The Labor Market Just Did Something that Hasn't Happened Since the 1970s

it's better than it has been in the past, at least. my employer is currently hiring, and my job is fairly secure. i don't really credit a president or politician for that, though. it's mostly the tide. however, i'll take it as it comes.

Moderate Right said:

Oh geeeeeeeeeez. Of course what you said is true. Obama knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars, which gives him the distinction of the fastest decrease in the deficit in 40 years. Oh yeah, I forgot, the deficit was GW's fault.

Click to expand...

MR, you just don't get to ignore the facts I posted. the CBO revised spending up 450 billion and revenues down 450 billion before President Obama took over. Bush's last deficit went from 300 billion to 1.2 trillion. Your post is the perfect example of my oft repeated statement that when it comes time for conservatives to choose integrity or narrative, they chose narrative. So please explain how President Obama "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars" when it was "knocked up" already.

Its a shame you were afraid to click on the CBO link. You might have learned something.

NoLeftNoRight said:

Let me spell it out for you.......P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

This is more a testament to just how corrupt our government has become rather than an indication of sound policy.

Click to expand...

P!ease be specific,,,what exactly is the propaganda and corruption?

I live in the state with "best" unemployment figures nationally.....

Click to expand...

Which one? New Hampshire and South Carolina are tied at 2.7%

and all I have to do is ask people from all walks of life as I get about and I hear the SAME EXACT THING.....
I ask people I talk to all over the state....same reply...

"Where's all this economic recovery? I'm struggling like hell"

Those who don't have cushy government overpaid jobs, significant "assistance" or are being paid off for political favors are not doing so well overall. A FEW are doing well as is always the case. But not the vast majority.
How could the economy possibly be improving when the number of major businesses moving offshore has increased and immigration is flooding the US with illegals who also have to eat.

Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with the UE rate? It doesn't measure how well people are doing or whether or not they are suffering. It measures how difficult/easy it is to get a job. That's it.

Mexico usually has a lower UE rate than the U.S, but that certainly doesn't mean their economy is better.

No, it's utter, unadulterated...in your face propaganda & lies & manipulation. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

How vague.

pinqy said:

P!ease be specific,,,what exactly is the propaganda and corruption?


Which one? New Hampshire and South Carolina are tied at 2.7%



What does any of that have to do with the UE rate? It doesn't measure how well people are doing or whether or not they are suffering. It measures how difficult/easy it is to get a job. That's it.

Mexico usually has a lower UE rate than the U.S, but that certainly doesn't mean their economy is better.


How vague.

Click to expand...

Arrrgh New Hampshire and South DAKOTA have the lowest UE rates at 2.7%

KevinKohler said:

Has the median wage gone UP, or DOWN ?
....

Click to expand...

It has been heading up and is very close to the high of 2008.

According to this report:
In terms of real dollars the Jan 2016 medium income was just 0.9 % ( -$509 ) lower than its interim high in Jan.2008

January Real Median Household Income at a Another Post-Recession High
March 15, 2016

The Sentier Research median household income data for January, released this morning, came in at $57,288. The nominal median rose $130 month-over-month and is up $2,921 year-over-year. That's an increase of 0.2% MoM and 5.4% YoY. Adjusted for inflation, the latest income was up $115 MoM and $2,191 YoY. The real numbers equate to increases of 0.2% MoM and 4.0% YoY.

In real dollar terms, the median annual income is 0.9% lower (-$509) than its interim high in January 2008 but well off its low in August 2011.

Click to expand...

Read more:

January Real Median Household Income at a Another Post-Recession High - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

Vern said:

MR, you just don't get to ignore the facts I posted. the CBO revised spending up 450 billion and revenues down 450 billion before President Obama took over. Bush's last deficit went from 300 billion to 1.2 trillion. Your post is the perfect example of my oft repeated statement that when it comes time for conservatives to choose integrity or narrative, they chose narrative. So please explain how President Obama "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars" when it was "knocked up" already.

Its a shame you were afraid to click on the CBO link. You might have learned something.

Click to expand...

The thing is, the economy went into an almost depression and we had a huge stimulous so it doesn't really matter who was actually president at the time, Bush or Obama. You're giving Obama credit for being in the right place at the right time, which is why I said you're cheating in using this example. It still would have been cheating if Bush had remained president for a third term, in which case he would have gotten the same exact credit or if McCain had been elected, he would have received the same distinction. I never argued the figures or the distinction. All I said was that it was cheating to site this.

