Unemployment
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
rayner601
Dedicated LVC Member
I am reading this chart right? A little over half of the country is employed?
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
The second graph shows the story better. The economy is always going up and down, but this latest dip, well it's a doozy. Change is what the American people wanted, change is what we got.
A favorite quote of mine; "Not all change is progress, but all progress is change." Hopefully in two more years(or less) we'll get someone in there that will bring progress, and Obama can keep his change.
A favorite quote of mine; "Not all change is progress, but all progress is change." Hopefully in two more years(or less) we'll get someone in there that will bring progress, and Obama can keep his change.
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
Yes. The unemployment rate is calculated only to include those that are willing, able and want to work. For example, it doesn't count stay at home parents, or people on disability that aren't looking for work.
Last edited by a moderator:
compshmoe
Well-Known LVC Member
According to the graphs, seems that sometime after July '08 until Obama took office on
January 20th 2009 2% was lost in less than 5 months, Under Bush. So with that said, under Obama for 2% to be lost over 2 years seems pretty good to me considering the failed policies that were inherited and no one seems to agree to get rid of. Reminder: we're still working under the Bush era budget.
http://firedoglake.com/2011/02/28/m...-performance-as-bush-budget-director-is-lame/
January 20th 2009 2% was lost in less than 5 months, Under Bush. So with that said, under Obama for 2% to be lost over 2 years seems pretty good to me considering the failed policies that were inherited and no one seems to agree to get rid of. Reminder: we're still working under the Bush era budget.
http://firedoglake.com/2011/02/28/m...-performance-as-bush-budget-director-is-lame/
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Here We Go Some More
shmoo---You need to get your head outa your a ss and quit the tired attempts at finger pointing.
KS
shmoo---You need to get your head outa your a ss and quit the tired attempts at finger pointing.
KS
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
All I know is 4 months after Obama was in office, I lost my job. I still blame GB though.
brentalan
Dedicated LVC Member
Isn't that because of all the recent government spending cuts?
I work in the public sector and we've seen a lot of jobs going away recently.
Early on in Obama's presidency, everyone was afraid to cut jobs because of the economy.
Now people are frustrated with all the deficit spending and calling for less spending.
If the government spends less, the public sector shrinks, lots of jobs get cut.
I work in the public sector and we've seen a lot of jobs going away recently.
Early on in Obama's presidency, everyone was afraid to cut jobs because of the economy.
Now people are frustrated with all the deficit spending and calling for less spending.
If the government spends less, the public sector shrinks, lots of jobs get cut.
philly0420
Dedicated LVC Member
Mine had to with me going to jail(30 days) for punching someone in the mouth that kicked the front of my mark outside of a bar. They held my job, but when I got out, there was no work(HVAC tech). I would have been laid off either way.
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
Look at the graph, it seems to dip right around the change of presidents. Probably speculation that bad things might happen, well they were right. But I'm sure it was more then just that.
brentalan
Dedicated LVC Member
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Anything that happens during the change in presidents is reflective of market conditions.
It's not like it's a sudden shock, folks new he was elected in November.
Anything that happens during the change in presidents is reflective of market conditions.
It's not like it's a sudden shock, folks new he was elected in November.
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
Market conditions weren't suddenly bad a few months before he was elected, but that's when unemployment started going south. Obama won the nomination in 6/08, that's about when unemployment really started going. Yes, correlation doesn't = causation, but that doesn't mean they aren't connected.
WOW.
Bush era policies seem to have had an immediate impact that dropped our economy into the tank but Obama's polices supposedly aimed at having a quick effect (stimulus?) have not had enough time to work?
THAT makes sense.
Specifically, what Bush era policies caused this decline and how did they do that? Platitudes about "have's and have-nots" do not answer that question. Any answer needs to be consistent with the laws of supply and demand and demonstrate why everything hit at the time that it did.
Also, who controlled the legislative branch from 2006 through 2010? What branch of the government sets fiscal policy?
Your argument seems to ignore those questions.
Also, what will the Dodd/Frank bill be on the economy?
Unemployment is considered a lagging indicator...
Markets do fluctuate in light of current events. Perception is reality not only in politics but, in many ways, on wall street as well. However, Obama being elected does not, in and of itself, explain the long term recession we are in. It is much more about policy.
compshmoe
Well-Known LVC Member
shmoo---You need to get your head outa your a ss and quit the tired attempts at finger pointing.
KS
Maybe you should keep your head in yours 'cause when you peeked out of it, you forgot to read what this post is implying; all i pointed out was where the real blame should begin.
Now for a different question, don't you think the party of "no" wants Obama to fail at the cost of our skins purely for political reasons so in 2012 they can say "see Obamas' fault". For 2 years it was no to everything, foretelling doom and gloom IF this or that passed; now that this or that passed we're at least stable and now It's not about jobs as they promised, it's all about the same divisive crap: gay marriage, union rights,Obama wasn't a scout, he was a cannibal in Kenya, abortion, redistricting, freaking plastic spoons and styrofoam cups?? gtfoh
compshmoe
Well-Known LVC Member
WOW.
