Why Better PRIVATE SECTOR Job Growth Under Obama?

[G.T.]

Why is Labor participation at record lows? What's the net effect of Obamanomics?

It's like bragging that the crew of the Titanic bailed out records amount of water

Have you done any deep study into your question #1 there?

Like academic, not op ed, study?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

lol, that must be why the people voted his party out of control of Congress.

all them jobs he CREATED you would think they would keep his party in the MAJORITY, wouldn't you?

you poor things. believe what you need. the majority of the people who isn't Obot worshipers , knows better

'The people' didnt even VOTE.

You musta forgot about how low the ******* turn out was? Yea, or were ignorant if it sort of like youre ignorant of most things stunad.

Yes, low turnout and loss of both houses of Congress means he's doin' a great job!

 

[SwingVoter]

This is a discussion of economics, not voter turnout. Not praising or criticizing Obama, just posing the question as to why private sector job growth has been dramatically better under Obama than under W.

Don't Republicans want higher stock prices? Under W, S&P 500 lost 36%, under Obama it's up 150%. Toss out the last 18 months of Bush's presidency, and it was still only up 10%.

Is the GOP only about symbolism, rhetoric, and excuses, or is everyone OK with the shockingly poor private sector job growth and stock market returns we saw under W?

 

[bripat9643]

8 million private sector jobs created since Obama took office. -500,000 under GWB.

Even before the '08 crash, private sector job growth under W peaked at 4 million during his presidency.

Let's not forget just 1.5 million under his daddy.

...or 2.9 million private sector jobs created in the last 12 months, a level never reached when either Bush was president.

So why was private sector job growth worse under the Bushes than it has been under a "Socialist"?

The Bush's were big government liberals, just like Obama.

 

[Wiggin1]

What has Obama done to create this wonderful job growth?
Any specifics?

He and Jack Lew, former Chief of Staff and current Secretary of the Treasury and the chief architect of Obama's economic policies, have basically followed their introductory macroeconomics textbook.

Modern economic theory rests on a graph known as the "Aggregate Demand, Aggregate Supply" graph which shows that by increasing Aggregate Demand, that is the sum of all consumption, government spending, net exports, and private investment, GDP and employment will increase. So, Obama and Lew enacted several policies to raise each of these factors.

First, the Federal Reserve bought bonds from the private market, thereby increasing the supply of liquid money in the economy. This reduced the interest rate down to the lowest its been in years. This made it easier for businesses, especially small businesses and recent start-ups, to get loans through a series of complex financial mechanisms. This stimulated private investment which helped create the jobs.

Additionally, he enacted his famous (or infamous depending on your perspective) 2009 stimulus plan which boost government spending, which created some public (mostly temporary construction) jobs. But in addition, the stimulus plan also made use of a concept known as the "Circular Flow of Money" which basically says that money goes in a circle and so Obama giving a temporary construction job to some unemployed person creates that job and several others because the additional money that person now has goes back into the economy and stimulates growth, hence why its called a stimulus plan. In short, the stimulus plan both directly and indirectly created jobs (increased Aggregate Demand) by increasing government spending and indirectly increasing consumption.

But, conservatives are quick to point out that he raised taxes and that that hurt the economy, but that's not entirely true. Raising taxes hurt consumption, but it allowed Obama to somewhat pay for the stimulus plan and other bills. And due to several economic concepts which I will not get into (if you're curious look up "How marginal propensity to consume affects expansionary fiscal policy" and I'm sure an an answer will come up), boosting government spending creates more jobs that raising taxes kills.

That's basically it, but in the spirt of balance and fairness, I suppose I should point out that the statistic about the number of jobs that Obama created is a poor indicator about the successfulness of his policies because the vast majority of those jobs are part time and many people are still underemployed.

 

[Faun]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

 

[Hossfly]

What has Obama done to create this wonderful job growth?
Any specifics?

Well then, that question could be asked of every single president, n'est ce pas?

I guess that's one way to avoid the question.

I am quite sure you never asked that question when Bush was president, in spite of the fact that less jobs were created under his administration.

I am quite sure you never asked that question when Bush was president

You're right, I never asked which Obama policies were responsible for job growth while Bush was president.

If you find any of those great Obama policies, you let me know.
I'm curious.

No, the idea is that if you ask such a silly question, then the same question can also be asked of Bush. Which Bush policies were responsible for job growth?

We sure as Hell know which ones were responsible for the great crash of 2008, which happened on HIS watch.

I have a question Herr Statistik. Amidst all this job growth, why have wage dropped during Obmama's tenure and taxes gone up?

 

[bripat9643]

What has Obama done to create this wonderful job growth?
Any specifics?

