Yet More “Economic Recovery” News
Yeah, I know I had a similar article yesterday. But after the article was posted I saw these, and thought they were worth mentioning too.
• The Obama Economic Record: The Worst Five Years Since World War II – of particular interest to me is that an additional 7 million people became food stamp/SNAP recipients in 2010-2012, during a period of falling unemployment. Someone needs to ‘splain that one to me, ‘cause I just don’t “get it”.
• 62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months – and that article is actually being generous. Since it’s now close to two months old, it only covered from Apr 2014 to Feb 2015 – and reality today is a bit worse. March 2015 figures showed a decline in the US labor participation rate to 62.7%. That makes a full year that the US labor participation rate has been in the Carter-esque economic toilet of being below 63%.
• And to really “make your day” with good economic news, there’s this article, from Gateway Pundit. But if you want the “quick and dirty” version, this graph from the article tells you all you really need to know:
Yeah, those economic “good times” certainly seem to be just around the corner, don’t they?
I wonder if year 7 will be the “teh won” in which we see any real improvement? My advice, though, is: “Don’t hold your breath.”
Sheesh. I am so damn ready for some adult leadership with a clue to return to DC.
Category: Economy
Well, Hondo, what were you expecting? (It’s all shrub’s fault because… whatever!)
How long did it take the labor force to truly recover after the crash in 1929?
What was the real driving force behind that recovery?
Ex-PH2:
While I don’t know how long it took to recover, my relatives told me years ago that the “driving force” was hunger coupled with not wanting the embarrassment of being on the dole. The latter factor is missing in much of today’s society.
Hunger and pride were the driving forces behind people making do during the great depression, Frankie Cee. But economic recovery didn’t happen until we started rearming for War in 1940.
Hell, even FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Morganthau, realized by the late 1930s that FDRs economic policies were crap. Check out this link of what he had to say about them in May 1939 – or about 6 years into FDR’s regime:
https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/fdrs-economic-policies-failed-but-dont-take-my-word-for-it-listen-to-obamas-top-economic-adviser/
If we hadn’t started rearming for war, we’d still have been in a major economic funk until FDR died or left office. His peacetime economic policies were strangling the economy.
Sound familiar?
That’s exactly what I meant. The government work programs (CCC, WPA, etc.) did provide real work and wages, but they were petering out and ending long before WWII rearming started up.
If there is any way to end the welfare society, someone please let me know. That tax money could go for work training programs instead of being wasted on the lazy. I think the most heinous thing ever was ending the requirement that people on welfare learn job skills and get jobs. I guess it’s just easier and a lot more fun to throw coins to the masses as the sirder passes through the crowd.
What’s next? Bread and circuses? Oh, wait – do we already have that?
IMO, by another name – yes. Today we call it SNAP and cable TV/smartphones.
“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. If I help him, he’s going to help me!”
Well, he may not have helped her (reality set in and she now thinks he lied!) but there is no question that the obama years have been more than a free block of cheese to a great many people.
Such racism in this post!
I am offended !!!!!!!!!
You know you can’t say anything bad about our wonderful leader!
OMG, I have to go puke and punch myself in the face for even thinking about saying anything like this!
Bam, Biff, Pow!
(Shades of Batman and Adam West.)
Like the comments I saw yesterday when people were complaining about Whole Foods feeding the National Guardsmen in Baltimore “they feedin’ those well-paid NG killers when there’s 70,000 school kids starving because the schools are closed” – apparently school lunches are the sole source of nutrition for any kid of any income bracket in Baltimore. If that is the case, then obviously the food stamp program is a total waste and should be terminated forthwith.
Apparently even Gwyneth Paltrow could not survive four days on food stamps… poor thing is obviously wasting away anyway, so…
But, our Preezy, King Putt, is just so ghettofabulous…
Even the black community is starting to see his for what he is… and some of their comments are tearing him up over using the work “thuggish”.
(Warning strong language, may be NSFW)
http://soopermexican.com/2015/04/28/uncle-tom-ass-nigga-fk-you-black-twitter-responds-to-obamas-thug-speech-on-baltimore/
Interesting article, but the “Cumulative Job Growth Net of Population Growth” chart really has me scratching my head.
It takes about 18 years for a baby to enter the work force, right? Therefore, doesn’t the population growth over a 3 year period (37 months) simply mean that the people who need jobs had more babies, not that there are more employable people?
Unless I’m missing something, it seems horribly misleading to subtract population growth from job growth in order to create an upward trending graph for Reagan and a downward trending graph for Obama.
I’m not a fan of Obama, but this chart is really biased.
JoeA: no, the chart is not misleading at all. It is true that the people who need jobs are those entering the labor force. However, the US population has been growing pretty much since the US was formed. We also have this thing called “immigration”, which provides many adults ready to work without an 18 year wait. (smile) The US population increasing means the US labor force is increasing in roughly the same proportion. The US population in 1984 was round 235M; today it’s around 318M. A growing labor force in turn needs more jobs just to maintain status quo (e.g., a constant labor participation rate) – simply because the labor force is growing. And the labor force needs more new jobs monthly today to maintain that status quo than when Reagan was POTUS. The generally accepted figure is that somewhere around 100,000 new jobs monthly are needed today merely to keep up with net new entrants into the labor force in order to maintain constant unemployment and labor participation rates (the two are not the same; for multiple reasons the latter is a far better measure of economic conditions). What the chart shows is that more jobs were created than population growth during the first 37 months of recovery under Reagan – to the tune of nearly 4M more jobs than new residents. In contrast, under the current regime the US economy has created 5M fewer jobs than new residents during it’s 37 months to date of so-called “economic recovery”. What this in turn implies is that the US labor rate must have dropped precipitously sine Jan 2009. That is indeed the case. The US labor participation rate was 65.7% in Jan 2009; it’s 62.7% today. As I recall, each 1% change in the US labor participation rate today represents roughly 1.6M jobs. The chart says we have a shortfall of about 5M; that’s close enough for me. In contrast, the low point of the US labor participation rate under Reagan was during Sep 1981 – at 63.5%, which wasn’t a whole lot worse than Jan 1981 when he… Read more »