Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New Jobs report: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%. November's Jobs report: Mitt Romney still unemployed   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Mitt Romney, Alan Krueger, a.m. ET, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment  
•       •       •

1208 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



714 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-07 10:15:16 AM  

lh5.googleusercontent.com

 
2012-09-07 10:15:18 AM  
Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.
 
2012-09-07 10:16:06 AM  
 
2012-09-07 10:23:21 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


What "total failure" Looks like-

my.barackobama.com
 
2012-09-07 10:25:29 AM  
Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.
 
2012-09-07 10:28:39 AM  
So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.
 
2012-09-07 10:33:34 AM  

adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.



It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...
 
2012-09-07 10:36:49 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.
 
2012-09-07 10:38:07 AM  

Dinki: It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...


No, everything was rosy with the economy until January 20, 2009. That was when the bottom fell out.
 
2012-09-07 10:46:08 AM  

GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.


It's a false growth though.
 
2012-09-07 10:47:41 AM  
Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?
 
2012-09-07 10:50:35 AM  

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


Is that why the U-6 fell from 15% to 14.7%? Isn't that the "real" number and it fell even more than the U-3?
 
2012-09-07 11:06:11 AM  

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


Do you think most people know and/or care? They just look at the number reported.
 
2012-09-07 11:11:46 AM  

Average monthly job growth in 2012: +139,000. 2011: +153,000. 2010: +86,000. 2009: -422,000. 2008: -300,000. 2007: +92,000. 2006: +172,000

- Sudeep Reddy (@Reddy) September 7, 2012
 
2012-09-07 11:13:19 AM  
Really? We're switching threads because the mods changed their minds on a headline? We had discussed in the other green thread going on.

Lame.
 
2012-09-07 11:13:30 AM  
ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.
 
2012-09-07 11:13:59 AM  

wxboy: ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.

Do you think most people know and/or care? They just look at the number reported.


It's him moving the goalposts because the number critics are shooting for is not in their favor.
 
2012-09-07 11:14:25 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?


The trickle down won't kick in until all abortions are illegal, creationism is taught in our schools, and only white landowners can vote.
 
2012-09-07 11:14:48 AM  

DamnYankees: Really? We're switching threads because the mods changed their minds on a headline? We had discussed in the other green thread going on.

Lame.


I don't know what the fark they're on lately.
 
2012-09-07 11:14:54 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


So, you're saying the money isn't trickling down?
 
2012-09-07 11:15:45 AM  
This headline makes be less angry than the last one. I normally don't approve of killing a thread with 30+ posts but I will make an exception in this case.
 
2012-09-07 11:16:35 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


You should be happy for all those people who retired. How do explain the U6 also dropping BTW.
 
2012-09-07 11:16:48 AM  

ghare: So, you're saying the money isn't trickling down?


He's saying that it's a damn shame that children aren't working.
 
2012-09-07 11:16:56 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


But the unemployment percentage is DOWN. That's all that matters.

All those other silly numbers just confuse the sheep.
 
2012-09-07 11:17:29 AM  

sprawl15: ghare: So, you're saying the money isn't trickling down?

He's saying that it's a damn shame that children aren't working.



And the elderly don't forget the elderly.
 
2012-09-07 11:17:37 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.


Spin it however you want. All economic indicators point to it getting better. We (The USA) are in a better place than last year economically.
 
2012-09-07 11:17:44 AM  

ferretman: .with 368,000 people who dropped out


Ever heard of retirement?
 
2012-09-07 11:17:48 AM  
This is not a good report. Expectations were much higher and now pressure is being applied to the Fed to take some action.
 
2012-09-07 11:17:55 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.


retirees perhaps? If what you say is true (spoiler, it isn't) how do you explain the drop in the U6 also?
 
2012-09-07 11:18:47 AM  

Cletus C.: pressure is being applied to the Fed to take some action.


Perhaps we can apply some pressure to the private sector.
 
2012-09-07 11:18:48 AM  

Cletus C.: This is not a good report. Expectations were much higher and now pressure is being applied to the Fed to take some action.


Frankly, applying pressure to the Fed is a good thing.
 
2012-09-07 11:18:51 AM  

Cletus C.: and now pressure is being applied to the Fed to take some action.


Bueno.
 
2012-09-07 11:18:57 AM  

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


While the U6 metric is a meatier number than the official U3, U6 still declined by 0.3%. How is that false growth in employment?
 
2012-09-07 11:19:21 AM  

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


Because it conflicts with what you would have preferred seeing?
 
2012-09-07 11:19:26 AM  

adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


The "real" number? All countries use U3 as the standard metric.

U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-07 11:19:49 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Average monthly job growth in 2012: +139,000. 2011: +153,000. 2010: +86,000. 2009: -422,000. 2008: -300,000. 2007: +92,000. 2006: +172,000- Sudeep Reddy (@Reddy) September 7, 2012


That's...not bad. The report could've been better but it's not bad. Maybe I'm broadcasting my ignorance, but in all the handwringing about people who leave the workforce I've never been able to figure out if they make a difference between those who leave the workforce via layoffs/firings and those who do so voluntarily (retirement, seasonal and such). A little help?
 
2012-09-07 11:19:50 AM  

ferretman: and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


If we bring back child labor that number will certainly decrease.
 
