What Recovery?

[asaratis]

According to this article...there hasn't been ANY recovery. We can't even maintain normal growth.

News from The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The expected U.S. "Great Recovery" hasn't materialized and the economy has fallen short of even normal growth, according to a forecast released Wednesday.

The second-quarter UCLA Anderson Forecast said the growth of real gross domestic product - meaning the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced - is too small to help the nation climb out of its slump.

The figure was 15.4 percent below a "normal" growth trend, forecast director Edward Leamer wrote.

"To get back to that 3 percent trend, we would need 4 percent growth for 15 years, or 5 percent growth for eight years, or 6 percent growth for five years, not the disappointing twos and threes we have been racking up recently," he said.

"It's not a recovery. It's not even normal growth. It's bad," he wrote.




What say ye, Obamabots?

 

[Katzndogz]

This recovery is like when you visit your neighbor who you know is dying and tell them how much better they look.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is because there is no recovery. The stock market rebounded but jobs are still not there, necessities have doubled in price and people are not making any more money to make up for the increases.


All we have is the infusion of trillions into already rich companies and people.

 

[Warrior102]

Another Obama accomplishment.

This assclown needs to be impeached, STAT.

 

[itfitzme]

there is no recovery.*

The stock market rebounded but*

jobs are still not there,

necessities have doubled in price

people are not making any more money to make up for the increases.

All we have is*

the infusion of trillions into already rich companies and people.

These are nice succinct statements. *They are measurable.

"there is no recovery.*"

What do we mean by "recovery"? *

I look at the GDP, the unemployment rate, and the unemployment rate.*

The natural rate of unemployment is considered 5% to 7%. It accounts for turnover on jobs. It is expected that 5% of the labor force will be between jobs in any given month.

In June 2003, the unemploymemt rate was at 6.3%. * *It had fallen to 4.4% by May of 2007.
From there, and through the recession, it rose to 10%.*Since its peak, unemployment has fallen to 7.5%

In terms of the unemployment rate, the economy has reduced unemployment to the level it was at the peak in 1992. It is below the 1975 and 1983 peaks. It is near the 2003 peak of 6.3%.

With the natural unemployment rate at 5%, umemployment has fallen by half.

It still remains above the 2003 rate, above the minimum for the natural rate and above the unnaturally lowest level of 4.4%.

The employment to popupation ratio stabilized in 2010 after having started falling in 2000. From 2004 to 2007 it tried to recover, then collapsed in 2007 to 2010. Since then it has been relatively flat.

In March of 2000 it hit a max off 64.7
By Sept 2003 it fell to 62.
By Dec 2006 it got back to 63.4
It held at 63 through June of 2007.
It collapsed to 58.3 by Dec 2009.
It fell to 58.2 thru Nov 2010 and back to 58.6 by Apr 2013.

More succinctly, from '00 to June '07 the employment rate fell by 2.6%. *From June '07 to Dec '09 it collapsed by 7.5%. Since the end of the collapse it has risen by .007%

Even more simply, the employment rate saw significant decline starting in 2000 with the receession destroying massive jobs. Since then,*the economy has managed to create just barely get ahead of population growth.

In terms of the employment to population ratio, the recovery has been minimal, though still measurable.

NGDP hit $14.4 trillion at its peak before receding. It fell to $13.9 at the bottom and has since recovered to $16 trillion.

In terms of NGDP, the economy has recovered.

"The stock market rebounded"

Yes, and it doesn't mean anything except "the stock market has rebounded". *It is the most useless economic indicators of all. It didn't fall until after the recession bottomed out. It is great for pension funds. *It is easy news reporting.

"but jobs are still not there,"

With the natural unemployment rate at 5%, umemployment has fallen by half.

In terms of the employment to population ratio, the recovery has been minimal, though still measurable.

I look at employment rate and unemployment rate because I believe that demographic changes are caused by economic conditions.

*"necessities have doubled in price".

