PragI can't make sense out of your comment. "....workforce participation rate was better under Obama in the beginning
of his recession versus Regan's recession." Yes! So you are
saying Reagan did much better than Obama, right? Reagan started low and had
growth, from 64% participation to 66.5% at the end of his term. Obama's
part of the curve is the inverse of Reagan's only steeper (5.5 years),
starting at 65.7% and dropping to the current 63.2%. Reagan - up
2.5%Obama - down 2.5% so farI thought you were an Obama fan,
but I guess you are a Reagan fan."...participation is lower at
the end of a recession that is driven by a lack of demand versus a recession
that is driven by an excess of demand." What??? A
recession driven by an excess of demand??? If there were an excess
of demand, producers would be scrambling to fill that demand, driving
production, sales, employment, and profits. That's called growth and
prosperity, not recession.No wonder things are so bad! Liberals are
in charge, and they have prosperity and recession mixed up. J-TX and
DC (Thanks!) covered your other misconceptions.
pragmatist,sorry, "your king" is not the right title - we
know it should be "the annointed one" or "the deified one"thanks for calling poeople you disagree with "stupid" - typical
leftist intolerance.The fact that the particiation rate has droped
under BO is further evidence of the despair he is sowing and that his trickle-up
poverty is working.using corporate profits as an excuse for a
disparing workforce caused by BO's failed policies is insulting to the
long-term unemployed. your excuse assumes a finite "pie". Such is not
the case - wealth is being created all the time, though at a much slower pace
under the deified one.
Pragmatist: I'll explain it for you:corporate profits are at
all time highs - Because they refuse to reinvest, which would grow the work
force. Why? Because they are waiting for a more business-friendly
administration, one that cares more about employing the citizens than keeping
them dependent on Government.the stock market is nearly at it's
all time high - Because for over a year the current administration has directed
the FED to print money to buy billions in bonds to stimulate the market, to give
the appearance of health. Why did they refuse to appoint a new Fed Chair who
favored easing the bond buys? They don't want the bottom to drop out of
the stock market while Obama is in office.productivity is at all
time highs - Productivity is GDP per employee. Employers are reticent to hire
workers, even as business is expanding, because they can't afford
Obamacare, or pay more taxes. This reticence pushes the productivity numbers
higher. Look at a poll of employee morale right now. Millions are
unhappy in the work place, stressed because they have too much to do and lack
the tools to get it done.
Want to try some selection badger, go look at how the workforce participation
rate was better under Obama in the beginning of his recession versus
Regan's recession. Is there a reason for this, of course, exactly like
there is a reason why workforce participation is lower at the end of a recession
that is driven by a lack of demand versus a recession that is driven by an
excess of demand. Even at that the difference is some 1.5%. Secondly if you look at the whole picture that donahoe lays out you see a very
different picture from the simplistic one you try and paint.Lastly
explain to me how labor force participation is low, corporate profits are at all
time highs, the stock market is nearly at it's all time high, and
productivity is at all time highs? PS. every time you use phrases
like "your king" you reveal an ideological mentality that is anything
We've known for a long while that the babyboomers are going to retire, but
instead of accounting for this rather significant shift in our nation's
demographics, we're fiddling away what resources we might have used to
You just don't realize how good the economy really is. We have more people
working part time, which means they are sharing jobs. Isn't it great we
have people being nice and sharing?On top of that, the government
now provides me with food assistance, and soon, health insurance too. What a
help to me, and I am sure it helps everyone else too. The government
can print money which allows the government to buy me things and no one has to
pay for it. It's like magic government money. I don't know who make
they free stuff I get, but they must get magic government money too.If the government would just print enough money for everyone, no one would
ever have to work again.What could be better?
Numbers can be spun in many ways by people without integrity. The system should
be full of integrity but each state and contractor that put in the numbers are
part of a system that want to make the President happy, no matter what party. I
am sure the FDR timeframe was influenced by number crunchers until World War II
came and the workforce increased with the number in the military and the women
filled those voids or vacancies with numbers that would have been at home and
not in the workforce. Millions of little kids were born after WWII
and homes were built with the GI bill for housing and education. The world
changed to users of products instead of rationing even during the Korean War.
We didn't wait many years with Vietnam and the communism threat and needed
a strong military and the bureaucracy to keep that going. We increased
entitlements in the 1960s to keep the riots down and President Johnson's
new society, which was a sleight of hand name for socialism. Then we needed
data and statistics to show everything was working with this kind of government.
People were happy with riots/handouts, not integrity.
This economy is so lame it is in a government powered wheel chair!
"This is so disingenuous. Unemployment has always been reported like
this..."Nothing disingenuous here. These numbers have been kept
for decades, which allows the current fair comparison. When you compare then and
now, it is clear that the real unemployment is at a real high. This
is not an attack on you or your king. Numbers don't attack. Select numbers
used alone don't reveal the whole truth, like the unemployment number based
on those seeking work. Adding the numbers of workforce participation and
under-employed gives a bigger picture of what our 'recovery' really
is, and it shows that 'recovery' is probably not the right word.
To high school fan: (1.) I ask you to read these posts from beginning to end.
