A Grim Jobs Report For America...

[Mr Natural]

There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.

Even though you mean that to be a jab it's actually truer than you know.
The keyword is commensurate. Which you probably don't understand anyway.
If Americans got paid based on their productivity they would earn plenty and there would be jobs out there. Instead some get paid over-market wages because of union protection while the rest stagnate.

 

[The T]

There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.

WHY do you worry about the third-world when YOU have a railroad tie in your own eye?

 

[Samson]

There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.

By Greedy and Spoiled Americans I assume you mean those Occupy Wall Street bitches.

 

[The T]

There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.

By Greedy and Spoiled Americans I assume you mean those Occupy Wall Street bitches.

As they parade about cause damage, decry Corporations as they get on thier iPads, Iphones and a mryiad of other devices.

These people are just folks that have been lead down the path of hypocricy...and sadly? they don't realize it.

They apparently love living in a lie.

 

[ladyliberal]

OK, so it's not a success. But it's not a failure either. What is it, having spent over $1T in deficit spending? A draw?
GDP growth is not the single indicator. There are multiple ones I quoted. All of them suck.
What "Pres McCain" would have done is irrelevant. For the record, his proposals weren't much different from Obama's but I suspect he would do less demonizing of business so recovery would have been better. But that is just speculation. We have no need to speculate on Obama's policies. TGhere is a record. And the record is gross failure: most money spent for worst results.

I didn't mean to imply you were overly focused on GDP. I was referring to Kudlow's analysis, but even that was somewhat misleading because of course he discussed jobs numbers as well.

You ask whether "it" is a success, failure, or a draw. I'm not sure what "it" is (Obama's economic policies, I assume) but I would say that the answer (which I don't know) would have to be more complicated than that.

All of the economic indicators you claim are certainly bad, but your numbers aren't terribly accurate. Interest rates are low, but the standard quoted rate is not zero percent. And federal deficit as a percentage of GDP is nowhere near record levels; it wouldn't even be a peacetime record (and we're still at war).

I agree that guessing what McCain would have done is speculative, but I don't agree that it has no bearing on the evaluation of Obama's policies. Economists evaluating policies need to compare them to alternative policies, not consider them in a vacuum. To do otherwise would be like trying to decide whether a runner won a race by only looking at her time without looking at how other runners finished.

 

[Mr Natural]

There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.

Even though you mean that to be a jab it's actually truer than you know.
The keyword is commensurate. Which you probably don't understand anyway.
If Americans got paid based on their productivity they would earn plenty and there would be jobs out there. Instead some get paid over-market wages because of union protection while the rest stagnate.

In other words, they make too much.

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By Larry Kudlow
Host, "The Kudlow Report"

And that brings us to the grim May employment report; the economy added only 69,000 nonfarm jobs last month. It’s the third consecutive subpar tally, replete with downward revisions for the two prior months. It’s a devastating number for the American economy, and a catastrophic number for Obama’s re-election hopes. All momentum on jobs and the economy has evaporated.

Blame it on the Republicans.

Thirty years of policy rigging to serve the rich has taken its toll. The American People have been beaten by the stooges they've sent to Washington. Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, even Republican lite Bill Clinton. Gingrich, Boehner and a host of others. They're loyalty belongs to the rich and the American People are suffering for it.

WOW you really don't mean that do you? You do realize that the democrats have controlled the government for 60 plus years in part or in whole since 1946.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Blame (it) on the Republicans.

Thirty years of policy rigging to serve the rich has taken its toll. The American People have been beaten by the stooges they've sent to Washington. Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, even Republican lite Bill Clinton. Gingrich, Boehner and a host of others. They're loyalty belongs to the rich and the American People are suffering for it.

Lots of blame to go around. And Obama deserves much of it. He has completely sunk many future generations.

Could you give me an idea of what has you so upset with Obama?

Could you give us an idea why you would lie about Thirty years of policy rigging by the republicans when the democrats have controlled the government for 60 plus years in part or in whole? It's not possible

 

[thereisnospoon]

I take exception to four things Kudlow says here:

1) Kudlow calls current policy a failure without defining what a success would be. He focuses on GDP. Would Kudlow call it a success if GDP rose but median income fell sharply? Would that really be better for society?

