The Real Obama Jobs Index Is Worse Than You Thought
Jan 11, 2014 12:03:18 #
Hey Libs.....come on in! This one's for YOU!
The real Obama jobs index is worse than you thought
JANUARY 11, 2014 BY JAZZ SHAW
Ed gave us the rather sobering numbers yesterday from the December jobs report. Those were some pretty brutal numbers no matter how you look at them, and they reinforce the fact that you have to look at a lot more than just the published federal unemployment rate to get the full picture. With that in mind, Andrew Malcom (the Prince of Twitter) and the rest of the editorial staff at Investors Business Daily have compiled a full set of employment statistics for the Obama administration, including historical comparisons to previous administrations, recessions and recoveries. If you thought things were bad, youre right. But you might not have realized just how bad they are. Heres just a sample.
6.3 million: Net new jobs created since Obamas recovery started in June 2009
13.8 million: New jobs that would have been created had Obamas kept pace with the average of the previous 10 recoveries.
3.6%: Growth in private jobs since Obama took office.
43%: Growth in the number of temp jobs.
91.8 million: Number of people not in the labor force as of December.
525,000: Increase since November.
11.2 million: Increase since Obama took office.
6.7%: Jobless rate 54 months into Obamas recovery.
5.1%: Unemployment rate 54 months into George W. Bushs jobless recovery.
13.1%: Jobless rate in Dec. using a broader measure U6 which includes people marginally attached to labor force or working part time for economic reasons.
9.2%: Average U6 rate in Bushs eight years in office.
Theres plenty more, so you should steel yourself, have a seat and read the entire thing. One of the additional stats which is extremely important, but particularly dismal, is the drop in median household income. During the height of the recession from 2007 to 2009, household income dropped $1,006 annually, as you might expect during such a crisis. But during the recovery from then until now, how much did it bounce back? It dropped an additional $2,535 per household.
One reason this is so important is that Congress is getting ready to address the Democrat talking point of income inequality this year as the elections approach. As Ive said before, this is one of the more clever bits of populist marketing that the Democrats have cooked up in a long time. But the reality of income inequality hides what should be a rather obvious truth.
The problem in this country isnt that we have too many rich people. The real crisis is that we have too many people who cant get a decent job and miss out on the opportunity to climb the ladder. Obama has had more than a full term to turn things around, and yet his policies have led to increased poverty, not prosperity. Incomes are going down for the working class, not up. So if you want to fix income inequality in America, perhaps you should review the jobs data above and reconsider the policies leading to this unacceptable state of affairs.
The real Obama jobs index is worse than you thought
JANUARY 11, 2014 BY JAZZ SHAW
Ed gave us the rather sobering numbers yesterday from the December jobs report. Those were some pretty brutal numbers no matter how you look at them, and they reinforce the fact that you have to look at a lot more than just the published federal unemployment rate to get the full picture. With that in mind, Andrew Malcom (the Prince of Twitter) and the rest of the editorial staff at Investors Business Daily have compiled a full set of employment statistics for the Obama administration, including historical comparisons to previous administrations, recessions and recoveries. If you thought things were bad, youre right. But you might not have realized just how bad they are. Heres just a sample.
6.3 million: Net new jobs created since Obamas recovery started in June 2009
13.8 million: New jobs that would have been created had Obamas kept pace with the average of the previous 10 recoveries.
3.6%: Growth in private jobs since Obama took office.
43%: Growth in the number of temp jobs.
91.8 million: Number of people not in the labor force as of December.
525,000: Increase since November.
11.2 million: Increase since Obama took office.
6.7%: Jobless rate 54 months into Obamas recovery.
5.1%: Unemployment rate 54 months into George W. Bushs jobless recovery.
13.1%: Jobless rate in Dec. using a broader measure U6 which includes people marginally attached to labor force or working part time for economic reasons.
9.2%: Average U6 rate in Bushs eight years in office.
Theres plenty more, so you should steel yourself, have a seat and read the entire thing. One of the additional stats which is extremely important, but particularly dismal, is the drop in median household income. During the height of the recession from 2007 to 2009, household income dropped $1,006 annually, as you might expect during such a crisis. But during the recovery from then until now, how much did it bounce back? It dropped an additional $2,535 per household.
