Obama Should Be applauded On The Economy

[expat_panama]

...can't say how much of the decline is due to demographics or societal trends versus labor market related issues, though.

Yeah, I can't say either...

Sure we can.

If the drop in Labor Force Participation was becuase old people were retiring then today's labor force would be younger. It isn't. In fact what everyone's seeing is the opposite and it's the young that are out of work, not the old. Any google key words "generation unemployment" pops up articles pointing out--

--that blaming retirees doesn't make much sense. What does make sense is blaming the war on hiring, better known as an expressed policy of vengeance against employers that's causing massive unemployment, discouraged workers, and the forsaken young.

 

[expat_panama]

Loss of payroll employment since Obama's inauguration (jobs destroyed):

-552,000​

Gain in payroll employment over the same timespan of Reagan's administration (jobs created):

+5,238,000​

Sure, it is great if you're okay with comparing apples to oranges.

You're absolute right.

The situations were very different considering how much bigger today's economy and population is. That means Obama's half million jobs destroyed is a smaller % population while Reagan's five million jobs created would be far greater in today's world. More important are the natures of the two downturns. Reagan had to overcome double digit inflation/unemployment and his main tool was liberty and rule of law. Obama had to overcome low prices with 7% unemployment but his approach was a war on business.

More like comparing apples and rotten tomatoes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama can ONLY propose.

It takes CONGRESS to dispose.

Congress has done a shyte job on this economy.

So what has Obama "proposed", Ed? He's the President...he's the guy that's SUPPOSED to be leading us during this time...he's the guy who assured us all he had a plan to fix things and would hit the ground running in January of '09. Larry Summers did the Obama Stimulus...spending almost a trillion dollars of money we had to borrow, to prop up government jobs, "green energy" companies that had supported Obama's run for the Presidency, and "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs that turned out to be nonexistent. The fact is, Barry's stimulus fizzled so badly that Summers tucked tail and ran back to his tenured job at Harvard. Since HE left, this Administration hasn't come up with a plan to fix the economy, instead giving us a re-named, watered down version of what didn't work the first time around. Blaming Congress is par for the course with this President. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault. After 3 and a half years it's obvious that the fault lies with a total lack of leadership from the Oval Office. Why anyone wants to give this man another four years when he ran out of solutions in year two OF HIS FIRST TERM is beyond me.

 

[itfitzme]

Loss of payroll employment since Obama's inauguration (jobs destroyed):

-552,000​

Gain in payroll employment over the same timespan of Reagan's administration (jobs created):

+5,238,000​

Sure, it is great if you're okay with comparing apples to oranges.

You're absolute right.

The situations were very different considering how much bigger today's economy and population is. That means Obama's half million jobs destroyed is a smaller % population while Reagan's five million jobs created would be far greater in today's world. More important are the natures of the two downturns. Reagan had to overcome double digit inflation/unemployment and his main tool was liberty and rule of law. Obama had to overcome low prices with 7% unemployment but his approach was a war on business.

More like comparing apples and rotten tomatoes.

I don't see it as that simple.

The first thing is that unemployment peaks after the end of the recession. We really should count from the point where unemployment peaked (and hope the changing labor force in the denominator doesn't have a big effect)

The second is simply that the structure of the economy is so much different. I can't quantify this yet, but clearly it is. The "liquidity trap" issue seems pertinent. It really comes down to the potential for growth. It's kind of like the difference between growing tomatoes in the desert compared to growing them in the tropics.

It really looks like the economy tapped out on those solid growth opportunities in 2001. The gov did a great job getting money to flow through the system, including the Bush 2003 tax cuts along with increased discretionary spending. Problem is, all the economy wanted to do with it was invest in mortgage backed securities and single family house flipping. It's a shame that the best investment opportunity was an investment bubble.

Reagan was dealing with an economy that had real solid growth potential. Obama is dealing with one that has been crashing since 2001.

 

[itfitzme]

...can't say how much of the decline is due to demographics or societal trends versus labor market related issues, though.

Yeah, I can't say either...

Sure we can.

If the drop in Labor Force Participation was becuase old people were retiring then today's labor force would be younger. It isn't. In fact what everyone's seeing is the opposite and it's the young that are out of work, not the old. Any [
--that blaming retirees doesn't make much sense. What does make sense is blaming the war on hiring, better known as an expressed policy of vengeance against employers that's causing massive unemployment, discouraged workers, and the forsaken young.

What would be an interesting affect is if the upper age bracket of population is growing.

Wouldn't the percentage of total employment for that age bracket also be growing proportionally?

 

[expat_panama]

...can't say how much of the decline is due to demographics or societal trends versus labor market related issues, though.

Yeah, I can't say either...

Sure we can.

