Bush said his tax cuts would create 1,000,000 new jobs by 2004.
Surely a smattering of them should be happening by now. Anyone seen them?
I sure could use a better one.
Pillowtex just closed. 6000 more jobs gone.
Will we see any new jobs at all from the tax cuts?
Actually, although I have no “cite” to back this up only personal experience, I am seeing a marked increase in activity on the job front.
I work in enterprise sales, 1 million dollar + deals within the financial services sector. I have been unemployed for just over one year now. In the last 3 months I have had more interviews than in the past 9+ months.
In addition, mergers/acquisition activity particularly in the technology sector is taking off the last quarter.
Not crediting Bush nor blaming him, just sharing my personal experience that it seems to be slowly getting better. YMMV.
MeanJoe
Just as a question, did he ever say that it would create 1M new jobs in America, or just 1 million new jobs?
And did he specifically say a net gain? If McDonalds achieves a high turnover rate anytime soon, it’s technically still correct.
(Never take a temp job in anything that amounts to being a secretary’s secretary. Your resume writing/accomplishment hyping skills develop to heights that should be illegal in a just society.)
It was a fairly weaselly claim that Bush made. Even if the jobless rate soars, he can still say, “. . . and we would have lost another million jobs if not for the tax cut.”
Which may be true. His claim can’t really be evaluated, hence the weaselness.
Yeah, and Clinton likes the say the “he created 20 million jobs”. Neither Bush nor Clinton created any jobs, unless they expanded government. Anyone who listens to a politician when he or she says they will create jobs or make the economy grow needs to get a heavy dose of reality.
The economy is an elephant, and the president is a fly sitting on the elephant’s tail.
Jobs are a ‘trailing indicator’ of economic recovery. Since the economy grew at an annualized rate of 2.4% in the last quarter, and is forecast to grow at an annualized rate of 4% in the next, the jobs should be coming along by and by.
Of course, all it takes is another major terrorist attack, and we could be recession-bound one more time. But that could be tough to blame on Bush, unless it’s a clear security failure.
The Cleveland FED Jobless Recovery Report Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland – Mark Schweitzer Economic Commentary. Mar 1, 2003
“Maybe this is the best we can hope for right now — an economic recovery that slowly grinds on without creating jobs, discouraging millions of job seekers. Friday’s employment report certainly was disappointing, marking the sixth straight month the economy has lost jobs, but the latest mixed bag of data has not been bad enough to derail projections of improvement in the second half.” Source: August 1, 2003 - MSNBC
“If you don’t hire, you don’t raise salaries,” said David Givens, an economist at Economy.com. “Until demand picks up so much that the existing level of output still isn’t enough, we won’t see hiring. We expect to get there by the end of the year or the beginning of next year.” Source: http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-te.bz.salaries06aug06,0,4729068.story?coll=bal-business-headlines
With consumer spending accounting for two-thirds of the US economy, a failure to get people back to work, especially those no longer being recorded in the unemployment figures, may mean the economy stalls making things much worse.
About 3,000 jobs came open after 9/11. Another several hundred have come open as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps he was referring to attrition.
Tax cuts = new jobs; as
eating celery = less zits; is to
wearing a watch = live longer
While tax cuts may not be a bad thing for the economy in the short term, they certainly don’t create jobs. It could be agrued with the creation of deficits etc they are actually bad for the economy in the long term.
John Mace got it right. Fiscal policy (and thus any Presidnet) does very little with regard to job creation unless were talking about actual CCC type jobs programs. Monetary policy on the other hand, which is totally out of the president’s control, can certainly be used to stimulate the economy and spur some business investment which could lead to job creation.
Millions and millions of new jobs are being created each year. No one can deny that this is the biggest economic and hiring boom in a century. Thousands of new factories, office buildings. Hiring of factory workers and high tech individuals has been hectic esp in india and china, as well as most other asian countries. Free trade, NAFTA, and economic policies spurring global growth are what is driving it. India is plannning on ten to 20 million new high tech jobs opening up in the next 10 years. Nearly every country in the world is outsourcing their customer service telephone centers, IT centers, and enginneering departments. GM recently announced that they now outsource 37% of their engineering to India, and plan on drastically increasing it in the near future. Sprint, Boeing, Black and Decker, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, and most other countries are having a hard time hiring all the people that they need.
