• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Economy

The various Props are part of a deeper malady; the Californians seem to believe that wealth and prosperity can be created out of thin air.

Prop 13 (the first one which limited taxation) should have resulted in the State legislature reigning in expenditures, which was the intention of the bill. Instead, the legislature has been using clever accounting for several decades to bypass the limitations imposed by Prop 13; while various special interest groups attempt to bypass the State legislature, the bureaucracy and each other with competitive Propositions.

So long as California has been able to borrow money, raise taxation and fees and get people to turn a blind eye to the effects of their increasingly dysfunctional governance (they had time to pass a law banning the sale and production of Foie Gras, but still don't have any way to cover non funded liabilities), they have been able to get away with it. Today, Governor Rick Perry of Texas is boldly poaching business from California to Texas, and other States like Arizona, New Mexico and even Utah have become attractive destinations for California business.

Since  the Legislature is deeply in the pockets of various special interest groups, we will not see a repeal of the Props, but rather an epic battle to the last taxpayer in order to retain the special perques and privileges. IF you save now, you may be able to buy up large amounts of California at fire sale prices soon.
 
Thucydides said:
Today, Governor Rick Perry of Texas is boldly poaching business from California to Texas, and other States like Arizona, New Mexico and even Utah have become attractive destinations for California business.

But the down side is that it further erodes the tax base in California, and creates no net new jobs nationally. In some cases it ends up eliminating jobs. And the tax incentives used to lure them doesn't do much for the economy in the new location either.

Not to say that companies that move shouldn't. It would be a poor business decision not to move.
 
When President Obama claimed that Obamacare would bend the cost curve, he was right. Just not in the way most people who listened or voted for it believed...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324616604578304072420873666.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

ObamaCare and the '29ers'
How the new mandates are already reducing full-time employment.

Here's a trend you'll be reading more about: part-time "job sharing," not only within firms but across different businesses.

It's already happening across the country at fast-food restaurants, as employers try to avoid being punished by the Affordable Care Act. In some cases we've heard about, a local McDonalds has hired employees to operate the cash register or flip burgers for 20 hours a week and then the workers head to the nearby Burger King BKW +2.39% or Wendy's to log another 20 hours. Other employees take the opposite shifts.

Welcome to the strange new world of small-business hiring under ObamaCare. The law requires firms with 50 or more "full-time equivalent workers" to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. (The law says "equivalent" because two 15 hour a week workers equal one full-time worker.) Employers that pass the 50-employee threshold and don't offer insurance face a $2,000 penalty for each uncovered worker beyond 30 employees. So by hiring the 50th worker, the firm pays a penalty on the previous 20 as well.

These employment cliffs are especially perverse economic incentives. Thousands of employers will face a $40,000 penalty if they dare expand and hire a 50th worker. The law is effectively a $2,000 tax on each additional hire after that, so to move to 60 workers costs $60,000.

A 2011 Hudson Institute study estimates that this insurance mandate will cost the franchise industry $6.4 billion and put 3.2 million jobs "at risk." The insurance mandate is so onerous for small firms that Stephen Caldeira, president of the International Franchise Association, predicts that "Many stores will have to cut worker hours out of necessity. It could be the difference between staying in business or going out of business." The franchise association says the average fast-food restaurant has profits of only about $50,000 to $100,000 and a margin of about 3.5%.

Because other federal employment regulations also kick in when a firm crosses the 50 worker threshold, employers are starting to cap payrolls at 49 full-time workers. These firms have come to be known as "49ers." Businesses that hire young and lower-skilled workers are also starting to put a ceiling on the work week of below 30 hours. These firms are the new "29ers." Part-time workers don't have to be offered insurance under ObamaCare.

The mandate to offer health insurance doesn't take effect until 2014, but the "measurement period" used by the feds to determine a firm's average number of full-time employees started last month. So the cutbacks and employment dodges are underway.

The savings from restricting hours worked can be enormous. If a company with 50 employees hires a new worker for $12 an hour for 29 hours a week, there is no health insurance requirement. But suppose that worker moves to 30 hours a week. This triggers the $2,000 federal penalty. So to get 50 more hours of work a year from that employee, the extra cost to the employer rises to about $52 an hour—the $12 salary and the ObamaCare tax of what works out to be $40 an hour.

Moving to 33 hours a week costs the employer about $10 an hour more in ObamaCare tax. Look for fewer 30-35 hour-a-week jobs. The law that was sold as a way to help business and workers is thus yanking a few more rungs from the ladder of economic upward mobility.

Many franchisees of Burger King, McDonalds, Red Lobster, KFC, Dunkin' Donuts and Taco Bell have started to cut back on full-time employment, though many are terrified to talk on the record. Activist groups have organized boycotts against Darden Restaurants, [DRI +3.33%] which owns Olive Garden and Red Lobster, for daring to publicly criticize ObamaCare. It's safer to quietly dodge the new costs and avoid becoming a political target.

But the damage won't be limited to franchisees or restaurants. A 2012 survey of employers by the Mercer consulting firm found that 67% of retail and wholesale firms that don't offer insurance coverage today "are more inclined to change their workforce strategy so that fewer employees meet that [30 hour a week] threshold." This week Nigel Travis, the CEO of Dunkin' Donuts, asked Congress to change the health law's definition of full-time to 40 hours a week from 30 hours so worker hours won't have to be cut.

The timing of all this couldn't be worse. Involuntary part-time U.S. employment is already near a record high. The latest Department of Labor employment survey counts roughly eight million Americans who want a full-time job but are stuck in a part-time holding pattern. That number is down only 520,000 since January 2010 and it is 309,000 higher than last March. (See the nearby chart.) And now comes ObamaCare to increase the incentive for employers to hire only part-time workers.

Democrats who thought they were doing workers a favor by mandating health coverage can't seem to understand that it doesn't help workers to give them health care if they can't get a full-time job that pays the rest of their bills.

A version of this article appeared February 23, 2013, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: ObamaCare and the '29ers'.

Permanent, long term unemployment and underemployment will not only dramatically reduce the stock of savings and wealth now, but leave a smaller foundation of wealth and skilled workers for any recovery to build from. As well, trading partners like Canada will find the market for their goods and services diminished as well (with U3 at over 10%, the population of adult Americans who are unemployed is about equal to the size of the entire Canadian population).
 
