Friday, May 4, 2012
Economy What the GOP Will Not Say about the Jobs Report
Posted by Charles Mudede on Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:56 AM
WSJ:
Friday’s disappointing employment report showed slowing momentum in the labor market since the start of the year. But President Barack Obama, who officially launches his reelection campaign Saturday, overcame one threshold: the number of private-sector jobs in the U.S. economy is now higher than the month he took officeTo be honest, I have no idea why the addition of 115,000 jobs to the economy is considered "disappointing." Those who feel this way, feel it is not enough, have a poor grasp of (or are unwilling to grasp) the economic damage caused by Bush and his kind. It is nothing but amazing that there is any recovery at all. And trust me, what ever is recovered from the pre-Obama wreckage, those same people want it all to themselves.
You have to see the bailout in 2008 as a kind of Polaroid camera. What it captured was the economy for the rich in 2007. They now move through time in this moment. And so the economy is not one moment but three or four, with most us living in the realtime economy. We see in all of this a resemblance to the IMF's preoccupation with controlling inflation, keeping it low. As with the bailout and the continuation of the tax breaks, the policy on inflation is concerned with time and change. The few who live in the huge floating bubble of 2007 have only one political project: use all of the available resources to maintain their unreal and overvalued moment in time. This is America right now.
1
Only the willfully stupid fail to note that the rich keep getting richer. It's been widely reported that 93% of the income gains in the "recovery" year of 2010 went to the wealthiest 1%. The graph here illustrates the situation since 1970 very clearly:
http://washingtonpolicywatch.org/2012/04…
http://washingtonpolicywatch.org/2012/04…
2
115,000 jobs is roughly equal to the number of people joining the workforce every month. Hence, disappointing. Here's a chart of the employment-to-population ratio: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS123000…
3
Interesting that your title Charles is 'What the GOP will not say about the jobs report' and then point to the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by News Corp, which as we all know also owns Fox News which is a major voice for the GOP.
4
The reason 115k is disappointing is that it would currently require 200k just to keep up with new kids coming into the job market.
The GOP strategy of screwing up the stimulus package with not enough spending & too many tax cuts combined with their ability to block up any useful bills may just succeed. When President Rmoney is sworn in deficits will no longer mater & big bucks will flow out of DC (mostly to friendly Governors) and the job market may finally begin to recover - maybe.
The GOP strategy of screwing up the stimulus package with not enough spending & too many tax cuts combined with their ability to block up any useful bills may just succeed. When President Rmoney is sworn in deficits will no longer mater & big bucks will flow out of DC (mostly to friendly Governors) and the job market may finally begin to recover - maybe.
5
The funny thing is, it's the Richie$ that see themselves as the True Victims because of all of the taxe$ (rates currently at 60 year lows) that they have to pay to support the rest of us freeloaders.
How are they supposed to continue to pay each other tens of millions of dollars for real estate, art, airplanes, and gold-plated digital escargot forks when their rightfully and solely earned money is stolen by the gawt-dam, communist IRS?
How are they supposed to continue to pay each other tens of millions of dollars for real estate, art, airplanes, and gold-plated digital escargot forks when their rightfully and solely earned money is stolen by the gawt-dam, communist IRS?
7
Are you including in "Bush and his kind" conservative Dems like Clinton and his buddies Rubin and Summers?
We can lay 90% of the *deficit* at the feet of Bush and the Repugs (although it's funny how a R minority in the last few years has been able to block lots of Obama's policies and appointments, but a D minority had little ability to do so during Dumbya's rule), but the Ds have to get half the blame for the economic crisis. Way too many problems stem from the above-named Ds pushing the Financial Services Modernization Act, shoveling jobs oversees as fast as possible with their lust for free trade agreements, and generally diving head-first into Wall Street contributions in exchange for adopting what were primarily Republican economic policies pre-1985.
Add in the Clinton admin's refusal to block media consolidation, which may not have been quite as corrosive as the demise of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan, but has still had a terrible effect on the public debate, and their craven retreat from anything that can be labeled "liberal," and we can judge the Ds as complicit, at best, in our political and economic decline.
