• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

The Bush Housing bubble was the cause of the rise and fall of construction spending and employment. Where were you in 2002-2007? On Mars?

And why is construction hit hardest in all recessions?
 
Then that represents little change. About half of our citizens work, and about half don't. I'm not surprised by this at all.

Or am I just missing your underlying point?

That 4.5% decrease represents over 360 thousand unemployed people. When corrective policy is put into effect and/or a recession ends, the percentage of eligible workers who are employed always increases in the years that follow, as long as effective policy decisions are made. That's what a RECOVERY is all about.

Just compare the Obama recovery to the previous 3 economic downturns, and you will see a stark contrast:


ep_ratio4.jpg

3 year results:

Reagan - 3% increase
Bush Sr. - 2% increase
Bush Jr. - 2% increase
Obama - Nada
 
Last edited:
If A causes B, then A must precede B.

No, they can happen simultaniously, especially when they are largely the same thing. In this case, B is a subset of A.

Now lets say that C is the amount of tshirts ordered at my store, and D is the amount of tshirts that I sell.

C and D will always exactly match., yet C controls D. The amount of shirts that people purchase from me control the amount of shirts that I sell as I can't sell more than people buy.
 
The median household income hasn't increased as much as during the 2000's (I don't know, that's just a guess).

Seriously, the 10% increase in productivity in just four years is huge. Here is another chart showing what I am talking about
chart-of-the-day-output-per-hour-of-all-persons-2005-2010.gif

It's the same pace as the 2000s. You call it high, the chart says it's normal.

Also, the labor participation rate dropped during the entire 2000's, even before the recession.

Not nearly as much as it did when productivity was decreasing!

Increases in productivity are simply happening at a faster rate than increases in demand. Chart out the trend for another 50 or 100 years and our labor force participation rate may be down to almost nothing.

The problem is not demand, since that doesn't explain why higher orders of production are hit harder than lower orders of production. The insufficient demand theory doesn't explain why different industries are hit differently.
 
That 4.5% decrease represents over 360 thousand unemployed people. When corrective policy is put into effect and/or a recession ends, the percentage of eligible workers who are employed always increases in the years that follow, as long as effective policy decisions are made. That's what a RECOVERY is all about.

Just compare the Obama recovery to the previous 3 economic downturns, and you will see a stark contrast:


View attachment 67140401

The previous economic downturns did not result in a 20% (or greater) decline in overall wealth. Not to mention structural shifts. FAIL (again)!
 
No, they can happen simultaniously, especially when they are largely the same thing. In this case, B is a subset of A.

A causes B.

Now lets say that C is the amount of tshirts ordered at my store, and D is the amount of tshirts that I sell.

C and D will always exactly match., yet C controls D. The amount of shirts that people purchase from me control the amount of shirts that I sell as I can't sell more than people buy.

C and D are the same.
 
Do you remember back in 2008 when John McCain said "The fundamentals of our economy are still strong" and he was laughed at and ridiculed, clearly out of touch with the world?

And then do you remember a week later when an Obama campaign adviser said the exact same thing, and was praised and lauded as an economic visionary, a sage foretelling the greatness of Obama if elected?

Do you remember Obama's speech in 2009 that bespoke the "core strengths" of our economy?

Do you remember back to June of this year when Obama said "the private sector is doing fine"?

It's all a confidence game. If people believe the market is doing well, or is poised to do well, or will do well in the future, then that's exactly what it's going to do. Likewise, if people think the economy is doing poorly, or is poised to do poorly, or will do poorly in the future, then that is what it is going to do instead. So, when the market was supposedly in free fall back in 2008, and Obama campaigned on the fact that the sky was literally falling.... that rhetoric had something to do with just how far it fell. And now that Obama is in power, and has been for a whole term, he wants you to have confidence in it, support it, invest in it, make it grow.

Why didn't he want that to happen in 2008, I wonder?
 
The Bush Housing bubble was the cause of the rise and fall of construction
spending and employment. Where were you in 2002-2007? On Mars?