Did anyone think of the bragging rights that come out of xx employees hired when the stats come out....the employment #s go down, the jobs created go up!!

That means they don't qualify for unemployment insurance, welfare, et al....a politician's dream... ::)
 
Where the growth and job creation is in the United States. Anyone looking to move or invest in the United States shoudl focus their attention in these "Red Corridor" states:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323549204578315714070017932.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

America's Red State Growth Corridors
Low-tax, energy-rich regions in the heartland charge ahead as economies on both coasts sing the blues.

By JOEL KOTKIN

In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, some political commentators have written political obituaries of the "red" or conservative-leaning states, envisioning a brave new world dominated by fashionably blue bastions in the Northeast or California. But political fortunes are notoriously fickle, while economic trends tend to be more enduring.

These trends point to a U.S. economic future dominated by four growth corridors that are generally less dense, more affordable, and markedly more conservative and pro-business: the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, the Third Coast (spanning the Gulf states from Texas to Florida), and the Southeastern industrial belt.

Overall, these corridors account for 45% of the nation's land mass and 30% of its population. Between 2001 and 2011, job growth in the Great Plains, the Intermountain West and the Third Coast was between 7% and 8%—nearly 10 times the job growth rate for the rest of the country. Only the Southeastern industrial belt tracked close to the national average.

Historically, these regions were little more than resource colonies or low-wage labor sites for richer, more technically advanced areas. By promoting policies that encourage enterprise and spark economic growth, they're catching up.

Such policies have been pursued not only by Republicans but also by Democrats who don't share their national party's notion that business should serve as a cash cow to fund ever more expensive social-welfare, cultural or environmental programs. While California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota have either enacted or pursued higher income taxes, many corridor states have no income taxes or are planning, like Kansas and Louisiana, to lower or even eliminate them.

The result is that corridor states took 11 of the top 15 spots in Chief Executive magazine's 2012 review of best state business climates. California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts were at the bottom. The states of the old Confederacy boast 10 of the top 12 places for locating new plants, according to a recent 2012 study by Site Selection magazine.

Energy, manufacturing and agriculture are playing a major role in the corridor states' revival. The resurgence of fossil fuel–based energy, notably shale oil and natural gas, is especially important. Over the past decade, Texas alone has added 180,000 mostly high-paying energy-related jobs, Oklahoma another 40,000, and the Intermountain West well over 30,000. Energy-rich California, despite the nation's third-highest unemployment rate, has created a mere 20,000 such jobs. In New York, meanwhile, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is still delaying a decision on hydraulic fracturing.

Cheap U.S. natural gas has some envisioning the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge as an "American Ruhr." Much of this growth, notes Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute, will be financed by German and other European firms that are reeling from electricity costs now three times higher than in places like Louisiana.

Korean and Japanese firms are already swarming into South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. What the Boston Consulting Group calls a "reallocation of global manufacturing" is shifting production away from expensive East Asia and Europe and toward these lower-cost locales. The arrival of auto, steel and petrochemical plants—and, increasingly, the aerospace industry—reflects a critical shift for the Southeast, which historically depended on lower-wage industries such as textiles and furniture.

Since 2000, the Intermountain West's population has grown by 20%, the Third Coast's by 14%, the long-depopulating Great Plains by over 14%, and the Southeast by 13%. Population in the rest of the U.S. has grown barely 7%. Last year, the largest net recipients of domestic migrants were Texas and Florida, which between them gained 150,000. The biggest losers? New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California.

As a result, the corridors are home to most of America's fastest-growing big cities, including Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City and Denver. Critically for the economic and political future, the growth corridor seems particularly appealing to young families with children.

Cities such as Raleigh, Charlotte, Austin, Dallas and Houston enjoy among the country's fastest growth rates in the under-15 population. That demographic is on the wane in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco. Immigrants, too, flock to once-unfamiliar places like Nashville, Charlotte and Oklahoma City. Houston and Dallas already have more new immigrants per capita than Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle and Chicago.

Coastal-city boosters suggest that what they lose in numbers they make up for in "quality" migration. "The Feet are moving south and west while the Brains are moving toward coastal cities," Derek Thompson wrote a few years ago in The Atlantic. Yet over the past decade, the number of people with bachelor's degrees grew by a remarkable 50% in Austin and Charlotte and by over 30% in Tampa, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta—a far greater percentage growth rate than in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York.

Raleigh, Austin, Denver and Salt Lake City have all become high-tech hubs. Charlotte is now the country's second-largest financial center. Houston isn't only the world's energy capital but also boasts the world's largest medical center and, along with Dallas, has become a major corporate and global transportation hub.

The corridors' growing success is a testament to the resiliency and adaptability of the American economy. It also challenges the established coastal states and cities to reconsider their current high-tax, high-regulation climates if they would like to join the growth party.

Mr. Kotkin is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and a City Journal contributing editor. This op-ed is adapted from a report released by the Manhattan Institute on Tuesday, "America's Growth Corridors: The Key to National Revival."
 
For anyone looking at the reasons America for American decline, here is one (of many):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/03/stop-streaming-america.html

There are a series of ads that talk about the media streaming device Roku. Roku, the maker of set-top boxes that stream TV.

Here is the text of the ad about Keep Streaming America.

America, a majestic land made even more magnificent by the tenacity of our compatriots. And because we entrust this great country to these great Americans, you can just sort of take it easy, and watch Roku. Roku is a tiny box that streams your favorite shows on Hulu Plus, HBO Go, and hundreds of other channels straight to your TV. You want to watch episodes of ‘Glee’ for hours on end? Great! Someone else will successfully transplant a dolphin heart into a human being. Stream a ridiculous amount of ‘Modern Family.’ Let some other American create a battery-powered battery charger. Watch ‘New Girl’ till your eyes swell. Another American is testing a prototype engine that runs on compost. Let’s face it TV lovers, you weren’t the leading candidate to patch the ozone anyway. So get a Roku, and keep streaming America.
 
Ratings agencies say the Sequester isn't enough. While bringing long term debt to GDP down to the high 50% range is encouraging, the agencies have a real point in that the spending cuts have not been intelligently applied (the Administration seems determined to carry out the "Washington monument" strategy WRT cuts, and these cuts do not address long term issues like so called entitlement spending).

