Unemployment falls below 9%

[BenBurch]

Several thousand added here in northern Illinois as the Chrysler plant in Belvedere is ramping up for the new Dodge Dart (could they have revived a name with less baggage?!) is just awesome news.

Not only jobs - GOOD jobs.

Manufacturing goods for Americans made by Americans.

What the "conservatives" say can never happen. (While they work assiduously to ensure it cannot.)

 

[WildCat]

Several thousand added here in northern Illinois as the Chrysler plant in Belvedere is ramping up for the new Dodge Dart (could they have revived a name with less baggage?!) is just awesome news.

Not only jobs - GOOD jobs.

Manufacturing goods for Americans made by Americans.

What the "conservatives" say can never happen. (While they work assiduously to ensure it cannot.)

And of course the big politically connected corporation got tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks, while everyone else in Illinois got tax increases. Maybe that's why despite this plant reopening (it used to make the horrid Dodge Neon) the unemployment rate in Illinois went from 9% in December 2010 to 9.8% in December 2011.

Unemployment here in the Democratic People's Republic of Illinois is going up even as the rest of the country recovers. I wonder how many other states had massive tax increases last year?

 

[Puppycow]

Bumping this thread on the news that the economy gained 243,000 jobs in January, and the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. Even if recovery is slow, but stays on the positive side, I don't see how the GOP has much of a chance.

Yes, I understand that the unemployment rate most often reported doesn't measure all types of unemployment, but it's the number we generally use, and it's the one that will matter for the election in November.

That's great news.

Here's the report.

So is a real recovery finally here or could this be another "false dawn"?

I remember getting excited in early 2010, which was supposed to be "recovery summer" which never really happened.

The previous months were also revised up.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was
revised from +100,000 to +157,000, and the change for December was
revised from +200,000 to +203,000. Monthly revisions result from
additional sample reports and the monthly recalculation of seasonal
factors. The annual benchmark process also contributed to these
revisions.

Since August the unemployment rate fell from 9.1% to 8.3%. Seems like getting below 8% before election day is at least a good possibility.

 

[BenBurch]

...

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/ur-illinois.jpg[/qimg]

LOL

Without understanding the structural reasons, that's useless.

You'd rather those employees remained on food stamps rather than getting employment?

 

[Francesca R]

 

[Puppycow]

And of course the big politically connected corporation got tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks, while everyone else in Illinois got tax increases. Maybe that's why despite this plant reopening (it used to make the horrid Dodge Neon) the unemployment rate in Illinois went from 9% in December 2010 to 9.8% in December 2011.

Unemployment here in the Democratic People's Republic of Illinois is going up even as the rest of the country recovers. I wonder how many other states had massive tax increases last year?

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/ur-illinois.jpg[/qimg]

In 2010 though it fell from 11.1% to 9.2% from Jan. to Dec. It's still more than a point lower than it was at the beginning of 2010.

Unemployment rate by state

You can compare to other states with that. It looks like a case of cherry-picked data to me. If you look at most other time periods, say the last two years, Illinois wouldn't stand out as particularly bad as unemployment in that period.

ETA: It's also started back in the right direction as the unemployment rate in Illinois fell by 0.2% last month. The new state numbers won't come out till later in the month, but I'll bet they show that the recovery is continuing.

 

[WildCat]

LOL

Without understanding the structural reasons, that's useless.

Here's the structural reasons. And I'm sure you're well aware of them.

You'd rather those employees remained on food stamps rather than getting employment?

No, I'd rather the state get its house in order so all companies can feel it's safe to hire more employees, rather than a strategy of corporate welfare for the influential and tax hikes for everyone else.

 

[WildCat]

In 2010 though it fell from 11.1% to 9.2% from Jan. to Dec. It's still more than a point lower than it was at the beginning of 2010.

Unemployment rate by state

You can compare to other states with that. It looks like a case of cherry-picked data to me. If you most other time periods. Say the last two years, Illinois wouldn't stand out as particularly bad as unemployment in that period.

Speaking of cherry-picked data! Guess what happened early last January, the month after your chosen data point? Illinois passed a 66% personal income tax hike, as well as a 46% business tax hike. The result? A reversal of the downward-trending unemployment rate and we became one of the few states to lose jobs in 2011, and in fact we lost more jobs than anyone else.

 

[WildCat]

ETA: It's also started back in the right direction as the unemployment rate in Illinois fell by 0.2% last month. The new state numbers won't come out till later in the month, but I'll bet they show that the recovery is continuing.

Even if what you claim turns out to be true, we'll still lag the rest of the country. Our state is broken, and there appears to be no political will to fix it.

