Unemployment Trends

[mjs]

I'm not sure what these trends correlate to, but they seem to say the trillions in stimulus, bailouts, and pork barreling isn't working yet. But, in fairness, Obama said today he doesn't expect to see it change before we get September's data.

Looking at the Michigan graph, unemployment starts going down in April 1992, starts going up in March 2000, levels out in April 2003, starts going up again in August 2007, and then starts going up exponentially in April 2008. Compared to the US graph, Michigan missed the 2004 to 2007 recovery. Its from the MDLEG which provides graphs and/or raw data and allows you to examine trends for cities, areas, or counties. http://www.milmi.org/cgi/dataanalysi...eName=Labforce

[Bobl]

This unemployment situation is far worse than anyone predicted. Remember, just last September we were being told that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and that there was no recession, just too many whiners.
The jury should be out on the stimulus. It was stated at the time that it was passed that it would be at least this fall, likely later, before its effectiveness could be measured. I would have liked to see more specific projects, similar to Roosevelt's CCC, but will wait and see.
There has been increased criticism of the Obama administration, and at a news conference Friday, republican lawmakers criticized the White House for spending so much, while simultaneously saying the administration wasn’t spending it fast enough.
The fact is, this meltdown did not happen on Obama's watch, and it is hypocritical to blame him now. His reaction to the inherited problems will be judged in the future.

[mjs]

Why do people keep repeating that its worse than anyone predicted? Its exactly what many of the economists on CNBC predicted and the market bottomed out close to 6500 which is where a great many economists that talk in P:E ratios predicted. These guys have been saying employment and housing won't rebound until Q2 2010. I believe consumer debt will be the key leading indicator. If you mean greater than any politician publicly admitted, than say that.

I didn't blame Obama. I keep saying the government has little influence and the dates don't seem to me to correlate to parties or any budgetary legislation. I don't buy theories that the government can spend or borrow our way out of recessions or depressions. As Oludub has pointed out before, Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and unemployment didn't dip below 15% until we were at war in 1941. You hope to be out of this in 2017? I'm hoping to triple my 401k by then.

[Omaha]

As a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist, I am hoping for a “jobless recovery� where employers are able to get more people “to do more with less.� If productivity increases per worker, that means there are more potential profits for the rich and well born to live off of.

An improved stock market doesn’t always have to rely on job creation in the U.S. I mean the export of those “high priced� union jobs overseas was a boon for the stock market. It also gave U.S. employers leverage over the employees and potential employees who remained. Want to keep jobs in the U.S.? Take a wage cut. That way, GREEDY unions and not short-term, profit-maximizing, greed-driven management can be blamed for the jobs that leave this country.

Some slick talking liberal may say that if workers don’t make enough money to consume, the major diver of our economic growth [[consumer spending) will shrink and the nation will never get out of the recession. That’s the kind of crazy talk that FDR engaged in:

“It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer, and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions because the best customer of American Industry is the well-paid worker.�

It’s the damn well-paid worker who drives down the rate of short-term greed-driven profits for owners of publicly sold companies. How can anything that is good for workers wages help short term profits that the rich and well born need? It’s impossible.

Other slick talking Keynesians might say if [[a) consumer spending [[because of low wages and rising unemployment) is down, and [[b) business spending [[because of low consumer spending) is down;that only leaves [[c) the government to borrow and spend to try to stimulate the economy. What a load of manure! Increasing employment levels and consumer spending due to government borrowing and investing in the economy is a horrible idea.

Social Darwinists believe that we should just let the entire economy suffer until the “invisible hand of God� that Adam Smith spoke of in his "The Wealth of Nations" fixes everything. No need for any human intervention unless it makes people in the U.S. willing to work for the kind of wages that can be found overseas.

Let the Supreme Being take care of it all. After all, the more we suffer on earth, the greater our reward in Heaven.

Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis [[and owner of a Christian book store) was speaking about why she favors limited safety net expenditures by her state, but her sentiment is very real and quite powerful. Here comment that “hunger can be a powerful motivator� should never be forgotten by DY conservatives and should be more greatly appreciated by those liberals who post on this site.

Not everyone can become an owner. Over 90 percent of the workforce sells their intelligence, experience, and strength to employers to earn a living. More of them need to sell their labor for less so this nation can once again become competitive in a world market that functions on the short term maximization of profit.

If the side effect is a lower standard of living, poorer communities, greater suffering…so what? The rich and well born will get theirs, and that is all a Social Darwinist cares about. If anyone is able to arise from the “huddled masses;� good for them. But let’s not let the government help them in any way. That way lies socialism. Let me join Cynthia Davis and call for an end to all government safety nets now.