2012-09-07 11:20:03 AM  

bmongar: sprawl15: ghare: So, you're saying the money isn't trickling down?

He's saying that it's a damn shame that children aren't working.


And the elderly don't forget the elderly.


Nope, the elderly should just die already.
 
2012-09-07 11:20:44 AM  

GAT_00: ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.

Is that why the U-6 fell from 15% to 14.7%? Isn't that the "real" number and it fell even more than the U-3?


Is the a U7 that includes children and lazy old people? I bet you anything their jobless rate increased.
 
2012-09-07 11:20:59 AM  

impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.


Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?
 
2012-09-07 11:21:46 AM  
if only more of you idiots would have given up on finding a job, the rate might have dropped below 8.

c'mon now. get busy and give up for obama!
 
2012-09-07 11:22:14 AM  
Rick Santelli over at CNBC sounds like he's going to have a stroke.

He's red faced and screaming that this is part of some conspiracy to report a 7.9 number before the election.
 
2012-09-07 11:22:17 AM  
Via Romney: "We aren't better off than they were four years ago. My plan for a stronger middle class will create 12 million new jobs by the end of my first term. America deserves new leadership that will get our economy moving again."

Has he told anyone that plan, other than "tax cuts"?
 
2012-09-07 11:22:49 AM  

sweetmelissa31: If we bring back child labor that number will certainly decrease.



4.bp.blogspot.com


That coal ain't gonna mine itself.
 
2012-09-07 11:22:51 AM  
Looking good:

www.electoral-vote.com
 
2012-09-07 11:23:05 AM  

impaler: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

The "real" number? All countries use U3 as the standard metric.

U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


img855.imageshack.us

FTFY
 
2012-09-07 11:23:13 AM  

wxboy: ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.

Do you think most people know and/or care? They just look at the number reported.


It depends on if the people you know are looking for jobs, or if the people you know don't have anything to worry about. People looking for jobs aren't going to be impressed. People who don't have to worry about money or the rent will probably do the most positive spin?
 
2012-09-07 11:23:15 AM  

WhyteRaven74: ferretman: .with 368,000 people who dropped out

Ever heard of retirement?


With both the U3 and U6 dropping, is it fair to guess that, as a result of so many businesses getting business back and the stock market taking off, we're seeing a wave of people who had previously been delaying retirement who are now again able?

Probably not all 368k, but significantly enough?

// and what's the "underemployment" measure?
 
2012-09-07 11:23:23 AM  

ferretman: It's a false growth though.


It was a false drop in the Bush admin, right?
 
2012-09-07 11:23:30 AM  
School also just started. Someone pointed out that a big majority of those that stop looking for work is highschool/undergrad age bracket.
 
2012-09-07 11:23:34 AM  

colon_pow: if only more of you idiots would have given up on finding a job, the rate might have dropped below 8.

c'mon now. get busy and give up for obama!


You sound concerned, want a tax cut?

/my new catchphrase
/trademarked
/copyrighted
 
2012-09-07 11:23:34 AM  
96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.
 
2012-09-07 11:23:43 AM  

NateGrey: Looking good:

[www.electoral-vote.com image 375x120]


It's a very tenuous lead. A 2 point flip turns, like, 5 states.
 
2012-09-07 11:23:48 AM  

sprawl15: bmongar: sprawl15: ghare: So, you're saying the money isn't trickling down?

He's saying that it's a damn shame that children aren't working.


And the elderly don't forget the elderly.

Nope, the elderly should just die already.


Well, we can all agree on that.
 
2012-09-07 11:24:03 AM  

adiabat: Good news is the U-6 is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-07 11:24:11 AM  

ferretman: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

It's a false growth though.


You need to post those shadow stats written by that fictional character from Fight Club. Those are always very convincing.
 
2012-09-07 11:24:12 AM  

colon_pow: if only more of you idiots would have given up on finding a job, the rate might have dropped below 8.

c'mon now. get busy and give up for obama!

www.usefulidiots.net

i959.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-07 11:24:20 AM  

adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It helps that Clinton gave Bush a 4.2% U3 rate to start with.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase
 
2012-09-07 11:24:45 AM  

DamnYankees: impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.

Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?


The meaning of U3 and U6 is pretty straightforward. They're often closely correlated because of the nature of the two numbers.
 
2012-09-07 11:24:52 AM  

BritneysSpeculum: sweetmelissa31: If we bring back child labor that number will certainly decrease.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 568x720]

That coal ain't gonna mine itself.


What is that kid lounging around for, posing for a picture? If he doesn't work harder he will never grow up to be a millionaire.
 
2012-09-07 11:25:38 AM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.

Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?

The meaning of U3 and U6 is pretty straightforward. They're often closely correlated because of the nature of the two numbers.


That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.
 
2012-09-07 11:26:31 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Probably not all 368k, but significantly enough?


Well just consider the oldest baby boomers are 66 or turning 66 this year. If we take 65 as a standard that means there are are already a ton of people who either have retired or will soon retire.
 
2012-09-07 11:26:33 AM  
Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.

We care too much about raw numbers, not nearly enough about what is behind those raw numbers. The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy. On the other hand, the government could lay off a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as huge job losses on these reports, but that would actually be good for the economy.

Or we can just use this number as another score in the eternal left vs right football game.
 
