nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The US unemployment rate is plummeting (now 6.6%!)

SharpshooterTom

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/07/us-economy-jobs-unemployment-rate

Ok lets get the bad news out the way, it was another poor jobs report for the US with only 113,000 jobs (expected to be 200,000, and the US would require that keep up with the pace of the population), the month before proved to only add an even more dismal 75,000 jobs.

Regardless the Unemployment rate in America is plummenting very fast. In decemeber it was 7%, then it declined sharply to 6.7% (by only adding 75,000 jobs?

) and today it has fallen to 6.6%. In all its fallen nearly 1.5% over the past year alone.

However the participation rate in the labor force is at its lowest since 1978. A shocking 62.8%. For example 347,000 people left the labor force in the month of december alone (if you give up looking for work you are not counted in the Unemployment statistics).

Regardless most ordinary Americans don't understand what the participation rate is, all they will see is the unemployment rate falling, which good news for the democrats for this years mid terms and thus should be shoo in.

If this keeps up Obama will go down as this generations FDR without a doubt. Mount rushmore beckons lol, if he can get the unemployment rate down to something like 3% (because thats the rate at which it is going by the time his term ends!), he'll probably go down as America's greatest president ever!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nagilum2

snubbleste wrote: »

Where did all the unemployed go? Sure once your benefits are exhausted you are no longer a statistic..

In 1994, to juice the figures, politicians in the US defined out of existence anyone who has been unemployed more than 12 months. Without that, the figure is more than 20%. This is part of the reason why US unemployment always *looks* so much better than unemployment in European countries. Don't believe the lies.

See here: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Gbear

If Obama wasn't a black, charismatic, democrat, who said nice things about us and drank some of our Guinness he'd be seen as the spawn of Satan.

People would be going utterly ape**** if the NSA thing came out while Bush was in office.

It's ridiculous the lengths that people go to to side against the Republicans.

They (justifiably) get stick because of the demented christian element that's utterly terrifying for a western democracy to have.
That doesn't mean that the democrats aren't an awful shower as well.

enfant terrible

Duck Soup wrote: »

I think Daily Show - and Colbert Report - viewers are well aware that the show is satire. They also know when Stewart's ripping someone a fresh one, even with a smile and a few jokes thrown in. What I like about Stewart is he doesn't aim for false equivalence - the "they're all as bad as each other" argument. They're not.

As he says himself, he's not party loyal - Stewart takes aim at stupidity from whatever quarter it comes. It's just that the clown car that's the modern Republican party just keeps delivering teh stupit. It's also worrying that in one survey Fox viewers were found to be less knowledgeable about current affairs than people who watch no news at all.

What's more worrying is that there's a sizeable section of the GOP that would rather crash the national economy into a wall than see Obama succeed in any regard. Obama's already let them know via the State of the Union address - and noticeably his spokespeople all repeat the same line - that if the Congress is going to continue to try to stall every bill and initiative, he'll get things done by executive order.

The problem for the Republicans is that they are held in such contempt as a brand, that circumventing idiots such as Cruz, Bachmann, Boehner, McConnell etc could prove to be very, very popular. Things that need to be done get done, the blockers become an irrelevance.

That's funny I always remember reading conservatives are always at least equal or more informed than the national average.

"On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart accepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, "I defer to (PolitiFact's) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

Hannity and O'Reilly's Viewers Better Informed Than Daily Show's

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/26/chris-wallace-strikes-back-jon-stewart-hannity-and-oreillys-viewers-b

crockholm

enfant terrible wrote: »

Ya John Stewart's opinion of Republicans is about as useful as Sean Hannitiy's opinion of Democrats.

Exactly,but where one of them is veiwed as an an extreme demagogue and the other as a witty conversationalist even though they both share the same intransigence,is baffling.

nagilum2

Gbear wrote: »

If Obama wasn't a black, charismatic, democrat, who said nice things about us and drank some of our Guinness he'd be seen as the spawn of Satan.

People would be going utterly ape**** if the NSA thing came out while Bush was in office.

It's ridiculous the lengths that people go to to side against the Republicans.

They (justifiably) get stick because of the demented christian element that's utterly terrifying for a western democracy to have.
That doesn't mean that the democrats aren't an awful shower as well.

Indeed, a wolf in sheep's clothing is far more dangerous than a wolf in wolf's clothing.

MonaPizza

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/07/us-economy-jobs-unemployment-rate

Ok lets get the bad news out the way, it was another poor jobs report for the US with only 113,000 jobs (expected to be 200,000, and the US would require that keep up with the pace of the population), the month before proved to only add an even more dismal 75,000 jobs.

Regardless the Unemployment rate in America is plummenting very fast. In decemeber it was 7%, then it declined sharply to 6.7% (by only adding 75,000 jobs? ) and today it has fallen to 6.6%. In all its fallen nearly 1.5% over the past year alone.