One reason this is so important is that Congress is getting ready to address the Democrat talking point of income inequality this year as the elections approach. As Ive said before, this is one of the more clever bits of populist marketing that the Democrats have cooked up in a long time. But the reality of income inequality hides what should be a rather obvious truth.
The problem in this country isnt that we have too many rich people. The real crisis is that we have too many people who cant get a decent job and miss out on the opportunity to climb the ladder. Obama has had more than a full term to turn things around, and yet his policies have led to increased poverty, not prosperity. Incomes are going down for the working class, not up. So if you want to fix income inequality in America, perhaps you should review the jobs data above and reconsider the policies leading to this unacceptable state of affairs.
Jan 11, 2014 12:06:25 #
I just don't know or understand why someone would think that their political views matter to subscribers of a "PHOTOGRAPHY" website. Can we all just stop it?
Jan 11, 2014 12:14:08 #
nkossmann wrote:
I just don't know or understand why someone would think that their political views matter to subscribers of a "PHOTOGRAPHY" website. Can we all just stop it?
As you are new to the forum, the title of this section is "General Chit-Chat - Non-Photography
Talk"
Jan 11, 2014 16:15:18 #
nkossmann wrote:
I just don't know or understand why someone would think that their political views matter to subscribers of a "PHOTOGRAPHY" website. Can we all just stop it?
I just don't know why someone would get on a website and even before understanding how it worked, would start telling everyone what they shouldn't be doing; sounds kinds "bossy" to me!
Yes, UHH IS a photography oriented website, but it is divided up into a bunch of separate forums; as it happens, if you are desirous of discussing photography, it's you that's on the wrong forum; the people who own the website wisely decided that even people who are generally "into" photography, may also wish to discuss various subjects OTHER than photography from time to time; which is why they created the "general chit-chat" forum, where anything from "the mating habits of the African fruit fly", to the age old question of "which came first....the chicken, the egg, or liberals"; if you want to discuss the overall quality of camel dung in the Gobi Desert, or the general outlook for gambling casinos in Hawaii, this is the place to do it. If you want to talk about photography, please click on the general photography forum.
(and quit being so bossy! )
Jan 11, 2014 16:33:41 #
Hey Gitzo....this one's for you....a comparison of public and private sector job creation under the watch of the last five presidents:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29
Rankings from most jobs created to least created:
Private Sector: Clinton, Reagan, Obama, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush
Public Sector: G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Obama
The cumulative jobs creation comparison graphs based on a time line of months in office are below.
Based on the facts thru the December 2013 Jobs Report it appears that a cause for lackluster jobs growth is due to negative Public Sector (Government) job creation under Obama's watch. This is not to say that his admin is the cause of the loss of Public Sector jobs but that it is happening on his watch. Under the four previous admins substantial jobs creation was due to the increase of Public Sector employment. It is interesting to note that Public Sector employment has actually decreased under Obama contrary to what conservatives believe and espouse.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29
Rankings from most jobs created to least created:
Private Sector: Clinton, Reagan, Obama, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush
Public Sector: G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Obama
The cumulative jobs creation comparison graphs based on a time line of months in office are below.
Based on the facts thru the December 2013 Jobs Report it appears that a cause for lackluster jobs growth is due to negative Public Sector (Government) job creation under Obama's watch. This is not to say that his admin is the cause of the loss of Public Sector jobs but that it is happening on his watch. Under the four previous admins substantial jobs creation was due to the increase of Public Sector employment. It is interesting to note that Public Sector employment has actually decreased under Obama contrary to what conservatives believe and espouse.
Private Sector
Public Sector
Jan 11, 2014 17:11:07 #
robert-photos wrote:
Hey Gitzo....this one's for you....a comparison of... (show quote)
Holy Dog Doo Batman! This report is so freaking misleading that it is ridiculous and disingenuous to post it in this conversation.