2012-09-07 11:26:38 AM  

colon_pow: if only more of you idiots would have given up on finding a job, the rate might have dropped below 8.

c'mon now. get busy and give up for obama!


Didn't you hear Obama's new SSI offer? For a limited time only, you can retire as early as 55 and still get full Social Security and Medicare benefits!

/ACT NOW! offer expires soon!
//payments only guaranteed until U.S.A. Inc. goes bankrupt
 
2012-09-07 11:26:41 AM  

ferretman: Jobs growth cools in August, seen forcing Fed's hand


The jobless rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, but progress reducing it stalled this year, threatening Obama's bid for a second term. An online Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday gave Republican Challenger Mitt Romney a 1-point edge on Obama, 45 percent to 44 percent.

I like this part of her analysis of the U3. If you think this person is providing an unbiased analysis, you are a fool.
 
2012-09-07 11:27:10 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.

Spin it however you want. All economic indicators point to it getting better. We (The USA) are in a better place than last year economically.


encrypted-tbn1.google.com
"They're waiting for you"
 
2012-09-07 11:27:21 AM  

MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.


I don't believe it would be, actually.
 
2012-09-07 11:27:44 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


WHAR JOBS BILL BOEHNER WHAR?
 
2012-09-07 11:27:53 AM  

jj325: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?

The trickle down won't kick in until all abortions are illegal, creationism is taught in our schools, and only white landowners can vote.


Always an open minded dem to drop the race card first. 1/10 for getting me to reply, troll.
 
2012-09-07 11:27:59 AM  

MattStafford: but that would actually be good for the economy.


No, it would be bad for the economy.
 
2012-09-07 11:28:39 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


It doesn't matter. The only number that will get any play is the 8.1.
 
2012-09-07 11:28:57 AM  

sprawl15: impaler: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

The "real" number? All countries use U3 as the standard metric.

U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

[img855.imageshack.us image 630x378]

FTFY


That's a good chart. It's improved, and it hasn't moved in the opposite direction which would be a true disaster.... but the numbers have always been less than reliable, given the number of people who have stopped looking, are living off college loans/grants/family gifts, aren't reporting to their state unemployment office in spite of looking because they're 99ers, are 'involuntarily self-employed' and/or working under the table.

It's improved, but there's still a hell of a lot more work to be done to reassign people in a globally competitive environment.
 
2012-09-07 11:29:04 AM  

impaler: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


It's like when you're playing Catchphrase, and the person before you takes 45 seconds to get the word "boat", and then throws it to you right as the buzzer sounds. I mean, yea, you lost that round, but come on!

Or is that just me?
 
2012-09-07 11:29:10 AM  
Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs
 
2012-09-07 11:29:41 AM  

DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.


Well, it's specific because it was calculated using historical info. On average, it's about 1.74 times larger. But it has nothing to do with how either number is put together; there's no causal element involved. It's just a coincidence, one that happens to undermine the opportunistic nature of some people to switch from U3 to U6 numbers when their argument isn't going well. "The numbers may have gone down, but there's this U6 number that's BIGGER!!" Well, it went down in the same proportion.
 
2012-09-07 11:29:52 AM  
research.stlouisfed.org
Hmm, notice how things went to shiat with the election of the 2010 GOP House and additional GOP in the Senate...
 
2012-09-07 11:30:09 AM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.

Well, it's specific because it was calculated using historical info. On average, it's about 1.74 times larger. But it has nothing to do with how either number is put together; there's no causal element involved. It's just a coincidence, one that happens to undermine the opportunistic nature of some people to switch from U3 to U6 numbers when their argument isn't going well. "The numbers may have gone down, but there's this U6 number that's BIGGER!!" Well, it went down in the same proportion.


Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the info.
 
2012-09-07 11:30:41 AM  

skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs


Liters. How stupid.
 
2012-09-07 11:30:41 AM  

DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.


Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?

No matter the economy, for ever 10 unemployed, there are 7 extra marginally attached workers. This ratio changes very little.
 
2012-09-07 11:31:21 AM  

impaler: Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?


...there isn't?
 
2012-09-07 11:31:25 AM  

Masso: School also just started. Someone pointed out that a big majority of those that stop looking for work is highschool/undergrad age bracket.


I would think that things like that would be removed from their numbers, remember they're always reported as 'seasonally adjusted', the goal of which is to remove normal seasonal fluctuations like holiday season hiring from the reported figures. I would be very surprised if whatever impact school starting/ending has on employment is not part of the seasonal adjustment.
 
2012-09-07 11:31:32 AM  

hbk72777: JusticeandIndependence: Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.

Spin it however you want. All economic indicators point to it getting better. We (The USA) are in a better place than last year economically.

[encrypted-tbn1.google.com image 276x182]
"They're waiting for you"


Are you suggesting that we are in worse shape than last year?
 
2012-09-07 11:31:50 AM  

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added


the people who have the jobs probably care...
 
2012-09-07 11:32:28 AM  

Dr Dreidel: WhyteRaven74: ferretman: .with 368,000 people who dropped out

Ever heard of retirement?

With both the U3 and U6 dropping, is it fair to guess that, as a result of so many businesses getting business back and the stock market taking off, we're seeing a wave of people who had previously been delaying retirement who are now again able?

Probably not all 368k, but significantly enough?

// and what's the "underemployment" measure?