This should be encouraging news to the TEA party movement and spur action among the 30 Republican States and subnational governments as well to preserve their ratings. Of course another downgrade will upend the various plans by the Fed and Treasury which are based on artificially depressing the credit market; this becomes impossible when "bond hawks" demand higher risk premiums for Treasuries:

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/286057-credit-rating-agencies-shrug-off-sequester-say-more-cuts-needed

Credit rating agencies shrug off sequester, say more cuts needed
By Peter Schroeder - 03/04/13 04:33 PM ET

Credit rating agencies are shrugging off sequestration, saying the U.S. government will need to do more to reduce the deficit if it wants to prevent a downgrade of the nation’s credit rating.

While the agencies say the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts represent at least a step towards deficit reduction, they argue much more is needed to prevent the United States from losing its “AAA” rating.

“It’s not the most ideal outcome,” said David Riley, Fitch Rating’s global managing director for sovereign ratings, on CNBC Europe. “You’d rather have intelligent cuts and some revenue measures as well ... but we don’t live in an ideal world, and it’s better to have some deficit reduction than none at all.”

The agencies view it as a positive sign that Congress did not simply scrap the unpopular sequester. Erasing the cuts without coming up with an alternative, something pushed by some liberal lawmakers, would have added to the deficit and debt and further pressured agencies to downgrade the nation’s credit rating.

At the same time, the agencies say they are worried that Washington’s inability to replace the sequester with targeted deficit reduction underlines concerns about the U.S. government’s dysfunction, a concern that led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the U.S. in 2011.

The S&P downgrade came just days after Congress approved a hike in the nation’s debt limit in August 2011. The months-long debate caused stocks to dip and raised serious doubts about the ability of Republicans and Democrats to come together on fiscal issues.

It also led to the sequester, a series of cuts meant to be triggered only if Congress could not come up with a better deficit-reduction plan.

In downgrading the U.S. credit rating, S&P cited “political brinksmanship” and said Washington’s actions in the debate made the nation “less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed.”

Watching both parties continue to butt heads on fiscal issues, S&P is confident they made the right call.

"The political discord around this process was a factor in lowering the credit rating," said John Piecuch, a spokesman for the rater. "We believe that the events since then have validated our opinion."

Agencies are raising similar concerns with the sequester.

Just days before Friday’s deadline, Fitch said allowing sequestration to occur would “further erode confidence” in policymakers’ ability to strike the broader deficit deals needed to get the country’s debt under control.

In addition, while the sequester will reduce spending and the deficit in the short term, U.S. deficits are expected to rise toward $1 trillion again by 2023.

The sequester reduces defense and non-defense discretionary spending, but does nothing to curtail Medicare spending, a key driver of the deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office found the deficit will drop to $430 billion by 2015 partly because of the sequester, and will continue to fall if spending caps remain curtailed by the budget cuts. (The "fiscal cliff" deal in January also improved the nation’s outlook by bringing in an additional $600 billion in revenue.)

Yet the CBO finds deficits will rise again in later years as entitlement costs continue to skyrocket and the population ages.

Raters say Congress will need to make even tougher choices to rein in debt and deficits if the country is to keep its top-shelf ratings.

The overarching concern from credit raters is getting the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio on a sustainable course.

According to Fitch, assuming Congress leaves the sequester fully in place, policymakers would still need to track down another $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction to get the nation’s debt on a sustainable course. Actually driving down that ratio would require another $3 trillion in deficit reduction.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke struck a similar note when he testified before Congress last week.

He warned that while the sequester cuts might improve the nation’s finances in the short term, they do nothing to address the actual drivers of long-term fiscal woes. He called on Congress to replace the sequester with longer-term fiscal reforms that actually address those issues.

“The difficult process of addressing longer-term fiscal imbalances has only begun,” Bernanke added.

Credit raters are not weighing in on whether Congress should raise taxes, reduce spending or lower entitlement benefits to improve the nation’s fiscal trajectory.

Both Fitch and Moody’s Investors Service still give the U.S. their top rating, but both have placed it on a negative outlook, effectively warning that Washington will need to address the nation’s long-term debt issues in 2013 or face a downgrade.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/286057-credit-rating-agencies-shrug-off-sequester-say-more-cuts-needed#ixzz2Mfu6W8vD
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 
We all know where this is heading. The GOP dominate house passes a budget that reinstates a significant portion of the Defense cuts while offsetting those with cuts in areas the Dems will find unpalatable.

The Dem dominated Senate refuses to take up the bill. And things just continue as before.

And just for shits and giggles, lets make the continuing resolution to keep the government running dependent on the passage of the GOP budget.

How long before everyone finally begins to realize that it's not the deficit and the debt that is the problem but the continued uncertainty in the economy due to both sides dicking around playing politics to score points to keep their own bases happy that is the problem.

Even Nero knew that there was a time to stop playing the fiddle.  :facepalm:
 
The collapse of the "Blue Model" places stresses on the entire social and political infrastructure of the Progressive State. The Progressive model will not just collapse due to its internal contradictions, but will be actively destroyed by the very agents who brought it into being. This is something to think about in Ontario, as the Liberal Party attempts to woo the Teachers union (and their massive "Working Families" election machine) while the rest of the Province sinks further into debt and decay. Some other group(s) will have to be thrown under the bus:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/06/blue-civil-war-the-battle-for-california/

Blue Civil War: The Battle for California

Via Meadia readers know that the most important political battle in America today isn’t the much-ballyhooed battle for the soul of the GOP. It is the blue civil war, pitting key elements of the Democratic coalition against one another as the old social model fails and the growth curve of rising blue model costs runs up against fiscal limits. Blue model policies, whatever their merits, don’t generate the revenue that can support blue model institutions and methods, and when those shortfalls appear, the coalition divides. It’s happened in Wisconsin, it’s happened in Indiana; it’s happened in Michigan and it is happening in California.

The Battle of San Diego is now in full swing. Last summer, voters there approved Prop. B, a ballot measure to reform a pension system whose cost had quintupled in 12 years, eating up revenue for other activities. As politicians struggled to pay off the pension obligations, libraries closed their doors and roads deteriorated. Voters had enough. No longer would they accept service cuts (or tax hikes) to pay to keep unionized public employees in the lifestyle to which they had grown accustomed.

