● Few Jobs: A lot of people (particularly on the left) are pointing to the 195,000 number as proof of a big number, which must mean something good, right? But it’s not really. For one thing, the rolling average for the last six months has been 200,000 jobs created each month. That means the June number is slightly below the average we’ve had since January. Same as it ever was is not an improvement.
Further, it takes around 160,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the population growth. That means that only about 35,000 of those jobs are there to reduce the backlog of the unemployed.
If job creation remains unchanged from hereon forward (an impossibility), it will take until 2017 for the unemployment rate to reach 5%. That means it will take 10 years from the start of the recession to get employment back to the “normal” level. That’s actually longer than it took the US jobs market to recover from the Great Depression. That’s also a year after Obama’s term is up. It’s also no sure thing. Historically speaking, recoveries last 63 months on average, compared to 13 months for recessions. The most recent recession lasted 18 months and the “recovery” has been underway for 49 months. That means sometime next summer, the recovery likely will tip back over into recession. That means job growth will slow and then collapse again. That means, we’re not likely to get anywhere near 5% unemployment by 2017. Instead, we’re looking at 5% sometime in the 2020s. Nice.
● Low Quality Jobs: Even worse, the quality of the jobs produced during this “recovery” has been really poor. For example, 42% of the jobs created in June were in the leisure and hospitality sector, 52,000 of which came from food services. Retail jobs accounted for another 37,000. Those manufacturing jobs everyone covets fell by 6,000. Job quality was a long-time attack by the left against Republican Presidents, wanna bet they don’t mention this against Obama?
Moreover, the top-line number is always a little misleading. To really understand it, you need to look at what makes that number. In this case, when you look a little deeper, what you see is that the 195,000 jobs is the result of an increase of roughly 360,000 part-time jobs and a loss of 240,000 full-time jobs. In other words, not only was every job created a part-time job, but another 45,000 full-time jobs vanished. This is proof of what we already knew about Obamacare – people are firing their full-time employees and hiring part-timers and temps. It also calls into question whether or not the 195,000 is even real or if this is full-time jobs being split into multiple parts.
So basically, this number is not the end of the world, but it certain isn’t anything we should be trumpeting. The “recovery” is producing low paying, unstable, part-time jobs, and even then it’s not producing enough to end unemployment any time soon. Interesting isn’t it, that we are in the middle of an historically bad jobs market and yet the media doesn’t seem to notice. I don’t recall them being this disinterested in unemployment under Reagan. . . or Bush. . . or Bush.
44 comments:
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan.....“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Barack Obama loses his.”
One other point Andrew. I've wondered how many of these "lost jobs" were due to baby boomers retiring and/or leaving the workforce for good, rather than being involuntarily terminated as the assumption seems to be.
Any thoughts?
Patriot, if you don't mind my jumping in--if Boomer retirements were the source of lost jobs, I'm certain the sycophantic media would have jumped all over it to explain the recession out of existence. In fact, now that you mention it, I'm surprised they didn't try it anyway. There must be some reason even they find it too far fetched.
Actually, I think there are many Boomers who have been involuntarily terminated/downsized from their jobs and are finding it difficult to get comparable work/wages, yet are too young for retirement/SSE benefits (50-64). They are backing up against the younger college grads who are looking for jobs and can't find them either.
And since many business are downsizing to under 50 full time employees in anticipation of Obamacare...well, we all know the rest.
It's been hysterical watching the media cover these job numbers. I hope those who touted and believed in the greatness of Obamacare are enjoying their part-time jobs, if they have one at all.
tryanmax.......I too am surprised the sycophants haven't tried this one yet. I'd like to see some data around how many boomers retire each month, the number of positions filled with FT'ers and PT'ers, and the number of total workers let go.
I've never trusted these "unemployment" numbers anywho.
Patriot, My understanding is that the boomers are stuck working longer because they lost so much in the housing bubble.
