danivon wrote:ADP payroll report - 158,000 jobs added (above expectations)

Labor Dept initial jobless claims - 363,000 (slightly better than expected)

ISM factory index up 0.2 points to 51.7 (was expected to fall by 0.7 points to 51)

Good-ish news for the US economy. ADP figures have been questioned in the recent past, but this report is the first to have been produced since a revision assisted by Moody's. Tomorrow we'll see if they are a better predictor of the official figures (and how good those are).

363K is still not good. The unemployment rate will either remain at 7.8 or go up.

That is only new claims, though. If the number coming off the rolls is higher, then the rate will probably drop. Let us hope that your economy is improving, and we'll see some more numbers tomorrow.

Good numbers coming out today ... unemployment as expected, but job gains much higher than expected. 171,000 for Oct. which is almost 50,000 more than recently expected. Also, Aug and Sep were revised upwards by a combined 84,000. That strikes me as a very good surprise for Obama.

Yeah, the rate ticked up to 7.9, which is under the psychologically significant 8% line, but the trend is for slightly more jobs overall than is said to be needed to keep pace with population growth. The markets seem to have responded postively, too.

It is not a brilliant set of figures, but it's not the bad news that some were expecting.

Ray Jay wrote:Good numbers coming out today ... unemployment as expected, but job gains much higher than expected. 171,000 for Oct. which is almost 50,000 more than recently expected. Also, Aug and Sep were revised upwards by a combined 84,000. That strikes me as a very good surprise for Obama.

171,000 new jobs.

170,000 newly unemployed.

Unemployment rate higher than when President took office.

Average earnings per hour down (nearly even).

Average income down $4K since the President took office.

I was not expecting "bad news." I expect the "recovery" to continue being the worst in history as long as the President has the boot of government on its neck.

Hey, if you don't like a report from a non-partisan source just suppress it (as Senate Republicans did when the Congressional Research Service found that cutting taxes for the rich did not correlate with higher economic growth).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... ostpopular

From the report:

"The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities. "

Thanks for that non-economic trend note. That's a political/taxation argument.

Now, if you want to talk about the $4000 annually that the working classes have lost in annual income since Obama took office, that would be an economic trend. You're talking tax policy..

I suppose where ever I posted it would be an inconvenient for conservatives to have a study posted looking at economic history that calls into question the efficacy of the Republican party's political philosophy--that tax cuts for the wealthy help the economy
As for middle-class families, it could have been worse( and undoubtedly would have been if we would have had a president who did not believe in government intervention in tough economic times) and it is unrealistic to expect our economy would now have robust growth 4 years after the worst economic crisis since the Depression and after having to retool from a consumer demand economy to more of a mixed consumer-manufacturing based economy.

I dunno, it's about long term trends. It's at least not a bunch of polls. It is of interest to note that taxing the rich less just makes them richer, and has a negligible effect on overall growth.

The minutiae of economic data isn't going to change anybodies minds in the election anymore. Its the overall feeling of progress towards or slippage away from prosperity that matters. And most people conscious of the slippage have made their mind up about who cares more about their personal prosperity, and which guys polciies will actually help with their personal prosperity.
Prosperity depends upon more than just economic indicators too.
From Bloomberg News:
The U.S. slid from the top ten most prosperous nations for the first time in a league table which ranked three Scandinavian nations the best for wealth and wellbeing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-3 ... -no-1.html

Not likely to be discussed on Fox news I guess, since notable socialist countries are at the top of the list...
But, if people get out from under the information silo, and absorb studies like this .... maybe there's hope for more than the shallow politicl debate going on during this election.
The study is here.... well, part of its presentation is here...
http://www.prosperity.com/

rickyp wrote:The minutiae of economic data isn't going to change anybodies minds in the election anymore. Its the overall feeling of progress towards or slippage away from prosperity that matters. And most people conscious of the slippage have made their mind up about who cares more about their personal prosperity, and which guys polciies will actually help with their personal prosperity.
Prosperity depends upon more than just economic indicators too.
From Bloomberg News:
The U.S. slid from the top ten most prosperous nations for the first time in a league table which ranked three Scandinavian nations the best for wealth and wellbeing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-3 ... -no-1.html

Not likely to be discussed on Fox news I guess, since notable socialist countries are at the top of the list...
But, if people get out from under the information silo, and absorb studies like this .... maybe there's hope for more than the shallow politicl debate going on during this election.
The study is here.... well, part of its presentation is here...
http://www.prosperity.com/

Irony meter: 11 (scale is 1 to 10)

Your post is full of snide comments and innuendo, but you note, "(America is having a) shallow politicl (sic) debate going on during this election."

