Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Economies go up and down, but if Obama is responsible for this "recovery" want to explain to me why the recovery is starting AFTER the stimulus bill is over?
This is EXACTLY what I said would happen here YEARS AGO..
What you are not appreciating is that the economy is not at full capacity -- and that's important because the biggest single influence on revenue is the state of the business cycle (which is why austerity in the face of a liquidity trap is so ineffective even at reducing deficits).
The slump in the economy is the result of a failure of demand -- period, end of story. The stimulus increased GDP by 1.5% but was too small to negate the 6% drop in GDP during 2008. Why is the economy growing more in 2011 than 2010? Economic activity builds upon foundations. There is also pent up demand.
But there is a real concern that if the slump goes on long enough, it can turn into a supply-side problem, because investment will be depressed, reducing future capacity, and because workers who have been unemployed for a long time become unemployable. That's why it's imperative to get the economy to full capacity earlier instead of later and that's why deficits now, during a liquidity trap, aren't that important. I understand the knee-jerk response to cut spending in the face of deficits but that only deepens the long-term problem and makes deficits worse as revenue falls further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suncc49
What about his FAILURE to bring in new people to manage the economy?
We have the same guys who managed the economy under Bush.
Buzz word for new government program to dump money down a black hole usually resulting in benefit to some Corporation who donated money or is a friend of elected official
Buzz word for cutting taxes (payroll) that we can't afford cuts in
I would say, when you grow up, don't try to get a job as an Economist.
Bottom Line - Hiring gained traction in December (http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10002777-hiring-gained-traction-in-december - broken link)
Best month to month job gains since 2006.
Good news for Obama in the new year.
You can't spin that in a bad way.
I've only read through post #30, but as you can see, the NJs have found something bad about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suncc49
seasonal jobs and people falling off the unemployment count as they have given up looking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82
Wait for the January number. All those Holiday season jobs won't be around anymore and it will give us a true reading of where we are on unemployment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Sure you can. People will be laid off in January. That's how seasonal hiring works. This was not unexpected.
Interestingly, not one single mention of a seasonal workforce was mentioned in the article. For that reason, this is either woefully lacking news reporting, or woefully biased towards Barack Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
We should have Christmas every month.
Have you naysayers ever heard of "seasonally adjusted"? It seems like every season has its seasonal workers, e.g. landscapers in spring and summer, back to school sales in fall, Christmas in December.
What you are not appreciating is that the economy is not at full capacity -- and that's important because the biggest single influence on revenue is the state of the business cycle (which is why austerity in the face of a liquidity trap is so ineffective even at reducing deficits).
The slump in the economy is the result of a failure of demand -- period, end of story. The stimulus increased GDP by 1.5% but was too small to negate the 6% drop in GDP during 2008. Why is the economy growing more in 2011 than 2010? Economic activity builds upon foundations. There is also pent up demand.
But there is a real concern that if the slump goes on long enough, it can turn into a supply-side problem, because investment will be depressed, reducing future capacity, and because workers who have been unemployed for a long time become unemployable. That's why it's imperative to get the economy to full capacity earlier instead of later and that's why deficits now, during a liquidity trap, aren't that important. I understand the knee-jerk response to cut spending in the face of deficits but that only deepens the long-term problem and makes deficits worse as revenue falls further.
No **** the economy isnt at full capacity, thats why the economic recovery will begin as the stimulus ENDS.. The stimulus removed a TRILLION from the economy, and you cant spend and invest money that isnt there.
So what your saying is that this is only slightly better than Bush
That would be pretty pathetic considering the unemployment rate at the time, would you not agree?
I don't buy into unemployment rate. I prefer looking at growth in civilian labor force to job growth or losses in private sector (and discard government jobs which you can't do with unemployment rate). So, while unemployment rate would make for a great political tool for Bush era, it doesn't account for over six million fewer jobs that were created, even as jobs were added (and before counting the massive loss that ensued).
Take a look at November to December (2008) data above, for example, a loss of 636K in just one month. There is absolutely no reason, for any sane person, to call it good times, by simply looking at unemployment rate at 7.3% compared to 212K jobs added with an unemployment rate at 8.5%. Which of the two periods would you prefer?
For that matter, why did Bush and the republicans feel the need for a second stimulus in 2003 towards job growth when the unemployment rate was barely over 5%?
Bottom Line - Hiring gained traction in December (http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10002777-hiring-gained-traction-in-december - broken link)
Best month to month job gains since 2006.
Good news for Obama in the new year.
You can't spin that in a bad way.
Yea, most of these jobs are crappy jobs and unemployment can't just keep rising forever, at some point it has to top off. Just like it can't keep lowering forever.
I've only read through post #30, but as you can see, the NJs have found something bad about this:
Have you naysayers ever heard of "seasonally adjusted"? It seems like every season has its seasonal workers, e.g. landscapers in spring and summer, back to school sales in fall, Christmas in December.
A number of 200K is not seasonably adjusted, its a factual figure, unemployment PERCENTAGE is seasonally adjusted
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