2) Keynesian economics isn't just about spending. Tax cuts are part of Keynesian fiscal policy, so the corporate tax cuts he advocates would be Keynesian stimulus.

3) Our current economic policy simply is not the "Obama model". To suggest that Obama has had free rein to direct economic policy is contrary to reality. Congressional opposition has sharply limited his ability to secure even routine matters such as a debt ceiling increase.

4) Most importantly, Kudlow takes the disappointing jobs numbers as "proof" (a very high standard) that stimulus failed. But of course this month's job numbers are a single data point years after the stimulus increased government spending. Spending as a function of GDP has fallen sharply in the intervening time (US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 2000-2012 - Federal State Local Data) so far from contradicting basic Keynesian predictions, anemic job numbers are expected.

If 2% GDP growth, 8.2% unemployment, record low labor force participation, 0% interest rates, and record deficits are success I'd hate to see your definition of failure.

I didn't say current economic policy was a success. My point was that Kudlow should define success and failure before labeling something as one or the other. For my part, I don't regard GDP growth as the single relevant economic indicator.

And while I agree the economic numbers are bad, I do not regard that as prima facie evidence that economic policy has failed. One country can be much poorer than another and yet manage its economy better. It is entirely possible (to my mind, quite likely) that economic policy under a President McCain, say, would have left the US much worse off than we are today.

The notion of stagnating or falling wages among the middle class is a myth.
Interesting to note that these statistics can be easily manipulated to draw a predetermined conclusion.
What never happens is those collecting the stats never put boots on the street to ask people what they are earning now vs 10 years ago vs what they had hoped to be earning.
You have no way of knowing anything about a Mc Cain presidency. None of us do.
For what it is worth, I viewed Mc Cain as a very weak candidate. I placed full responsibility for Mc Cain's candidacy on the RNC. IMO the RNC tanked the 2008 election.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There's be jobs aplenty if only greedy and spoiled American workers would accept wages and benefits commensurate with their third-world counterparts.

Even though you mean that to be a jab it's actually truer than you know.
The keyword is commensurate. Which you probably don't understand anyway.
If Americans got paid based on their productivity they would earn plenty and there would be jobs out there. Instead some get paid over-market wages because of union protection while the rest stagnate.

In other words, they make too much.

"Prosperity Through Lower Wages!"

No...That is not the point. American industry was handcuffed by unions.
Unions demanded far higher than market wages. When part of the workforce is paid far more than the rest, it upsets the balance of market forces.
In order for business to survive and with them the ability to create jobs, there must be a balance between the ability of business to turn a profit and the cost of labor.
Union leadership and of course pro union people buy into the notion that revenue available for wages exists in a vacuum. It does not.
There is no magic pot of money from which businesses draw.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Keynesian government-spending model has proven a complete failure. It’s the Obama model.

I take exception to four things Kudlow says here:

1) Kudlow calls current policy a failure without defining what a success would be. He focuses on GDP. Would Kudlow call it a success if GDP rose but median income fell sharply? Would that really be better for society?

2) Keynesian economics isn't just about spending. Tax cuts are part of Keynesian fiscal policy, so the corporate tax cuts he advocates would be Keynesian stimulus.

3) Our current economic policy simply is not the "Obama model". To suggest that Obama has had free rein to direct economic policy is contrary to reality. Congressional opposition has sharply limited his ability to secure even routine matters such as a debt ceiling increase.

4) Most importantly, Kudlow takes the disappointing jobs numbers as "proof" (a very high standard) that stimulus failed. But of course this month's job numbers are a single data point years after the stimulus increased government spending. Spending as a function of GDP has fallen sharply in the intervening time (US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 2000-2012 - Federal State Local Data) so far from contradicting basic Keynesian predictions, anemic job numbers are expected.

If 2% GDP growth, 8.2% unemployment, record low labor force participation, 0% interest rates, and record deficits are success I'd hate to see your definition of failure.

Keynesian economics is an example of the dismal failure of socialism.