Total jobs hits new record high, erasing Great Recession losses

Save your RW propaganda deceived talking points for the ignorant and gullible.

 

You mean facts and stuff like that?

[video=youtube;s2MjQ17kDng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MjQ17kDng[/video]

 

Yep.

...........

 

Compared to 2004, we have better leading indicators, which is good, but lower behavior, confidence and utilization, about what I'd expect in a recovery.

 

Well, if that is his true stance, he is certainly one of the most ill informed people I've run across in some time.

- - - Updated - - -

Now please explain this "austerity" principle you refer to.

 

Year - outlays - % of GDP
2009 3,517.7 24.4%
2010 3,457.1 23.1%
2011 3,603.1 23.2%
2012 3,537.1 21.8%
2013 3,454.6 20.6%

Source data: BEA.gov; CBO.gov

Apparently not.

Austerity:

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

Not austerity:

Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Not austerity:

Bush
Spending increase, 2001-2005: +32.7%
Total government employment, 2001-2005: +603,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xls
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

See the difference?

 

We absolutely should not be cutting spending, unless of course your goal is to cripple economic performance for political reasons, which for many here apparently is the case.

Spending proportionate to GDP is now lower than 9 of 12 Reagan/Bush1 years. We can continue to trim spending relative to GDP, but with the baby boomer retirements coming up we will need to proportionately spend a little more than we did in the 90s.

Revenues are still well below your 18% average, which average was too low to begin with as it resulted in huge deficits and trillions in debt.

 

You conservatives try and spin this. This should be funny.

 

You are operating under the assumption that government spending always has a positive effect on economic output, I would say that this is absolutely false. I would also argue that increasing levels of debt becomes a drag on the economy and leaving more money in the hands of private citizens would lead to more sustained economic growth then bureaucratic and political aimed funds.

It may be lower than 9 of 12 of the Reagan and Bush years but it is still in the top 15 of US spending ratios. Hardly austerity, only when you make WWII, Reagans bull(*)(*)(*)(*) spending, or 2009 including TARP and Stimulus as baselines. So if you think 20% of GDP is austerity we have been in austerity for more than 90% of this countries life.

That average was achieved over 60 years through varying rates, its a better picture of what can be obtained. The higher taxes go the more incentive there is to avoid taxation and create underground economies. Notice the only time during my lifetime when we had "gimmicked surpluses" during Clinton his spending as percentage dropped to 18%. Granted he also set the record for taxation as a percentage during that time but its not a sustained level and was likely the result of the tech boom.

 

Ahh, the mini minds of the American left! Unless they have an oversimplified little blurb to spout, they're lost in confusion. They jump for joy that we're back to creating the same number of jobs we were before Obozo took office. What they fail to recognize is that the workforce has grown by over 9 million workers. When you add 9 million workers to the work force, you have to create A LOT more jobs than we were before Obozo in order to catch up.

What's worse about leftist simple-mindedness is their failure to see the number of eligible workers who've left the work force. I'm NOT speaking of retirees here, I'm speaking of the classical definition of "work force"; i.e., those citizens between 15 and 64 years of age. Since 2008 more than 7.5 million workers have left the workforce as of Jan-May 2014.

The actual unemployment rate when GW left office was 6.7%, not the 5.1% usually quoted. How's Obozo doing with his quoted unemployment rate of 6.3%?? The actual unemployment rate Jan-May 2014 was 11.3%. That 11.3% is comparable to GW's 2008 rate of 6.7%.

Tell us again how great the economy is recovering?????

 

The US Military. Der....not bureaucrats.

 

I made no such assumption at all. I would argue against increasing Govt spending when the economy is running at capacity.

But when you have an economy that has suffered from a severe recession, and spending and lending has retrenched with a slack economy, what you need to do is get more spending in the economy. Then yes, increasing Govt spending has a positive effect on the economy.

Austerity is not a fixed level of spending. It is when Govt's reduce spending because of budget restraints at a time when the economy is weak.

Which is exactly what we have seen over the past four years.

Spare me the RW propaganda nonsense. The lower taxes go (unless you're cutting things like FICA taxes the middle/lower classes pay) the more we see the nation's income getting stashed into billionaires' offshore accounts were it does little good for an economy starved of demand.

- - - Updated - - -

Feel free to explain why spending on "star wars" or the war in Iraq is somehow better for the economy than keeping cops, teachers and firefighters at work.

 

Total jobs hits new record high, erasing Great Recession losses

Well good, does this mean Liberals will stop complaining about jobs? If it's so good, why are Liberals still wanting to go in debt billions of dollars more to push a jobs bill?

 

From the OP you obviously didn't bother to read: "The fact that we've erased GR losses doesn't mean that the job market has fully recovered, as the unchanged unemployment rate of 6.3% indicates. Population growth since the GR has increased the total job force."

You were saying?

The number of people who left the work force has nothing to do with the fact that there has been a new record number of jobs, erasing the decline from the GR.

You were saying?

Source please. I suspect that in addressing us confused liberals you're confusing work force and labor force, but I'll give you the chance to support your claim.

The actual unemployment rate when GW left office was 7.8%, not the 6.7% you stated.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

You were saying?

Tell us again about the "mini minds" on the left who are "lost in confusion" LOL

- - - Updated - - -

See the OP.

 

Do you know what the word "austerity" actually means?

 

You certainly don't have a good handle on economics.

 

Yes.
......

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree with it. Others can decide for themselves.