**No Way!'

**In gotta know, have your personal expenses on necessities actually doubled? Rent, food, natural gas, electric, gasoline?

*No measure I've seen, personally or BEA has a 100% increase.

*"people are not making any more money to make up for the increases."

**Again, not true.

*"the infusion of trillions into already rich companies and people."

*I'm tired..

 

[itfitzme]

According to this article...there hasn't been ANY recovery. *We can't even maintain normal growth.

...

What say ye, Obamabots?

That is not what the article says.

Here is the BEA RGDP graph for reference.

BEA : Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Graph

It shows RGDP growth. *

The article says ,"The figure was ... below a "normal" growth trend, forecast director Edward Leamer wrote."

Question is, what is ""normal" growth". *According to the author that is a "3 percent trend".

How long is the period measure to get trend?

"A real GDP growth rate of just 1.9 percent is expected*

I'm looking at

FRED® Real Gross Domestic Product, 1 Decimal

and

FRED® Real Gross Domestic Product, 1 Decimal

The first doesn't show a %chg over 1.6 in a decade so he must mean the "%chg from a year ago". *

Since the economy recovered, the RGDP*"%chg from a year ago" peaked at about 2.9% amd has hovered around 2%.

If we look at the maximum*

FRED® Real Gross Domestic Product, 1 Decimal

Roughly, the trend has been falling since 1980. *The economy varies much more in the '50s and '60s, showing less volitility as the decades have passed.

How do we get to*"normal" growth"*is a "3 percent trend"?

 

[OnePercenter]

Raise the livable wage to $23.50/hr and double Social Security payments.

Allow employers to deduct employee expenses dollar-for-dollar from Federal, State, and local taxes and fees. This will boost the GDP by $175 Billion.

 

[itfitzme]

Raise the livable wage to $23.50/hr and double Social Security payments.

Allow employers to deduct employee expenses dollar-for-dollar from Federal, State, and local taxes and fees. This will boost the GDP by $175 Billion.

I don't think the math is going to work out there.

 

[waltky]

Avg. household no where near recovering wealth lost in the Great Recession...

Average US household far from regaining its wealth
May 30,`13 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The average U.S. household has a long way to go to recover the wealth it lost to the Great Recession, a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis concluded Thursday.

The typical household has regained less than half its wealth, the analysis found. A separate Federal Reserve report in March calculated that Americans as a whole had regained 91 percent of their losses. Household wealth plunged $16 trillion from the third quarter of 2007 through the first quarter of 2009. By the final three months of 2012, American households as a group had regained $14.7 trillion. Yet once those figures are adjusted for inflation and averaged across the U.S. population, the picture doesn't look so bright: The average household has recovered only 45 percent of its wealth, the St. Louis Fed concluded. That suggests that consumer spending could remain modest as many Americans try to rebuild their wealth by saving more and paying off debts.

The number of U.S. households grew 3.8 million to 115 million from the third quarter of 2007 through the final three months of last year, the report said. As a result, the rebound in wealth has been spread across more people and reduced the average wealth for each household. In addition, though inflation has averaged just 2 percent over the past five years, it's eroded some of the purchasing power of Americans' regained wealth. The St. Louis Fed's analysis noted that the rebound in wealth hasn't been equally distributed. As a result, many households are even further behind than the average.

Nearly two-thirds of the increase in household wealth since 2009 is due to rising stock prices, the authors note. Stock indexes reached record highs this month. Those gains disproportionately benefit affluent households: About 80 percent of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population. For middle- and lower-income households, home values represent the biggest chunk of total wealth. And home prices remain about 30 percent below their peak, even after jumping nearly 11 percent in the past year. The analysis was written by William Emmons, an economist at the St. Louis Fed, and Ray Boshara, who directs its new Center for Household Financial Stability. "It's like the economy is this airplane and not all the engines are firing," Emmons said.