The unions are striking back. A few weeks ago, the Public Employment Relations Board, a quasi-judicial administrative agency for public employees, ruled that “the city failed to negotiate in good faith with its public employee unions before Proposition B was placed on the ballot,” as a local news station reported. In other words, unions believe they should have veto power over which options are put before the voters. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith was not impressed:

“We’re not gonna back down one iota, I can tell you that,” he said. “Because the people do have a right under direct democracy to bypass the city council, to bypass the state legislature, to bypass the labor unions, and to bypass PERB. This is a constitutional right, no different than the first amendment.”

The PERB ruling isn’t binding on the city, but the court battles have already begun. If Prop. B is overturned in court, the city of San Diego stands to lose $27 million.

But if the statewide trend is any indication, that won’t happen. Public employee unions elsewhere in the state are currently losing similar battles against a state employee pension reform bill signed into law last August. And the unions have a surprisingly tough foe in Governor Jerry Brown, who is now going to the mat against the unions on this issue.

It’s a striking sign of the times: in a Democratic trifecta state where Dems control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature, the governor is facing down the same unions that conjured up millions of dollars and thousands of supporters to back him. The irony is rich; during Governor Brown’s first two term administration between 1975 and 1983 he helped create the modern California system of powerful government employee unions.

For decades, Democrats have straddled a divide: they sought to represent both the producers of government services and the low and middle income citizens who depend on those services. Democrats want the votes and the contributions of teacher unions, and they want the votes of the parents whose kids attend public schools. As long as the blue model worked, the contradictions could be managed.

Increasingly, however, the contradictions have come to the fore. Teacher unions want life employment for incompetent teachers; their representatives negotiate farcically unsound pension arrangements with complaisant politicians and want taxpayers to pony up when the huge bills come due. Other producers of government services also have their sweetheart deals.

The result is that the consumers of government services, many of whom of course are Democrats, are getting a raw deal. They are paying too much money in taxes to support a system of government that, however outstanding and dedicated some people in it may be, simply cannot deliver acceptable services at a reasonable cost. The Democratic claim to represent both sides fairly is getting harder to sustain.

Republicans right now are largely irrelevant to the blue civil war. The consumers of government services—folks who send their kids to public schools, depend on mass transit, can’t survive in old age without Medicare and Medicaid—want government to work better and more cheaply, but they don’t want it to do less. This is why the Battle of San Diego and similar fights taking place across California are unlikely to redraw partisan lines anytime soon.

But there’s a serious political opportunity in America for a movement that cares deeply about ensuring that the people who need public services (whether provided directly by the state as in public schools or indirectly through vouchers and charter schools) receive good value for their money.  A movement that fights to reform government and make it work, to strip away unnecessary frills and patronage posts, to disempower bureaucracies and return control to citizens and to create a regulatory and legal framework that can bring start ups and jobs into inner cities could change the balance of power in American politics. (Interpolation: Yes, there is a movement like that out there. Something to do with a hot beverage....)

We wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the young people who’ve gone into programs like Teach For America, or been active in movements like the effort to rebuild New Orleans begin to think outside the blue box about what kind of agenda America’s troubled cities really need. When and if that happens, the politics of the 2oth century will finally begin to shut down, and the politics of a new and more hopeful era in American life will get under way.
 
Looks like the revenue shortfall problem is easy to fix after all:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/03/312000-federal-workers.html

312,000 Federal Workers Owe $3.5 Billion in Back Taxes, Up 11.5% From Prior Year

311,566 federal workers and retirees owed more than $3.5 billion in back income taxes in 2011 (up from $3.4 billion in 2010, $3.3 billion in 2009, $3.0 billion in 2008, and $2.7 billion in 2007).
Accounting Today, Tax-Delinquent Federal Employees and Retirees Increased 11.5% in 2011
Bloomberg, Number of Tax-Delinquent Government Workers Up 11.5%
Fox News, Federal Workers Owe $3.5B in Back Taxes
Washington Post, IRS: Number of Federal Workers Owing Back Taxes Jumps by Nearly 12 Percent in 2011, to 312,000
 
And the grown ups have a budget which has the promise to eliminate the deficit and makes some much needed change to entitlements in order to continue these programs in a modified and fiscally sound(er) fashion:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/budget_chairman_ryan_projects_balance_through_5_trillion_in_spending_cuts-222981-1.html?pg=1

Budget Chairman Ryan Projects Balance Through $5 Trillion in Spending Cuts, Medicare Shift

By Emily Ethridge
Roll Call Staff
March 10, 2013, 1:26 p.m.

Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call File Photo
RELATED LINKS

First Budget in Four Years for Senate Democrats

The House Republican budget will balance the budget over 10 years in part by cutting spending by about $5 trillion and turning Medicare into a premium support program, Rep. Paul D. Ryan said Sunday.

The Wisconsin Republican, whose previous budget resolutions have been signposts for GOP economic policy priorities, said the fiscal 2014 plan that he will release Tuesday will not need to make dramatic changes from previous proposals because of improved economic circumstances.

“We always got close to balancing the budget but not quite there,” the House Budget Committee chairman said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Ryan said the budget proposal will get $600 billion in additional revenue from higher taxes in the fiscal cliff law (PL 112-240) and would cut the rate of spending growth by about $5 trillion over 10 years.

He said spending would grow at 3.4 percent per year over the next decade, rather than the current 4.9 percent.
As in previous years, Ryan’s plan would change Medicare into a premium support program for people currently under age 55. Under that system, beneficiaries would receive a set amount of money from the government to buy coverage through private insurers or traditional Medicare.

According to lawmakers and staff members, Ryan had considered bringing people closer to the Medicare eligibility age into the premium support program but ultimately stayed with maintaining the current program for those 55 and older.

Ryan’s budget proposal also would repeal the 2010 health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152), but it would maintain the law’s $716 billion in Medicare cost cuts. That became a controversial point during the 2012 presidential race when Ryan, as the Republican vice presidential nominee, criticized the Obama administration for the projected cuts in Medicare spending.

Ryan said he would use those Medicare savings to help the program, rather than to fund the health care law.

“We say we get rid of Obamacare, we end the raid and we apply those savings to Medicare to make Medicare more solvent and extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund,” he said.

The proposal also would turn Medicaid into a block grant system in which states get more flexibility to tailor the programs. Ryan criticized the health care overhaul’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility as “reckless,” saying some providers are already refusing to accept people on the program.

“By repealing Obamacare, and the Medicaid expansions which haven’t occurred yet, we are basically preventing an explosion of a program that is already failing,” he said.

