Things are Getting Better?

The unemployment rate decreased .1% last month. That sounds good but the cause was more people giving up on searching for a job.  There weren’t even enough jobs created last month to keep up with increased population. 

Today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics report included the following statement. “The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)was essentially unchanged at 5.3 million in March. These individuals accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed. Since April 2010, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen by 1.4 million.”

There is the problem that neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney has addressed. American industry doesn’t need most of those long term unemployed. The reason is that technology and the export of American jobs has reduced the numbers of people required in the United States.

The president’s job plan does include the following proposals
– A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
– Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
Nice gestures that do not answer the question of who will hire these un-needed people?

I have found nothing in Mitt Romney’s proposals that even suggest any solutions. His focus is on “free market.” My question is, where were the free markets under George W. Bush when the economy was in free fall?

My solution is higher tariffs on all imported products. Neither Obama nor Romney agree with that solution.  They don’t have a solution!

The Issue is Long Term Unemployment

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics report dated today, March, 9, 2012.
“The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed at 5.4 million in February. These individuals accounted for 42.6 percent of the unemployed.”

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons(sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.1 million in February. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Perhaps this answers the question, why is one in seven Americans receiving aid to buy food?

Millions of people lost jobs in the last four years, and being plunged into poverty made them eligible for food assistance. “That’s the way this program is designed,” said Kevin Concannon, the head of the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service. Some 15 percent of the population-the highest rate since 1993-now lives at or below the poverty level, which is defined as $19,090 per year for a family of three. The average food stamp household of 2.2 people receives $287 in monthly food-assistance benefits, or about $72 a week. That’s not a lot to feed two people, but food stamp spending adds up: It has quadrupled in the course of the last 10 years, to a total this year of $80.4 billion. Critics blame that cost explosion on relaxed eligibility standards that began under the Bush administration, and on a boost in monthly benefits put through by Obama as part of the 2009 stimulus package. Obama increased the amount of time people could stay on food stamps, and added about $80 to the monthly benefits of a family of four. “No program in our government has surged out of control more dramatically than food stamps,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

The issue is the millions who are unemployed with no job opportunities on the horizon. Our nation’s leaders in both political parties have not offered any solutions. 

HAVE THEY?

Three Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die

Thought this article very interesting.  Especially with information cited coming from notable sources.  This among so many other issues can only leave us wondering how much misinformation we are fed . . . or simply on the face of it, how much we choose to believe.

Love the quote from Evan Thomas who said. . . “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”  Hmmmm
Three Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
By Morgan Housel, Columnist at The Motley Fool, USC graduate in Economics

 

At a conference in Philadelphia last October, a Wharton professor noted that one of the country’s biggest economic problems is a tsunami of misinformation. You can’t have a rational debate when facts are so easily supplanted by overreaching statements, broad generalizations, and misconceptions. And if you can’t have a rational debate, how does anything important get done? As author William Feather once advised, “Beware of the person who can’t be bothered by details.” There seems to be no shortage of those people lately.

Here are three misconceptions that need to be put to rest.

Misconception No. 1: Most of what Americans spend their money on is made in China.

Fact: Just 2.7% of personal consumption expenditures go to Chinese-made goods and services. 88.5% of U.S. consumer spending is on American-made goods and services. I used that statistic in a recent article, and the response from readers was overwhelming: Hogwash. People just didn’t believe it.

 

The figure comes from a Federal Reserve report. You can read it here.

A common rebuttal I got was, “How can it only be 2.7% when almost everything in Walmart (WMT) is made in China?” Because Walmart’s $260 billion in U.S. revenue isn’t exactly reflective of America’s $14.5 trillion economy. Walmart might sell a broad range of knickknacks, many of which are made in China, but the vast majority of what Americans spend their money on is not knickknacks.