In any event, those people would not be counted in the numbers if they retired. Moreover, other would jump up and take their jobs. Right now there are over 20 million people "under employed" who want to work at full time jobs, but can't find them. So I don't think this has anything to do with Boomer retirements.
tryanmax, As the boomers are very self-centered and the media is packed with them, I would agree with you. BUT politics trumps everything else in the MSM and until they can find a way to blame unemployment on someone other than the Democrats, unemployment shall not be mentioned... just like homelessness or natural disasters. For Republican Administrations Only
Bev, There are over 20 million Americans who currently rate as "underemployed." Those are people who want full-time work, but can't find it. I'm not sure what the ages of those people are, but I would expect they skew upwards because older people tend to be more expensive.
And no, Obamacare is not helping. Small business accounts for 2/3 of the jobs created over the last couple decades. Small business is not hiring because of Obamacare. That's really bad for jobs.
Writer X, That's the ironic (great) thing, is that the people who will be hurt most by Obama's policies are his supporters. He really is a fool. And he's caused them massive unemployment and made it much harder for them to move up economically. Now he's going to fine them for not buying healthcare they can't afford while demanding they bow to him for giving them "universal coverage."
It sounds like a joke if it wasn't really happening.
Patriot, The unemployment numbers are phony. They are based on surveys and estimates, not any hard data. Unemployment claims is about all there is for that and even that doesn't give you a realistic picture because it only applies to some.
By the way, Vermont issued their Obamacare rate plans and no one seems to be talking about them except to say that they are "comparable" to current rates. Really? Here's why no one on the left wants to talk about them:
Individual plan unsubsidized: $395 per month
Individual plan subsidized for income of $34,000: $230 per month
Family plan: $1,111 per month
Yeah... very affordable.
Andrew...Aren't you comparing individual plans to family plans? What would the family plan be unsubsidized for income of $34,000?
I think the comments on how Obamacare is going to hurt his young supporters the most is suspect. I know it needs young, healthy people to pay into the system where they aren't paying now, but I believe the hardcore O stooge voters are unemployed anyway and will get "free healthcare" with the new plan. True?
Also, this still looks like a 'redistribution' scam no matter what. Take more from those that have and are working, and give to those that don't have and aren't working.
He really has "transformed" this country as he set out to do when first elected hasn't he? And it looks like there ain't a damn thing we can do about it. At the 'ballot box?' Yeah, right.
Patriot, I'm not comparing anything. I'm giving you the three data points they released, each of which looks much higher than people will be expecting. They did not provide the cost of the subsidized family plan.
"the hardcore O stooge voters are unemployed anyway"
You're listening to too much talk radio. Obama handily won working class (employed) Americans overwhelmingly -- the very people talk radio likes to pretend are their listeners ("reel 'merikans"). They have jobs, yet they went overwhelmingly to Obama. He won women by a mile and every racial group by a hundred miles. They have jobs too. The only group he didn't win was upper-middle class white males and white evangelicals. That means his support was extremely broad, covering every income group, every race, every gender and every employment status.
Moreover, the people most likely to vote for Romney were older, retired (unemployed) Americans who get social security each month to pay their bills and Medicare to pay for their health... free stuff.
The irony of Obama's policies is that it will hurt working class Americans the most by destroying jobs and imposing costs on them they cannot afford.
As for transforming the country, no he hasn't. He hasn't achieved jack outside of some damage to the health care system.
"As for transforming the country, no he hasn't. He hasn't achieved jack outside of some damage to the health care system."
He hasn´t been successful as the term is commonly understood but that does not mean he won´t have a legacy.
One main point is, the federal government has grown. And until it shrinks again, that is a transformative legacy.
Second, although many will never realize it, he has made a majority of Americans permanently worse off. Years of foregone growth, trillions wasted, opportunities lost. The cost is real. That´s change, too, though maybe not transformation
Then there is the march through the institutions. As I keep saying, the left is very good at advancing likeminded people and conservatives are not good at removing them. Take the politicization of education or the bureaucracy that we have witnessed. I know you don´t believe in that, but surely you don´t think the IRS would have followed orders to go after the enemies of Bush with the same gusto, do you?
Finally, the realm of ideas. In my experience, language and ideas matter. Eight years of relentless demagoguery by the President and his allies cannot but leave a mark. Every day that people hear talk about race-class-gender instead of something constructive, the idea of who the enemy is and "what needs to be done" and "what can be said" changes a bit.