Ryan said the budget proposal also would consolidate several government job-training programs into flexible grants for states and would change qualifications for the food stamp program.

The House Budget Committee will mark up Ryan’s budget proposal on Wednesday. The Senate Budget Committee is expected to bring out a competing resolution under Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., during the coming week, but no schedule for considering of that plan has been announced.
 
This is not a surprise for anyone who is paying attention, indeed it could be predicted on two basis: investors looking for higher rates of return since interest rates have been artificially suppressed, and tons of excess money being pumped into the economy with nowhere to go:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/03/22/david-rosenberg-market-rally-a-result-of-fed-smoke-and-mirrors/

David Rosenberg: Market rally a result of Fed smoke and mirrors
Republish Reprint

David Rosenberg, Special to Financial Post | 13/03/22 | Last Updated: 13/03/22 2:22 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. While there has been no escape velocity within the real economy, that 87% correlation with the central bank balance sheet (not to mention negative real short-term interest rates) has been responsible for up to 500 rally points in the S&P 500 this cycle, says David Rosenberg.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. While there has been no escape velocity within the real economy, that 87% correlation with the central bank balance sheet (not to mention negative real short-term interest rates) has been responsible for up to 500 rally points in the S&P 500 this cycle, says David Rosenberg.


Potemkin is the name of a phony village created in the late 18th century by a Russian minister named Grigory Potemkin, who was celebrated for leading the Crimean military campaign. He constructed a shell of a village that appeared exotic from the outside, but was totally fake and he staged fireworks from inside the wall of this ghost town to impress Empress Catherine II when she visited Crimea in 1787 — or so legend would have it.

A modern Potemkin could be this: A stock market that is up around 14% over the past year when corporate earnings are only up 4%.

It’s become quite fashionable to explain the sustained equity market rally in the context of what corporate earnings have done this cycle. Profits have climbed 150% from their lows (on a four-quarter trailing basis) and the S&P 500 has risen 130% from its lows, leaving valuations, so we’re told, at attractive levels. The conclusion is that this is an earnings-driven cycle, and the U.S. Federal Reserve has nothing to do with it.
Federal Reserve behind U.S. bull market

Many pundits seem keen on being the first to call the top as the U.S. stock market continues to set new highs.

No doubt the run has been rather impressive, but there are more important questions investors should be asking such as: Why has the U.S. market done so well in the first place and why haven’t most other countries participated in the same manner?

Meanwhile, our work shows the Fed has had much to do with it. While there has been no escape velocity within the real economy, that 87% correlation with the central bank balance sheet (not to mention negative real short-term interest rates) has been responsible for up to 500 rally points in the S&P 500 this cycle.

We estimate that had the Fed not intervened the way it did in early 2009, the S&P 500 would have dropped closer to 475 than the 666 it did sink to.

History can never be changed, but is constantly open to interpretation.

Corporate profits have soared, but how they were driven, the quality of those earnings and the sustainability of the growth is open for debate.

Here is the prime example. On a four-quarter trailing basis, S&P 500 operating EPS currently tops US$100, while back near the mid-2007 market peak it was closer to US$90.

But back in the spring-summer of 2007, interest expense per share was US$52.54 compared with a mere US$19.47 today. One reason could well be that corporations have pared some of their debt to shore up their balance sheets.

Related

    David Rosenberg: Bears ganging up on loonie are wrong — here’s why it will rebound
    David Rosenberg: Why cash is your least safe bet

According to S&P data, the long-term debt per share is about US$480 while in 2007 it was US$640 — so, indeed, lower per-share debt may account for about a quarter of the reduction in interest expense per share. The tax take in 2007 was equivalent to US$43.72 per share, while after all the fiscal support from the Treasury this cycle, it’s now US$37.11.

Combined, these two factors have added some US$30 per share to corporate earnings benchmarked from the peak of the previous cycle. That would suggest operating EPS north of US$75 right now, instead of US$100-plus, if the Fed and federal government had simply let nature take its course.

This is not to dismiss the earnings bounce out of hand. An 87.5% increase in a mere four years (we bottomed at US$40 back in 2009) is nothing to sneer at. It only puts the valuations on the market into a certain perspective.

Interpretation and analysis are always important and far more useful than doing simple arithmetic on what the market does in terms of achieving a new high. Leave that simplistic approach to Wall Street strategists.

If we go back to what was, in fact, sustainable earnings growth during the dot-com phase, you would have come up with different valuation metrics than what the consensus was comfortable with at the time. Ditto for the financial engineering that drove profit growth in the 2002-07 cycle.

This time around, the bubble is neither in technology nor housing, but in the Fed’s balance sheet and, more broadly speaking, its consequences on this cycle’s risk appetite.

Moreover, with the Dow at a new high there is a lot of reporting about where we are now compared to where we were near the prior highs in the summer of 2007. But what matters most are earnings and the multiple. Everything else is noise.

Back in mid-2007, the reported EPS was US$87 (reported earnings are the actual non-scrubbed numbers — i.e., they include writeoffs and other so-called non-recurring items that operating earnings omit). As of the last quarter, it was US$89. So we are back to peak earnings.

Back in mid-2007, the reported P/E ratio was 17.7x on trailing. Today, that P/E multiple sits at 17.3x. So we are back close to peak multiples.

Granted, the Fed has acted, which means the lower interest payments and lower taxes are real. But even though the Fed is unlikely to raise rates, it will not be possible to engineer a further decline in interest expense either. And corporate tax rates are also unlikely to fall.

Therefore, the legitimate questions are: How strong can EPS growth be from here if it is limited to organic earnings growth? And does this ultra-low interest rate environment warrant further multiple expansion or a historically wide equity risk premium?

The bulls managed to call this cycle right, but there is some doubt whether we will achieve multiple expansion and earnings expansion beyond what we experienced near the 2007 peaks.

This is why we are focused on holding companies where the free-cash-flow yield is significant. We don’t need multiple expansions or earnings expansion, because stable healthy cash flows are still available if you know where to look for them.

David Rosenberg is chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. and author of the daily economic report, Breakfast with Dave. He is one of FP Magazine’s 25 Most Influential People in Canada.
 
The day of reconing will be very ugly indeed:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/03/28/bernankes-wwii-monetary-regime/

Bernanke's WWII monetary regime
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has likened his policy to the monetary regime adopted during the 1940s.