"Underemployment" is like me, who should be a free safety in the NFL but instead has to do whatever it is I've been doing for the last 20 years while I wait for Clark Hunt to answer my emails.
 
2012-09-07 11:32:35 AM  

NateGrey: ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.


People giving up and dropping out of the workforce isn't bad?
 
2012-09-07 11:32:43 AM  

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.

We care too much about raw numbers, not nearly enough about what is behind those raw numbers. The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy. On the other hand, the government could lay off a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as huge job losses on these reports, but that would actually be good for the economy.

Or we can just use this number as another score in the eternal left vs right football game.


using ditch diggers is a bad example. ditch diggers actually 'produce' something.
should have used 'middle managers' instead?
or 'government jobs'. because what happens when the only reliable employment .. is through the government?
 
2012-09-07 11:32:46 AM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.


Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.
 
2012-09-07 11:32:46 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.
 
2012-09-07 11:32:55 AM  

urban.derelict: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 320x240]


thank you kindly, sir

/subby
//btw, how much did farkers personally invest in the Obama campaign in the last 24 hrs?
///I think I tallied up at least $100 just from my TF gifting
 
2012-09-07 11:33:20 AM  

LucklessWonder: Politics has gotten so divisive. Let me post something that will help the healing of this country, whether you are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Fascist or Communist. Behold, the healing power of.... [www.989thedrive.com image 500x569]


I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient. More is required.
 
2012-09-07 11:34:00 AM  

DamnYankees: Really? We're switching threads because the mods changed their minds on a headline? We had discussed in the other green thread going on.

Lame.


I take it you had a vested interest in the other thread? Subby, perhaps?
 
2012-09-07 11:34:02 AM  

WhyteRaven74: MattStafford: but that would actually be good for the economy.

No, it would be bad for the economy.


No, it would be good for the economy. Stopping paying people who do absolutely nothing frees up capital to be used in a productive manner.
 
2012-09-07 11:34:10 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.
 
2012-09-07 11:34:17 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Low taxes, stock market at a record high, record corporate profits... how's that trickle down thing working for you guys?


It's working great. Look at all my big, fat bags of money. And my yacht. And my personal physician. And my private security force that protects my giant house in the middle of my big gated community. Look at the senator I bought and the election I'm stealing. Look at my plane. Look at my 20 year-old wife with the silicon jugs. I'm doing great. Have a crum, peasant. It's tricklin' down, muthaf*cka!
 
2012-09-07 11:34:35 AM  

theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.


Exactly. It was a crappy jobs report. Not disasterous, but lousy.
 
2012-09-07 11:35:09 AM  

MattStafford: Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy.


Yes, we could use that boost. Those works would have more money to spend, and given they are unemployed, the multiplier would likely be very large. The fact that they are digging ditches is irrelevant - I'd be happy to just give them the money for doing nothing, but if you want to make them dig ditches, whatever.

MattStafford: It also massively distorts the economy


I dont' know what this means.

MattStafford: What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.


I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.
 
2012-09-07 11:35:44 AM  

somedude210: DamnYankees: Really? We're switching threads because the mods changed their minds on a headline? We had discussed in the other green thread going on.

Lame.

I take it you had a vested interest in the other thread? Subby, perhaps?


Nope, not subby. Just annoyed the conversations died.
 
2012-09-07 11:36:02 AM  
Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...
i376.photobucket.com

and...
i376.photobucket.com

may have something to do with this...
 
2012-09-07 11:36:51 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


It's almost as if a large group of people suddenly hit retirement age. Some sort of seventy year old demographic anomaly, like a baby boom.
 
2012-09-07 11:36:54 AM  

starsrift: LucklessWonder: Politics has gotten so divisive. Let me post something that will help the healing of this country, whether you are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Fascist or Communist. Behold, the healing power of.... [www.989thedrive.com image 500x569]

I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient. More is required.


so tell your congressman to quit filibustering the jobs bill
 
2012-09-07 11:37:08 AM  

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.


the point is that the number of job adds were well below expectations and down from the month prior. While less people looking for work as a result of retirement is good news for those searching for a job, this number is not indicative of the economic growth that was projected. The drop in U6 can also be explained via retirement
 
2012-09-07 11:37:24 AM  
That first one is Labor Force Participation Rate...

/titles damn it, titles!
 
2012-09-07 11:37:28 AM  

Graffito: No, but it's sure beats the 700K 800K jobs lost in a quarter month under the previous administration.

 
2012-09-07 11:38:08 AM  

Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.


it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.
 
2012-09-07 11:38:36 AM  

impaler: DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.

Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?


Pretty sure it's 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius
 
2012-09-07 11:38:58 AM  

coeyagi: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

WHAR JOBS BILL BOEHNER WHAR?


So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.
 
2012-09-07 11:39:16 AM  

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.

the point is that the number of job adds were well below expectations and down from the month prior. While less people looking for work as a result of retirement is good news for those searching for a job, this number is not indicative of the economic growth that was projected. The drop in U6 can also be explained via retirement


So vote Romney, we can get back to losing jobs, and faster!
 
2012-09-07 11:39:29 AM  

Hobodeluxe: so tell your congressman to quit filibustering the jobs bill


Heh!
 
2012-09-07 11:39:38 AM  

turtle553: impaler: DamnYankees: That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.

Why is there 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius?


Pretty sure it's 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for every degree Celsius


Uhhh.... Yeah. I'm an idiot.