Worse than that, under Obama many lines have been crossed. The very definition of what a scandal is has been changed. Many people and institutions felt encouraged to come out as radical, partisan and lawless and - think about it - they can neither go back nor will they disappear. This radical inflammation will outlast Obama for quite some time. They also have a stake in whitewashing Obama´s legacy (Message: "He tried").
Do you ever notice how Orwellian our language has become? Calling a spade a spade can be very tricky these days. And this has gained more acceptance, not less. Hell, even comedians are afraid. Obama has a lot to do with it. Who will drain that pus from society?
El Gordo, I agree to a degree, but that's not the transformation people keep talking about.
People keep claiming that Obama has hooked people on government, destroyed the American way of thinking, and created a permanent socialist/leech class who intend to live off others. He's done none of that. In fact, his numbers in terms of number of people who receive help from the government, number of people voting Democratic, etc. are all remarkably similar to what they were under Bush... which is not to say they are great, but there has been no transformation.
The one thing that has "transformed" the political landscape is the implosion of conservatism, which has left the country without a viable alternative to Obamaism. If conservatives could stop hating everyone, they would find this a very fertile time for conservative ideas with the public.
Aside from that, you are correct that the real transformation is a loss of wealth and a generation of people who are much lower on the income ladder than they should have been. That will hurt the country for a long time, particularly with boomers retiring.
In terms of the race/class stuff, that's always been there and, honestly, it's getting better because fewer people are buying it. In fact, as you'll see in tomorrow's article, the number of people who buy into that are very small.
In terms of redefining what is a scandal and what isn't, I don't agree with that. Think back on the number of scandals under every single administration. Only a handful have ever had an effect... and usually, the effect is blowback on the opposition more than anything. Scandals rarely interest the public.
Andrew.....He transformed a country that had checks and balances on executive power into one where he can decide which laws he will enforce or not enforce. He uses gov't agencies as his political jackboots to go after his domestic "enemies." He has made 7-8% unemployment the "new normal." He has kept gas pump prices the highest they've been for years. He cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan. He paid out billions to his union cronies. He has made a mockery of the office of the President by partying, golfing and vacationing more than any previous President. His Justice Department does not prosecute guilty minorities and terminates this DOJ attorneys who don't toe the line. His top aides lie under oath with no repercussions. He stirs up racial animosity with his ill-timed and off the cuff remarks on cases in the news. He intentionally uses a budget crisis to cut out WH tours. He has polarized half the country and turns neighbor against neighbor and family member against family member unlike any other politician in memory. All this adds up and I see us becoming more like a third world country's government.
But maybe you're right. He hasn't transformed the country, just the office of the president.
I wouldn't say Obama has even transformed the office of the president--unless you are merely referring to its traditional scope. What Obama has done is to test the boundaries of the office (like every executive before him) and found them to be far more expansive than previously thought.
Patriot, How about some proof to back those things up?
tryanmax, I think he has found what every other president has found, you can get away with it for a short period, and then the courts undo your power grabs and everything you did gets undone.
Andrew, this is true, though I would emphasize that history has shown the bounds of presidential authority to be more plastic than elastic.
True, it's definitely moved in only one direction -- always expanding. But there are very clear limits that simply can't be crossed, and Obama hasn't managed to cross any of those despite trying (like his recess appointments).
The IRS scandals... these were directed by liberal Senators who were angry over the Citizens United case. In the name of keeping big money out of politics the IRS concentrated on Tea Party groups that had an average of less than 100,000 in donations.
:
Gibson Guitar... in supposedly enforcing an obscure law the epa accused Gibson Guitar of violating Madagascar and Indian law dspite the fact that these countries admitted there was no customs violation. They impounded millions in equipment but did not go after rivals who were not big GOP donors.
:
The Auto bailouts the governemnt took over GM and cancelled contracts with dealerships primarily based on political donations. The stockholders were forced to give up their stock and bondholders were put at the end of the payout and unions first. Unions should have been last as the bondholders had legal protection. the government rewrote bankruptcy laws by fiat. Besides the whole auto bailout was to stop chapter 11 so that GM would not be restructured cancelling union contracts allowing more realistic ones to be negotiated.
