Tag Archives: Labor

News

73% of the new jobs created in the last 5 months were government jobs

Leave a comment

From CNS News.

Excerpt:

In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.

By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.

In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.

How is it possible that the unemployment rate is going down? It’s simple. The government is borrowing over $1 trillion dollars a year from unborn and born children, and they are using that money to reduce the unemployment rate.

That explains part of the drop in unemployment, but there’s more.

Excerpt:

As for that big “drop” in the unemployment rate, all of it was due to the fact that 540,000 Americans are no longer looking for work. They either dropped out, took early disability or retired. Since the start of 2009, 9.7 million Americans have fallen into this category.

All told, more than 24 million Americans who want jobs don’t have them, driving the labor force participation rate to 63.6%, just above August’s 31-year low of 63.5%. This is the worst labor market in a recovery ever.

And it may get worse. The quarterly Wells Fargo/Gallup small-business survey found that 21% plan to cut jobs over the next six months — a surge from 10% last June and a record high.

IBD’s own research shows that small businesses account for nearly 80% of all new job creation in America. A small-business slump means no jobs. It’s that simple.

Business are already being regulated to death by Obamacare, and all this deficit spending means borrowing that has to be paid back with inflation or higher taxes. Why on Earth would anyone try to hire people now? This economy is a wreck.

News

The long-term impacts of the Romney and Obama economic plans

Leave a comment

From the Tax Foundation. (H/T Tom)

Excerpt:

Over the past several weeks, Tax Foundation economists have published a series of studies that analyze the long-term economic and distributional effects of the tax plans outlined by President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. These comprehensive assessments were done using the Tax Foundation’s Tax Simulation and Macroeconomic Model, which measures how changes in tax policies affect the economic levers that determine economic growth, workers’ incomes and the distribution of the tax burden, says the Tax Foundation.

The candidates’ tax plans would have a starkly different impact on the economy.

  • The Romney plan, which would reduce tax rates on individuals and corporations, would increase gross domestic product (GDP) 7.4 percent over the long run.
  • The Obama plan, which would raise tax rates on individuals, would reduce GDP 2.9 percent over the long run.

These very different futures are the direct consequence of the candidates’ very different approaches to taxing the inputs of production, i.e., capital and labor.

  • Obama would raise taxes on investors, which would reduce the capital stock by 7.5 percent.
  • Romney would reduce taxes on investors, which would increase the capital stock by 18.6 percent.
  • Obama would raise taxes on labor, which would reduce the wage rate by 2.3 percent and hours worked by 0.7 percent.
  • Romney would reduce taxes on labor, which would increase the wage rate by 4.7 percent and hours worked by 2.9 percent.

[…]Tax Foundation’s analysis indicates that for every dollar of tax revenue raised under the Obama plan, the economy loses $10. Under Romney’s plan, for every dollar of tax revenue lost, the economy gains $8.

And more from the Tax Foundation. (H/T Tom)

As a follow-up to the Tax Foundation’s recent assessment of the macroeconomic effects of Governor Mitt Romney’s tax plan, Tax Foundation Senior Fellow Stephen Entin now turns his attention to measuring the macroeconomic effects of President Barack Obama’s tax proposals.

[…]The model results:

  • President Obama’s tax plan would gradually reduce the level of gross domestic product (GDP) by nearly 3 percent, relative to the baseline projection, over five to 10 years.
  • Labor income would be lower by a similar amount, driven down by fewer hours worked and lower wages per hour.
  • The reduction in hours worked, about 0.75 percent, would be the equivalent of about a million jobs lost in today’s economy, with those still employed earning roughly 2.28 percent lower wages.
  • Alternatively, one could view the result as losing four million jobs at unchanged pay levels.
  • The plan would also trim the capital stock by about 7.5 percent (or over $2 trillion in lost investment in plant, equipment and buildings, things that drive productivity, wages and hiring).

The study also measured the economic and distributional effects of President Obama’s corporate tax plan and the tax changes contained in the Affordable Care Act beginning in 2013. The results found that these proposals would lower economic growth while substantially lowering workers’ wages and incomes. Ultimately, President Obama’s tax plans would be very harmful for the nation’s long-term economic outlook.