Moderate Right said:

The thing is, the economy went into an almost depression and we had a huge stimulous so it doesn't really matter who was actually president at the time, Bush or Obama. You're giving Obama credit for being in the right place at the right time, which is why I said you're cheating in using this example. It still would have been cheating if Bush had remained president for a third term, in which case he would have gotten the same exact credit or if McCain had been elected, he would have received the same distinction. I never argued the figures or the distinction. All I said was that it was cheating to site this.

Click to expand...

Okay, let me type this very slowly. You had some narrative that President Obama shouldn't get credit for reducing the deficit because he was the one that raised it. That narrative blew up in your face. Your latest post is attempting to pretend you didn't. Some might call that cheating. To be clear, President Bush "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars" not President Obama. If you want to whine that "sure he reduced the deficit but that was easy because bush made it so high" then post that. You posted President Obama "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars".

And fyi, remember he reduced the deficit and the whole time you and yours were predicting the end of the world. So by your own standards, President Obama reducing the deficit to under the 40 year average and the world not ending is incredibly impressive. Its only impressive to me because I didn't believe the non stop lies from the right.

NoLeftNoRight said:

Let me spell it out for you.......P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

This is more a testament to just how corrupt our government has become rather than an indication of sound policy. Unfortunately.
I live in the state with "best" unemployment figures nationally.....and all I have to do is ask people from all walks of life as I get about and I hear the SAME EXACT THING.....
I ask people I talk to all over the state....same reply...

"Where's all this economic recovery? I'm struggling like hell"

Those who don't have cushy government overpaid jobs, significant "assistance" or are being paid off for political favors are not doing so well overall. A FEW are doing well as is always the case. But not the vast majority.
How could the economy possibly be improving when the number of major businesses moving offshore has increased and immigration is flooding the US with illegals who also have to eat.

No, it's utter, unadulterated...in your face propaganda & lies & manipulation. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

The only problem is that your two bolded assertions are either completely untrue, like the in the case of illegals flooding the US (for example, mexican immigration is the lowest in 40 years), or completely beyond the control of a president (as in the case of jobs going overseas - nobody is going to stop globalization without starting a war, either military or trade).

Vern said:

Okay, let me type this very slowly. You had some narrative that President Obama shouldn't get credit for reducing the deficit because he was the one that raised it. That narrative blew up in your face. Your latest post is attempting to pretend you didn't. Some might call that cheating. To be clear, President Bush "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars" not President Obama. If you want to whine that "sure he reduced the deficit but that was easy because bush made it so high" then post that. You posted President Obama "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars".

And fyi, remember he reduced the deficit and the whole time you and yours were predicting the end of the world. So by your own standards, President Obama reducing the deficit to under the 40 year average and the world not ending is incredibly impressive. Its only impressive to me because I didn't believe the non stop lies from the right.

Click to expand...

The deficit was reduced because Republicans swept into both the House and Senate and forced Obama to get it under control. The first few years of Obama's administration, when Democrats had control of the Senate and more representatives in the House, not much happened. But, Obama gets the "cheating" credit, just as McCain would have gotten credit had he been elected. Your premise is that Obama should get the pat on the back when, in fact, he was just at the right place at the right time, not much different than getting a Noble Peace prize before he had actually done anything and now they wish they could take it back.

braindrain said:

Yeah your link does not in any way support your claim of fewest troops in combat scenarios at all. And with troops in Iraq and Afganistan I find your claim very very hard to believe. I get that you want to make Obama look as good as you can but making things up is a poor way to go about it.

Click to expand...

I readily admitted that my link was a bit of misapplication of my original statement. If you can find a good source for numbers of troops in active combat situation, then I would like to review it as well. I simply could not find any website that compiled that information over time.

MrT said:

I readily admitted that my link was a bit of misapplication of my original statement. If you can find a good source for numbers of troops in active combat situation, then I would like to review it as well. I simply could not find any website that compiled that information over time.

Click to expand...

In other words you simply made up you original claim.

Even without a link common sense doesn't even lead one to believe it could be true. In 2000 where were US troops in a combat scenario ( whatever that is) that would out number Afghanistan and Iraq. But in your obvious rush to push your agenda I can see how that wouldn't matter.

braindrain said:

In other words you simply made up you original claim.

