No, but what is clear, from the evidence of historical fact, is that raising taxes to pay for increased spending, or otherwise running sound fiscal policy is consistent with economic growth and prosperity.

I'm sorry Ken, but that is just nonsense. While there are good arguments for not running deficits and even in certain circumstances raising taxes, this is not one of them.

Spencer,

Good point. I hadn't consider that one.

The latest employment data are quite encouraging, though some may have overstated the case for enthusiasm.
...

From 1960 to 1974 productivity growth was about 66% of real GDP growth. In the low productivity era of 1975-95 productivity growth was about 50% of real gdp growth. Since 1995 it has been almost 90%. This meant that from 1960 to 1974 a 1% increase in real gdp generated a 0.3% increse in employment -- technically hours worked. From 1975 to 95 it was 0.5%, but now each 1% increase in real gdp only generates a 0.1% icrease in employment.

So if you have average growth and above average productivity you have to have below average employment growth.

No, but what is clear, from the evidence of historical fact, is that raising taxes to pay for increased spending, or otherwise running sound fiscal policy is consistent with economic growth and prosperity.

You forgot to mention that the net wealth of the upper 1% has increased dramatically during these years while everyone from there on down has suffered. Talk about redistribution of wealth!

By the way, many right wing blogs are too busy touting these wonderful numbers to see the reality behind them. I commend you on your honesty.

Employment-population ratioType of data: Percent

The post WWII high employment rate was 64.7% of the population over the age of 16.

The current employment rate is 62.9% of the population over the age of 16.