President Trump’s tax cuts seems to have sparked an economic recovery that made jobless claims dive to a near 50-year low. Bill Whittle says, “Democrats hardest hit.” But should Republicans use these times of relative prosperity to pour more funding into government programs for the poor?
Categories
Democrats Hardest Hit: Jobless Claims Plunge Near 50-Year Low
President Trump’s tax cuts seems to have sparked an economic recovery that made jobless claims dive to a near 50-year low. Bill Whittle says, “Democrats hardest hit.” But should Republicans use these times of relative prosperity to pour more funding into government programs for the poor?
13 replies on “Democrats Hardest Hit: Jobless Claims Plunge Near 50-Year Low”
Truth about the Great Depression?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ce6z-u_Wk0
Scott,
I’d love to see what you gents conclude after looking at the Employment-Population Ratio over the last several generations.
It tells a much more complete story than the commonly-discussed unemployment rate (“U-3”) or the sometimes-discussed Labor Force Participation Rate.
Economics is not my strong point. This is a nice primer. Thanks, guys.
That’s the secret, it’s no one’s strong point. Even economists don’t understand economics. How often do you see the headline “economists shocked…?”
Unemployment rate is a piece of the story. Labor force participation rate is another: https://therightscoop.com/from-reagan-to-obama-labor-force-participation-rates/ Baby boomers aging out of the work force is yet another: https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/ And … it’s complicated. (I’m happy to find fault with President Obama BUT it needs to be evidence-based and thought-through.)
Bill made a common error. He’s correct that the wealthy do ok during economic down turns but it’s not because they spend less, it’s because they spend more. When there’s a downturn and the average person can’t afford stuff anymore the prices fall and the wealthy have money. So in the eyes of the wealthy, everything just went on super sale. When the economy does better the wealthy buy less because it all costs more. (Buy low, sell high) So Bill really underestimated just how well the wealthy do during a downturn.
Sure, but I think Bill’s point was about “suffering” in a downturn. The wealthy don’t suffer like the rest of us in having to make choices between basic necessities like food, shelter and clothing. Heck. I’m not wealthy by the standards I think Bill and Scott are alluding to, but I certainly would have to eat out less, buy cheaper food and cut personal spending to get through a downturn. We’d even be OK if I or my wife lost our job. Not good, but we’d manage because we keep our fixed monthly expenses relatively low and we have a savings that we can draw from to cover gaps for probably a year if we were good stewards. If we were wealthy, none of this would be a concern.
You’re talking about expenditures. Bill and Scott were largely referring to income.
Regardless, the underlying point that Bill was making is that the wealthy aren’t hurting during the downturn, it’s everyone else that’s hurting and I completely agree with him on his underlying point. I just think he underestimated just how well they do during a downturn.
Don’t get me started on FDR – that SOB gets praised for spreading misery over a decade whose polices still hurt us today (most notably employer tied health insurance)
http://brother-bobs-blog.blogspot.com/2011/08/economics-for-politicians-chapter-4-you.html
He spread misery over quite a bit more than a decade.
If you don’t like how FDR is officially remembered by government institutions, just wait until you see how they lionize Barack Obama.
My mom used to think it was funny how all her uncles hated Roosevelt. She thought they were clueless. It took me years to realize Mom was clueless.