I didn't see anything 'snide', let alone 'innunendo' in that post. Trademark spelling errors, yes. Pointing out that a lot of people have already made up their minds (which you have already said yourself before), yes. A bit of a dig at Fox for being partisan and selective, yes - but we've seen similar digs at MSNBC or other outlets which didn't warrant DF's opprobrium.

certainly nothing worse than an average post here. But the irony of you complaining about it certainly rates an 11.

I do agree that the US election debate is largely shallow, and it's not 'snide' to express that opinion. Lots of it is not about the actual policies, but the presentation. A wrong word is inflated into a major talking point (by both sides and by the media), but the big issues are obscured. Even when it comes to the big issues, both main candidates are light on detail, and it largely comes down to two competing camps doing each other down.

The interesting point from Ricky's post is that prosperity is indeed about more than numbers. People have to feel that they are doing better, in order to be content about it.

I also experienced Ricky's post as snide, although I agree with Danivon that when you break down individual words it's hard to figure out why. There's something about e-mail where tone is hard to discern. But my quick reading of the tone was something like:

"Ha, ha, you guys are in decline but you right wing nut jobs are too stupid to realize it". I realize that's not what the words actually say, so I didn't originally comment on it. But that's how I read the tone, rightly or wrongly. BTW, are Scandinavian countries really socialist? I thought that Danivon would be all over that.

The Scandinavian countries are social democratic. Which is closer to socialism than the US will likely even consider, let alone actually take up. However, as they accomodate capitalism they are not socialist economies.

I see those countries as moving gradually and incrementally towards socialism, and only by democratic consent. In that sense, they are largely being led by socialists most of the time. So in that sense they are 'socialist', if not 'Socialist'. Given that what they are would be regarded as bordering on 'communist' in the American political lexicon, it's not something to jump on much. I would be surprised if Sweden and Norway were not regarded as 'socialist' by most Americans who knew much about them.

On 'snide', I guess the problem is that if you spend more time reading between lines than the actual words, what you are doing is projecting. Maybe Ricky meant to be 'snide'. Maybe he did not, you guys can't tell because you are not mind readers. Perhaps Ricky could be clearer in his writing, but I think a heavy dose of the 'snide' was your assumptions.

given Ricky has been absent for a month, perhaps you guys could cut him a break on his return, in the sprirt of encouraging all of us to participate better.

ray

Ha, ha, you guys are in decline but you right wing nut jobs are too stupid to realize it".

Please take away the ha ha. I don't see anything funny about the decline of the US (even though its actually a very slight decline) or about the American political connundrum.
However, part of what I think one should take from the analysis offered by prosperity.com (funded by a New Zealand billionares Dubai investment firm...) is that myths and prejudices do distort one's perceptions.
I think it comes down to belief versus evidence. A large percentage of Americans (40% ?) are fundamental in their religious views. (Christian predominantly). And part of the fundamental religion is the role faith holds in supporting some of their views. (evolution, origins of earth, etc.)
With this mind set is it any wonder that certain argumentation, such as objective comparison with other countries, is tossed aside with a "belief" in American exceptionalism?
This is demonstrated in oppositional attitudes such as like the abhorrence of European Socialism versus the enormous popularity of instituions in the US that are "socialist". (Medicare, Medicaid .)
Moreover the perception of "decline" is the one thing that both those on the American far right (Tea Party) and those on the extreme American Left (occupy movmeent) are in agreement upon. What they don't agree upon are what the causes are.
If Americans were prepared to look beyond the borders and apply what they learn from that as they carefully look at the situation in the US, they might view the domestic situation with fresh eyes. And perhaps an attempt to get at objective truth where it isn't okay to tolerate ignorance because it fits one sides narrrative. (stuff like "get your government hands off my medicair", "Obama is Muslim", and "Romney has never paid taxes.")
What I wonder Ray, is whether information like Prosperity.com can make Americans consider whether or not the Scandinvians are more prosperous, and if so why....
I suggest that most, or if not a sizable minority, would be unwilling to even countenance such a conversation.
And yes, I do think that represents a problem.
Opinion leaders, at least, should be capable of having that conversation. That doesn't seem to happen too much in the constant election that is endured... (In six months it'll be time to get geared up for the mid-terms...)