/those first 32 degrees don't count?
 
2012-09-07 11:39:44 AM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


wow that's some herpy derp there.
 
2012-09-07 11:39:57 AM  

DamnYankees: I dont' know what this means.


It means he doesn't know how feedback loops work.
 
2012-09-07 11:40:30 AM  

BigBooper: theknuckler_33: 96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

It doesn't matter. The only number that will get any play is the 8.1.


Why? Because the media is totally in the tank for Obama? Most of the articles this morning about the jobs report are scathing, ignoring the context provided in this thread.
 
2012-09-07 11:40:39 AM  

OHDUDENESS: Always an open minded dem to drop the race card first. 1/10 for getting me to reply, troll.


Why do you hate the founding fathers and original US Constitution? What are you, some kind of liberal who's again a man's ability to freely enter into a contract of indentured servitude or the outright ownership of Negroes and Musselmen?
 
2012-09-07 11:40:40 AM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


Just to play along with your example, while those workers get that money from the government they start spending it too thus increasing demand from private businesses like cars, washing machines, TVs, food, etc and once the private sector takes off those government workers can be phased out and switched to private jobs.

But idiots that have no idea that the economy is 98% of the times driven by demand (taking out the goods and services that are inelastic) prentend that government workers get all the money from government but don't spend it at all. This is also why tax cuts to middle class and poor help the economy more than the ones given to the rich because the rich already have the money to satisfy their needs and wants. Giving them extra money will stimulate investment IF there is a good rate of return. Since rates of return are much higher outside of the US for the past 30-40 years, that's where all those tax cuts for the rich went. (And also 22 trillion dollars sitting in offshore accounts).
 
2012-09-07 11:40:46 AM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy.

Yes, we could use that boost. Those works would have more money to spend, and given they are unemployed, the multiplier would likely be very large. The fact that they are digging ditches is irrelevant - I'd be happy to just give them the money for doing nothing, but if you want to make them dig ditches, whatever.

MattStafford: It also massively distorts the economy

I dont' know what this means.

MattStafford: What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.


Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?
 
2012-09-07 11:40:50 AM  

Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

wow that's some herpy derp there.


this jobs report is as bad as the Holocaust and Black Death combined? That's really dumb, Hobo
 
2012-09-07 11:41:01 AM  

mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.


Yea, I only read the headline at first. Just seemed like a big monthly drop to attribute to retirement and going back to school. I'm a realist and positive job growth is always a good thing, it's just that after the ADP report yesterday, expectations, at least for me, were much higher.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled the U3 is down to 8.1. But being a trailing indicator, I tend to look more at the actual jobs numbers and after yesterday, I was hoping for something closer to 200K and I can't help but feel disappointed.

Won't effect my vote though, just thought a nice big 200k number would be a nice shot-in-the-arm to help Obama's campaign keep up the mo.
 
2012-09-07 11:41:02 AM  
i45.tinypic.com

Freepers right now: "MANIPULATED DATA!11!"
 
2012-09-07 11:41:30 AM  

sten: Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...
[i376.photobucket.com image 600x300]

and...
[i376.photobucket.com image 744x503]

may have something to do with this...


But what's wrong with that? Clearing out the old workers so new workers can come up is a good thing. In the place my wife works, there are TONS of boomers and even older workers just hanging out, sucking up benefits and working at 1/10 the pace of everyone else because them computers be confusing, yo. Honestly? I'd rather they move into the retirement phase of life and start clearing up some space for promotion. I'll eat the necessary tax hikes to keep them from starving to death. The colo-rectal and lung cancers and heart disease will get them soon enough anyway. Just like all of us.
 
2012-09-07 11:41:38 AM  

ghare: skullkrusher: mrshowrules: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

I don't completely agree.

96K and the U3 increases to 8.4% (very bad)
96K and the U3 holds at 8.3% (bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.2% (not bad)
96K and the U3 drops to 8.1% and the U6 drops from 15.0% to 14.7% (hopeful/good IMHO)

Obama can't stop people from retiring and people going back to school to re-train/re-skill is not a bad thing.

the point is that the number of job adds were well below expectations and down from the month prior. While less people looking for work as a result of retirement is good news for those searching for a job, this number is not indicative of the economic growth that was projected. The drop in U6 can also be explained via retirement

So vote Romney, we can get back to losing jobs, and faster!


no, this is just a discussion of the jobs report and interpreting the numbers. That's all. Perhaps you should act less childish and learn something?
 
2012-09-07 11:42:18 AM  
Debeo Summa Credo

So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.

Five Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth.
 
2012-09-07 11:42:48 AM  

Red Shirt Blues: So after almost 4 years unemployment 8.1%. The decline in the unemployment rate wasn't because more people had jobs. The number of people employed as measured by the household survey declined by 119,000. The fall came from fewer people looking for work in August and dropping out of the labor force.


Please do explain what President McCain would have done that would have yielded better results. We're all ears.
 
2012-09-07 11:42:54 AM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:28 AM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: DamnYankees: impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74.

Interesting. Why is that? What's the meaning of that number?

The meaning of U3 and U6 is pretty straightforward. They're often closely correlated because of the nature of the two numbers.

That I understand. I'm just curious why its "1.74". Seems oddly specific.