The Fed’s real goal in keeping interest rates low is to finance government debt and deficits

When a government spends beyond its means, the options for paying for the spree are unattractive. It can burden the populace with higher taxes, or it can wipe out a portion of creditors’ wealth by inflating the money supply, repaying debts with a debased currency. Or it can do both. The United States is avoiding these choices by borrowing enormous sums, bringing federal debt to almost US$17-trillion, at interest rates that the Federal Reserve has managed to keep very low.

For now.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has likened his policy to the monetary regime adopted during the 1940s. For example, in a 2002 speech he gave as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Mr. Bernanke noted that until 1951, despite “inflation rates substantially more variable” than today, the central bank fixed the yields on government debt and had “maintained a ceiling of 2.5% on long-term Treasury bonds for nearly a decade.”

In that decade of world war and its aftermath, the Fed enforced the ceilings by purchasing short-term debt, but Mr. Bernanke noted that there was an even more direct method of holding down interest rates.

The Fed could announce explicit ceilings for longer-maturity Treasury debt and “enforce these interest-rate ceilings by committing to make unlimited purchases of securities up to two years from maturity at prices consistent with the targeted yields.”

His message in the speech was that holding down long-term interest rates can work even better these days than it did 70 years ago. But several special circumstances in those days overcame potential resistance to extraordinarily low interest rates.

First, the Fed had political support for its actions. In fact, the interest-rate policy did not originate with the Fed at all but was imposed by the U.S. Treasury, which wanted to finance the war debt as cheaply as possible.

Second, patriotic fervour stoked the public’s appetite for Treasury borrowing during World War II. Hollywood dispatched stars, for example, to cheer people to buy “Victory Bonds.”

Related

    Fed’s easing boosting world economies: Bernanke
    David Rosenberg: Market rally a result of Fed smoke and mirrors

Third, the low bond yields and the volatile inflation Mr. Bernanke alluded to existed in the context of rationing and price controls. With the government making all of the important output and pricing decisions, managed interest rates didn’t attract particular attention.

Last but not least was the exceptional position of the U.S. after the war. Where else could U.S. citizens put their money? Europe lay in ruins. America was then the safest place in the world and a destination for much of the world’s talented people.

After the war, President Harry Truman and Treasury Secretary John Snyder staunchly defended the low-interest-rate peg. Truman declared that it was his duty to protect patriotic Americans who had bought low-coupon bonds during the war and would suffer heavy losses if interest rates rose. In reality, Federal Reserve documents acknowledge that the reason rates were kept low was to pay down the World War II debt cheaply. But the Fed refused Truman’s insistence that interest rates be kept low to pay for the Korean War too. An accord between the Fed and the Treasury in 1951 released the central bank from having to maintain a ceiling on government debt yields.

And what about today? For now, the Fed is in the fortunate position of being able to mimic its World War II-era strategy. It can allow the Treasury to continue borrowing cheaply while the government expands its deficit spending and debt accumulation. As to places where investors can park their money safely, Europe and the euro have lost considerable credibility since 2008, while Japan has failed to restore any to the yen. China continues under one-party rule, India is still bound in red tape, Russia remains an enigma, Latin America is not yet quite reliable. Australia, Canada and Switzerland can absorb only so much of world-wide savings.

Still, the Treasury cannot count on lasting political support for a Fed policy that allows the government to pay down the national debt cheaply — however much this policy goal can be disguised by talk that the ultra-low interest rates are really aimed at helping the U.S. economy. People trying to save for the future, and those who are already retired can get only minuscule returns from their investments.

Meanwhile, millions of Baby Boomers are preparing to retire and receive money from unfunded entitlement programs, which will put even more pressure on government spending. It is far from clear that the economy will be able to grow as it did after World War II, or that the U.S. will remain a magnet for the flow of talent and capital from around the world. These factors suggest a diminished capacity to pay back the federal debt with stable dollars.


Present Federal Reserve policies haven’t got much to do with any novel monetary or “macro-stability” insights. They achieve what Fed policy achieved during and after World War II — cheap financing of the government’s deficits and debt, and the transfer of wealth from savers to recipients of government largesse. But a day of reckoning cannot be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. Brenner lectures at McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management in Montreal and is a member of the university’s pension board and investment committee. Mr. Fridson’s bond-market analysis appears in Standard & Poor’s Leveraged Commentary and Data.
[/quoe]
 
California- run fast and run far:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/31/nyt-pushing-california-comeback-over-heads-of-poor-jobless/

NYT Pushing California “Comeback” Over Heads of Poor, Jobless

Over at the New York Times, where the California Comeback tune is sung louder than anywhere outside Jerry Brown’s office, Timothy Egan has written a heartfelt paean to what he sees as the Golden State’s bright future. Egan boasts that, despite “California-hating naysayers” predicting a Greek style collapse, California in fact “is dreaming once again”:

All of it together — the rerouted rivers, the train moving at the speed of Superman, taxing the rich and welcoming a Latino majority — is a road not taken by any other state. You can laugh at the sunbaked barbarians, even wish them ill. But you should not fail to see in their fledgling renaissance another chapter in the American experiment, no less daring than the Golden Gate Bridge or the castle that Hearst erected at continent’s edge.

Fittingly, the same day Egan’s hymn was published, the California State Auditor reported the state’s net worth – its assets minus its liabilities – at negative $127.2 billion. Also reported were $167.9 billion in long-term obligations, not including $60 billion in unfunded liabilities for retiree health care, or those for state employees’ future pensions. These are not just “bills.” These are benefits for public employees and services for the poor that won’t be delivered as promised.

California’s public school system, both one of the most expensive and one of the poorest performing in the country, is not improving. The state’s prison system is both so overcrowded and underfunded that the US Supreme Court deemed conditions “cruel and unusual punishment.” And despite 9.8 percent unemployment (tied for highest in the country), tax, regulatory, and zoning policies make blue-collar job creation in manufacturing and real estate development next to impossible.

Egan and other turquoise dreamers seem to look at tenured teachers, happy prison guards, and fleeced one-percenters and believe conditions are promising enough to move on to romantic dreams of the future. Over the heads of undereducated kids, the chronically unemployed, and the poor, they see a high-speed train zooming along the sparkling coast. This is not how progressives used to think.