You will find two types of discussions herein. One is a discussion about
quantifying the economic situation, including a history of how we got here. This
is an approach based on empiricism. The other is an emotion tirade driven by
beliefs in ideologies ("left" and "right"). The ideological
approach will not take you to understanding beyond an emotional response to
events. Many readers may be happy with that ending, I suspect. (2.) As to
whether the economy is "good", the Gini Coefficient may help explains
what you may be feeling. The measured output of the economy is improving, but
the wealth is not being distributed to you, as you may wish. (3.) You
incorrectly attribute this change to the current administration. If you look at
the historical data, you'll see clearly enough that this change accelerated
in the 80s. (4.) Ask the DesNews for an economist to explain this in a special
section of a future paper. BYU should have some capable faulty who can explain
this in a few pages.
The participation rate for 16-19 year olds is very significant. This is the
group which usually work part time at the local burger "joint" for
experience or while attending school. The attempts to unionize this group for
full time wages with health benefits may be well intended but is evidently
causing catastrophic results for this group in our society.
How many workers have had their hours cut? They're still counted as being
employed, but their take-home pay is only 75% or less than it was before Obama.
How many people were fired from good paying jobs and now work at minimum wage,
even though they have skills that make them worth many times that wage?
They're still counted as being fully employed.When the true
figures are examined, Obama's administration will be seen as the
administration that destroyed the middle class. Ask any businessman
why he won't hire more people. At the top of his list is ObamaCare.
Nobody yet knows what the small businessman will have to pay if he continues to
offer health insurance. Nobody yet knows what how much the government will
penalize him if he doesn't offer health insurance. When the government can
dictate the wages and benefits that a business must offer, without sharing the
risk when costs get out of control, that government will destroy the businesses
that pay the workers who pay income taxes. Talk about a "death spiral"!
One voteCould you please tell us how the economy is improving for
you and your friends? Do you all have good paying jobs, do you pay less for
groceries, do you pay less for gas, does your pay check go nearly as far, are
car prices really higher? This economy, no matter how you look at it , is not
good.History will judge Obama , and it probably will not be kind but we
can worry about that in the future. Right now, we all should worry.
Socialist leaning presidents cannot succeed in producing a thriving economy.
Government does not run business very well, military does not govern well, etc.
Government must get out of the way and our economy will explode. Stimulus bills
simply restrain the system Free enterprise is the only route to prosperity. We
need a participation economy where everyone able to work should work, and
educational system that actually teaches, a lower tax rate for corporations and
a simplified system of taxation.
The Romney/Bush supporters are so bitter that they are spinning job statistics
to bolster the idea that the economy is not improving.
lost, unemployment is not a statistic that provides insight into earnings. U6
does reflect participation. Moreover, changes in the Gini Coefficient over time
reveals growing inequity ,which is another way to point to income issues. We are
now at depression levels in that metric.
Many of you Obama defenders are proving that with statistics anything can be
proven or disproven. And many of you are trying to defend Obama by going back
in time to compare statistics. As Hillary would say "What Difference Does
It Make?" We have been living with Obama going on 5 years now and this
economy is no where near what it could and should be. That is a fact without
need of statistics.
Hope and change?Nope – despair and povertyPragmatist,I’m not sure you read the article when you talk about
the segment of society who choose not to enter the workforce.Yes,
there is that segment, but it is at its highest point since 1978, when we had
the second worst president in our history (carter, with BO being the worst).
Since the article said the participation rate is at its lowest since 1978, we
know Reagan had a higher participation rate. Why didn’t YOU look it
up?donahoe.It seems you choose to ignore all the reports
showing the only job growth is in low-wage industries. it seems you choose to
ignore the participation rate is at its lowest point since 1978 – people
have given up hope.
@ Donahoe...recovery huh? Why are people today worth less than they were 5
years ago...? some recovery!
Trickle up poverty is now evident.
TRUTH: Let's look at data. The current president assumed office in January
of 2009. BLS reported the official unemployment rate (U3) was 7.8 % that month.
In August '13 U3 was 7.3%. If you want to look at the bigger picture, U6
(Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus
total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian
labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force) was 14.2%
in January 2009. U6 hovered at 17.1% for the last three months of 2009. In
August U6 was 13.7%. The country is recovering. As to how we got into this bind,
that is a much longer and more complex story.
By design the unemployment numbers are misleading.....Obama couldn't
let the American people know the truth....-90 million unemployed-worst economy in us history-all of the job creation under Obama is part
time minimum wage jobsAnd he did this intentionally to create a
dependent welfare state large enough to force the USA into a welfare state that
elects liberal democrats as a rule........dopes for hope!
BLS provides six unemployment metrics. For example, in BLS Table A-15.
Alternative measures of labor underutilization reads "NOTE: Persons
marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither
working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a
job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged
workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related
reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for
economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but
have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are
introduced annually with the release of January data. "
This is so disingenuous. Unemployment has always been reported like this and
there has always been a segment of society who choose not to enter, or reenter
the work force. The Human Resource Association use to report the numbers in
their monthly journal, and decades ago if you looked at the right figures
unemployment was underreported by half. There were pages of ways to look at the
numbers and as I remember it the best the numbers showed was an underreporting
of about a quarter. The only thing different now for Republicans is Obama is
the President. During Regan's fifth year of his presidency the
unemployment rate was about 7.5%. Why don't you go back and report on what
labor market participation looked like then? I bet the numbers are still
So, is it progress that Obama has swelled the hard core unemployed?As
pointed out, this problem is greatest among the low-skilled population.Tell me again why we are offering amnesty to low-skilled illegal aliens when
so many of our own are out of work???