Maybe it's because they figure that for every 100 unemployed persons (counting only those who would otherwise be employed, NOT people who cannot have a job because they're too young/retired/bedridden/too old/ginger/etc), there are about 74 underemployed persons.

Just a guess on my part. Could be wronger than Obama/Romney slashfics, though.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:28 AM  

AcneVulgaris: People giving up and dropping out of the workforce isn't bad?


Not all the people dropping out are giving up, some are retiring, some are giving up because they're going to school.

Debeo Summa Credo: So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault?


Actually it's the private sector's fault, but it doesn't look good for the GOP to be filibustering jobs bills.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:51 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?


The economy?
 
2012-09-07 11:43:53 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: coeyagi: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

WHAR JOBS BILL BOEHNER WHAR?

So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.


It's a combo platter. GOP obstructionism. People retiring or going back to school. And probably some people giving up hope thanks to companies wanting to f*ck over the economy so a president comes in that makes sure they get all the tax breaks in the world.

Yes, in lieu of the right-wing petulant children in power, it's not a great report.
 
2012-09-07 11:43:58 AM  

skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

wow that's some herpy derp there.

this jobs report is as bad as the Holocaust and Black Death combined? That's really dumb, Hobo


I thought you were comparing the irrelevancy of those events to the job losses under Bush as they relate to the unemployment numbers now.
 
2012-09-07 11:44:19 AM  

Dinki: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


I think that's a typo. I got a Fw:Fw:Fw that said it was more like 89 Brazillion
 
2012-09-07 11:44:27 AM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.


which has farkall to do with whether this is a "spiffy" jobs report number
 
2012-09-07 11:44:28 AM  

hugram: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

It helps that Clinton gave Bush a 4.2% U3 rate to start with.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase


those numbers are nice, but what would be even more valuable was if you could post the rate of change in the unemployment in the month when they took office vs. the rate of change at the end. Because just from the numbers you posted it could be that Obama just had slow unemployment growth over 4 years instead of illustrating how it was skyrocketing in the beginning and is slowly lowering now.
 
2012-09-07 11:44:35 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?


Presumably the corporations sitting on record profits and throwing the executives bonus parties instead of hiring more employees.
 
2012-09-07 11:44:39 AM  

DamnYankees: I dont' know what this means.


To use a real world example, think of our military industrial complex. We are employing millions of people directly through defense contracts. Think of all the engineers at Boeing/Lockheed, all of the factory workers building the planes/bombs/whatever, all of the paper pushers at the DoD, all of the actual soldiers. People have been trained for decades to do jobs that are only supported by government debt. These factories build things only demanded by government debt. If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy. These factories are tooled to build things that aren't demanded by the private economy.

Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.

DamnYankees: I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.


Sure, let them spend it on food, consumable, and entertainment. Grocery stores/food production expand, retail stores/manufacturing expands, entertainment industry expands. What happens to those industries when the government lays off those individuals?
 
2012-09-07 11:44:44 AM  
I knew it would be OK news when I heard one of the Republican shills interviewed on PBS last night. His talking point was "X number of weeks above 8% unemployment!!!1!!1!" That's the new goalpost -- the 8% number. And of course in a couple of months they'll be saying "7%! Can you believe we're still above 7%!"

The Republicans are just shocked that Americans are suffering less despite the GOP's best efforts to extend our pain for as long as possible for their own selfish gain.
 
2012-09-07 11:45:24 AM  

Gotfire: [i45.tinypic.com image 306x310]

Freepers right now: "MANIPULATED DATA!11!"


Love that GIF.
 
2012-09-07 11:45:51 AM  
Holy crap, the impotent fury sure is flowing this morning.

Unemployment is dropping and getting damned close to that 'magic number' of 8%, the DNC just knocked it out of the park and Romney's name seems mostly attached to 'missing tax returns' and 'horrible at foreign policy'.

Yeah, I'd be raging too, if I were a GOPer.
 
2012-09-07 11:46:11 AM  
So the GOP is going to look at this and tell us "he didn't fix everything in his first term!" I just don't get how they think I'm going to reject Obama's slow recovery in favor of Romney's "nose dive the economy into the ground and loot its burning corpse" alternative.

/No illusions about where I am on the looter/corpse scale
 
2012-09-07 11:46:47 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?


We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.
 
2012-09-07 11:47:05 AM  

nmrsnr: hugram: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

It helps that Clinton gave Bush a 4.2% U3 rate to start with.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase

those numbers are nice, but what would be even more valuable was if you could post the rate of change in the unemployment in the month when they took office vs. the rate of change at the end. Because just from the numbers you posted it could be that Obama just had slow unemployment growth over 4 years instead of illustrating how it was skyrocketing in the beginning and is slowly lowering now.


I have posted this graph before as well on other threads...

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-09-07 11:47:14 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: I knew it would be OK news when I heard one of the Republican shills interviewed on PBS last night. His talking point was "X number of weeks above 8% unemployment!!!1!!1!" That's the new goalpost -- the 8% number. And of course in a couple of months they'll be saying "7%! Can you believe we're still above 7%!"

The Republicans are just shocked that Americans are suffering less despite the GOP's best efforts to extend our pain for as long as possible for their own selfish gain.


but it was at 10.2

Imagine what it might have been had the GOP even attempted to work with him.
 