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics closely tracks how an average American spends their money in an annual report called the Consumer Expenditure Survey. In 2010, the average American spent 34% of their income on housing, 13% on food, 11% on insurance and pensions, 7% on health care, and 2% on education. Those categories alone make up nearly 70% of total spending, and are comprised almost entirely of American-made goods and services (only 7% of food is imported, according to the USDA).
Even when looking at physical goods alone, Chinese imports still account for just a small fraction of U.S. spending. Just 6.4% of nondurable goods — things like food, clothing and toys — purchased in the U.S. are made in China; 76.2% are made in America. For durable goods — things like cars and furniture — 12% are made in China; 66.6% are made in America.

Another way to grasp the value of Chinese-made goods is to look at imports. The U.S. imported $399 billion worth of goods from China last year, which is 2.7% of our $14.5 trillion economy. Is that a lot? Yes. Is it most of what we spend our money on? Not by a long shot.

 

Part of the misconception is likely driven by the notion that America’s manufacturing base has been in steep decline. The truth, surprising to many, is that real manufacturing output today is near an all-time high. What’s dropped precipitously in recent decades is manufacturing employment. Technology and automation has allowed American manufacturers to build more stuff with far fewer workers than in the past. One good example: In 1950, a U.S. Steel (X) plant in Gary, Ind., produced 6 million tons of steel with 30,000 workers. Today, it produces 7.5 million tons with 5,000 workers. Output has gone up; employment has dropped like a rock.

 

Misconception No. 2:We owe most of our debt to China.

Fact: China owns 7.6% of U.S. government debt outstanding.

As of November, China owned $1.13 trillion of Treasuries. Government debt stood at $14.9 trillion that month. That’s 7.6%.

Who owns the rest? The largest holder of U.S. debt is the federal government itself. Various government trust funds like the Social Security trust fund own about $4.4 trillion worth of Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve owns another $1.6 trillion.

Both are unique owners: Interest paid on debt held by federal trust funds is used to cover a portion of federal spending, and the vast majority of interest earned by the Federal Reserve is remitted back to the U.S. Treasury.

The rest of our debt is owned by state and local governments ($700 billion), private domestic investors ($3.1 trillion), and other non-Chinese foreign investors ($3.5 trillion).

Does China own a lot of our debt? Yes, but it’s a qualified yes. Of all Treasury debt held by foreigners, China is indeed the largest owner ($1.13 trillion), followed by Japan $1 trillion) and the U.K. ($429 billion).

Right there, you can see that Japan and the U.K. combined own more U.S. debt than China. Now, how many times have you heard someone say that we borrow an inordinate amount of money from Japan and the U.K.? I never have. But how often do you hear some version of the “China is our banker” line? Too often, I’d say.

Misconception No. 3:We get most of our oil from the Middle East. Fact: Just 9.8% of oil consumed in the U.S. comes from the Middle East.

According the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. consumes 19.2 million barrels of petroleum products per day. Of that amount, a net 49% is produced domestically. The rest is imported.

Where is it imported from? Only a small fraction comes from the Middle East, and that fraction has been declining in recent years. Last year, imports from the Persian Gulf region — which includes Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — made up 9.8% of total petroleum supplied to the U.S. In 2001, that number was 14.1%.

The U.S. imports more than twice as much petroleum from Canada and Mexico than it does from the Middle East. Add in the share produced domestically, and the majority of petroleum consumed in the U.S. comes from North America.

This isn’t to belittle our energy situation. The nation still relies on imports for about half of its oil. That’s bad. But should the Middle East get the attention it does when we talk about oil reliance? In terms of security and geopolitical stability, perhaps. In terms of volume, probably not.

A Society Run by the Rich!

The American system of opportunity is broken.  There is nothing and no one on the horizon that will change our destructive trajectory.

The American model of capitalism and the opportunity to become very wealthy and has become the goal of almost every other nation in the world.  Like so many other successes in this world our leaders attempted to fine tune our system.  That led to our undoing and a focus on the inequities that unlimited capitalism creates.

The Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party groups have highlighted the problems that most of us have known about for decades.  Most of us just chose to ignore the issues.  We took a “don’t rock the boat” attitude.  The obvious condition of our economy, and its bleak future, has forced us to re-examine this situation.  More of us will now be forced to think harder about the choices we make at the ballot box.

The average American family has an income of less than $50,000 per year.  At the same time there are millionaires whose income is so large that they earn an annual income that is 340 times as much and more.  Yes, John Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo Bank made $17.6 million in 2010.  Mitt Romney’s income for the past two years has exceeded $20 million per year.  At least Mr. Stumpf had to work for his money.  Mr. Romney has not worked for at least six years and is living off of his investments.

Irking to most of us is that many millionaires have income based upon capital gains and qualified dividends.  Their income tax rate is 15% or less while those drawing a salary are taxed at rates up to 35%.

These are not isolated individuals.  One percent of all Americans equal 3 million people.  They have no concept of living on $50,000 per year.

If you believe that either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich (holder of a $500,000 revolving account at Tiffany’s) will be interested in improving the opportunities for the average American then you really are delusional.  They will do everything in their power to sustain the system that has made them rich.

Meanwhile the rest of us are fed the line that all of us are owners of American businesses through our 401(k)s and IRAs.  So we dutifully go to work hoping that someone will recognize our talents and give us the promotion we believe we deserve.  For most of us those promotions never materialize and we end up retiring with a savings account of about $100,000 and a reliance on Social Security.

G. William Domhoff, a professor at the University of California Santa Cruz, has been conducting an ongoing review of wealth and income in America.  He has posted his study on-line.  Included is this summary of our condition.

“As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).”

If you think this is just an American problem take a good look at your own country. Canada has high rise condo projects in all of its major cities and lots of well to do people.  That can be extended to the nations of Western Europe,Latin America, and Australia too.

The historic reality is that 20% of the population of any nation owns 80% of the wealth.  It is the Pareto Principle or the 80-20 rule.  This is the out come of a study done by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who in 1906 observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.  He soon found that the 80-20 ratio applied to many other aspects of society and business..  So no matter how much we try to void this situation it continuously re-appears.

My complaint is that 1% if our population has grown so powerful that most of the rest of us cannot control  our society.  Look at the current Republican campaigning in Florida.  Mitt Romney is leading in the polls but is spending money for negative advertising against Newt Gingrich at a rate of four times as many dollars.  It’s a rich man losing to a very rich man.  Our country is being bought by the rich.

There is little hope that this situation will change any time soon.  Barack Obama chose not to accept federal funding for his campaign (in 2008) and instead raised millions more on his own.  Thus both political parties are being run by the influence peddlers.  A third political party would be faced with the same conditions.

Is there a solution?  None that I know of!

Edging Towards War

Iran threatens Strait of Hormuz

US warns Iran against closing Hormuz oil route

Oil price falls as Saudis trump Iran threat

Is it saber rattling or is Iran and the United States moving towards war?  All of this is the consequence of American opposition to nuclear weapons development in Iran.  American politics is also pushing the Obama administration towards more assertive behavior when Republican candidates say that Brack Obama is too timid and apologetic when addressing the Iranian threat.

This is not the only place in the world where the United States has become more militarily assertive.  This past November at an economic Asian conference President Obama announced that “ About  250 U.S. Marines will begin a rotation in northern Australia starting next year, with a full force of 2,500 military personnel staffing up over the next several years.”  This is confrontation with China.  “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said that the goal of the new security pact is to signal that the U.S. and Australia will stick together in face of any threats.”  What threats have there been?

America’s military-industrial complex couldn’t be happier.  More war means more weapons.  The factories that hire thousands or people will be humming.  What a great way to boost our economy.

It was a Very Bad Year

Sadly, it was an ugly year.

Nature showed her worst side with an earthquake followed by a tsunami in Japan.  Meanwhile there were an extraordinary number tornadoes and earthquakes that occurred in the eastern United  States.

