¶ … Fed Raises Key Rate Again"(Henderson, 2005), which appeared in The Washington Post, outlines the reasons Federal Reserve officials recently implemented a short-term interest rate increase. The current federal funds rate stands at 4%, the highest level since 2001, and reflects a quarter percent increase. Furthermore, this raise is the twelfth consecutive one since June 2004 (Henderson, 2005) and is, as Federal Reserve officers note, only one in a series of anticipated increases. The next raise is likely to take place at the end of January 2006, bringing the federal funds rate to 4.5%. However, certain analysts expect increases in December. Some specialists claim a projected rate of 5.5% by July of next year, which they say will conclude the cycle of increases. Naturally, with Greenspan retiring at the end of January, the proposed raises are speculative as Bernanke has yet to demonstrate his intentions as the future Federal Reserve Chairman. The new 4% federal funds rate brings the cumulative increase over the past 1.3 years to 3 percentage points. The last time this occurred was in the mid-1990s, which created economic havoc both domestically and abroad -- particularly in Mexico. However, such turmoil is not currently present in the economy. This is due to an important difference between current increases and those during the 1990s: the former were anticipated while the latter were mostly unexpected. The implication is that...
Current conditions support this principle. Despite rising energy costs and interest rates, the economy continues to expand. Furthermore, the Commerce Department recently stated that the nation's GDP 'rose at a 3.8% annual rate in the third quarter after expanding at a 3.3% pace in the previous quarter' (Henderson, 2005, p.1). Certainly a nation's economic welfare benefits from anticipated and gradual interest rate increases.
Unemployment Rate The Disparity in the Unemployment Rate in the United States A recent article in the Sun Journal by Margaret Fisher (2012) has raised some serious questions as to the true state of the economy. While statistics from the department of labor assert the unemployment rate has dropped, giving the impression that the economy is in a recovery mode, Fisher maintains that this is misleading due to the fact that many
Unemployment rate in the United States has fluctuated between nine and ten percent for well over two years now ("Labor Force Statistics"). That rate is more than double what it was a mere ten years ago, putting millions more Americans on the unemployment compensation rolls. More alarming than the numbers is the general feeling of pessimism that has enveloped the country as the population wonders when the economy might turn
For example, one Pontiac Assembly plant in Pontiac, Michigan, "was running three consecutive eight-hour shifts, employing 3,000 people and making 1,300 trucks a day," in 2003, but in the summer of 2009, the plant had only 600 workers and "was running just one shift" (Mahler 2009, p.1). As a result of the failure of GM, the housing bubble, and the explosion of easy credit and 'creative' financing, many Michigan
"The Detroit, Michigan drop-out rate among black males is 50%, the Detroit unemployment rate among black males is 50%" (Kill 145). This demonstrates that education is very important when considering unemployment rates and that the auto industry is, to a certain degree, not the only institution responsible for the critical conditions currently faced by individuals in Michigan. Although it is difficult to determine what other factors are responsible for the
Thus, the testing will not only expose a relationship, but may shed light into how it will continue to evolve in the future. Using Microsoft Excel, a regression test was administered for each individual independent variable as it related to the dependent variable of general unemployment in Detroit. Data Automotive Industry Employment rates in thousands Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 96.9 2009 79.5 86.6 86.2 85.4 77.2 73.4 73.5 80.5 84.3 83.9 82.8 83.9 81.4 2010 82.7 82.7 82.6 83.3 83.8 85.0 81.2 83.3 87.6 89.4 89.8 90.2 85.1 2011 89.4 90.4 91.2 93.1 93.4 94.1 83.3 92.0 94.7 96.3 96.7 97.4 92.7 2012 97.6 98.2 99.3 97.4 98.5 99.5 95.8 96.8 97.7 97.7(P) P: Preliminary (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012) Year Period labor force employment unemployment OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.872748 R Square 0.761689 Adjusted R. Square 0.7319 Standard Error 1.573775 Observations 10 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance
Cyclical Unemployment economists overstating cyclical unemployment rate understating natural rate? Are economists overstating the cyclical unemployment rate and understating the natural rate? Cyclical unemployment derives its name from the fact that it reflects the 'cyclical' ebbs and flows of the business cycle (Ask an economist, 2008, Labor Market Info). When the economy is doing poorly, workers are let go and are involuntarily unemployed. Although the contraction may begin within one economic sector, eventually
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now