Bush era policies seem to have had an immediate impact that dropped our economy into the tank but Obama's polices supposedly aimed at having a quick effect (stimulus?) have not had enough time to work?
THAT makes sense.
Specifically, what Bush era policies caused this decline and how did they do that? Platitudes about "have's and have-nots" do not answer that question. Any answer needs to be consistent with the laws of supply and demand and demonstrate why everything hit at the time that it did.
Also, who controlled the legislative branch from 2006 through 2010? What branch of the government sets fiscal policy?
Your argument seems to ignore those questions.
Also, what will the Dodd/Frank bill be on the economy?
"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the "Stimulus" or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009."
It is said thats what kept us from sinking further because it included unemployment extensions and so forth
"As of the end of August 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been outlaid or gone to American taxpayers or businesses in the form of tax incentives."
Here, read where the money went http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
then ask yourself where would we be on the chart if the mass numbers of unemployed weren't getting benefits to put back into the economy.
We would have more money efficiently invested in the private sector helping to bring us out of the slump and reducing unemployment. Instead, with the stimulus we get absurd and (more importantly) inefficient redistribution of wealth that only further distorts the economy and hinders economic growth.
In short, we would be much better off, economically, without the stimulus and without the excessive unemployment benefits you are talking about.
I know the Pelosi line the unemployment benefits being the best way to simulate the economy is emotionally appealing but it has no basis in reality. It is based on the flawed notion that consumption drives the economy.
If that were true, then we could just print money and given EVERYONE $1 million dollars and almost instantly remove ourselves from the recession.
Contrary to the assumptions behind this foolish argument, it is production that drives the economy. Look up an idea called Say's Law.
It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products.
Unfortunately, the "stimulus" is based in flawed quazi-Keynesian assumptions that have been proven not to truly stimulate an economy. Attempting to stimulate demand does not stimulate the economy, though it may very well create inflation.
compshmoe
Well-Known LVC Member
The Question is which ones haven't failed, the list would be shorter
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964
compshmoe
Well-Known LVC Member
shagdrum you say it's not about the haves or have nots, but looking at the Bush era vs the Clinton era proves differently: national debt reduction, jobs, jobs with good wages, median household income, PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY.
Apparently "different" is a synonym for "loaded"
A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.
You do realize that a lot of what you take as axiomatic is not taken as such by anyone who doesn't already share your views. Therefore you have to justify those assumptions to make a persuasive and credible argument.How does "looking at the Bush era vs the Clinton era proves differently"?
You are citing a misleading, biased chart that pays NO attention to context. Then you make absurdly illogical conclusions based on a self serving standard of judgment that you can't even prove has been met.
FYI: "median household income" is an exceedingly misleading statistic. However, it is often cited by those looking to promote class warfare and disparage free market policies because it inherently hides true income growth.
compshmoe
Well-Known LVC Member
So what you are saying is those who can't find work and receive unemployment should have no kind of income, which in turn they can't pay bills, end up homeless and living in a shelter so then they can't buy goods and that helps our economy how?
If we as Americans dont have $$ to "consume" and therefore purchasing and feeding the economy, who will? Since we have no exports to speak of, OH yes i forgot::: "the tax breaks to the wealthy will trickle down and save us all, it's only been 11 years, give it some more time it'll work"
compshmoe
Well-Known LVC Member
Didn't you ask what Bush policies were failing? Wasn't that an answer the before Bush and after Bush? I was hoping a cartoon picture would inform you, i guess i was wrong.
Not at all what I am saying. Could you actually respond to the argument I made instead of attempting to reframe the issue on emotional terms?
Can you look to the broader picture of economic reality or only focus on artificial class distinctions?
Are you capable of having an argument about economics or is class warfare rhetoric all you know?
It is far more cruel to have an overreaching government try and go against nature by "stimulating" the economy through "investment" thus maintaining bust far beyond. The more decent, kind thing to do is for the government to facilitate a quick economic recovery by getting out of the way.
The market naturally corrects itself and there is no way for government to speed up that process. Attempts to speed up a recovery only prolong the recession.
Again, are you actually able to logically defend the premises that your argument is based on or can you only take them for granted and posture in an attempt to avoid any critical examination of those premises?
All I have been seeing is the latter...
No it was a dodge that relied on misdirection. You simply responded with "what policies didn't fail" then cherry picked a chart that didn't in any way confront the question I raised.
That chart doesn't account for a lot of the realities I alluded to in the earlier post; specifically, what governmental branch sets fiscal policy? In fact, the chart you cite conveniently ignores that fact.
There are other certain political realities that played a huge factor as well and make your comparison utterly worthless. Specifically, 9/11 and the profound economic impact it had.
Essentially, your argument assumes that the only variables involved were different president's in the oval office and, therefore, any difference in numbers is due to the policies of the two men. That is an absurd assumption that ignores a whole host of other variables and realities that played HUGE factors in any differences in numbers.
It is a cheap way to avoid any specifics.
Specifically, WHAT Bush policies failed and (more importantly) why? What is the standard of judgment used to determine whether those policies failed?
Class warfare rhetoric does not answer that question. And self-serving, one sided standards are a cop-out as well.