:
Quite frankly I can't remember there ever being this many serious scandals. Most scandals go away becuase they are BS. Valaruie Plame for instance was outed by Armitage a democrat and she worked in the CIA office. Cheney had no idea who she was until reporters started telling him. There was no way that scandal was going to stick because it was ridiciulous. It was a fiction for the media.
:
I highly doubt that Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP monitoring, the NSA leaks are manufactured by the Conservative media especially since any real criticism by the MSM would certainly be played out. To date I can't imagine any scandal that actually made me fear the government was unable to function impartially until OBama came into office.
:
Not to mention that the justice department overturned the conviction of the black panthers standing outside polling booths with billy clubs. Personally I do not see this government as being fair anymore. Everything is now only whoever has the biggest pockets. There is not even pretense given to democratic principles and I think they will just keep doing it even after Obama is gone because they know they can get away with it.
Indi, Maybe you should check out this page: LINK for some perspective. This is a list of federal scandals by administration -- this list only includes legal scandals, not smear scandals like "Bush/Obama golfs too much," so there are even more than this. And as you will see, every administration is awash in scandals.
And what is the typical result of scandals? Nothing. Sometimes people resign, sometimes people get fired, sometimes a couple people go to jail... but usually nothing happens at all. And almost nothing changes as a result of any of these scandals.
If you think that Obama's scandals are unique, then you are wrong. If you think they would "normally" have led to something, you are wrong. We have 200 years of proof of that.
As for THE black panther, I wish conservatives would stop obsessing about that. It's one case. Do you have any idea how many cases the Justice Department brings each year? The fact that you can only point to one case is actually solid evidence that your conclusion is wrong or else we would be awash in examples. It's the same thing with voter fraud. They can't find more than a couple examples yet they can't stop screaming that blacks and Hispanics are "stealing our elections."
Andrew, on behalf of responsible media outlets everywhere (but mainly in New York), I have to ask, why are you nitpicking this awesome, progress-confirming jobs report? You, sir, are not committed to the American future.
T-Rav, I was paid by the Koch Brothers to scaremonger. :D
Clearly, there is nothing wrong with this report... nope, nothing at all... unless you want to spend your life slinging burgers. But hey, who wouldn't want to do that?
Wait, are there any burger slinging jobs in New York anymore? I thought Bloomberg chased them all off.
Tofu burgers.. with 15.9 oz cokes.
Okay, why am I the only one NOT paid by the Koch Brothers?? Is it a "man" thing? I realize that they are probably so conservative that they think women should be seen and not heard, but really? It's not fair! Waaaaaaah...
And we so TO have burgers in NYC. You're mean. We love Mayor Bloomberg. He cares about us unlike those other billionaire Koch Brothers...8-P And tofu is great! Just because those who eat lots of tofu have a higher rate of stomach cancer...who cares! Bloomberg cares!
Andrew..... He transformed a country that had checks and balances on executive power into one where he can decide which laws he will enforce or not enforce. (DREAM Act; Immigration Law in AZ)
He uses gov't agencies as his political jackboots to go after his domestic "enemies." (IRS)
He has made 7-8% unemployment the "new normal." (For over 4 years now)
He has kept gas pump prices the highest they've been for years. For over 4 years now)
He cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan. (No SOFA in Iraq; Telling Taliban when we're leaving)
He paid out billions to his union cronies. (Stimulus; GM bailout)
He has made a mockery of the office of the President by partying, golfing and vacationing more than any previous President. ($100 million African vacation; Golf no matter what)
His Justice Department does not prosecute guilty minorities and terminates this DOJ attorneys who don't toe the line. (Black Panthers; Christian Adams; Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson graft)
His top aides lie under oath with no repercussions. (Eric Holder; Donnelly; IRS Heads)
He stirs up racial animosity with his ill-timed and off the cuff remarks on cases in the news. (Henry Gates; Trayvon Martin)
He intentionally uses a budget crisis to cut out WH tours. (Sequestration)
And yes, as an attorney you will probably say that the few examples I reference don't "prove" anything. I'm talking about the overall culture and approach that he has brought to this country. Yes, I'm sure there have been similar Presidents who were corrupt and arrogant, yet I can't think of one in my lifetime (and I start with Eisenhower!)