Dictators fell thanks to the Arab Spring but lives were lost and the Middle East is still in turmoil.  The dictator (president) of Syria is still killing his people.

America has left Iraq but the outcome of the effort is still in doubt.  Bombings and turbulence are rocking that country.

Iran and North Korea are on the same paths that strike fear into their neighbors.

The United States government has declared the recession is over but those that lost their jobs and significant home value have not recovered.

A debt crisis is impacting both Europe and the United States.  The U.S.had its own debt struggles. In August, Standard & Poor’s lowered the country’s long-term sovereign debt rating to AA+ from AAA. These are situations brought on by incompetent politicians.

America’s political system is deadlocked.

So what was the good news?

The one wonderful event was the marriage of Kate Middleton to Prince William.

Unemployment is down and American car sales are up.

The movie, “It’s A Wonderful Life” is a message of hope.

Occupy Wall Street

The revolution continues worldwide!

The world economic order is on the verge of collapse.  European financial markets are in turmoil.  The real unemployment rate in the U.S.A. is probably closer to 12%.  More people stopped working last month than were hired into new jobs. 120,000 new jobs but 315,000 people stopped seeking employment.  The Federal government points to a lower unemployment rate as a sign of success.

Occupy Wall Street link is added to my blog Roll.

Finally Good News About Our Economy

I tried helping retail establishments in my area.  I told my wife she should buy the clothes she has delayed purchasing.  That will cost a few hundred dollars.  Then I went into Best Buy on Black Friday and ordered a new 50 inch television.

Not only was Black Friday a banner day for total sales but the unemployment rate dropped to 8.6% for November.  This is the lowest unemployment rate in two and a half years.

The higher sales even over flowed into car and light truck sales.  A local Ford dealer that claims to be the biggest sales company in the country, Galpin Ford, reported that their sales over the Thanksgiving Day weekend were five times the number of vehicles sold in 2010.  Look at these extraordinary national sales figures.

U.S.car and light truck sales for top 10 automakers

Nov. sales

Pctg. Change from   Nov.’10

Year-to-date sales

2011 share

GM

180,402

+7.0%

2,269,446

19.7%

Ford

166,441

+13.3%

1,933,654

16.8%

Toyota

137,960

+6.7%

1,466,530

12.7%

Chrysler

107,172

+44.5%

1,231,095

10.7%

Nissan

85,182

+19.4%

941,607

8.2%

Honda

83,925

-6.4%

1,042,055

9.0%

Hyundai

49,610

+21.8%

594,926

5.2%

Volkswagen

38,283

+28%

398,654

3.5%

Kia

37,007

+39.1%

442,102

3.8%

Mercedes-Benz

28,257

+46.7%

239,006

2.1%

Industry total

994,721

+13.9%

11,534,206

100%

Source: Autodata                                               from Los Angeles Times

Obviously no one knows if the optimism will continue but this sort of behavior is contagious.

There are some things to be concerned about.  First if we buy we do not save and that means less money for an emergency or retirement. Europe is in a financial mess and if it isn’t solved soon it will impact the United States.

Just for the month of December let’s all think positive and do positive things.  It just might change our behavior and attitude in 2012.

1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income

Is it any wonder that Occupy Wall Street is a growing movement?  This is not news to me.  Professor G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz has had a web site that provides the same data.  His original information was posted in 2005.  I am more than happy to learn that the New York Times has finally caught up with the reality that the rich really do control the nation and really do earn most of the money.
  

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: October 25, 2011 WASHINGTON — The top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the last three decades, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday, in a new report likely to figure the economy, prominently in the escalating political fight over how to revive reate jobs and lower the federal debt.

In addition, the report said, government policy has become less redistributive since the late 1970s, doing less to reduce the concentration of income.

“The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller” in 2007 than in 1979, as “the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes,” the budget office said.

Also, it said, federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the distribution of income, as a growing share of benefits, like Social Security, goes to older Americans, regardless of their income.