2012-09-07 11:47:23 AM  

Graffito: theknuckler_33: /96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.


undoubtedly.

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: /96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

Exactly. It was a crappy jobs report. Not disasterous, but lousy.


I wouldn't go that far. The new jobs number was disappointing. Different people focus on different things. By itself, the U3 going from 8.3 to 8.1 is good. Why that happened when only 96K new jobs were created is where the poo flinging comes into play.
 
2012-09-07 11:47:25 AM  

Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

wow that's some herpy derp there.

this jobs report is as bad as the Holocaust and Black Death combined? That's really dumb, Hobo

I thought you were comparing the irrelevancy of those events to the job losses under Bush as they relate to the unemployment numbers now.


I was. The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or not. Not everything is about the election or justifying less than stellar data because things were worse under one of the worst administrations this country has had, dude. This is a disappointing employment number. That remains true regardless of what happened under the last administration
 
2012-09-07 11:47:26 AM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?

We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.


What are they, like 6%?
 
2012-09-07 11:48:28 AM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.

which has farkall to do with whether this is a "spiffy" jobs report number


only if you can't see these stories as part of a bigger narrative I guess...
 
2012-09-07 11:48:44 AM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


What's your point? According to the 2010 census, over 60 million people are under 14 (i.e. legal working age). That leaves less than 30 million unemployed before even looking at those that are retired.

/why do you support child labor?
 
2012-09-07 11:48:46 AM  

skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no


You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!
 
2012-09-07 11:48:47 AM  

SuperTramp: Debeo Summa Credo

So this sucky employment report is the GOPs fault? Okay, as long as we can agree that it's a sucky employment report.

Five Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth.


Yeah, four out of five of those are dubious/questionable. I'll not dispute that the GOPs behavior regarding the debt ceiling last year was atrocious and definitely did cost the economy momentum (as well as our aaa rating, most likely)

But I'm not arguing that the sucky jobs report is entirely, or even primarily Obama's fault. I'm just saying that the employment numbers announced today are indeed disappointing.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:35 AM  

ddam: Just to play along with your example, while those workers get that money from the government they start spending it too thus increasing demand from private businesses like cars, washing machines, TVs, food, etc and once the private sector takes off those government workers can be phased out and switched to private jobs.


I don't understand how you can't think this all the way through.

Government hires people to dig ditches. People digging ditches buy washing machines. Washing machine company expands. Government lays off ditch diggers, expects them to get a job at the washing machine factory. Can't you see the problem? These places are only expanding due to the increased demand from the ditch diggers. Once the ditch diggers are laid off, the demand falls off, and those places contract.

ddam: but idiots that have no idea that the economy is 98% of the times driven by demand (taking out the goods and services that are inelastic) prentend that government workers get all the money from government but don't spend it at all. This is also why tax cuts to middle class and poor help the economy more than the ones given to the rich because the rich already have the money to satisfy their needs and wants. Giving them extra money will stimulate investment IF there is a good rate of return. Since rates of return are much higher outside of the US for the past 30-40 years, that's where all those tax cuts for the rich went. (And also 22 trillion dollars sitting in offshore accounts).


I am completely fine with wealth redistribution, if that is what you want. I am fine with shifting the tax burden onto the wealthy. Those do not create unsustainable economic situations. Going into debt and spending money on unproductive programs does create unsustainable economic situations. You can't deficit spend forever and expect to be fine. It is complete insanity.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:39 AM  

King Something: Maybe it's because they figure that for every 100 unemployed persons (counting only those who would otherwise be employed, NOT people who cannot have a job because they're too young/retired/bedridden/too old/ginger/etc), there are about 74 underemployed persons.

Just a guess on my part. Could be wronger than Obama/Romney slashfics, though.


They don't "figure" that for every 100 unemployed persons there are about 74 underemployed persons. They measure it.

That ratio just happens to be a consistent ratio that just naturally occurs.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:41 AM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


Not really. Those things cannot be attributed to the policies of the previous administration (which are basically the policies of the current GOP candidate). I'd say it is relevant to the current election cycle.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:47 AM  

MattStafford: Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.


How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

MattStafford: Sure, let them spend it on food, consumable, and entertainment. Grocery stores/food production expand, retail stores/manufacturing expands, entertainment industry expands. What happens to those industries when the government lays off those individuals?


Nothing 'happens'. The money flows around the economy; that's how economies work.

Ditch digger pays money to buy food.
Grocer pays employees with that money.
Employee goes to a movie with that money.
Movie theater buys popcorn with that money.
Popcorn maker buys house with that money.
Contractors buys food with that money.

And around and around we go. You need to create the demand, and without people there's no demand.
 
2012-09-07 11:49:50 AM  

starsrift: LucklessWonder: Politics has gotten so divisive. Let me post something that will help the healing of this country, whether you are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Fascist or Communist. Behold, the healing power of.... [www.989thedrive.com image 500x569]

I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient. More is required.


collider.com

www.scarlettjohansson.org

moviesandtvhistoryguy.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-07 11:50:01 AM  

MattStafford: If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy.


If you can build an airplane for the government, you can build an airplane for the private sector. But, to take it down to a more granular level, if you can produce specialty plastic for the crazy new plane the government wants, you can produce that plastic for any number of private interests. Same with electronics. Same with computers. DARPA created the ARPANET as a purely military project, and as a result, we have the internet. The most powerful economic driver we've produced, like, ever. To say that ending government spending results in jobs simply disappearing forever belies a failure to understand how interconnected our economy actually is, and fails to see the simple connections between the military, space program, university science departments, and the private sector. There is no clear and clean line of demarcation between the government and the private sector, because everything is interconnected.
 