He and Jack Lew, former Chief of Staff and current Secretary of the Treasury and the chief architect of Obama's economic policies, have basically followed their introductory macroeconomics textbook.

Modern economic theory rests on a graph known as the "Aggregate Demand, Aggregate Supply" graph which shows that by increasing Aggregate Demand, that is the sum of all consumption, government spending, net exports, and private investment, GDP and employment will increase. So, Obama and Lew enacted several policies to raise each of these factors.

First, the Federal Reserve bought bonds from the private market, thereby increasing the supply of liquid money in the economy. This reduced the interest rate down to the lowest its been in years. This made it easier for businesses, especially small businesses and recent start-ups, to get loans through a series of complex financial mechanisms. This stimulated private investment which helped create the jobs.

Additionally, he enacted his famous (or infamous depending on your perspective) 2009 stimulus plan which boost government spending, which created some public (mostly temporary construction) jobs. But in addition, the stimulus plan also made use of a concept known as the "Circular Flow of Money" which basically says that money goes in a circle and so Obama giving a temporary construction job to some unemployed person creates that job and several others because the additional money that person now has goes back into the economy and stimulates growth, hence why its called a stimulus plan. In short, the stimulus plan both directly and indirectly created jobs (increased Aggregate Demand) by increasing government spending and indirectly increasing consumption.

But, conservatives are quick to point out that he raised taxes and that that hurt the economy, but that's not entirely true. Raising taxes hurt consumption, but it allowed Obama to somewhat pay for the stimulus plan and other bills. And due to several economic concepts which I will not get into (if you're curious look up "How marginal propensity to consume affects expansionary fiscal policy" and I'm sure an an answer will come up), boosting government spending creates more jobs that raising taxes kills.

That's basically it, but in the spirt of balance and fairness, I suppose I should point out that the statistic about the number of jobs that Obama created is a poor indicator about the successfulness of his policies because the vast majority of those jobs are part time and many people are still underemployed.

That's actually what they teach in second semester economics, and it's all Keynesian mumbo-jumbo - bullshit, in other words.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well then, that question could be asked of every single president, n'est ce pas?

I guess that's one way to avoid the question.

I am quite sure you never asked that question when Bush was president, in spite of the fact that less jobs were created under his administration.

I am quite sure you never asked that question when Bush was president

You're right, I never asked which Obama policies were responsible for job growth while Bush was president.

If you find any of those great Obama policies, you let me know.
I'm curious.

No, the idea is that if you ask such a silly question, then the same question can also be asked of Bush. Which Bush policies were responsible for job growth?

We sure as Hell know which ones were responsible for the great crash of 2008, which happened on HIS watch.

I have a question Herr Statistik. Amidst all this job growth, why have wage dropped during Obmama's tenure and taxes gone up?

Got some links to show me first, Herr good-cuppa-coffee?

Then I will be GLAD to discuss that with a gentleman as fine as you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Oh, really?

And what did our government not do in the 1930s?

How about the 1950s? I bet most people have forgotten how bad the economy took a hit in 1958.

And in the early 1970s? Hmmmm?

You just lied right out your ass with that assinine statement, to be sure.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Oh, really?

And what did our government not do in the 1930s?

It prolonged and depened a recession into a decade long depression.

How about the 1950s? I bet most people have forgotten how bad the economy took a hit in 1958.

And in the early 1970s? Hmmmm?

I said the government didn't interfere in "most" of them, not any of them.

You just lied right out your ass with that assinine statement, to be sure.

Apparently you are illiterate.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Oh, really?

And what did our government not do in the 1930s?

It prolonged and depened a recession into a decade long depression.

How about the 1950s? I bet most people have forgotten how bad the economy took a hit in 1958.

And in the early 1970s? Hmmmm?

I said the government didn't interfere in "most" of them, not any of them.

You just lied right out your ass with that assinine statement, to be sure.

Apparently you are illiterate.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. But most Righties are this way.

Carry on.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Oh, really?

And what did our government not do in the 1930s?

It prolonged and depened a recession into a decade long depression.

How about the 1950s? I bet most people have forgotten how bad the economy took a hit in 1958.

And in the early 1970s? Hmmmm?

I said the government didn't interfere in "most" of them, not any of them.

You just lied right out your ass with that assinine statement, to be sure.

Apparently you are illiterate.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. But most Righties are this way.

Carry on.

How is it wrong? Are you claiming you understood what I posted now?

 

[Faun]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let it turn into a depression. But then, he's not a Republican so that wasn't really an option.

 

[Faun]

What has Obama done to create this wonderful job growth?
Any specifics?