If you want a factory, office job, or something in high tech, then go to india or china. If you want a service type job, then the american economy is a little slow right now because of all the layoffs, so the service and retail sectors are not hiring right now, you have to wait if you are wanting a job in those fields.
Tax cuts used to work, they dont anymore - simple reason:
Actually, tax cuts DO help the economy, and spur investment, and create jobs, and more spending, etc. But that is only in a closed economy. It used to work before we went global. In the old days, tax cuts, meant that consumers had more money to spend on american made goods, which meant that american companies built more factories in america and hired more americans, resulting in even more consumer demand, cycling over and over again, driving the economy higher and higher.
Tax cuts dont work in a global economy.
In a global economy, tax cuts enable american companies to increase their investment in asia and mexico building more factories over there, increased consumer spending on japanese cars, chinese trinkets, and Korean computers do not help the american economy nor result in more american jobs, nor any more american factories.
The bush tax cuts will certainly increase global companies profits, and drive the stock market higher, but dont count on any more jobs in america, in fact, with business tax cuts, there may be less jobs since companies will have more money to close american offices and factories and build them in asia.
…just not in the United States, right?
'cause I remember, back around the mid- to late-1990s, I could put out my resume and have headhunters banging down my door, wanting to get me in interviews left and right. I could literally get a new job within a week of leaving my old one. Nowadays, of course, the inverse is true – I have to bang on hundreds of doors just to get an interview, and I’d consider myself lucky if I got a new job within six months of leaving my current one.
I left my job and got a new one three days later. Maybe you should check your resume for typos.
Like John Mace, I don’t think the Pres has too much effect on the economy either way. Even if Bush’s tax cut does create a million jobs, that’s small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. New jobless claims have been running at a little under 400,000 . . . per week. And according to this 1995 census report, there were just under 126 million people employed in the US. Trying to jump start the economy with a slight tax cut is like trying to jump start a car by scraping your socks along the carpet and then touching the car battery.
Job losses and job gains are not universal across all industries.
Yeah, so? Then change your career, eh?
If it were only that simple.
I’ve been laid off since march. Average time around here is a year to be unemployed. If you got hired in three days your very lucky.
Uh, how exactly? Are you telling me that reducing the taxes on companies operating in the U.S. somehow makes them LESS likely to want to stay here?
Washington Post, Thursday, August 7, 2003.
I believe this answers the OP. Clearly, Bush’s plan is working. Will the OP respond?
I guess people must create their own jobs. Who’s making those Arnie political buttons? :dubious:
Yes.
Consider that you have a company with a factory in the United States and you want to close it and open one in China, but you dont quite have enough cash to pay the severance pay and build a new factory in china.
With a business tax cut, you now have the cash to close the american factory and open a new factory in china. Same thing if you are currently closing 10 factories, but you want to close 20.
It was announce by Microsoft and Oracle how much money they are investing in china - new factoriies and engineering centers - it all takes money to open a research center or plant in another country, and a tax cut provides the cash flow to do it without hurting your bottom line.
In the long run, you know you will make more money with IT people making 10 an hour instead of 50, engineers making 10 an hour instead of 20, factory workers making 1 an hour instead of 20, and no more unions, osha, epa, child labor laws, unemployment insurance, social security, health benefits to pay, etc. but you dont want to interupt your earnings per share on a quarterly basis, or you just dont have the cash to relocate to china until you get a tax break.
This is not 1960 where tax cuts spurred increased investment in the UNited States, tax cuts today spur increased investment in asia. Also, increased purchasing power today by consumers means that they are buying more asian goods, more computers and more items from walmart, cotsco, and the dollar stores from china requiring more new factories in china to open up to handle the increased demand from consumers with more money to spend.
That’s not how taxes, especially cuts to the marginal rates, work. Having more or less cash around does not make a particular opportunity more or less profitable, and it is THAT that determines what companies are going to do. If building a factory in China is really such a win for the company, then it should do it. If not, not. Whether or not they currently have the cash is irrelevant: they can always borrow against the savings they expect to make.
This is exactly why Bush’s plan to simply give companies all their taxes back was so ridiculous: it would give them a huge chunk of cash for no reason: it would have no effect on their productivity or their investment decisions for the simple reason that it changed nothing on the margin.
Lower taxes mean that operating in the U.S. is cheaper. Is your plan to keep companies here by increasing their operating expenses if they remain here?
And hey: why shouldn’t the Chinese have jobs too?