Where is the US economy headed?

@realjohnboy,

rjb, The 109,000 jobs created not only falls short to hire current demand, but that doesn't even scratch the surface of those who have been looking for jobs for months and years.

I'm getting the strange feeling in my gut that the government is trying to bring good news to the forefront without exposing the many problems of our economy. They claim company expenditure is rising, retail sales are on the upswing, and unemployment numbers have dropped from 9.8 to 9.4.

I can't put my finger on it now, but it's just a very uncomfortable feeling.

0 Replies

I should point out that the Obama admin and Dem Congress added more net jobs last year than were added in the entire 8 years of Bush's term...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You will be challenged on that, Cyclo. Gird your loins.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

You will be challenged on that, Cyclo. Gird your loins.

The key word here is 'Net.'

But I do come ready for such attacks, as you know:

http://www2.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/07/news/economy/december_jobs_report/

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And neither link supports your claim.
The link from national journal is from may of 2010, and has a lot of maybe and might be in it.

The other link states quite clearly "since 2007".
Now Bush was president from 2000 to 2008, so lets look at all 8 years.
I am not saying you are wrong, but neither link supports your claim outright.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/apriljobs.jpg

Actually Cycloptichorn, this is statistically correct. Since this is the largest recession resulting in the largest loss of jobs since the Great Depression, the job loss was basically all during the Bush Administration and the job gains (back to and above positive) were all during the Obama administration. Obama would have a large positive job growth and Bush would have a large net job loss. To slightly benefit Bush's net, he received a small recession job loss from the Clinton turnover in which he replaced large white work is a lot of burger turners.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW, I like what you said here:

Quote:

To slightly benefit Bush's net, he received a small recession job loss from the Clinton turnover in which he replaced large white work is a lot of burger turners.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

dang ci

Quote:

large white work is a lot of burger turners.

s/b
largely white collar workers with a lot of buger turners Wink

1 Reply

@BillW,

With your bad grammar, I understood what you meant. LOL

Here's the record on GW Bush's job creation vs the past (worst since 1945):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/jobssincegwbush.jpg

As it bottomed out at the beginning of Obama's presidency during his first two years in office, Obama has reversed the job loss trend after the Great Recession that GW Bush created. That is amazing!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

As it bottomed out at the beginning of Obama's presidency during his first two years in office, Obama has reversed the job loss trend after the Great Recession that GW Bush created.

That is really what Cyclops was trying to say, it is stronger and less statistic mumbo-jumbo.

That statement accurately explains the graph I posted. BTW, that graph is known as the Bikini graph.

It also visually shows the Republican lies regarding job creation and who lost the jobs. Then again, all Republicans lie all the time.

0 Replies

That graph is also about 8 months old. There were a few months of job loss (Oct and Nov I believe) but job gains on the other months are fairly dramatic. I would love it if someone has an up to date graph.

The worst thing that has happened in this recession is that job creation has not included jobs for college graduates. This is a sector we must get jobs. A lot of these jobs have been shipped overseas by corporations. This trend must stop and be turned around.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Tell me, why should unions have the power to threaten violence?

And what makes unions think they have the right to threaten public safety?

I don't know, mm, but that seems to be not too unusual for them. I suspect that at least some unions are run by the mob.

I was soured on unions a very long time ago when my brother-in-law's friend at their place of work received a call to his house one evening, and a threat upon the lives of this man's family was made, all because the man was one of a faction pushing for a non-union shop, and an election to decide the issue was looming. This involved working for a contractor that did maintenance on military trainer aircraft. That did it for me. I swore off of unions from then on. I was in college at the time, and fortunately my professional career never had to deal with unions anyway.

0 Replies

@BillW,

Actually, most economic pundits say that the country has to create 200,000/month for our economy to grow. That will meet current demand, and decrease the unemployment rolls.

0 Replies

@BillW,

The BLS stat you need on that is Table A-4, I think. How the hell do I know that. Don't know. Bed time for me right now. The nurse gave me the green pill and the blue one.
If you can't find it, I will look for the data tomorrow.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

That is one great table, but way too much information for me to wrap my brain around tonight. I could handle a graph, visual you know!

1 Reply

@BillW,

This is what I found on unemployment numbers and rates:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/unemployment2000to2010.jpg

Without trying to add too much interpretation into this graph, it seems that the conclusions arrived by many financial analysts that the Stim Bill slowed the loss of jobs is confirmed.

It topped off at 10.1% and is reported at 9.4 for December.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

And neither link supports your claim.
The link from national journal is from may of 2010, and has a lot of maybe and might be in it.

The other link states quite clearly "since 2007".
Now Bush was president from 2000 to 2008, so lets look at all 8 years.
I am not saying you are wrong, but neither link supports your claim outright.

It's buried in both. From the first link, an examination of how poor Bush's net job creation was:

Quote:

The real point of looking again at Bush's record is to underscore how few jobs the economy was creating even before the 2008 collapse. Bush's tally of 1 million jobs was much less than the economy had generated during any other two-term stretch since World War II: Dwight Eisenhower produced nearly 4 million, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (together) almost 16 million, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (together) 11 million, Ronald Reagan 16 million, and Bill Clinton more than 22 million.

Bush's total, of course, was suppressed by the slowdown he inherited from Clinton and the full-scale meltdown during his last year. But even during the recovery in between, job growth lagged. In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.

From the second, a total on the number of jobs added in 2010 -

Quote:

While positive job growth still brings some hope for 2011, there's still a long way to go to recover the 8.5 million jobs lost since the Great Recession began.

The labor market typically needs at least 300,000 to make a difference in the unemployment rate, economists say, and at least 150,000 to keep pace with population growth.

Overall, the economy rounded out 2010 with 1.1 million jobs added, the best year for hiring since 2007. And job growth is still trending upward, albeit very slowly, with an average of 128,000 jobs a month added in the last quarter of the year.

Recovery hasn't been great, but the stats support my contention.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

When I turned the computer on this AM, I did what I usually do, I opened Rasmussen's daily presidential poll site. What was different this morning was a sort of weird link placed there, perhaps purchased, I do not know, with the headline "Why the Government is Releasing Prisoners From Jail," . I did what I usually don't do, I clicked on one of the boxes and turns out to be a tape of an economical advisor guy predicting all manner of economic disaster in the near future, as a result of the nation's debts if the government cannot print enough money to keep operating.

I was wondering if anyone else has seen this, and what your thoughts are on it. I would imagine at least a few, like cyclops, would consider it of no worth because it is on Rasmussen's site, but I think it should be judged on its own merit, on the data and facts presented, rather than where it appears. Here is the site:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

2 Replies

@okie,

You realize that it's an ad, trying to sell you something. Right?

They are preying on your fear, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, I figured it was an ad, but that is the first one of that type I have seen in a long time on Rasmussen, maybe the first one ever?

Incidentally, I listened to some of it, but then decided I had heard enough to know what the general idea was.

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know