Where to start with this, firs off if you look at private sector job creation at the beginning of Bush's term you can clearly see the impact of the Dot.com implosion and the recession that he inherited from Clinton, Bush restores growth to the economy and tracks fairly well until the housing crisis that was caused by his policies that were overwhelmingly supported by the democrats in congress.
As far as government job growth.... Are we somehow forgetting what occurred during the first year of Bush's first Term? Does not 9/11 ring a bell with you knuckle heads? Do you forget that the NSA and Homeland security were greatly expanded as an answer to the terrorist threat?
Let's dig a little deeper into your numbers shall we? Your graph shows Total Govt Jobs at all levels of government, how dishonest of you to do that, or did you not bother to understand just what it was that you were posting? Either way that is what you have posted, during the Bush tenure real estate values were growing at an alarmingly accelerated rate, local and state governments were flush with cash revenues based on an increasing revenue source furnished by the increase of property values... and they certainly were not shy about spending that money on shiny new government workers to provide often unneeded shiny new government services.... So when the house of cards came crashing down those state and local governments were forced to shed workers and cut back on many actually needed services... silly gubbermint, fools don't know how to bank money but they damn sure know how to spend it.
At any rate the negative growth in the public sector that you point to that has occurred under the Obama administration all occurred in State and Local Governments, the Federal Government as actually grown... maybe you can go and find that graph.
Lastly, the decline in government employment certainly has nothing to do with president Obama, were it left to him we would be funding the salaries of local teachers, firefighters, and police officers and the administrative staff to support them...
How many times have we heard over the last 4 years Obama's cry to fund "teachers, and first responders" none of whom work for the federal government.
Your entire premise is misleading and plainly wrong, but I do like your photography.. :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 12, 2014 14:00:40 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Holy Dog Doo Batman! This report is so freaking m... (show quote)
Blurry.......Wow! Wow! Wow! I'm IMPRESSED!!! I sure don't want to get into a competition with you on "finding out facts"! That was the BEST job of making a Lib look silly I've seen so far on UHH; the only problem though, as we both know, attempting to "make sense" to a Lib is always an exercise in futility; Libs are severely "uninformed", "misinformed", "ignorant", and they ALL have every intention of STAYING that way! I mean, I've seen a few Republicans that I wasn't exactly "proud" of, but can you imagine, being in the same party with Nancy Pelosi? or "dirty Harry" Reid? or Schumer? Oh...or Sheila Jackson Lee? (Uckkk! ) Boxer or Feinstein? and how bout this POS that's gonna be doing his best to make NYC like Detroit, is gonna "do away" with horse carriages in Central Park, cause HE thinks they're not "humane"? (hell no they're not "humane", they're "equine"! they're horses, you stoop!
There used to be a Repub I couldn't stand....Rep. Billy Tauzin, I think; he was DETERMINED that he was gonna make it illegal for U.S.citizens to monitor law enforcement and ATC frequencies with a scanner! I never did hear what finally happened to Billy, but I hope a big earthquake opened up and swallowed him clear to China!
Jan 12, 2014 16:48:32 #
Blurryeyed:
Holy Dog Doo Batman! This report is so freaking misleading that it is ridiculous and disingenuous to post it in this conversation.
Just how is a graphic comparison of cumulative job creation during five administrations ridiculous or disingenuous? The graphs are historic statistics....are you denying their validity? If history is misleading.....then what?
Where to start with this, firs off if you look at private sector job creation at the beginning of Bush's term you can clearly see the impact of the Dot.com implosion and the recession that he inherited from Clinton, Bush restores growth to the economy and tracks fairly well until the housing crisis that was caused by his policies that were overwhelmingly supported by the democrats in congress.
The fact still remains that during G. W. Bush's 8 year admin there was a net loss of public sector jobs. You can eat your bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a spin but that fact still remains.
As far as government job growth.... Are we somehow forgetting what occurred during the first year of Bush's first Term? Does not 9/11 ring a bell with you knuckle heads? Do you forget that the NSA and Homeland security were greatly expanded as an answer to the terrorist threat?