Even without a link common sense doesn't even lead one to believe it could be true. In 2000 where were US troops in a scenario. But in your obvious rush to push your agenda I can see how that wouldn't matter.

Click to expand...

Ah, you're absolutely correct. So I would amend my statement to fewest active combat troops in more than a decade. I still don't have a citation to support that claim, but I am OK with standing behind that statement until proven otherwise.

Vern said:

Okay, let me type this very slowly. You had some narrative that President Obama shouldn't get credit for reducing the deficit because he was the one that raised it. That narrative blew up in your face. Your latest post is attempting to pretend you didn't. Some might call that cheating. To be clear, President Bush "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars" not President Obama. If you want to whine that "sure he reduced the deficit but that was easy because bush made it so high" then post that. You posted President Obama "knocked the deficit up to over one trillion dollars". .

Click to expand...

What was Obama's first few budget deficits? Remember, Bush's last one was only so high because of the reckless ONE TIME stimulus. What is Obama's excuse? It should have come down right away.

Ikari said:

Too bad we can't do anything about wealth disparity and real spending power. But with an ever shrinking middle class, those things will just get worse.

There is no such thing as "full employment", there's always going to be some amount of unemployment rate.

Click to expand...

"Full Employment" from an economic perspective assumes a small about of employment. Usually unemployment of under 5% is considered full employment.

Full Employment Definition | Investopedia

Unemployment in a full employment economy is known as "frictional unemployment".

Anthony60 said:

What was Obama's first few budget deficits? Remember, Bush's last one was only so high because of the reckless ONE TIME stimulus. What is Obama's excuse? It should have come down right away.

Click to expand...

A given President has almost zero control over a given budget deficit. The federal budget is tied to its financial infrastructure (spending obligations and existing structure) and the economy. While a president can champion legislation that actually changes the infrastructure, its up to Congress to pass that legislation. Obama has done almost nothing the effect the government financial infrastructure other than to pass the PPACA and to extend the Bush tax cuts. Bush, OTH, did quite a bit to effect our budget infrastructure, including passing Medicare Part D, Cut taxes and start two long wars. Given that Bush started with essentially a balanced budget, most the deficits we are currently running are far more his fault than Obama's.

If you can tell us what Obama has done to effect deficits, you may have an argument. My guess, however, is that you can not.

MrT said:

Fewest jobless since November 1973 - Business Insider



The Job Market continues to improve and there can be little doubt that we are nearing full employment as a country. This is further evidence that the individuals engaging in a bashing of the economy are doing so purely for political reasons that have little basis in fact. The lone couple of job statistics that continue to perform poorly are wages and the labor force participation rate. The former should, hopefully, adjust itself upward very soon as the lack of a slack in the job market allows individuals to negotiate with employers for higher wages. The later will, on the other hand, remain near historic lows and will probably drop even further due to global market trends like automation and globalization.

This feather also adds to a rather impressive list of 40-year records that have taken place during Obama's tenure.

Lowest increase in year-to-year healthcare costs in 40 years
Fastest decrease to the deficit in 40 years
Fewest troops in combat scenarios in 40 years
Fewest jobless clams in 40 years

P.S. For the Mods, I was unsure whether I was supposed to quote the actual title of the article or the title from the web address, so I used the title of the article. Please adjust as warranted. Also, if Business Insider is a non-MSM source, please move the thread. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yay!

I would say, though, that the healthcare costs are increasing faster for certain people in certain areas, not based on THEIR health or claims, but based on their age or geography. Some places have lower increases (some because earlier increases were already historically high), while others have had enormous historical increases. Add to that the fact that costs are not increasing as quickly in part because insurance companies are now not paying for many drugs that used to be commonly covered, and are providing far fewer providers that will accept their policies, resulting in people not being able to use their insurance. That is not unintentional;it's a design instituted for the specific purpose of containing costs. I'm sure many people had something else in mind when they said they wanted to slow the cost of healthcare; simply not being able to get it was probably not what they had in mind.

It's been a long slog, but I think we're finally over the recession. Nine long years.

danarhea said:

Interest rates already went up 50 basis points about a month ago, and a rise of another 50 basis points is expected in the near future.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was a 0.25% increase back in December last year.

Derp said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was a 0.25% increase back in December last year.

Click to expand...

Yup, tha'ts right. I realized my mistake too late to correct it with an edit. But that is still an increase, and although a second increase has been delayed, it is still expected later this year.