Still, wealthier households account for a disproportionate share of consumer spending: About 20 percent of Americans account for about 40 percent of spending. Consequently, the rise in stock prices should provide some lift to spending, Emmons said. The average household had a net worth of $539,500 at the end of last year, according to a separate paper the St. Louis Fed released Thursday. That was up from $469,900 in the first quarter of 2009. But it was sharply below the peak of $641,000 in the first quarter of 2007.

Source

 

[midcan5]

Since I work in an industry in which this has become the norm I wonder why there is no talk of outsourcing or trade deficits or the failure of NAFTA to do what our so called economists claimed it would? MSM instead is full of nonsense with rare exceptions.

Do those who look for a recovery buy American made? Or do those who look for a recovery buy Nike, or Apple, or shop in Walmart etc etc? If so look no further than your mirror.

5 Facts About Overseas Outsourcing | Center for American Progress

 

[oldfart]

What do we mean by "recovery"?

I don't think there is a technical definition of a recovery like the definition of recession by the NBER. We are either in a recession or we are not. There is no differentiation between zero growth and robust growth, as long as it is non-negative it is "normal".
This is not a satisfying state of affairs and lots of people want some definition of "normal growth" but there is no agreement on a white line definition. I think this is because long-term growth has been declining over the last half century and the growth rates of the 50's (about 3.5%+) don't seem attainable now. A growth rate of GDP of 3% is perhaps the most commonly accepted target for "normal growth". In common usage, we expect a "recovery" to temporarily exceed that growth rate to catch up to the long-term trend line of real GDP. The assumption has been that except for the Great Depression and this downturn, recessions have been short enough to not alter the long-term productive capacity of America, but there is some good evidence that this capacity has been permanently lowered by the length, severity, and nature of this downturn and the response to it. Specifically, physical capital including infrastructure has been deteriorating and human capital is not being renewed at a pace sufficient to sustain growth at the reduced pre-downturn levels.

Another benchmark worth noting is that real GDP needs to grow at 1.5% or so to keep up with population growth and keep percapita real GDP level.

The natural rate of unemployment is considered 5% to 7%. It accounts for turnover on jobs. It is expected that 5% of the labor force will be between jobs in any given month.

I would disagree here. The commonly accepted goal for unemployment is generally when pressures toward inflation and deflation are roughly equal. In practical terms, this works out to a target inflation rate (CPI) of about 2--2.5%. Europe and America are undershooting this target. In the 60's this goal was considered consistent with a target unemployment rate of about 4%, and there is a general agreement that today a similar target might be 5%, but I think this is a tad too high. A don't recall anyone claiming that 7% unemployment rate would be "natural" or a suitable goal.

I think you have to set goals for unemployment (and this might require more than one measure beyond U-3), inflation, and the growth rate of real GDP. CBO also has a measure of potential GDP and the gap between it and current production which is also useful in measuring economic performance.

So here is my benchmark: I think that an optimal policy might be able to achieve 3% inflation, a 4% growth in real GDP, and a U-3 trending to 4.5% over a period of about two years. I think this has been achievable since 2009, meaning we could have gotten this over with by 2011, absent the stupidity. This scenario has been consistent with macromodels that have been consistently at the top in predicting the actual economic effects of the actual policies initiated.

The employment to popu[l]ation ratio fell to 58.2 thru Nov 2010 and [rose] back to 58.6 by Apr 2013.

This ratio has fallen far too fast to be explained by secular or demographic changes. It clearly is buffering the unemployment rate. A true recovery would probably see it rise as the employment situation improves and mute the progress in the unemployment rate. I see it being 63--64% again perhaps three years out.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Since I work in an industry in which this has become the norm I wonder why there is no talk of outsourcing or trade deficits or the failure of NAFTA to do what our so called economists claimed it would? MSM instead is full of nonsense with rare exceptions.

Do those who look for a recovery buy American made? Or do those who look for a recovery buy Nike, or Apple, or shop in Walmart etc etc? If so look no further than your mirror.