We can lay 90% of the *deficit* at the feet of Bush and the Repugs (although it's funny how a R minority in the last few years has been able to block lots of Obama's policies and appointments, but a D minority had little ability to do so during Dumbya's rule), but the Ds have to get half the blame for the economic crisis. Way too many problems stem from the above-named Ds pushing the Financial Services Modernization Act, shoveling jobs oversees as fast as possible with their lust for free trade agreements, and generally diving head-first into Wall Street contributions in exchange for adopting what were primarily Republican economic policies pre-1985.
Add in the Clinton admin's refusal to block media consolidation, which may not have been quite as corrosive as the demise of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan, but has still had a terrible effect on the public debate, and their craven retreat from anything that can be labeled "liberal," and we can judge the Ds as complicit, at best, in our political and economic decline.
9
To be honest, I have no idea why the addition of 115,000 jobs to the economy is considered "disappointing."
I was about to answer this, but previous commenters have explained it most succinctly to you --- please read and heed!
It is arithmetically impossible to have 8.2% unemployment while at least 50% of the population is at the low-income, poverty, or below-poverty level.
The real unemployment level would have to be at least between 24% to 34% --- that's unemployment, not some nebulous underemployment balderdash!
In 1999, American became a net importer of tech services. Not surprising, given that 1999 was the year Corporate America reached critical mass in the offshoring of jobs.
A BLS study, published late in 2009, and reported on the NY Times business blog site, revealed that from July 1999 to July 2009 (and still to this very day) there was ZERO net new job creation (meaning overall, more jobs were lost than gained).
It ain't rocket science: there's a finite number of jobs, technology and investment and when that's offshored --- all three categories --- then you're screwed!
Innovation doesn't count for crap --- when it's immediately offshored!
The Federal Reserve Bank has been a speculation-bubble-machine since its inception: the Federal Reserve Act substantially reduced reserve requirements, than with the rapid expansion of securitization in the 1920s, the Great Crash occurred.
I was about to answer this, but previous commenters have explained it most succinctly to you --- please read and heed!
1999: THE RECKONING
It is arithmetically impossible to have 8.2% unemployment while at least 50% of the population is at the low-income, poverty, or below-poverty level.
The real unemployment level would have to be at least between 24% to 34% --- that's unemployment, not some nebulous underemployment balderdash!
In 1999, American became a net importer of tech services. Not surprising, given that 1999 was the year Corporate America reached critical mass in the offshoring of jobs.
A BLS study, published late in 2009, and reported on the NY Times business blog site, revealed that from July 1999 to July 2009 (and still to this very day) there was ZERO net new job creation (meaning overall, more jobs were lost than gained).
It ain't rocket science: there's a finite number of jobs, technology and investment and when that's offshored --- all three categories --- then you're screwed!
Innovation doesn't count for crap --- when it's immediately offshored!
The Federal Reserve Bank has been a speculation-bubble-machine since its inception: the Federal Reserve Act substantially reduced reserve requirements, than with the rapid expansion of securitization in the 1920s, the Great Crash occurred.
10
Good Morning Charles,
Agree with @7. Blame goes all around for the "economic damage" not just to "Bush and his kind". The simple fact is an UE Rate of 8% or higher/worse for the past 38 months suggests something far more problematic is at work. The loss of 6 to 7 million largely manufacturing jobs from this country is arguably the real culprit. I'm no economist but they simply can't come back. Plus, as a population grows more of them will be needed. With China the unofficial factory to the planet, times will get rougher regarding the US UE rate.
There's a lot not being said by all parties.
Agree with @7. Blame goes all around for the "economic damage" not just to "Bush and his kind". The simple fact is an UE Rate of 8% or higher/worse for the past 38 months suggests something far more problematic is at work. The loss of 6 to 7 million largely manufacturing jobs from this country is arguably the real culprit. I'm no economist but they simply can't come back. Plus, as a population grows more of them will be needed. With China the unofficial factory to the planet, times will get rougher regarding the US UE rate.