Of course the only possible solutions are so at varience to the plans and goals current political "elite" that run California (fracking and developing the estimated multi trillion dollar treasure trove of shale oil under California, deregulating and reducing taxes to encourage business investment and job creation, reigning in public service unions pay and benefits) that the State will probably have a catastrophic economic meltdown before any political changes are possible.
 
An amazing testament to the inefficiency of government. The sequester + eliminating inefficiencies would provide a continuing saving of $180 billion dollars (enough to almost eliminate Ontario's debt in one year, to giver you a sense of scale).

I suspect that a similar list could be compiled for our own Federal Government departments, as well as for each of the Provinces (and the overlapping of Federal and Provincial responsibilities, especially Federal intrusion into Provincial responsibilities is probably worth another few billion as well):

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/04/14/Government-Wastes-More-than-the-Cost-of-the-Sequester.aspx#page1

Government Wastes More than the Cost of the Sequester

By BRIANNA EHLEY, The Fiscal Times
April 14, 2013

Disorganization across the federal government has led to billions of wasted tax dollars spent on redundant federal programs, from $30 million worth of catfish inspections performed by two separate agencies, to $66 million in contracts awarded by two different arms of the Department of Homeland Security to unknowingly research the exact same thing.

These are just two examples from the Government Accountability Office’s third annual report to Congress identifying overlapping programs and inefficiencies across the federal government. This year, the agency watchdog found 31 new areas of overlap, which, if addressed would equal about $95 billion in potential cost savings. That’s $10 billion more than the sequester cuts that took effect last month.

“Instead of preventing furloughs, reopening air traffic control towers and restoring public access to the White House, Congress and the administration continue to defend billions of dollars in duplicative programs that are little more than monuments to the good intentions of career politicians in Washington,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, who sponsored legislation requiring the annual report.

But so far, the government has been slow to respond to the GAO’s previous recommendations. Since the first report in 2011, the government has only fully addressed 16 of the 162 wasteful areas that the GAO has discovered, with another 87 being partially addressed and the rest ignored.
And unless real reforms are taken, the auditors don’t expect much to change.

During a congressional hearing last week, U.S. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, head of the GAO, emphasized the sloth-like response by agencies to his findings.“My term goes to 2025,” Dodaro said. “I hope that I won’t be reporting all these same issues in that year. But I can tell you that it won’t change unless the Congress gets involved in this process with active oversight.”

President Obama unveiled his fiscal 2014 budget last week, which proposes to cut and consolidate programs—including the catfish inspections—in order to save $25 billion. Of course, Obama’s budget was declared dead-on arrival by GOP lawmakers.

For now, the GAO is ramping up its pressure on the federal government by launching a new website feature to monitor the mess. See the website here.

Here are 10 examples of redundant programs across the federal government:

Catfish inspections The federal government spends $30 million to fund two different catfish inspection programs through the Federal Drug Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service, and under the 2008 Farm Bill the Agriculture Department will also start surveying catfish. Streamlining the inspections through one agency could save the taxpayers $14 million.

Renewable Energy Initiatives  Auditors found extensive overlap across 679 renewable energy initiatives implemented by 23 different agencies across the federal government, including 82 initiatives for wind energy alone. The agencies spent about $2.9 billion on these initiatives, and another $1.1 billion was provided in tax subsidies. In one instance, one company received funding from seven wind energy programs for the same project.

Military Uniforms Four different branches of the U.S. military spend millions of dollars on seven different combat uniforms that differ only in the color of their camouflage patterns. The Pentagon could eliminate $82 million in excess if the branches simply coordinated with each other.

Foreign Language Service at the DoD  The military spends more than $1 billion a year on 159 contractors that translate foreign languages. If the Pentagon scaled back those contracts, the savings would be $50 to $200 million a year.

National Technical Information Service The National Technical Information Service sells federal reports to other government agencies—75 percent of which can be found online for free. This duplication costs taxpayers $1.5 million.

Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs The federal government currently funds 76 different drug-abuse prevention and treatment programs—59 of which overlapped responsibilities.

Job Training for Vets  The Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs operate six different programs to train former members of the armed services for the private sector. The programs cost the government $1.2 billion in 2011.

Higher Education Assistance Four federal agencies run 21 separate college aid programs that cost more than $140 billion a year. This includes eight targeted tax breaks, four subsidized loan programs, and a slew of grant programs. Still, nothing has been done to evaluate "the effectiveness of this assistance,” the GAO says.

Broadcasting Board of Governors The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) spends 20 percent of its annual budget on 69 different language services—of which, 49 provide roughly the same responsibilities.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/04/14/Government-Wastes-More-than-the-Cost-of-the-Sequester.aspx#a4D9U7f8F08ujIhY.99
 
This will be like a bank run on government pensions, and other States with insolvent pension funds (Illinois, New York etc.) will probably see something like this happening soon as well. Given the unfinded liabilities of US government pension funds is estimated to be 2 trillion dollars, there is a lot of incentive not to be caught in it.:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/04/18/california-city-abandons-sinking-pension-fund/

Sinking Pension Fund

Canyon Lake, a small gated city in Southern California, has just announced plans to withdraw from Calpers. The move comes in response to the pension fund’s recent suggestion that cities kick in as much as 50 percent more to the fund to keep benefits secure. Calpers requires a “termination fee” for any municipality looking to exit, but the city apparently thinks paying that fee now offers a better deal than a future of contribution hikes with Calpers.

Calpers already has its hands full with rebellious cities. The fund has been embroiled in a long fight with San Bernardino, which is looking to delay payments as it goes through bankruptcy. But Canyon Lake is the only city so far that has decided to leave the fund entirely, and it’s not yet clear how Calpers will react to this move. It’s not that Calpers is afraid of the city’s departure on its own. Canyon Lake is an extremely small city, with only two full time employee. But if other, larger cities follow Canyon Lake’s lead, Calpers will have a serious problem on its hands.
 
The ever popular reality vs appearances employment graph is updated for April 2013. Accompanying article also clarifies things like labour participation rate and so on (Labour participation adds back all the "unemployed but no longer looking" people the BLS no longer counts when releasing their figures). The dark blue line is the projected unemployment rate with the "stimulus", the light blue line is the projected unemployment rate if the Stimulus package was not implimented, and the red dots are the real rate.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/was-the-april-jobs-report-really-the-obamacare-jobs-report/

Part-time Nation: Was the April jobs report really the Obamacare jobs report?
James Pethokoukis | May 3, 2013, 10:05 am

Credit: Obama White House; AEI
US job growth in April beat economist expectations as nonfarm payrolls rose 165,000, and the jobless rate fell to a four-year low of 7.5%. But the report contained worrisome signs that President Obama’s health care reform law is hurting full-time, high-wage employment.