Take a look at the graph....Public payrolls began increasing on the date of G.W. Bush's inauguration, (Feb 2001) and continued throughout his 8 year admin. The same during Clinton's 8 years, as during G.H.W. Bush's 4 years and Reagan during his last 78 months. Only during the first 18 months of the Reagan admin and mostly thru the first 60 months (sans the Decennial Census blip) of the Obama admin have government sector job payrolls decreased.
Let's dig a little deeper into your numbers shall we? Your graph shows Total Govt Jobs at all levels of government, how dishonest of you to do that, or did you not bother to understand just what it was that you were posting? Either way that is what you have posted, during the Bush tenure real estate values were growing at an alarmingly accelerated rate, local and state governments were flush with cash revenues based on an increasing revenue source furnished by the increase of property values... and they certainly were not shy about spending that money on shiny new government workers to provide often unneeded shiny new government services.... So when the house of cards came crashing down those state and local governments were forced to shed workers and cut back on many actually needed services... silly gubbermint, fools don't know how to bank money but they damn sure know how to spend it.
I have no argument with your statement except the spin....mismangement of taxpayer money is not just
due to the Dems or liberals but unfortunately is rampant throughout all levels whether run by the GOP, Dems, Independents and, yes, even the Tea Party.
At any rate the negative growth in the public sector that you point to that has occurred under the Obama administration all occurred in State and Local Governments, the Federal Government as actually grown... maybe you can go and find that graph.
I never stated differently, in fact, if you would have clicked on the referenced blog it so states. The comparison is based on equals and does not differentiate between local, state and federal public sector payroll with all admins.
Lastly, the decline in government employment certainly has nothing to do with president Obama, were it left to him we would be funding the salaries of local teachers, firefighters, and police officers and the administrative staff to support them...
I don't understand this comment of yours except as an attempt to slam the present admin. The graphs would still apply whether or not payroll was funded federally or locally.
How many times have we heard over the last 4 years Obama's cry to fund "teachers, and first responders" none of whom work for the federal government.
The fed has historically provided funding (grants) for local government units. Google "federal funding of local government units" and you'll get over 40,000,000 hits.
Your entire premise is misleading and plainly wrong,
I disagree as the graphs presented data and not opinion; there was no premise except for the one you jumped to.
but I do like your photography..
I agree, thanks :thumbup:
Holy Dog Doo Batman! This report is so freaking misleading that it is ridiculous and disingenuous to post it in this conversation.
Just how is a graphic comparison of cumulative job creation during five administrations ridiculous or disingenuous? The graphs are historic statistics....are you denying their validity? If history is misleading.....then what?
Where to start with this, firs off if you look at private sector job creation at the beginning of Bush's term you can clearly see the impact of the Dot.com implosion and the recession that he inherited from Clinton, Bush restores growth to the economy and tracks fairly well until the housing crisis that was caused by his policies that were overwhelmingly supported by the democrats in congress.
The fact still remains that during G. W. Bush's 8 year admin there was a net loss of public sector jobs. You can eat your bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a spin but that fact still remains.
As far as government job growth.... Are we somehow forgetting what occurred during the first year of Bush's first Term? Does not 9/11 ring a bell with you knuckle heads? Do you forget that the NSA and Homeland security were greatly expanded as an answer to the terrorist threat?
Take a look at the graph....Public payrolls began increasing on the date of G.W. Bush's inauguration, (Feb 2001) and continued throughout his 8 year admin. The same during Clinton's 8 years, as during G.H.W. Bush's 4 years and Reagan during his last 78 months. Only during the first 18 months of the Reagan admin and mostly thru the first 60 months (sans the Decennial Census blip) of the Obama admin have government sector job payrolls decreased.
Let's dig a little deeper into your numbers shall we? Your graph shows Total Govt Jobs at all levels of government, how dishonest of you to do that, or did you not bother to understand just what it was that you were posting? Either way that is what you have posted, during the Bush tenure real estate values were growing at an alarmingly accelerated rate, local and state governments were flush with cash revenues based on an increasing revenue source furnished by the increase of property values... and they certainly were not shy about spending that money on shiny new government workers to provide often unneeded shiny new government services.... So when the house of cards came crashing down those state and local governments were forced to shed workers and cut back on many actually needed services... silly gubbermint, fools don't know how to bank money but they damn sure know how to spend it.