There's a lot not being said by all parties.
11
The rich keep getting richer.
Except they just got tossed out of power in the UK, France, and Greece, and the Banksters pay amounts got capped as Austerity in the eurozone was tossed out the window.
Except they just got tossed out of power in the UK, France, and Greece, and the Banksters pay amounts got capped as Austerity in the eurozone was tossed out the window.
12
What the Democrats will not say about the Jobs Report:
Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981
Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981
13
It's odd to me that Republicans would complain about the unemployment rate. A huge number of public sector workers have been laid off, which has kept unemployment high. And the Republicans won't be happy until they're all gone.
I mean it really takes balls to argue out of one side of your mouth that people should be fired and then when they are, to bitch and moan that the unemployment rate has gone up.
On the other hand, it take amazing stupidity/cupidity on the part of the Democrats not to point this out.
I mean it really takes balls to argue out of one side of your mouth that people should be fired and then when they are, to bitch and moan that the unemployment rate has gone up.
On the other hand, it take amazing stupidity/cupidity on the part of the Democrats not to point this out.
14
What Charles will not say about the labor report:
like maybe, um, the report itself:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/emps…
5.1 Million counted as long term unemployed.
63.6% labor participation rate.
7.9 Million 'involuntarily part time' and 2.4 Million 'marginally attached" (not counted as unemployed because they'd recently given up looking for work).
And almost a million who flat out gave up trying to find a job a long time ago (they don't get counted either).
But 115,000 jobs is supposed to be anything other than disappointing?
As bad as it is when almost 3.5 million people throw in the towel on being able to find a job, it's much worse when that number is written off as if they don't matter.
Oh, and 1.5 million new grads about to come out of college. 115,000 new jobs covers less than 10% of them.
In case you haven't noticed, Charles, we're kind of fucked here.
like maybe, um, the report itself:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/emps…
5.1 Million counted as long term unemployed.
63.6% labor participation rate.
7.9 Million 'involuntarily part time' and 2.4 Million 'marginally attached" (not counted as unemployed because they'd recently given up looking for work).
And almost a million who flat out gave up trying to find a job a long time ago (they don't get counted either).
But 115,000 jobs is supposed to be anything other than disappointing?
As bad as it is when almost 3.5 million people throw in the towel on being able to find a job, it's much worse when that number is written off as if they don't matter.
Oh, and 1.5 million new grads about to come out of college. 115,000 new jobs covers less than 10% of them.
In case you haven't noticed, Charles, we're kind of fucked here.
15
Sorry, I misread. Almost 1 million of the marginally attached are those who gave up. so only 2.5 million written off as irrelevant.
17
@16, did you read the report?
"Those who feel this way, feel it is not enough, have a poor grasp of (or are unwilling to grasp) the economic damage caused by Bush and his kind." Fuck that. Get your polaized oh anyone who doesn't think like me must be a bad person who doesn't see what was done by the bad bad man Bush bandwagon. Then tell me how that correlates, because that doesn't make any sense to me. What does recongition of a dismal performance in the area of job growth have to do with not seeing what's happened to the economy?
It's not enough. Call me a troll, call me a (gasp) republican, call me whatever you want. But tell me in all seriousness that 115,000 jobs is enough. Regardless of your ideology, tell me how that's enough.
"Those who feel this way, feel it is not enough, have a poor grasp of (or are unwilling to grasp) the economic damage caused by Bush and his kind." Fuck that. Get your polaized oh anyone who doesn't think like me must be a bad person who doesn't see what was done by the bad bad man Bush bandwagon. Then tell me how that correlates, because that doesn't make any sense to me. What does recongition of a dismal performance in the area of job growth have to do with not seeing what's happened to the economy?
It's not enough. Call me a troll, call me a (gasp) republican, call me whatever you want. But tell me in all seriousness that 115,000 jobs is enough. Regardless of your ideology, tell me how that's enough.
Comments (17) RSS