However the participation rate in the labor force is at its lowest since 1978. A shocking 62.8%. For example 347,000 people left the labor force in the month of december alone (if you give up looking for work you are not counted in the Unemployment statistics).

Regardless most ordinary Americans don't understand what the participation rate is, all they will see is the unemployment rate falling, which good news for the democrats for this years mid terms and thus should be shoo in.

If this keeps up Obama will go down as this generations FDR without a doubt. Mount rushmore beckons lol, if he can get the unemployment rate down to something like 3% (because thats the rate at which it is going by the time his term ends!), he'll probably go down as America's greatest president ever!

The real rate of unemployment in the US is somewhere near the 17 to 18% level. That 6 or 7% figure is a complete farce. It doesn't take into account those who've given up looking for a job or those who are underemployed, i.e. are in part-time work but are looking for fulltime. That coupled with the fact that jobs in fast food joints have been reclassified as "manufacturing jobs" :pac: and you can see just how much of a joke the employment figures are.

sawdoubters

not the real rate

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/07/05/why-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-higher-than-you-think/

Duck Soup

crockholm wrote: »

And you can choose to Believe that if you wish or you can actually critically look at any interveiw he has done over the last 10 years,those whom he shares a common ideology with are given a free ride- just shootin the breez don't ya know.

Or if it is an opponent to what he Believes in, Watch the serious journalist come out in him (bear in mind he also edits his own show)

Or the few times when he gets bested,he uses the next show to make a Point(soapboxing) relevant to the previous show,without the right to reply from his opponent of course

I have no doubt which way Stewart votes - I just happen to think his analysis is right. Krugman and the Keynesians have been proved right. Here's a shocker, a stimulus stimulates the economy. A bigger stimulus would have stimulated the economy more. From the New Deal onwards, we've known what's worked and we now know what doesn't. No major economy has ever cut its way out of a depression and none has this time.

Rather than acknowledge a busted flush, those on the right have tried to double down on a mantra that's been proved not to work.

What's been sad to watch is the Republican party in the midst of all this. Rather than use this - as historically has usually been the case - as a time to rebuild and to put people back into work, the Republicans have set an unapologetic agenda of making Obama a one-term president, of never agreeing to bi-partisan measures.

That one of the biggest, proudest and oldest political parties in the world would rather see their own country go down in flames than see their elected president succeed is quite one of the more insane spectacles of the modern era. Against that background, Obama's done all that he can do and isn't finished yet.

nagilum2

Duck Soup wrote: »

I have no doubt which way Stewart votes - I just happen to think his analysis is right. Krugman and the Keynesians have been proved right. Here's a shocker, a stimulus stimulates the economy. A bigger stimulus would have stimulated the economy more. From the New Deal onwards, we've known what's worked and we now know what doesn't. No major economy has ever cut its way out of a depression and none has this time.

Paul Krugman orders a pizza. Guy asks if he wants it cut into 6 or 8 slices. Krugman says, '8 please. I'm very hungry today.

Filibuster

There is 47million Americans on Food Stamps under Obama, more than any other administration.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Keynes was not proved right because his policy was not applied in the US. Read the damn book.

Hande hoche!

nagilum2 wrote: »

Paul Krugman orders a pizza. Guy asks if he wants it cut into 6 or 8 slices. Krugman says, '8 please. I'm very hungry today.

Every time I see Krugman I immediately think of his cat.

gugleguy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Every time I see Krugman I immediately think of his cat.

easier to pronounce than Shroedinger

lightspeed

OP you seem to be arrogantly ignoring how high Americas debit has risen under Obama.

http://www.dw.de/us-debt-ceiling-reloaded/a-17416871

http://rt.com/usa/us-debt-record-default-obama-412/

It all seems like one big Ponzi scheme. How can they keep spending and continue to rake up more debt with defaulting eventually.

Jobs have improved in the short term due to some stimulus but that is the result of borrowed money.

The same could be said about Bertie Ahern when he was Taoiseach, remember banks lent all that money, and it was pumped into construction and created lots of jobs? How well did that work out?

Duck Soup

nagilum2 wrote: »

Paul Krugman orders a pizza. Guy asks if he wants it cut into 6 or 8 slices. Krugman says, '8 please. I'm very hungry today.

AA man gets called out to a car that's stalled and won't move. The problem, says the AA man, is that the car has no fuel. It needs fuel. "Ha" says the driver "Throw out all the passengers and then the car will no fuel will start."

KyussBishop

Duck Soup wrote: »

I have no doubt which way Stewart votes - I just happen to think his analysis is right. Krugman and the Keynesians have been proved right. Here's a shocker, a stimulus stimulates the economy. A bigger stimulus would have stimulated the economy more. From the New Deal onwards, we've known what's worked and we now know what doesn't. No major economy has ever cut its way out of a depression and none has this time.