Do you like prosperity? Would you like to have a job? Would you like to be able to buy things for your friends and family? Would like to be able to give to charities? Then vote for Mitt Romney!

News

Traditional marriage is a threat to the values of single women

8 Comments

Stuart Schneiderman takes a closer look at view of marriage among single women today.

Excerpt:

You probably haven’t heard of Nicole Rodgers, editor a gender-bending feminist website called Role/Reboot.

[…]While Democratic politicos and pundits are happy to pay lip service to Mitt Romney’s sterling personal character and exemplary private life, behind the scenes many of them are surely thinking what Nicole Rodgers is thinking, namely that Romney’s life represents a counterrevolutionary, even a reactionary force in American cultural politics.

Rodgers got herself totally lathered up because Romney dared to suggest, at the last presidential debate, that there would be less gun violence if there were fewer illegitimate births.

In truth, the point is not even controversial. Everyone but Nicole Rodgers knows that children who are brought up in families that look like the Romney family do much, much better in life than children who are brought up in any other family configuration.

Here’s the research to back up his assertion about single motherhood vs marriage, but that’s not what I am interested in. I am interested in why feminists are opposed to traditional marriage and why they fear Romney’s positive example of marriage with 5 children. Do feminists really want traditional marriage at all? It depends on what you mean by marriage.

This reminds me of a fascinating article on Dalrock’s blog in which he looks at the changing definition of marriage, which he calls the “debasement” of marriage. This is a must-read post.

Excerpt:

Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men.  Marriage for men no longer means:

  • Being the legally and socially recognized head of the household.
  • An expectation of regular sex.
  • Legal rights to children.
  • Lifetime commitment.

He also adds the elimination of the preservation chastity and the embrace of the hook-up culture on campus to the list, so that there are 5 debasements to marriage in total. Men liked the original version of marriage without the debasements. Do they like the new debased version as much?

It’s very important, especially for Christians, to understand that many women who say that they want marriage do not really want what marriage has always been. They want to live happily ever after. What this means is not what traditional marriage means. Traditional marriage means preparing for marriage by making good decisions – like premarital chastity. It means a separation of roles where each side performs roles that are of value to the other. Today, the majority of single women today have been influenced by feminism and they reject that view of marriage. They have been taught that marriage means happiness and full autonomy for the woman at the expense of men and children. They have been taught that there is no need to prepare for marriage with good decisions like chastity, and no need to prefer men who are good leaders, providers and protectors in the home. The moral dimension of marriage – the obligations and virtues – have been obliterated.

The majority of single women also vote for policies that will enable this new definition of marriage: social programs that make husbands dispensable, welfare subsidies for single mothers, early sex education to turn young men away from chastity and fidelity, co-ed education, recognition of cohabitation as marriage, no-fault divorce, punitive anti-male divorce courts, taxpayer-funding of contraceptives, taxpayer-funding of abortions, taxpayer-funding of day care, affirmative action in education, affirmative action in employment decisions, discrimination against male teachers in schools, and so on. The goal of all of this is to eliminate male leadership, men as main providers, and men as protectors. Many single women who choose poorly do not even want other women who prefer traditional men and traditional marriage to succeed, which is why they vote Democrat in order to tax, regulate and undermine the marriages of these more responsible married women.

Men start off chaste. We start off wanting romantic love and life-long traditional marriage. But it is drummed out of us because of a society in which feminist notions of recreational sex without consequences are on us through taxes, policies, schools and culture. Men learn that recreational sex is “normal” at very young ages, in schools that are dominated by female teachers and female administrators. The majority of these women are feminists who value careers first, and who seek to undermine traditional marriage and chastity. More and more men are being raised fatherless so there is no resistance from husband-fathers (who know better!) in the home. The result is a generation of men who trained to expect the sexual ethics of Sandra Fluke: government-funded promiscuity, irresponsibility, big government socialism and selfishness. Sandra Fluke doesn’t want marriage, and neither do single women like her who mostly vote Democrat.

Related posts