 

[Puppycow]

Speaking of cherry-picked data! Guess what happened early last January, the month after your chosen data point? Illinois passed a 66% personal income tax hike, as well as a 46% business tax hike. The result? A reversal of the downward-trending unemployment rate and we became one of the few states to lose jobs in 2011, and in fact we lost more jobs than anyone else.

But nevertheless, like I mentioned above, it's again trending in the right direction. Fell 0.2% last month. The new taxes haven't been repealed, have they?

 

[Puppycow]

Even if what you claim turns out to be true, we'll still lag the rest of the country. Our state is broken, and there appears to be no political will to fix it.

I would say that passing a major tax hike actually is one way to fix it. It may not be your preferred remedy, but it's one of the two ways to balance the budget.

 

[Mudcat]

Yes. The real unemployment number is more like 23 percent:

From" John Williams Shadow Government Statistics


"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers."

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

I don't trust quotes from people who shout the equivalent of "The sky is falling!" Funny, the sky seem firmly affixed up there to me.

 

[WildCat]

I would say that passing a major tax hike actually is one way to fix it. It may not be your preferred remedy, but it's one of the two ways to balance the budget.

Did you read the Civic Federation report I linked to? The deficit is expanding despite such massive tax increases.

 

[Francesca R]

Illinois passed a 66% personal income tax hike, as well as a 46% business tax hike.

It's a bit Fox News of you to describe a tax hike from 3% to 5% as "66%". I'd call that raising state income tax by 2% myself.

(Not that you'd catch me living in Illinois. Except when I did of course. But that was before I got scared off by someone saying that state tax was vaulting from 3% to 69%)

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a bit Fox News of you to describe a tax hike from 3% to 5% as "66%". I'd call that raising state income tax by 2% myself.

If your taxes double, wouldn't that be a 100% increase? I get the significance of relative vs absolute change, and the importance of distinguishing between them. But I don't think that invalidates using relative measures. And the problem works both ways: if you say it's just a 2% increase, that makes it sound like Illinois only tweaked their taxes a little bit, even though that's not the case.

 

[Francesca R]

Seems designed to make it look huge to me. As does the word "massive". What's the smallest increase that would practically be made? O.5%? Shocker, that's a 17% tax hike too.

 

[Denver]

Bumping this thread on the news that the economy gained 243,000 jobs in January, and the unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. Even if recovery is slow, but stays on the positive side, I don't see how the GOP has much of a chance.

Yes, I understand that the unemployment rate most often reported doesn't measure all types of unemployment, but it's the number we generally use, and it's the one that will matter for the election in November.

ETA: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm

Yes if the trends continue, this will be a very nice campaigning point for Obama come Q4. Same with the DOW.

Personally, I don't believe the administration has had much to do with it, and it is a natural recovery. So it is critical for the GOP to get in office in 2013, because whoever is in office (unexpected disasters notwithstanding) is going to have a very good economic term to brag about.

 

[WildCat]

It's a bit Fox News of you to describe a tax hike from 3% to 5% as "66%". I'd call that raising state income tax by 2% myself.

(Not that you'd catch me living in Illinois. Except when I did of course. But that was before I got scared off by someone saying that state tax was vaulting from 3% to 69%)

It's quite accurately described as a 66% tax increase, because it is. And that's how most, if not all, of the news media is reporting it.

One possible reason Illinois is behind in the recovery is that this tax increase canceled oult Obama's payroll tax reduction. Illinois workers didn't see any benfit from the payroll tax reduction.

 

[Ziggurat]

Seems designed to make it look huge to me.

It is a huge relative change.

What's the smallest increase that would practically be made? O.5%? Shocker, that's a 17% tax hike too.

I see tax rates at all sorts of percentages. New Jersey, for example, has a top rate of 8.97%. And Maryland has tax rates varying by county, mostly in increments of 0.05% but some not even that. So I don't see any reason that they can't impose a tax rate in increments of 0.05% or even as low as 0.01%. It's not really any harder, it's just one number that gets multiplied.

 

[WildCat]

It is a huge relative change.



I see tax rates at all sorts of percentages. New Jersey, for example, has a top rate of 8.97%. And Maryland has tax rates varying by county, mostly in increments of 0.05% but some not even that. So I don't see any reason that they can't impose a tax rate in increments of 0.05% or even as low as 0.01%. It's not really any harder, it's just one number that gets multiplied.

And Illinois, btw, does not have a graduated tax rate and very few deductions are allowed. It is highly regressive, renters don't get to take advantage of the only big deduction allowed - property taxes paid.