I just don't see his actions as someone with the best interests of this nation and ALL its people at his core.
Bev, They haven't actually sent the check yet, but I'm really sure they're going to pay me this time! :P
Glad you still have burger shops.
Tofu causes stomach cancer? I had no idea. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing that Citibikes are dangerous.... speaking of which, in London they had their first fatality with someone riding a "Boris Bike." We'll see how that goes.
Patriot, Nothing you've said is any different than what the left said about Bush or the right about Clinton in his first two years, or the left about Reagan. Nor is any of it really all that accurate. Obama can't pick which laws to enforce -- you've confused Supreme Court review for Obama. The "new normal" implies acceptance, but no one is accepting the current unemployment levels. To the contrary, they are panicked about it. The same claims of cronyism, golfing, indifference were made about Bush. Your examples are the equivalent of condemning McDonalds as a company because you once got a bad burger. No repercussions is factually wrong, they just aren't the repercussions you wanted. There is nothing you cite that can't be seen in every other presidency, just partisan spinning.
And let me make another point. Do I think Obama is a good President? No. Do I think he's the worst ever? Yes. Do I think he love this country or has served the office honorably? No.
BUT...
It doesn't do any good to turn an incompetent loser into the Antichrist. And it doesn't do any good to make up supposed crimes against whatever in the name of feeding the hate. The guy is bad enough without becoming deranged about him.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 9, 1914 (99 years ago today…)
Austrian Foreign Minister Berchtold meets with Franz Joseph at the emperor’s palace, Bad Ischl.
I should note that there is some disagreement about the memo Hungarian Prime Minister Tisza wrote for Franz Joseph the previous day. The memo called for a diplomatic solution- albeit one that humiliated Serbia- and warned of a possible four-front war. He wants the demands to be less severe than originally planned at the meeting.
Historian Sean McMeekin (“July 1914”) says that the two read Tisza’s note, and then ignored it. The emperor already favored a warlike course of action. However, historian S.L.A. Marshall (“World War I”) states that Berchtold pocketed Tisza’s notes and never gave them to Franz Joseph. (This implies that Berchtold either lied about Tisza’s position, or softened it to suit his needs.)*
Whatever the case, Franz Joseph has come around to the side of the war hawks, and gives Berchtold’s plan his blessing.
Berchtold then heads back to his office in Vienna to begin drafting Austria’s list of demands for Serbia.
“Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war.”
-Franz Joseph, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary
*- This isn’t the only disagreement about the buildup to World War I. McMeekin, along with the online timeline I’ve been using, argues that Germany was well aware of the Austrian ultimatum early on and eventually approved of it.
Marshall, along with G.J. Meyer (“A World Undone”), disputes this. They maintain that once Germany delivered the ‘blank check’ to Austria-Hungary, the Austrians deliberately kept the Germans in the dark, blindly believing that Germany would have to support them no matter what. (Similar to how they believed that Russia wouldn’t get involved.)
There’s also a great divide concerning Berchtold’s handling of the whole situation.
McMeekin seems to blame Tisza’s insistence on diplomacy, the ‘harvest leave,’ and the Austro-Hungarian bureaucracy for tying Berchtold’s hands, leaving him no option but to be secretive after the opportunity to strike quickly had passed. To Marshall and Meyer, however, Berchtold was a simple liar who exacted promises and manipulated events wherever he could. They say he was in over his head, and that his lackluster style and lack of politicking skills continuously made the situation worse. (Meyer, in a brief discussion of Berchtold’s character, also asserts that the pleasure-loving aristocrat was seen as weak and indecisive, leading many to question his appointment as foreign minister. His belligerent actions during the July Crisis, Meyer argues, show him to be a very dangerous type of man: a weakling desperate to appear strong.)
Rustbelt, Is this your work or are you copying something?
Mmf, all of this paints a familiar sight for me... We've discussed this already over e-mail, Andrew, but the bad economic circumstances (and being caught up in them myself) are still unpleasant to see. I'm still trying to keep hopeful that the predictions of positive change within the Republicans and among their candidates come true regardless. It's just that the waiting can be a real pain...
