Job's data make economic outlook much better...rising wages...

6SpeedTA95 · 01-06-2007, 02:06 PM

Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition Page A3

"Jobs Data Brighten Economic Picture"

The Economy put on 167,000 jobs last month. 178k jobs in the service sector and mfg lost about 8k jobs. The unemployment rate is expected to stay low throughout 2007 and the economy is expected to stack on jobs at an average of about 130,000/mo this year.

Wages are also rising at their quickest pace since 1999 and rose 4.2% this past year, well ahead of inflation. The average hourly worker is now making 17.04/hr up .5% in just december alone. Wage increases are expected to be brisk the first half of 2007 and are expected to continue increasing through the end of the year and into 2008 but a moderation in wage increases is expected in the third quarter of 2007.

The labor market is becoming increasingly taxed as quality workers are now becoming hard to find. The result is upward pressure on wages throughout the year. The downside however is that this upward pressure could translate into inflationary pressure. However, this is expected to moderate in the second quarter of 07 and should remain low as the economy adds jobs at a slightly lower rate than incoming labor by years end.

Jobs with the highest increase in wages were professional jobs, engineering jobs, IT jobs and other skilled professions. The wage growth in these industries was 7 to 9%...

This is a summary of the article, this is pretty good news, assuming we can keep the fed from adjusting the interest rate, which it appears he's happy to not touch it for awhile then things should hum along quite nicely. All this seems to indicate a soft landing much like what happened in 1993/1994. This could help restore confidence in the federal reserve and could set the stage for another brisk economic expansion in late 2008 through 2012 assuming the government doesn't do something stupid (see increasing taxes).

Since I'm in engineering and IT does that mean I get an 18% raise?

thatguyoverthere · 01-06-2007, 02:11 PM

Excellent! We were all due some good news. I hope these trends keep up.

6SpeedTA95 · 01-06-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Excellent! We were all due some good news. I hope these trends keep up.

They've been going good for awhile and this month was just icing on the cake. If we can manage to not have another fed rate hike I think we'll be in great shape for a soft landing. Keep in mind this is despite a massive downturn in house and construction, so assuming the fed holds the federal rate steady I think we'll be in great shape this year. Then perhaps fourth quarter or first quarter 08 we can begin dropping rates once inflation has been batted down.

JaJae · 01-06-2007, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

They've been going good for awhile and this month was just icing on the cake. If we can manage to not have another fed rate hike I think we'll be in great shape for a soft landing. Keep in mind this is despite a massive downturn in house and construction, so assuming the fed holds the federal rate steady I think we'll be in great shape this year. Then perhaps fourth quarter or first quarter 08 we can begin dropping rates once inflation has been batted down.

I hate that under Bush when the quarterly reports show the economy is doing well it's page 89 news and gets a 10 second blurb on the MSM. Yet any negative indication no matter how meaningless gets page 1 and hour long CNN specials.

I'm glad the job market is doing well. I wish more of the population would be informed of it.

Thorgrim · 01-06-2007, 02:33 PM

It's not impressive at all:

During Bill Clinton's eight years in office, the economy added 236,000 jobs per month. But that's just an average: a graph of monthly changes looks like an electrocardiogram. There were 23 months with 300,000 or more new jobs; in March 2000, the economy added 493,000 jobs.

JaJae · 01-06-2007, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's not impressive at all:

It's interesting how your quote ends in March of 2000.... What major economical event happened shortly thereafter that caused a huge recession that Bush inherited?

I'll give you a hint....

Clinton had 2 years of strong growth that all came crashing down on the pile of straws it was built on. Look at the first 8 years of his term and compare to Bush who had to deal with the aftermath, 9/11, Katrina and Iraq. The economy is doing better than it was before the couple years of faux economical growth that came crashing down like the straw house it was. The current economy is more solid, strong and still improving. To say that's not impressive shows a lack of understanding of current economic events.