[ccbatson]

Not worse than history and recollection of FDR would have predicted, not by a long shot.

[Omaha]

Oh, good!?! Yet another nonsensical pearl from hizzoner, the humorless "pen" of a peculiarly twisted branch of "Randian Conservatism." Did the most prolific DY poster write another "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah?" My Gosh, I'm afraid s/he has. Alas, another worthless piece of trite but inane insight has been added to the already stinking pile.

The unfortunate reality is in his/her mind, this pithy comment will just feed the egomaniac and lead to additional posts worth exactly as much as the last one. Oh, how I pine for yet another Colbert Conservative.

[lilpup]

If the side effect is a lower standard of living, poorer communities, greater suffering…so what? The rich and well born will get theirs, and that is all a Social Darwinist cares about. If anyone is able to arise from the “huddled masses;� good for them. But let’s not let the government help them in any way. That way lies socialism. Let me join Cynthia Davis and call for an end to all government safety nets now.

That's OK. I have a gun. I even have a few bullets!

I may need to sell it next week to get my car fixed, though. On the plus side I read that that gun manufacturer's products are back-ordered until 2010 so I should be able to get a decent price.

[mjs]

Omaha, I meant that production numbers will recover when consumer debt reverses its downward trend. Right now, people still feel over extended and are holding back on spending until they can get to more manageable debt levels.

At first, the employers will bring their workers from doing 35 hours a week of busy work to doing 50 hours a week of as needed work as they wait to see if its real and sustainable. After a few months, they will see that it is, their inventories will diminish, their debts will be reduced, and their workers will want their vacation times. Then they will start hiring again and as they do so, the new workers will see checks for the first time in a while and the workers that weren't layed off will see their OT checks and they'll all start making up for lost time at the malls.

Maybe Buffet is right that a second stimulus can start that, but he's talking an entirely different form of stimulus. DC talks of spending stimulus on goods with high material costs and he talks of buying goods with high labor costs. How many jobs did the bank bailout create? If the health care professions weren't already undermanned, maybe universal haelth care could stimulate jobs.

Obama keeps saying its going to take time, as much as two years. I say we'll start a recovery in the first half of next year with or without stimulus packages so its just more unneccessary deficit spending that will hurt our long term interests.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8039651&page=1
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...s_N.htm?csp=34
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Consum....html?x=0&.v=5
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KG10Dj02.html

[East Detroit]

Omaha, great post.

[ccbatson]

True recovery will not happen until capitalism is restored [[after Obama).

[mjs]

Like the true recovery that happened the last time your version of capitalism was restored [[after Clinton)?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I'm not sure what these trends correlate to, but they seem to say the trillions in stimulus, bailouts, and pork barreling isn't working yet. But, in fairness, Obama said today he doesn't expect to see it change before we get September's data. "

You need a graph to determine that?

I'd bet about anything, When September rolls around it's going to be the same story. The issues that caused it, remain. Outsourcing, loss of manufacturing. But, according to Obama, if we can get the banks in shape and people can borrow with reckless abandoned again, we should be ok.

[ccbatson]

Largely true MJS. However, GWB made the mistake of spending and expanding government which is an anticapitalist approach.

[mjs]

Well, I wasn't alive the last time time that didn't happen under a Republican administration. Who was the last Republican to decrease spending? Even Reagan increased spending as a percent of GDP. Its not just there in black and white, but in color no less.

The Republicans have tricked you into thinking they support John Galt when they actually support James Taggert. And you think liberals are guillable for falling for some of the false promises of the Democrats. I'll take tax and spend Democrats over borrow and spend Republicans any day and if we can't have a party that cuts spending, I'll take the party that spends on the sick and the environment over the party that spends on the bankers and the mass killings.

[ccbatson]

A good point...hopefully, the next time will be much better.

[oladub]

I'll take the party that spends on the sick and the environment over the party that spends on the bankers and the mass killings.

Republicans are highly over rated as fiscal conservatives or otherwise supporting limited government. However, I must have missed something. Which party doesn't spend on the bankers and the mass killings and whose money is being spent when government operates in the red?

[mjs]

Good points Oladub. I stand corrected. I poorly stated my frustration of once being a Republican and now not having been able to bring myself to vote for the Republican Presidential candidate two times in a row. How I pray for any viable third party as both current parties profess the high ground while rolling around with their opponents in the slop in the low ground.

I know they know what's right because they know enough to lie about doing it. I just don't understand how people can keep ignoring the man behind the curtain while Toto snips at his heels.

[ccbatson]

Spend on the sick? destroying the health care system, taxing the public to pay for breaking it, and then rationing care and restricting choice.