Rustbelt - All of this is still an interesting read! For all of his contributions to the war one would think Berchthold would merit mention in even a more basic-level history of WWI. As fascinating as I find the subject I'm not a historian myself, though, so I'm not sure how they determine these things.
- Daniel
Daniel, That's the thing people don't think about enough, these numbers reflect the lives of real people and we need to start thinking about how to help those people so they can have productive, satisfying lives rather than just thinking in terms of economics and statistics.
Unfortunately, politics is such a corrupted game that neither side really cares about people anymore. The first party to change that will dominate the political landscape for generations to come.
Hopefully, it will be the Republicans. There are some smart people who get it even if so many are flat out opposed to change.
Very, very true. Until I ended up in this mess a lot of times the numbers looked like just that, numbers. Now that I'm seeing a lot of this struggle firsthand it gets pretty depressing quite often.
Yeah, hopefully it'll be them. Guys like Rubio and Rand definitely seem to be the start of something good, but it's these oppositional groups who have me worried. Maybe I'm being pessimistic but I can't help but think some loudmouth is going to undo the good ones' hard work and we'll be either right back at zero or worse off.
- Daniel
The way I see it, it will have to come from the Republicans or not come at all. The Democrat party devoted itself to large-scale social engineering a long time ago, and they don't seem remotely close to giving up on the mission. Unfortunately, the Republican party is currently trying to decide whether or not to descend into madness on a permanent basis.
Daniel, I'm just as worried. The level of absolute hate coming from the groups opposed to them is staggering, as is their desire to make themselves martyrs. That is deeply troubling. So while I am hopeful, I know that things are very close right now and they could get very ugly.
On the numbers v. people, it's only been recently that I've started to see it. Unfortunately, both sides have these defensive mechanisms that let them avoid seeing the real people they hurt. The Democrats have created the "throw money at it" substitute for problem solving. And the Republicans have made a fetish of "tough love," only without any pretense of love. The end result is that both parties feel very smug, but neither actually cares about people. That's disturbing to me.
tryanmax, I concur. The Democrats are incapable of that kind of change because they already think they are there. And recognizing that they have not been caring about real people would be anathema to them. Moreover, as you note, they care about groups, not individuals.
The Republicans can do it... but I'm rather pessimistic that they will. As you say, they are debating descending into madness on a permanent basis and I fear that will be the choice. There will actually be a meeting today of the House Republicans that should decide their future. They will talk about immigration reform. If they find a way forward, then they have a chance. If they don't, then forget it -- permanent losses compounded with increasing stridency and more witch hunts.
But even beyond that issue, there is just too much insanity and too much hostility ingrained in the party at this point. Show me an issue where the Republicans don't spew venom at this point.
Andrew, that's exactly what's got me worried on this, how the immigration bill will fare in the House. While the Senators involved seem to have managed things well enough, the House seems much more partisan and offhand I can't think of anyone who can bring the House members around the way Rubio did in the Senate. I guess all we can do is hope for the best, though like all of you I'm fairly sure they're going to choose to screw things up instead...and then what happens, I wonder.
- Daniel
Daniel, Read today's articles about the polls (the second part) to see what happens if the House screws this up -- President Hillary and permanent Democratic majorities in the Senate.
The problem right now is that half the House is insane and they actually think they can play this game of spouting asinine quotes while refusing to bring the thing to a vote without the public turning on them... and the other half are too afraid to stand up for the future of the party. Ryan was supposed to take that role of swaying them, but he's basically vanished.
At this point, I think it will take Boehner realizing that he will never win over the people who hate him and then just doing the right thing for the party. Unfortunately, he seems to be clinging to the idea that the whackos will stop hating him if he just keeps doing everything they want. It's like watching a spouse get abused.
I read it, I just didn't have anything worth adding to it. It's disturbing, though, and that's exactly what I was afraid of... No one in the House having what it takes to stand up, thus condemning us to who knows how many more years of this mess. I just don't know if anything good is possible out of them these days.
- Daniel
Daniel, All we can do is hope.
Post a Comment