Thorgrim · 01-06-2007, 02:47 PM

Oh because the economy was great when Clinton got elected, that catch-phrase "its the economy stupid"

Clinton had to deal with a bad economy, what did he do? He raised taxes, and despite what Republicans and supply side economics told us, there wasn't a second recession, in fact those tax hikes were key to us being able to get a balanced budget which helped the economy

We don't have to go to Clinton, go to 80s when Volcker caused an intentional recession and then came back and slashed rates that led to a takeoff, the numbers there again outpace this average growth

I believe with 300 million, that number is actually bad, it might be lagging behind the natural expansion of the work force through population growth

JaJae · 01-06-2007, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Oh because the economy was great when Clinton got elected, that catch-phrase "its the economy stupid"

Clinton had to deal with a bad economy, what did he do? He raised taxes, and despite what Republicans and supply side economics told us, there wasn't a second recession, in fact those tax hikes were key to us being able to get a balanced budget which helped the economy

We don't have to go to Clinton, go to 80s when Volcker caused an intentional recession and then came back and slashed rates that led to a takeoff, the numbers there again outpace this average growth

I believe with 300 million, that number is actually bad, it might be lagging behind the natural expansion of the work force through population growth

Clinton had the tech bubble. Bush had 9/11 and Katrina. Clinton did not create the tech bubble, he just received the reputation for it. Giving Clinton credit for the tech bubble is a bit absurd.

Thorgrim · 01-06-2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Clinton had the tech bubble. Bush had 9/11 and Katrina. Clinton did not create the tech bubble, he just received the reputation for it. Giving Clinton credit for the tech bubble is a bit absurd.

Katrina caused the job losses in his first term...Katrina?

Everything the Bush administration has put out has been that the economy has been doing great for over 3 years, well before Katrina

No, give Clinton credit for getting a bad economy from Bush I, a primary reaosn why he was elected, and he was able to sustain growth and recovery with a tax hike

RMNIXON · 01-06-2007, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Oh because the economy was great when Clinton got elected, that catch-phrase "its the economy stupid"

Clinton had to deal with a bad economy, what did he do? He raised taxes, and despite what Republicans and supply side economics told us, there wasn't a second recession, in fact those tax hikes were key to us being able to get a balanced budget which helped the economy

This is so dumb it is beyond LMAO!

First of all the ballance came after the 94 REPUBLICAN congress not the Clinton Tax hikes. The CONGRESS makes the actual budget appropriations for the President to sign. Second, Leon Panetta (Budget director) argued that debt was OK so long as Government spending stimulated economic growth. See the 1992-94 debt! The Private capiltalist "greedy" sector had a tech boom in the mid 90's that created jobs and growth. That is simple fact. If you are going to argue that tax hikes create anything but government growth you are on another planet besides earth!

Thorgrim · 01-07-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

This is so dumb it is beyond LMAO!

First of all the ballance came after the 94 REPUBLICAN congress not the Clinton Tax hikes. The CONGRESS makes the actual budget appropriations for the President to sign. Second, Leon Panetta (Budget director) argued that debt was OK so long as Government spending stimulated economic growth. See the 1992-94 debt! The Private capiltalist "greedy" sector had a tech boom in the mid 90's that created jobs and growth. That is simple fact. If you are going to argue that tax hikes create anything but government growth you are on another planet besides earth!

That's simply a matter of time, it took awhile for the higher taxes and following growth to kick in for a balance...and I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the Clinton tax hikes created a bigger governments, especially considering how the GOP had a huge increase in government, not just post-911 but after 2002 when they had total control for 4 years...and the debt increased and we had government expansions under Reagan, so Tax Cuts create debt and government growth

RMNIXON · 01-07-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's simply a matter of time, it took awhile for the higher taxes and following growth to kick in for a balance...and I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the Clinton tax hikes created a bigger governments, especially considering how the GOP had a huge increase in government, not just post-911 but after 2002 when they had total control for 4 years...and the debt increased and we had government expansions under Reagan, so Tax Cuts create debt and government growth

Spending beyond your means gives you debt. The actual revenue growth durring the Reagan years was substantail every year after the first year of the tax cuts, a marginal time delay to take effect. The "spending" was the problem, not the tax cuts. Tax hikes always proceed more government spending. Anybody who really thinks the government has raised taxes for the sole purpose debt control is beyond naive!

And we were debating the Clinton record. I am not defending Bush or the GOP 2000 to present. I am defending economic principles not what party does what with taxes and spending. Plenty of shame for both!

JaJae · 01-07-2007, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Katrina caused the job losses in his first term...Katrina?

Everything the Bush administration has put out has been that the economy has been doing great for over 3 years, well before Katrina

No, give Clinton credit for getting a bad economy from Bush I, a primary reaosn why he was elected, and he was able to sustain growth and recovery with a tax hike

It has been great, but large natural disasters aren't exactly something that's going to have a neutral effect. Having one of our major port cities get washed away hurts the economy. We could have had better growth had we not had 9/11, Katrina, etc. He came in during a recession and said the economy wasn't doing well, which is why he wanted to lower taxes to help stimulate it. And since then it's been gradually getting better and better. And it currently is doing extremely well.