Anthony60 said:

What was Obama's first few budget deficits? Remember, Bush's last one was only so high because of the reckless ONE TIME stimulus. What is Obama's excuse? It should have come down right away.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that only $172 billion of the ARRA was disbursed in 2009? If you subtract that from the 2009 budget deficit, what do you have left?

Moderate Right said:

The deficit was reduced because Republicans swept into both the House and Senate and forced Obama to get it under control. The first few years of Obama's administration, when Democrats had control of the Senate and more representatives in the House, not much happened. But, Obama gets the "cheating" credit, just as McCain would have gotten credit had he been elected. Your premise is that Obama should get the pat on the back when, in fact, he was just at the right place at the right time, not much different than getting a Noble Peace prize before he had actually done anything and now they wish they could take it back.

Click to expand...

shock of shocks, you have a new magic narrative. Remember your first magic narrative was that President Obama shouldn't get credit for reducing the deficit because he was the one that raised it. Yea, that one blew up in your face and you've yet to acknowledge it. So MR, you cant even get the simple facts right but we should believe your consistent and desperate attempt to simply not give President Obama credit for reducing the deficit. Let me type this real slow for you. President Obama was at the right place at the right time (how did you type that without cracking up) with the right policies. Yea, your magic narrative is that anybody would have reduced the deficit. thats the part that makes it magic. I simply have to point out Bush was handed a surplus and he doubled the national debt. That alone shreds your latest magic narrative.

And what you are also conveniently forgetting is that republicans voted against TARP, stimulus and sure acted like the auto bailout upset their tummies. They were more austerity minded. With them in power there was just as good a chance the Great Bush Recession could have become the Great Bush Depression. the recession is what caused the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits. the deficits weren't magically going to come down until the economy started to grow. See the problem with your latest magic narrative yet? mmmmm, I bet you have a magic narrative that the economy would have magically turned around all by itself. And MR, you're also not realizing that if republicans were in power, you wouldn't have been instructed to rant about the deficits.

MrT said:

Fewest jobless since November 1973 - Business Insider



The Job Market continues to improve and there can be little doubt that we are nearing full employment as a country. This is further evidence that the individuals engaging in a bashing of the economy are doing so purely for political reasons that have little basis in fact. The lone couple of job statistics that continue to perform poorly are wages and the labor force participation rate. The former should, hopefully, adjust itself upward very soon as the lack of a slack in the job market allows individuals to negotiate with employers for higher wages. The later will, on the other hand, remain near historic lows and will probably drop even further due to global market trends like automation and globalization.

This feather also adds to a rather impressive list of 40-year records that have taken place during Obama's tenure.

Lowest increase in year-to-year healthcare costs in 40 years
Fastest decrease to the deficit in 40 years
Fewest troops in combat scenarios in 40 years
Fewest jobless clams in 40 years

P.S. For the Mods, I was unsure whether I was supposed to quote the actual title of the article or the title from the web address, so I used the title of the article. Please adjust as warranted. Also, if Business Insider is a non-MSM source, please move the thread. Thanks.

Click to expand...

So you are seriously suggesting - to ANY extent - that the American economy is doing better now then it has at any time in the last 40 years? That it is better now then during the booming eighties or during the dot.com boom or during the housing boom?
The initial jobless claims are lower now then during those periods...but no one in their macroeconomic right mind would suggest the economy is doing better now then during those time periods I mentioned.

United States Initial Jobless Claims | 1967-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar

This is an overrated statistic. It can mean that times are good or it can mean that practically everyone that will file an initial claim has filed or a combination thereof.

And forget using the U-3 - it is a joke. You could have only one person working in America and have 200 million others out of work and desperate for a job. But since those 200 million have given up looking for work (because there are no jobs), the BLS in all of it's corrupt wisdom calls them out of the workforce and no longer unemployed - when CLEARLY they are unemployed and DESPERATE for work.
In that scenario, the official unemployment rate (U-3) would by 0%....with only ONE American working.
That is ridiculous.
Also, the Fed has given up using the U-3 as an accurate gauge of the employment situation as for years they used 6.5% as a guidepost for raising rates. Well that passed many, many months ago and they only barely raised rates last December (and then the markets crashed). Why? Because they admitted that the U-3 basically sucks (my words).