The report, requested several years ago, was issued as lawmakers tussle over how to reduce unemployment, a joint committee of Congress weighs changes in the tax code and protesters around the country rail against disparities in income between rich and poor.

In its report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.

By contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of the population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.

And for the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale, the growth in such household income was just under 40 percent.

The findings, based on a rigorous analysis of data from the Internal Revenue Service and the Census Bureau, are generally consistent with studies by some private researchers and academic economists. But because they carry the imprimatur of the nonpartisan budget office, they are likely to have a major impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and spending policies.

Also cited as factors contributing to the rapid growth of income at the top were the structure of executive compensation; high salaries for some “superstars” in sports and the arts; the increasing size of the financial services industry; and the growing role of capital gains, which go disproportionately to higher-income households.

The report found that higher-income households got a larger share of the pie, while other households got smaller shares.

Specifically the report made these points:

¶ The share of after-tax household income for the top 1 percent of the
population more than doubled, climbing to 17 percent in 2007 from nearly 8
percent in 1979.

¶ The most affluent fifth of the population received 53 percent of after-tax
household income in 2007, up from 43 percent in 1979. In other words, the
after-tax income of the most affluent fifth exceeded the income of the other
four-fifths of the population.

¶ People in the lowest fifth of the population received about 5 percent of after-tax household income in 2007, down from 7 percent in 1979.

¶ People in the middle three-fifths of the population saw their shares of
after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points from 1979 to 2007.

The study was requested by Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, when he was the senior Republican on the panel.

Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said the report was “the latest evidence of the alarming rise in income inequality.”

House Republicans pushed back Tuesday against President Obama’s complaint that they were blocking bills to create jobs. Speaker John A. Boehner said he agreed with Mr. Obama’s new slogan, “we can’t wait,” and he said that 15 House-passed bills were “sitting over in the Senate, waiting for action.”

On Tuesday, the White House endorsed another bill, which is likely to be passed by the House this week with bipartisan support. The bill would repeal a requirement for federal, state and local government agencies to withhold 3 percent of certain payments to suppliers of goods and services and to deposit the money with the Internal Revenue Service.

This requirement was originally adopted as a tax-compliance measure, and the Congressional Budget Office said its repeal would reduce federal revenues by $11 billion over 10 years.

House Republicans would offset the cost with a bill that reduces federal spending on Medicaid under the 2010 health care law.  The White House said it supported the bill, intended to fix an apparent error in the law, under which hundreds of thousands of middle-income early retirees can get Medicaid coverage meant for the poor.

The joint Congressional committee on deficit reduction is considering changes in a wide range of benefit programs.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said Tuesday that he was hopeful but not entirely confident that the panel would succeed in reaching a bipartisan agreement to reduce federal deficits by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

“Hopeful is not confident,” Mr. Hoyer said.”

No Jobs Could Lead to Riots

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, has voiced concern of riots in America similar to those in Europe that have been brought on by economic conditions.  This was reported on CNN where a film clip was shown.  Mr. Bloomberg’s warning comes on the heels of some very horrifying economic news.  That news simply reinforces the suspicions that everyone has had in recent months.

First the average American family income this past year has dropped below $50,000.  Second, the official unemployment rate is currently 9.1% and has not been below 8.8% since April 2009.  Third, the number of Americans living in poverty last year reached 46.2 million people – the most in at least the last half a century.  Fourth, A record 46 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, have received government aid to buy food this year, according to data released by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Washington is a broken system of politicians who really are more concerned with election results than making any effort to energize this economy.  There are a variety of things that could be done to jump-start our economy but it is unlikely that any will be passed into law no matter what the president or speaker of the house says.

Large numbers of economists are now saying there is a one in three chance that the nation will fall back into a recession.  

We obviously need new leadership in Washington.  Perhaps Michael Bloomberg is the person to lead the way.  He is a very wealthy business man who has shown he understands the workings of government.  He claims no party affiliation.

I would support someone new with a different set of ideas.  Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry get out of the way!