5 Facts About Overseas Outsourcing | Center for American Progress

ReagaNUTism came home to roost in 2001. Junebug presided over the most anemic eight consecutive years after WWII.

Did I mention that his going away gift to America was a market crash? ReagaNUTism put all the cash at the top in the hilariously stupid belief it would "trickle down". I laughed then and never stopped laughing at the idiocy of that idea.

Look for a recession to start between now and the end of the year.

 

[Avorysuds]

Raise the livable wage to $23.50/hr and double Social Security payments.

Allow employers to deduct employee expenses dollar-for-dollar from Federal, State, and local taxes and fees. This will boost the GDP by $175 Billion.

lol....

Next do you plan to intact martial law and fix prices by locking them for all products? I know currently I'd have to fire 3/4th my staff just to keep above water.

 

[itfitzme]

*What do we mean by "recovery"?

I don't think there is a technical definition of a recovery like the definition of recession by the NBER. *We are either in a recession or we are not. *There is no differentiation between zero growth and robust growth, as long as it is non-negative it is "normal". *
This is not a satisfying state of affairs and lots of people want some definition of "normal growth" but there is no agreement on a white line definition. *I think this is because long-term growth has been declining over the last half century and the growth rates of the 50's (about 3.5%+) don't seem attainable now. *A growth rate of GDP of 3% is perhaps the most commonly accepted target for "normal growth". *In common usage, we expect a "recovery" to temporarily exceed that growth rate to catch up to the long-term trend line of real GDP. *The assumption has been that except for the Great Depression and this downturn, recessions have been short enough to not alter the long-term productive capacity of America, but there is some good evidence that this capacity has been permanently lowered by the length, severity, and nature of this downturn and the response to it. *Specifically, physical capital including infrastructure has been deteriorating and human capital is not being renewed at a pace sufficient to sustain growth at the reduced pre-downturn levels. *

Another benchmark worth noting is that real GDP needs to grow at 1.5% or so to keep up with population growth and keep percapita real GDP level. *

*The natural rate of unemployment is considered 5% to 7%. It accounts for turnover on jobs. It is expected that 5% of the labor force will be between jobs in any given month. *

I would disagree here. *The commonly accepted goal for unemployment is generally when pressures toward inflation and deflation are roughly equal. *In practical terms, this works out to a target inflation rate (CPI) of about 2--2.5%. *Europe and America are undershooting this target. *In the 60's this goal was considered consistent with a target unemployment rate of about 4%, and there is a general agreement that today a similar target might be 5%, but I think this is a tad too high. *A don't recall anyone claiming that 7% unemployment rate would be "natural" or a suitable goal. *

I think you have to set goals for unemployment (and this might require more than one measure beyond U-3), inflation, and the growth rate of real GDP. *CBO also has a measure of potential GDP and the gap between it and current production which is also useful in measuring economic performance. *

So here is my benchmark: *I think that an optimal policy might be able to achieve 3% inflation, a 4% growth in real GDP, and a U-3 trending to 4.5% over a period of about two years. *I think this has been achievable since 2009, meaning we could have gotten this over with by 2011, absent the stupidity. *This scenario has been consistent with macromodels that have been consistently at the top in predicting the actual economic effects of the actual policies initiated. *

*The employment to popu[l]ation ratio fell to 58.2 thru Nov 2010 and [rose] back to 58.6 by Apr 2013. *

This ratio has fallen far too fast to be explained by secular or demographic changes. *It clearly is buffering the unemployment rate. *A true recovery would probably see it rise as the employment situation improves and mute the progress in the unemployment rate. *I see it being 63--64% again perhaps three years out.