He and Jack Lew, former Chief of Staff and current Secretary of the Treasury and the chief architect of Obama's economic policies, have basically followed their introductory macroeconomics textbook.

Modern economic theory rests on a graph known as the "Aggregate Demand, Aggregate Supply" graph which shows that by increasing Aggregate Demand, that is the sum of all consumption, government spending, net exports, and private investment, GDP and employment will increase. So, Obama and Lew enacted several policies to raise each of these factors.

First, the Federal Reserve bought bonds from the private market, thereby increasing the supply of liquid money in the economy. This reduced the interest rate down to the lowest its been in years. This made it easier for businesses, especially small businesses and recent start-ups, to get loans through a series of complex financial mechanisms. This stimulated private investment which helped create the jobs.

Additionally, he enacted his famous (or infamous depending on your perspective) 2009 stimulus plan which boost government spending, which created some public (mostly temporary construction) jobs. But in addition, the stimulus plan also made use of a concept known as the "Circular Flow of Money" which basically says that money goes in a circle and so Obama giving a temporary construction job to some unemployed person creates that job and several others because the additional money that person now has goes back into the economy and stimulates growth, hence why its called a stimulus plan. In short, the stimulus plan both directly and indirectly created jobs (increased Aggregate Demand) by increasing government spending and indirectly increasing consumption.

But, conservatives are quick to point out that he raised taxes and that that hurt the economy, but that's not entirely true. Raising taxes hurt consumption, but it allowed Obama to somewhat pay for the stimulus plan and other bills. And due to several economic concepts which I will not get into (if you're curious look up "How marginal propensity to consume affects expansionary fiscal policy" and I'm sure an an answer will come up), boosting government spending creates more jobs that raising taxes kills.

That's basically it, but in the spirt of balance and fairness, I suppose I should point out that the statistic about the number of jobs that Obama created is a poor indicator about the successfulness of his policies because the vast majority of those jobs are part time and many people are still underemployed.

That's actually what they teach in second semester economics, and it's all Keynesian mumbo-jumbo - bullshit, in other words.

Suuuure ... like we're gonna take the word of you righties seriously on economic matters. Don't forget -- You're the ones who gave us this mess to begin with. Do you even know in the entire history of the Republican party going back to Lincoln, there has been only one Republican president who didn't have a recession on his watch? And that was only because he was president for a month, otherwise it would have been every Republican president.

 

[RKMBrown]

Uhmm bripat speaks only for himself.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny thing is .... with the employment growth we've experienced under Obama given the massive recession he inherited, if he was a white Republican, righties across America would be hanging his picture on their wall next to Reagan's ... they'd be calling for his face to grace our currency ... they'd be petitioning to have his bust added to Mt. Rushmore ... they'd be marching for a national holiday in his honor.

Numskull, here's an irrefutable fact for you to consider: we've never had a recession that didn't have a recovery afterwards. For most of them the government did absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe the economy wouldn't have recovered without the so-called "stimulus?"

Sure, Obama could have done nothing and let it turn into a depression. But then, he's not a Republican so that wasn't really an option.

Obama's "solution" only made it worse. However, it provided a great slush fund for him to buy votes with.

 

[pinqy]

Why is Labor participation at record lows?

[/quote] It's nowhere near record lows..it's higher than anytime before 1978. But the reason it has been going down for the last 15 years is that fewer people want to work. More retirees, more disabled, more students, more stay home spouses. In April 2000, approximately 69.1% of the population age 16+ not in the military, prison, or other institution wanted to work (well, employed, unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force, wants a job now).
April 2015 it's 65% (note that yes, I am including discouraged, marginally attached, and ALL who say they want to work, regardless of ability.

 

[Hossfly]

I guess that's one way to avoid the question.

I am quite sure you never asked that question when Bush was president, in spite of the fact that less jobs were created under his administration.

I am quite sure you never asked that question when Bush was president

You're right, I never asked which Obama policies were responsible for job growth while Bush was president.

If you find any of those great Obama policies, you let me know.
I'm curious.

No, the idea is that if you ask such a silly question, then the same question can also be asked of Bush. Which Bush policies were responsible for job growth?

We sure as Hell know which ones were responsible for the great crash of 2008, which happened on HIS watch.

I have a question Herr Statistik. Amidst all this job growth, why have wage dropped during Obmama's tenure and taxes gone up?

Got some links to show me first, Herr good-cuppa-coffee?

Then I will be GLAD to discuss that with a gentleman as fine as you.

From the Economic Policy Institute. For taxes look at the rate schedules in your 1040.

A Decade of Flat Wages: The Key Barrier to Shared Prosperity and a Rising Middle Class | Economic Policy Institute