If he was on MARS you had your head up URANUS....

The sub-prime debacle started in the early 90s as Clinton and Liberal Democrats forced lending by regulatory control given to them under CRA and HUD.

You didnt mention the NY Times article in 2003 that showed Bush trying to reign in the GSEs but unsuccessfully with a Democrat Congress.

I swear to be a liberal you have to be purposely ignorant and corrupt.

The housing bubble was mandated by the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
The previous economic downturns did not result in a 20% (or greater) decline in overall wealth. Not to mention structural shifts. FAIL (again)!

Arguably the fall in 1921 was much greater.
 
What's the fundamental change, then? You say age?
No, I didn't say age. Any particular reason you're trying to put words in my mouth?
Explain why unemployment among 20-24 year olds is at 13.7%.
Mostly education and skill. I'd have to do some looking to find out for sure.
 
No, I didn't say age. Any particular reason you're trying to put words in my mouth?

I figured you would say retirees.

Mostly education and skill. I'd have to do some looking to find out for sure.

More kids are going to college than ever before.
 
That 4.5% decrease represents over 360 thousand unemployed people. When corrective policy is put into effect and/or a recession ends the percentage of eligible workers who are employed always increases in the years that follow as long as effective policy decisions are made. That's what a RECOVERY is all about.

Just compare the Obama recovery to the previous 3 economic downturns, and you will see a stark contrast:


View attachment 67140401
Just for kicks, what meets the definition of "corrective policy?" Chances are you'll find a endless variety of responses. Also, your chart has labeled presumably the passage date of the ARRA as the starting point for Obama's "corrective policy", when in fact the vast majority of the funding didn't find it's way into circulation until later in said calendar year and spilling over into 2010. The recession also by all technical means ended in June of that same year, rendering your second blue line in the graphic out of place entirely.

I'd say! Attempting to compare any of the 3 recessions above to the most recent event in terms of severity and structural destruction is a fools errand.
 
Arguably the fall in 1921 was much greater.

Post war recession during a gold standard era was prone to such turbulence. It's like comparing a sand dune to mt. everest.
 
...
The problem is not demand, since that doesn't explain why higher orders of production are hit harder than lower orders of production. The insufficient demand theory doesn't explain why different industries are hit differently.

No, it may not explain why different industries are hit differently, thats largely due to the fact that demand cycles and increases and decreases for different products at different times for a large variety of different reasons.

What it does explain is how things work in aggregate. When average per hour productivity increases faster than aggregate demand, then we have more unemployment. While increasing per hour productivity is a good thing overall, the particular combination of productivity increasing faster than demand is a bad thing, and terrible for those seeking jobs.

The problem is simply demand not keeping up with productivity. Nothing more, nothing less. there may be many solutions, but I suspect that increasing demand would be the most satisfying for most.
 
So lack of capital is a problem? Interesting.

No silly, lack of desire to finance when employment is at risk is a problem. Not to mention a drastic uptick in underwriting standards.
 
This has nothing to do with what I posted. Try again.

It was only a matter of time before you generically state, "D controls C".
 
So lack of capital is a problem? Interesting.

Now you are putting stuff into Goldens mouth that he didn't say.

And by the way, financing and lack of capital are not the same thing.
 
Post war recession during a gold standard era was prone to such turbulence. It's like comparing a sand dune to mt. everest.

And the recovery much quicker. That can just be ignored? That's convenient.
 
No silly, lack of desire to finance when employment is at risk is a problem. Not to mention a drastic uptick in underwriting standards.

And why is employment at risk?
 
There is NO recovery, there WAS no job growth.

partisan stuff pared, because i'm not interested in it.

1.2-monthly-change-OPT.jpg

what this chart shows is absolute economic destruction and a weak recovery. the weak recovery limps on.

i don't by any means think that we're out off the woods, as i stated in the OP. it could still go the other way, and i'm not satisfied with the rate of recovery, but we could be doing worse. i hope that we at least continue limping in the right direction.
 
Back
Top Bottom