"Because of the policy importance of natural unemployment, a significant amount of controversy exists over the actual level, as measured by the unemployment rate. Some economists and political leaders contend this rate in the range of 6 percent. Others contend it is lower, 5.5 percent, 5 percent, or even less.*
The appropriate natural unemployment is not simply a high-brow, academic discourse among pointy-headed economists either. If the economy has reached the natural unemployment level, then the government need take no further action to move it lower. Doing so, in fact, would trigger inflation.*
However, the difference between 6 percent and 5 percent unemployment in the U.S. economy is well over a 1 million workers. This corresponds to almost $300 billion worth of goods and services. "Settling" for a higher natural unemployment rate that actually includes some cyclical unemployment, at the very least, condemns these workers to temporary hardships and prevents the rest of the economy from enjoying a few hundred billions dollars worth of production. "

We can research it further, maybe buried in some working paper. *But I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't a standard. *[a] 7% was a patricularly high empirical number that happened in the late '70s. Watch for inflation following a hard govt effort to push U-3 down. *I doubt the power that be will do that again but, you never know what revisionist might take the reigns.

In terms of GDP, we clearly have room for improvement because we fell so far. *I believe, and I think you may as well if I make my case, is that one of the issues starting in 98-20 was that we maxed out in labor utilization. *A that point, every time we bounce against that peak, the economy went into a recession. *It makes me wonder if the investment crowd just can't accept a sustainable level. *It was when we hit peak labor utilization that net imports began *to climb dramatically and China came online. *Just coincidentally that China became *a major source of US production support or causal, I can't say. *(You may or may not have been in a position to see that China sourced alot of intermediary goods to US end use productuion as well as consumer goods.)

There has to be a better balance struck between US and China (foreign) produ tion. They began gaining absolute advantage as their capabilities increased and wages remained low. *But obviously that isn't sustainable. *The only sustainable association is comparative advantages.*

I can't hazard to guess what to exactly expect going forward but we are currently sitting at a sustainable level, all hunkered down for the winter, and without any intervention or a kickass new tech, this is about all the market is going to bear for a while. *That 3% GDP growth and <5% unemployment *is a long ways off unless we just do the asset bubble thing again.

[a]Oh, and you may have hinted at infrastructure investment. *In the current climate, I don't see that as a viable alternative in the next two years.[a]*

[a]Agreed, the EMRATIO it back to 1980 levels but it's not the same world.*

Oh, it's the sustained employment level that will drive social changes.


[a] Edits

 

[Two Thumbs]

According to this article...there hasn't been ANY recovery. We can't even maintain normal growth.

News from The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The expected U.S. "Great Recovery" hasn't materialized and the economy has fallen short of even normal growth, according to a forecast released Wednesday.

The second-quarter UCLA Anderson Forecast said the growth of real gross domestic product - meaning the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced - is too small to help the nation climb out of its slump.

The figure was 15.4 percent below a "normal" growth trend, forecast director Edward Leamer wrote.

"To get back to that 3 percent trend, we would need 4 percent growth for 15 years, or 5 percent growth for eight years, or 6 percent growth for five years, not the disappointing twos and threes we have been racking up recently," he said.

"It's not a recovery. It's not even normal growth. It's bad," he wrote.




What say ye, Obamabots?

Evul racist conservatives have been telling people for years that the growth has not kept up with the population and has therefore been a loss.

But liberals are well trained to over act any good looking news.

 

[zonly1]

there is no recovery.*

The stock market rebounded but*

jobs are still not there,

necessities have doubled in price

people are not making any more money to make up for the increases.

All we have is*

the infusion of trillions into already rich companies and people.

These are nice succinct statements. *They are measurable.

"there is no recovery.*"

What do we mean by "recovery"? *

I look at the GDP, the unemployment rate, and the unemployment rate.*

The natural rate of unemployment is considered 5% to 7%. It accounts for turnover on jobs. It is expected that 5% of the labor force will be between jobs in any given month.

