you are like most people and add up your scores, it will be somewhere between 75 and 85.


Now, take your same list of 10 problems. You are given $45 million total to apply to solving the problems. Decide how to allocate that money.




When you look at each problem in isolation, without regard to any of the other problems, you would allocate between $75 million and $85 million (each point on your 1 - 10 scale = $10 million).

When you look at each problem relative to all the other problems, you are constrained (1+2+3+...+8+9+10 = 45).



This is what makes government budgeting so difficult. It is not that one party is spendthrift, nor is it that the other party is heartless and cruel and uncaring.

When you look at a single problem, most of the time it is a serious problem with serious consequences, and so of course it must be solved!

If you look at how much money is available overall, well then of course there isn't enough to go around!

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So, the GOP has now come out in FAVOR of offshore tax havens!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0K1VS20140121

Is this one of those job creating bills we always hear about?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Subscribed because it's always about the money.

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Christie continues to get hammered by the conservative press. This nugget is from those flaming liberals at the Wall Street Journal!


Another Blow for Chris Christie


Despite the tough talk and bluster from its governor, New Jersey lost over 36,000 jobs in December, the largest drop in over two decades. Even more devastating for the assumed presidential contender, is that only 7,000 private sector jobs were created in 2013. This is the latest knock for the governor, who has seen his status as a frontrunner for the 2016 Republican primary dissipate as a result of the George Washington Bridge scandal. The numbers also provide a stark contrast to the governor’s rhetoric, as last week he said in his state of the state address that, "We have endured the worst economic recession of our lifetimes, and we have begun to triumph over it." Maybe people just didn’t like the commute.

Read it at the Wall Street Journal

January 24, 2014 12:20 PM

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Christie continues to get hammered by the conservative press. This nugget is from those flaming liberals at the Wall Street Journal!


Another Blow for Chris Christie


Despite the tough talk and bluster from its governor, New Jersey lost over 36,000 jobs in December, the largest drop in over two decades. Even more devastating for the assumed presidential contender, is that only 7,000 private sector jobs were created in 2013. This is the latest knock for the governor, who has seen his status as a frontrunner for the 2016 Republican primary dissipate as a result of the George Washington Bridge scandal. The numbers also provide a stark contrast to the governor’s rhetoric, as last week he said in his state of the state address that, "We have endured the worst economic recession of our lifetimes, and we have begun to triumph over it." Maybe people just didn’t like the commute.

Read it at the Wall Street Journal

January 24, 2014 12:20 PM

Commies.

[pirate]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

another stellar insight from Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow


Make a list of the 10 most pressing problems we face today.

Then, for each problem on the list, using a scale of 1 - 10, indicate how serious each problem is, with 1 being "not that big a deal" and 10 being "extremely urgent, must act."

If you are like most people and add up your scores, it will be somewhere between 75 and 85.


Now, take your same list of 10 problems. You are given $45 million total to apply to solving the problems. Decide how to allocate that money.




When you look at each problem in isolation, without regard to any of the other problems, you would allocate between $75 million and $85 million (each point on your 1 - 10 scale = $10 million).

When you look at each problem relative to all the other problems, you are constrained (1+2+3+...+8+9+10 = 45).



This is what makes government budgeting so difficult. It is not that one party is spendthrift, nor is it that the other party is heartless and cruel and uncaring.

When you look at a single problem, most of the time it is a serious problem with serious consequences, and so of course it must be solved!

If you look at how much money is available overall, well then of course there isn't enough to go around!

I see their point but they neglect to mention that they could apply that scoring to the existing efforts or departments and decide which ones should not be funded. When we hear there are 7 agencies doing the same thing we just shrug...if one were making hypotheticals about solving problems in funding, they should include the relationship of having hundreds of existing programs vs. 10 new pressing ones. The $750-850 million in the example are a rounding error in the current program spending scheme.

Neither party has the desire to solve the issue within the current spend, they both are too lazy or too vested to effectively apportion expense to the priorities. Instead, they have convinced everyone the problem is nobody gave them enough allowance.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So, who's ready to admit that Wisconsin's policies were a good idea, considering the state is now running a $912,000,000 SURPLUS? http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/2...udget-surplus/

[LynahFan]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So, who's ready to admit that Wisconsin's policies were a good idea, considering the state is now running a $912,000,000 SURPLUS? http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/2...udget-surplus/

C'mon - you know how this goes. WI is only doing well because of the improving overall conditions which is 100% due to Obama personally overseeing every economic transaction over the last 6 years...

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

C'mon - you know how this goes. WI is only doing well because of the improving overall conditions which is 100% due to Obama personally overseeing every economic transaction over the last 6 years...

Duh

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Wisconsin's unemployment rate is like 2 points higher than Minnesota! I'm calling you out Flaggy, explain that.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Wisconsin's unemployment rate is like 2 points higher than Minnesota! I'm calling you out Flaggy, explain that.

What's the percentage of people considered "not in the work force"?

[Rover]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

What's the percentage of people considered "not in the work force"?

You tell me Sparky, you brought it up.

PS - I do like the "try to dodge by answering a question with a question" attempt though.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I'll answer it for him:

Minnesota > Wisconsin

They're higher because they are trying to overcome a disability.