There's a distinction to be made between Keynesians though: Most Keynesians don't actually align closely with Keynes' views at all.
Post-WWII, 'Keynesianism' was based upon the neoclassical-synthesis, which took only part of Keynes views, and mixed them with more traditional/classical microeconomic views.

Despite the misleading name, Keynesianism isn't really faithful to Keynes' full set of views (in this sense, those labelled "Keynesian", are not actually Keynesian

), but Post-Keynesian views follow much more in the spirit of Keynes' work "Keynes's biographer Lord Skidelsky writes that the Post Keynesian school has remained closest to the spirit of Keynes's own work" - and today, the Post-Keynesians are far outside of the (largely Keynesian/neoclassical) mainstream.

The Keynesians are actually wrong about rather a lot of things (including getting macroeconomics fundamentally wrong), and they have led us blind into the current crisis - but the Post-Keynesians (who are more true to Keynes' real views) contain people who actually both predicted and modelled the crisis in advance (particularly Steve Keen), and who are today the leading proponents of fiscal expansion and economic stimulus.

If economics doesn't remain stuck in a stagnant state (virtually nothing has been learned and no reforms taken place, during this crisis, among mainstream/neoclassical economists), it will be the Post-Keynesians who revive the field - they already have pretty much fully outlined the set of solutions needed, for countries to resolve the economic crisis.
Among those solutions, is the proposal many of them make, for a Job Guarantee - which would be like a 21st century 'New Deal', which replaces unemployment (or reduces it to nearly nothing).

Chazz Michael Michaels

The only modern example of Keynesian policy being applied correctly is Chile. They employed fiscally prudent policies during the boom, saved the money, and spent it on fiscal expansion during the recession.

You don't borrow money to conduct fiscal expansion. Keynes would kick you up the hole for that.

KyussBishop

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

The only modern example of Keynesian policy being applied correctly is Chile. They employed fiscally prudent policies during the boom, saved the money, and spent it on fiscal expansion during the recession.

You don't borrow money to conduct fiscal expansion. Keynes would kick you up the hole for that.

Yet even that is an outdated view from Keynes

He based that reasoning on the gold standard, but now with fiat money it is not necessary to go into surplus or use debt before going into deficit; if a country has control over its own currency, it is not limited by cash reserves or debt, it is limited in spending by full employment and inflation targets.

Keynes did not appear to understand endogenous money (at least, not until very late into his career), and by extension, did not understand the monetary system properly - this is what the Post-Keynesians have now contributed to economics (hence the Post in Post-Keynesian), they have rewritten economics with a correct description of how the monetary system works - and it upends most peoples understanding of economics (which are based on failed mainstream/neoclassical views).

It's actually critical that economists get that right: When you get the monetary system wrong, you also misunderstand how banks, money and debt work - that's why mainstream economists today, didn't see how the mountain of private debt building up in the housing bubble, would cause a crisis - they simply ignore it in their theories/models.
That's also how (armed with a correct description of the monetary system) Post-Keynesians like Steve Keen, saw the massive buildup in private debt, and modelled how it would cause a crisis, well in advance of the crisis happening.

bnt

lightspeed wrote: »

OP you seem to be arrogantly ignoring how high Americas debit has risen under Obama.

http://www.dw.de/us-debt-ceiling-reloaded/a-17416871

Did you read the article to which you linked?

"Debt is only one aspect of an overall financial situation. If a country has good growth prospects, debt is not an issue. It's expenditure," he told DW.

Debt is a financial tool. It has its uses and misuses. It's not always the right thing to have, but neither is it always a bad thing.

You can use debt as a way of growing a business to make money, which is great if it works: you can pay it back later. Meanwhile, debt has to be serviced i.e. you pay interest on it. How much of a problem that is depends on the interest rate - and interest rates are currently about as low as they're likely to get, with no sign of going up e.g. the European Central Bank kept their benchmark rate at 0.25% last week.

In short - when I hear someone banging on about debt alone, without looking at the wider context, I roll my eyes. If anything's going to torpedo the USA's finances in the long terms, it's "Entitlements" such as Medicare and Social Security. Not "Obamacare" (which shouldn't have his name on it, since it isn't anything like what he wanted). And definitely not "the Debt".

So how do you lower the costs of those Entitlements? Well, we know healthcare costs in the USA are already insane, and there are already moves underway on that front. As for Social Security: do you cut people off, or get them off it by helping them back to work? Well, people without money can't take part in the regular economy at all: without them, who's going to buy all those US-made products and services, then?

This is what the Stimulus was supposed to do. So why hasn't it worked? Say what you like about Krugman, but I think he got this one right: it was too little, too late.