In June 2003, the unemploymemt rate was at 6.3%. * *It had fallen to 4.4% by May of 2007.
From there, and through the recession, it rose to 10%.*Since its peak, unemployment has fallen to 7.5%

In terms of the unemployment rate, the economy has reduced unemployment to the level it was at the peak in 1992. It is below the 1975 and 1983 peaks. It is near the 2003 peak of 6.3%.

With the natural unemployment rate at 5%, umemployment has fallen by half.

It still remains above the 2003 rate, above the minimum for the natural rate and above the unnaturally lowest level of 4.4%.

The employment to popupation ratio stabilized in 2010 after having started falling in 2000. From 2004 to 2007 it tried to recover, then collapsed in 2007 to 2010. Since then it has been relatively flat.

In March of 2000 it hit a max off 64.7
By Sept 2003 it fell to 62.
By Dec 2006 it got back to 63.4
It held at 63 through June of 2007.
It collapsed to 58.3 by Dec 2009.
It fell to 58.2 thru Nov 2010 and back to 58.6 by Apr 2013.

More succinctly, from '00 to June '07 the employment rate fell by 2.6%. *From June '07 to Dec '09 it collapsed by 7.5%. Since the end of the collapse it has risen by .007%

Even more simply, the employment rate saw significant decline starting in 2000 with the receession destroying massive jobs. Since then,*the economy has managed to create just barely get ahead of population growth.

In terms of the employment to population ratio, the recovery has been minimal, though still measurable.

NGDP hit $14.4 trillion at its peak before receding. It fell to $13.9 at the bottom and has since recovered to $16 trillion.

In terms of NGDP, the economy has recovered.

"The stock market rebounded"

Yes, and it doesn't mean anything except "the stock market has rebounded". *It is the most useless economic indicators of all. It didn't fall until after the recession bottomed out. It is great for pension funds. *It is easy news reporting.

"but jobs are still not there,"

With the natural unemployment rate at 5%, umemployment has fallen by half.

In terms of the employment to population ratio, the recovery has been minimal, though still measurable.

I look at employment rate and unemployment rate because I believe that demographic changes are caused by economic conditions.

*"necessities have doubled in price".

**No Way!'

**In gotta know, have your personal expenses on necessities actually doubled? Rent, food, natural gas, electric, gasoline?

*No measure I've seen, personally or BEA has a 100% increase.

*"people are not making any more money to make up for the increases."

**Again, not true.

*"the infusion of trillions into already rich companies and people."

*I'm tired..

Nope u just started.....so finished it...follow through.

 

[itfitzme]

According to this article...there hasn't been ANY recovery. We can't even maintain normal growth.

News from The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The expected U.S. "Great Recovery" hasn't materialized and the economy has fallen short of even normal growth, according to a forecast released Wednesday.

The second-quarter UCLA Anderson Forecast said the growth of real gross domestic product - meaning the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced - is too small to help the nation climb out of its slump.

The figure was 15.4 percent below a "normal" growth trend, forecast director Edward Leamer wrote.

"To get back to that 3 percent trend, we would need 4 percent growth for 15 years, or 5 percent growth for eight years, or 6 percent growth for five years, not the disappointing twos and threes we have been racking up recently," he said.

"It's not a recovery. It's not even normal growth. It's bad," he wrote.




What say ye, Obamabots?

Evul racist conservatives have been telling people for years that the growth has not kept up with the population and has therefore been a loss.

But liberals are well trained to over act any good looking news.

It's just hard numbers. It either is or it isn't its not an opinion.

FRED® Civilian Employment-Population Ratio

 

[Decus]

According to this article...there hasn't been ANY recovery. We can't even maintain normal growth.

News from The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The expected U.S. "Great Recovery" hasn't materialized and the economy has fallen short of even normal growth, according to a forecast released Wednesday.

The second-quarter UCLA Anderson Forecast said the growth of real gross domestic product - meaning the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced - is too small to help the nation climb out of its slump.

The figure was 15.4 percent below a "normal" growth trend, forecast director Edward Leamer wrote.