If the drop in Labor Force Participation was becuase old people were retiring then today's labor force would be younger. It isn't. In fact what everyone's seeing is the opposite and it's the young that are out of work, not the old. Any google key words "generation unemployment" pops up articles pointing out--

--that blaming retirees doesn't make much sense. What does make sense is blaming the war on hiring, better known as an expressed policy of vengeance against employers that's causing massive unemployment, discouraged workers, and the forsaken young.

What would be an interesting affect is if the upper age bracket of population is growing. Wouldn't the percentage of total employment for that age bracket also be growing proportionally?

No, those numbers aren't interesting at all.

The population aged gradually over decades while the participation rate did its massive swings over a few months with the '08 election.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sure we can.

If the drop in Labor Force Participation was becuase old people were retiring then today's labor force would be younger. It isn't. In fact what everyone's seeing is the opposite and it's the young that are out of work, not the old. Any google key words "generation unemployment" pops up articles pointing out--

--that blaming retirees doesn't make much sense. What does make sense is blaming the war on hiring, better known as an expressed policy of vengeance against employers that's causing massive unemployment, discouraged workers, and the forsaken young.

What would be an interesting affect is if the upper age bracket of population is growing. Wouldn't the percentage of total employment for that age bracket also be growing proportionally?

No, those numbers aren't interesting at all.

The population aged gradually over decades while the participation rate did its massive swings over a few months with the '08 election.

Yes, George Will keeps proclaiming that there are 4 million fewer jobs now than when BO took over. BO is doomed.

 

[Rshermr]

What would be an interesting affect is if the upper age bracket of population is growing. Wouldn't the percentage of total employment for that age bracket also be growing proportionally?

No, those numbers aren't interesting at all.

The population aged gradually over decades while the participation rate did its massive swings over a few months with the '08 election.

Yes, George Will keeps proclaiming that there are 4 million fewer jobs now than when BO took over. BO is doomed.

Good deal, ed. Quote a great impartial source like George Will.
I see that quote in our local tea party web page. What a coincidence.
you are a true tea party dogma slinger, ed, just not anything else to offer.

 

[itfitzme]

Sure we can.

If the drop in Labor Force Participation was becuase old people were retiring then today's labor force would be younger. It isn't. In fact what everyone's seeing is the opposite and it's the young that are out of work, not the old. Any google key words "generation unemployment" pops up articles pointing out--

--that blaming retirees doesn't make much sense. What does make sense is blaming the war on hiring, better known as an expressed policy of vengeance against employers that's causing massive unemployment, discouraged workers, and the forsaken young.

What would be an interesting affect is if the upper age bracket of population is growing. Wouldn't the percentage of total employment for that age bracket also be growing proportionally?

No, those numbers aren't interesting at all.

The population aged gradually over decades while the participation rate did its massive swings over a few months with the '08 election.

Actually they are, unless your trying to make some partisan point by cherry picking graphs.

First off, I never said anything about "blaming the elderly". I just raised the possibility that both end may have been lopped off. And, if both ends are lopped off, then you get the same average.

My point is that, all other things being equal, if the 55 and over is an increasing proportion of the civilian population, then they would represent an increasing proportion of the labor force and an increasing proportion of the employed. The same would be so for any age group.

Now I'm not saying they are, just that it provides the baseline for determining exactly what the employment percentages are doing. In any particular year, all other things being equal, the age distribution for the employed should be the same distribution for the underlying civilian population. If it's not, then it deserves some explanation as to why it's different.

If you lop both ends off, then you don't get younger, you get the same average. You seem to have gotten all fixated on one thing I said, ignoring that I presented about four articles regarding the decline in the younger age groups.

And, in running the civilian population numbers for the groups as you presented them, the 16-24 has been flat since '07. So, clearly, that the employment dropped, then that age group isn't represented in the employment numbers as we should expect. The 55 and over age group has increased a bit, though not a lot. Given that their representation in the employment rolls has been pretty flat, per your graph, there has been a slight drop, though not by much. On the other hand, the 25-54 age bracket has declined a bit as well, so we would expect some decline in that group, though certainly not as dramatically as your graph presents.

All that said, the labor forcewas on a decline beginning in 2001, only finding temporary relief on the Bush '03 tax cuts and the housing bubble.

We are well aware that, since the recession came into play, the LF fell precipitously. And it has affected the 16-24 crowd predominately. This was a point of study for someone at the BLS, along with others, and I provided the reference to the studies.

I have no idea what your talking about with your "What does make sense is blaming the war on hiring, better known as an expressed policy of vengeance against employer". I take it this is just more partisan crap?

 

[expat_panama]

...I have no idea what your talking about...

No doubt about it.

Just the same, your having "no idea" doesn't prevent your making conclusions and acting on them.

 

[expat_panama]

...George Will keeps proclaiming that there are 4 million fewer jobs now than when BO took over. BO is doomed.

Related thread at http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ly-affected-by-the-recession.html#post5494979