While the American economy added 293,000 jobs last month, according to the separate household survey, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons — “involuntary part-time workers” as the Labor Department calls them – increased by almost as much, by 278,000 to 7.9 million. These folks were working part time because a) their hours had been cut back or b) they were unable to find a full-time job. At the same time, the U-6 unemployment rate — a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers who want a full-time gig – rose from 13.8% to 13.9%.

What’s more, there wasa  0.2 hour decline in the length of the average workweek. This led to 0.4 percentage point drop in the index of average weekly hours, “equaling the largest declines since the recovery began,” notes economist Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Let’s see, more part timers and fewer hours worked. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin says what we’re all thinking: “This is not good news as it reflects the reliance on part-time work. … the decline in hours and rise of part-time work is troubling in light of anecdotal reports of the impact of the Affordable Care Act.”

Anecdotal reports like this one from the Los Angeles Times: “Consider the city of Long Beach. It is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on average. City officials say that without cutting payroll hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.”

Now, there is the possibility that government furloughs are affecting the length of the workweek. (Though at the same time, steady if unspectacular private-sector job growth shows the Fed may be continuing to effectively offset any negative sequestration impact.) Here is JPMorgan on the subject:

Government shed a trend-like 11,000 jobs last month, a number which bore little evidence of a meaningful sequestration impact. Similarly, it is hard to directly link the decline in the average workweek to furloughed government workers, as the workweek only measures private industry hours. It’s conceivable the decline in the workweek may be related to the Affordable Care Act, but a simpler explanation is that it had jumped two ticks in the prior two months, and through the month-to-month noise is just settling into a stable trend.

We’ll see. But the combo of data and anecdotes should at least raise red flags about how health care reform could be permanently altering the structure of the American labor market.

A few other points:

1. The labor force participation rate was dead in the water. If it were back to January 2009 levels, the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Demographics are playing a role here. But even taking that into account may put the real unemployment rate in the 9% to 10% range.

2. Only 53.9% of private industries added jobs last month, the second lowest of the labor market recovery, according to JPM.

3. Even with the unemployment rate at a misleadingly low 7.5%, it is way above where the Obama White House predicted it would be if Congress passed the 2009 stimulus, as the above chart shows. Back then, Team Obama thought 5% was the economy’s full-employment rate but recently has upped that number to 5.4%.

4. If the economy continues to add jobs at the 2013 pace of 196,000 a month, the labor market would return to pre-recession employment levels in seven years and ten months, according to the Hamilton Project’s “jobs gap” calculator.

The shortening of the work week and increasing numbers of part time workers are known as "29ers" in the United States; the "29ers" have their hours reduced below 30/wk in order to avoid the Obamacare penalties for workers over 30 hr/wk.
 
Thucydides said:
The ever popular reality vs appearances employment graph is updated for April 2013. Accompanying article also clarifies things like labour participation rate and so on (Labour participation adds back all the "unemployed but no longer looking" people the BLS no longer counts when releasing their figures). The dark blue line is the projected unemployment rate with the "stimulus", the light blue line is the projected unemployment rate if the Stimulus package was not implimented, and the red dots are the real rate.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/was-the-april-jobs-report-really-the-obamacare-jobs-report/

The shortening of the work week and increasing numbers of part time workers are known as "29ers" in the United States; the "29ers" have their hours reduced below 30/wk in order to avoid the Obamacare penalties for workers over 30 hr/wk.

I have to counter this article.  Reasoning below.

Official USA Government statistics here
http://www.bls.gov/cps/

Not In Labour Force Chart
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab16.htm (check box Total not in the labor force, then click retrieve data on site)

If anyone likes statistical feel of how well the American economy is doing from the best source there is, those links will suffice.  The BLS (Bureau of Labour Statistics) website is a massive database.  I included the links for the critical stuff as pertaining to economic performance.

While it is easy to criticize the latest positive numbers is extremely good news I believe even if it just part time jobs.  My reasoning behind this is these jobs added is a actual reversal of citizens transferring from employment to unemployment to not in labor force.  The unemployment doesn't look to bad when it reads 7.. 6.. 5%, when those checks (cheques for us Canadians )run out and the people are transferred into "not in labor force" status.  They are not counted towards unemployment numbers.

At any given time around 63% +/-5% of the work force has jobs or 46% of the population as far back as year 1970.  37% +/-5% of working age is jobless, but this also includes students, stay at home mothers, the disabled and so forth.

Now looking at those numbers, the population grew 12million approx since 2008.  All things being equal.  5.52million should of found jobs, and 2.04million should be added to "not in labor force"  The chart shows in that time frame from the second link I posted that 10million approx was added to "not in labor force" status.  Nearly 8 million higher than what would of been appropriate given the the population growth.

Finally the labor market has been in decline in the USA since year 2000 according to LBS.gov charts and in the last 5 years the population grew approx 12million.  The number of people added to below the poverty line in the same time frame is roughly 12million people and 18million new food stamp recipients since 2008.  50% faster than the population growth.

Back to why I think this is good news? All three indicators were positive.  Job growth really did outpace labor force growth.  Hopefully it continues.  Maybe those trillions and trillions of dollars in Federal spending and Quantitative Easing is finally starting to work.
 
The only true point that can be gleaned from the information is that  no matter what measure you use, the numbers all show that unemployment is on the decline, and has been since October 2009.
 
The growing numbers of people being forced into the "29er" category are not transitioning into better jobs, they are transitioning into worse ones. The stats clearly show this.

Yes, unemployment is ever so slowly declining, but given the number of unemployed people (U3) is about the same as the actual population of Canada this is nothing to cheer about. Not only is is corrosive for the unemployed and a huge drag on the US economy, it hurts us as well, since Canada is deprived of a potential customer base the size of our entire nation for our goods and services. The (U6) number increasing to 13.9% is equally bad for everyone, since the involuntarily underemployed people are just keeping their heads above water, not generating wealth or purchasing goods and services.

This is hardly anything to cheer about, and the persistent high unemployment calls for a complete reversal of the destructive policies that prevent economic recovery.

 
Back
Top