"To get back to that 3 percent trend, we would need 4 percent growth for 15 years, or 5 percent growth for eight years, or 6 percent growth for five years, not the disappointing twos and threes we have been racking up recently," he said.

"It's not a recovery. It's not even normal growth. It's bad," he wrote.




What say ye, Obamabots?

Evul racist conservatives have been telling people for years that the growth has not kept up with the population and has therefore been a loss.

But liberals are well trained to over act any good looking news.

It's just hard numbers. It either is or it isn't its not an opinion.

FRED® Civilian Employment-Population Ratio

You speak of percentages in much of what you post, but not what presently underlines those numbers. Part-time and low paying jobs are the growing trend. I won't get into what has already been discussed - the number of people who are no longer looking for work.

Here is a different view of employment in America from Federal Reserve governor Sarah Bloom Raskin:

"She found half of all those hired received low pay jobs, but two-thirds of the jobs lost in the recession were middle income jobs like factory and construction workers.

Ms. Raskin said she is concerned about “the quality of jobs available,” while speaking on a panel at a conference on joblessness hosted by the Roosevelt Institute, a self-described progressive policy organization."

Fed?s Raskin Bemoans Quality of New Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[itfitzme]

Evul racist conservatives have been telling people for years that the growth has not kept up with the population and has therefore been a loss.

But liberals are well trained to over act any good looking news.

It's just hard numbers. It either is or it isn't its not an opinion.

FRED® Civilian Employment-Population Ratio

You speak of percentages in much of what you post, but not what presently underlines those numbers. Part-time and low paying jobs are the growing trend. I won't get into what has already been discussed - the number of people who are no longer looking for work.

Here is a different view of employment in America from Federal Reserve governor Sarah Bloom Raskin:

"She found half of all those hired received low pay jobs, but two-thirds of the jobs lost in the recession were middle income jobs like factory and construction workers.

Ms. Raskin said she is concerned about “the quality of jobs available,” while speaking on a panel at a conference on joblessness hosted by the Roosevelt Institute, a self-described progressive policy organization."

Fed?s Raskin Bemoans Quality of New Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ

I was doing a FRED graph of real gdp per employee. Just scanned you post.

GDP per employee is on the same path as it was pre recession.

Its GDPC1/CE16OV.

So output per person is on track.

Now, if that isnt getting to incomes in the quintiles, thats something else entirely. I looked at the wage index, somw where, and didn't like it. I think I noted it above. Again, see, there is the issue. The recession kicked a bunch out of the labor market. It then went on track. But if its middle income wages, then we have a very specific issue.

 

[itfitzme]

Evul racist conservatives have been telling people for years that the growth has not kept up with the population and has therefore been a loss.

But liberals are well trained to over act any good looking news.

It's just hard numbers. It either is or it isn't its not an opinion.

FRED® Civilian Employment-Population Ratio

You speak of percentages in much of what you post, but not what presently underlines those numbers. Part-time and low paying jobs are the growing trend. I won't get into what has already been discussed - the number of people who are no longer looking for work.

Here is a different view of employment in America from Federal Reserve governor Sarah Bloom Raskin:

"She found half of all those hired received low pay jobs, but two-thirds of the jobs lost in the recession were middle income jobs like factory and construction workers.

Ms. Raskin said she is concerned about “the quality of jobs available,” while speaking on a panel at a conference on joblessness hosted by the Roosevelt Institute, a self-described progressive policy organization."

Fed?s Raskin Bemoans Quality of New Jobs - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The OP was about GDP growth and the general term "recovery".

Yes, I agree, wage index growth fell (did this somewhere else) miserably.

That's the thing, isn't it. We were expecting this in '04. The combining economies on a global level with China was going to drive standard of living in the US down as it raised china up, or that was our thought about it.

That isn't going to change. Happened quick to, just all in a few months. Nowll growth is all tepid. And, it's not going to change until the whole
globe comes up. You think US wages are slowly falling to meet China wages?