 

http://www.bendegrow.com/images/ObamaUrkel.jpg

 

Thank you for demonstrating to us the nature of your informational sources.

It is about as I expected.

 

The Trough would be anywhere located in the low turning point. I classify it as the lowest point. Why you are comparing the lowest point for the multiple job holders with the total amount of jobs is beyond me. Multiple job holders hit their lowest point in July, not February.

It doesn't. It explains why the Top 1% are able to grab a larger share of the nations wealth.

Financialisation during this "trickle down" phase you are referring to, as financial leverage and instruments become more sophisticated. It also helps that the Income Tax Reform Act of during this time period incentivised people to stop finding clever ways to loss money in order to write-off majority of their income in taxes.

They are getting more and more of the nation's income as a constant.

There is no diversion. That would assume that the middle class has all of the nation's income, which is false. High spending, low savings, large trade deficits and substantial inflows in foreign capital attribute to income and global imbalances that weaken future economic growth. If consumer spending "crowds out" investment spending, the economy may not grow as fast.

Plenty of jobs opening and no one to fill them. Doesn't sound too assuring.

I don't know. You're begging the question. You're the one who stated that annual private payroll growth is more than the annuals in the Bush and Reagan Administration.

Since 1985, Real Median Income has grown 6.1%. I would say that is normal, not weak.

Information 696: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditures_poverty_wealth.html

- - - Updated - - -

I said, net over-the-month, meaning from April to May, there were 71,000 fewer people who moved from E to N.

 

Unbelievable. So the economy is worse now than when Obama took office? Is that your assertion? I got that right?

 

5 Years of Obama: The Real Story​

Michael Sargent
May 04, 2014

Considering the country’s weak economic growth of just 0.1 percent last quarter, it is worth reflecting on the recovery effort that President Obama and his supporters tout as a success. Mostly, the defenders of the president’s economic policies note that main economic indicators— specifically GDP, unemployment, and the stock market—have recovered a good deal since the recession hit rock bottom in 2009.

This is true—our economy is better off today than it was during the severe recession. But that is a low standard to meet; as an economy recovers from the end of a recession—especially a deep recession—economic indicators such as GDP and unemployment invariably improve. What really matters is the strength of the recovery and how fast that recovery propels economic growth.

When compared with those in the past, the Obama recovery has been the slowest and weakest since the Great Depression. As The Wall Street Journal notes, the average quarterly GDP growth for all post-1960 recoveries was 4.1 percent, with total growth of 21.1 percent. Compare that to the anemic Obama recovery, which posted an average of 2.2 percent quarterly growth and a total of just 11.1 percent—about half the historic average.

Even more marked is the difference between the Obama recovery and the 1982–1983 Reagan recovery, which resulted in GDP growth of 23.1 percent over 17 quarters (25.6 percent for the entire recovery). According the Joint Economic Committee, this translates to a growth deficit of $2 trillion between Obama’s recovery and that under President Reagan. That is $2 trillion more that would be in the hands of U.S. businesses and workers today, when—despite the Obama supporters’ cheery sentiment—many American families are still aching financially.

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/05/04/5-years-obama-real-story/

In reality, Obama has driven America into a deep depression worse than what America went through in the thirties. We have no manufacturing left to fall back upon. The actual unemployment hovers at 21 to 24% and that is a fact that cannot be denied.

 

Why weren't they able to grab a larger share in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s if that were the reason?

That's it? The richest started getting a larger and larger share of the nation's income and wealth starting in 1981 because of "financial leverage and instruments become more sophisticated"? They weren't becoming more sophisticated in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s?

There were all kinds of tax "reforms" that gave them clever ways to pay lower taxes.

No, they are getting more and more of the nations' income as a portion.

No it wouldn't. Why would it assume that?

If we were in a period of high spending, low savings where consumer spending is "crowding out" investment, you'd have a point. We are not in that period. To the contrary, we have low spending and trillions of dollars sitting around not getting spent.

There are always lots of job openings. But not plenty, by a long shot. There are still 3 unemployed persons for every job opening. It's been improving since the height of the recession when it was in the 6-7 to one range.

Where did I say that? I think you said that.

That is the *total* growth over 27 years. Not per year. The per year average is 0.4%. That is very weak.

Compare the 20 year period 1953-1973. Median real family income grew 74.3% over that time period. That equates to 2.8% per year.

OK, I was mislead by your terminology. It's not that they are moving into the higher quintle (which is a 20% bracket) but that there incomes have increased.

But that supports my point. We see the percentage of people making $200k increasing 400%. We see the percentage of people making $50,000 or less declining from 48% to just 41%. The income has been flowing to the top. We we'd seen incomes overall increasing at the 2.7% annual real clip as median incomes did in 1953-1973, there would be vastly larger declines in the lower income brackets.

But you still have 4+ million going from E to N every month.

 

the "Daily Signal" eh? "That’s why the Heritage Foundation team created a digital-first, multimedia news platform called The Daily Signal."

Can't say it's much of an improvement over the last information source you posted.

But since you brought it up, gee, I wonder why the Reagan recovery was stronger?

Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.
Total government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%
Total government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xls
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Maybe that had something to do with it?

Or this?

 

FY 2009 and the increase from FY2008 is Obama's so your comparison is fallacious. Start your number from 2008 and be intellectually honest about it.

Presidents do not control total government employment they control federal employment. So post federal government numbers and be intellectually honest about it.