And even if the jobless numbers and the unemployment rate were accurate gauges of the economy...they mean little since the Fed is still running almost 0% rates, still pumping roughly $200-250 billion in QE (though they do not call it that any longer) and the federal government is still pumping out huge deficits.
In fact, the government/Fed has pumped roughly $12 TRILLION directly and indirectly into the economy since 2007 (plus ZIRP). $12 trillion!?!
If you throw enough goodies at the economy, obviously it will look better (temporarily).

The powers that be should only take a bow when the economy can stand on it's own without MASSIVE assistance from deficits and the Fed. And that has not occurred since Obama took office.


The U.S. economy AND the stock markets are stagnant (despite the massive government stimuli), the middle class has been semi-gutted since 2007, food stamp usage is up roughly 40% since the Great Recession started (and refuses to drop much) and home ownership rate is lower now then it was 40 years ago.

United States Home Ownership Rate | 1965-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar


If that is your idea of economic success...then I HATE to see your idea of economic disaster.


And, btw, I have ZERO political affiliation. I despise both major parties and am not of Libertarian or any other political bent.

Vern said:

shock of shocks, you have a new magic narrative. Remember your first magic narrative was that President Obama shouldn't get credit for reducing the deficit because he was the one that raised it. Yea, that one blew up in your face and you've yet to acknowledge it. So MR, you cant even get the simple facts right but we should believe your consistent and desperate attempt to simply not give President Obama credit for reducing the deficit. Let me type this real slow for you. President Obama was at the right place at the right time (how did you type that without cracking up) with the right policies. Yea, your magic narrative is that anybody would have reduced the deficit. thats the part that makes it magic. I simply have to point out Bush was handed a surplus and he doubled the national debt. That alone shreds your latest magic narrative.

And what you are also conveniently forgetting is that republicans voted against TARP, stimulus and sure acted like the auto bailout upset their tummies. They were more austerity minded. With them in power there was just as good a chance the Great Bush Recession could have become the Great Bush Depression. the recession is what caused the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits. the deficits weren't magically going to come down until the economy started to grow. See the problem with your latest magic narrative yet? mmmmm, I bet you have a magic narrative that the economy would have magically turned around all by itself. And MR, you're also not realizing that if republicans were in power, you wouldn't have been instructed to rant about the deficits.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you finally realize that the recession brought on the trillion dollar deficits and that any president afterward would have gotten the same distinction. Yes, the economy does go up and down, just like the stock market does and every president who serves 8 years gets to enjoy both sides of the economy. So yes, Obama was in the right place at the right time to get your distinction but I'd be interested in knowing who it is that "instructed" me to "rant" about deficits. Even if there is someone, which there isn't, what would it matter, because you claim it is Bush's fault for the deficits anyway. I guess you believe if the Democrats were in power, there would be no deficits. Now that's funny.

Ikari said:

Too bad we can't do anything about wealth disparity and real spending power. But with an ever shrinking middle class, those things will just get worse.

There is no such thing as "full employment", there's always going to be some amount of unemployment rate.

Click to expand...

You can blame the advent of container ships in the early 70s for that.

upsideguy said:

A given President has almost zero control over a given budget deficit. The federal budget is tied to its financial infrastructure (spending obligations and existing structure) and the economy. While a president can champion legislation that actually changes the infrastructure, its up to Congress to pass that legislation. Obama has done almost nothing the effect the government financial infrastructure other than to pass the PPACA and to extend the Bush tax cuts. Bush, OTH, did quite a bit to effect our budget infrastructure, including passing Medicare Part D, Cut taxes and start two long wars. Given that Bush started with essentially a balanced budget, most the deficits we are currently running are far more his fault than Obama's.

If you can tell us what Obama has done to effect deficits, you may have an argument. My guess, however, is that you can not.

Click to expand...

Well, we both agree that both Bush and Obama exploded the deficit and spent incredible amounts of money. I would say they are both responsible for their budgets. Seems you feel that only Bush is responsible, and Obama is not.

Can't say I'm surprised, that's a consistent theme with the left, Obama, even after seven years, is responsible for nothing. All Bush's fault. Very compelling argument you make there.

New Hampshire's unemployment rate in February was 2.7%. We have no state income tax. No sales tax. Except for our governor, our state is controlled by the Republicans. We are the Live Free or Die state. Maybe the other states would do wise to emulate us instead of following places like New York and Connecticut and Alabama and Nevada down the rat holes.