I have no argument with your statement except the spin....mismangement of taxpayer money is not just
due to the Dems or liberals but unfortunately is rampant throughout all levels whether run by the GOP, Dems, Independents and, yes, even the Tea Party.
At any rate the negative growth in the public sector that you point to that has occurred under the Obama administration all occurred in State and Local Governments, the Federal Government as actually grown... maybe you can go and find that graph.
I never stated differently, in fact, if you would have clicked on the referenced blog it so states. The comparison is based on equals and does not differentiate between local, state and federal public sector payroll with all admins.
Lastly, the decline in government employment certainly has nothing to do with president Obama, were it left to him we would be funding the salaries of local teachers, firefighters, and police officers and the administrative staff to support them...
I don't understand this comment of yours except as an attempt to slam the present admin. The graphs would still apply whether or not payroll was funded federally or locally.
How many times have we heard over the last 4 years Obama's cry to fund "teachers, and first responders" none of whom work for the federal government.
The fed has historically provided funding (grants) for local government units. Google "federal funding of local government units" and you'll get over 40,000,000 hits.
Your entire premise is misleading and plainly wrong,
I disagree as the graphs presented data and not opinion; there was no premise except for the one you jumped to.
but I do like your photography..
I agree, thanks :thumbup:
Jan 12, 2014 16:48:47 #
Gitzo wrote:
Blurry.......Wow! Wow! Wow! I'm IMPRESSED!!!
Your premise that I'm a liberal is an assumption on your part. The graphs I presented were data and not opinion; there was no premise except for the one you jumped to....
and you know what they say about "ass..u..me".
Jan 12, 2014 17:00:24 #
BTW
For those who are interested it is worthwhile to subscribe to Bill McBride's blog Calculated Risk:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/p/about-calculated-risk.html
It provides concise and very accessible summaries of all US key economic data and developments.
For those who are interested it is worthwhile to subscribe to Bill McBride's blog Calculated Risk:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/p/about-calculated-risk.html
It provides concise and very accessible summaries of all US key economic data and developments.
Jan 13, 2014 00:01:21 #
robert-photos wrote:
Your premise that I'm a liberal is an assumption on your part. The graphs I presented were data and not opinion; there was no premise except for the one you jumped to....
and you know what they say about "ass..u..me".
and you know what they say about "ass..u..me".
My "premise" that you're a Lib is based on your eagerness to support Ovomit and your pathetic attempt to "slam" George Bush; I suppose you are now going to deny that you're a Lib?
(And I hardly think I made any mistaken "assumptions" Mr. Pointie-nose graph-man. )
Jan 13, 2014 01:00:15 #
Gitzo,
I did not support anyone but only presented a graphical representation/comparison of public and private sector job creation of the last five administrations. You looked that over and YOU made the assumption that this historical data slammed Bush. All I say is come your own conclusion and it is apparent that you have.
Since you would rather resort to personal attack and name calling instead of responding in an adult manner I'm out of here.
I did not support anyone but only presented a graphical representation/comparison of public and private sector job creation of the last five administrations. You looked that over and YOU made the assumption that this historical data slammed Bush. All I say is come your own conclusion and it is apparent that you have.
Since you would rather resort to personal attack and name calling instead of responding in an adult manner I'm out of here.
Jan 13, 2014 12:33:45 #
For those interested I leave you with:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/update-when-will-payroll-employment.html
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/update-when-will-payroll-employment.html
Post WWII Recession Job Losses
Jan 13, 2014 18:26:55 #
robert-photos wrote:
For those interested I leave you with:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/update-when-will-payroll-employment.html
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/01/update-when-will-payroll-employment.html
I don't think anyone is interested, Robert; It has been my observation that relatively few people on forums have any interest in graphs of any kind; I'm not saying that graphs have no purpose......only that that on most general interest forums they hold very little interest to very many people.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.