2012-09-07 11:50:14 AM  

impaler:

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]



Notice the slope on the downward trend when it is in growth phase. The slope is always approximately the same, and is the same for Obama's recovery. Apparently it is hard to grow the economy at a faster rate.
 
2012-09-07 11:50:31 AM  
I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration. I consider the whole package.

President Obama and his team have been dealing with two wars, the Great Recession, political strife, and numerous issues in great style and wise leadership.

Mitt Romney has provided no specifics on what his administration would do different except vague talks of reducing regulations, cutting taxes, and reducing benefits for the poor, the elderly, and those less fortunate than himself.

I'm not voting Republican because the party and its leaders offer nothing except more of the same bullshiat they've fed Americans since 1980, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010.

Sadly, the GOP has simply morphed into the American Independent Party, sans bedsheets, IMHO.

upload.wikimedia.org = upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-09-07 11:50:35 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no

You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!


Mount Rushmore. You didn't built it! No one built it! It was formed by God but he did that in the past so let's not talk about it! Unless we're talking about how God should be in every policy we make.
 
2012-09-07 11:50:39 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?

We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

What are they, like 6%?


They are negative in real terms.
 
2012-09-07 11:52:51 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah, four out of five of those are dubious/questionable.


Okay, explain why.
 
2012-09-07 11:53:28 AM  

MattStafford: Can't you see the problem? T


Or because of the spending of those ditch diggers demand increases across the board leading to new jobs which the ditch diggers take bit by bit as they find jobs they prefer to digging ditches.
 
2012-09-07 11:54:06 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no

You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!


are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?
 
2012-09-07 11:54:32 AM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


I don't know about DamnYankees, but my issue with your original post was proclaiming ditchdigging as useless, after listing "There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys." I agree with your point about there being a difference between the types of jobs added making a difference, but I disagreed that ditchdigging should be the example of a job which is useless.

Ditchdigging is something that you're not supposed to need an advanced degree for, and it's highly localized; so it would be a job which would employ more swaths of people locally than your R+D guys doing highly specialized work for companies who are going to outsource the actual production/manufacture (China) and paper-pushing (Philippines) to the third world for pennies. The only hitch in that is reliance on in-country outsourcing (hiring illegals instead of hiring Americans) ... but it's still an objection for more groups of people than highly specialized work.

Burger flipping is not romantic, but again it's supposed to be a job you're not supposed to need an advanced degree for, and it's highly localized... and unfortunately , employers will take illegals before Americans. Manufacturers... there was a reason why Biden mentioned that single company in Warroad, Minnesota in his speech last night, the one which didn't lay off a single person while their competitors went full Bain, and whose owners were willing to take a paycut in order to keep their employees employed. That company is exception, not the rule. It would be nice if more companies were like that company, though. Profit and stockholders exist in reality, but still.. we can always dream of Bedford Falls.

Adding paper-pushers is the example you should have used, instead of ditchdiggers. R+D, again, is so fking highly specialized, one would have to dig deeper into the numbers to see how education is keeping up with it, and whether those hires were local or global. If you add 96,000 R+D jobs, but most of those end up being filled globally/via legals, that doesn't help Joe and Jane Q. Public put a meal on their own table.

As for "They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources." -- I'll be honest: I'll take that short term solution; I'll take it even more if it meant 30s style infrastructure 'we're going to employ you because you want to work regardless of education, credit or felonies' government programs. Get people employed, and then figure out the rest as you go.
 
2012-09-07 11:54:42 AM  

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Where does the money come from to hire your ditch diggers or do nothingers?

We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

What are they, like 6%?

They are negative in real terms.


I borrowed money to buy a house at 3.85%. If inflation ever ticks up even remotely, I essentially borrowed the money to buy a house for free. I'm sure the bank got an even more ridiculously sweet deal. Why WOULDN'T you borrow at those rates?
 
2012-09-07 11:54:55 AM  

NateGrey: ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.


Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck. The unemployment rate can go down if people simply quit looking for work, which is what the Post said happened. Quit trying to sell a turd as excellent sweet-smelling nutrients that encourage young things to grow. "I need more time" is a far easier case to make.
 
2012-09-07 11:55:23 AM  
*Ctrl+F*..... "fiscal cliff"* ......... Phrase not found.

:-/
 
2012-09-07 11:55:38 AM  

AirForceVet: I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration.


Wise strategy if you're an Obama supporter.
 
2012-09-07 11:55:49 AM  

skullkrusher: are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?


No, I understand completely and that it'll probably be revised upward next month like the last few have. I'm not disappointed that our economy is adding jobs, if that's what you're asking. That's like being disappointed you're getting an ice cream cone when you were promised a slightly larger ice cream cone.
 
2012-09-07 11:55:58 AM  

skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: The fact that we had catastrophic job loss under Bush has no bearing on whether this number is good or no

You're right. Context is irrelevant. Why should we look at where we were when considering where we are today? It's pointless! You're supposed to look at everything by itself!

are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?


Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

And some people just realize how many people don't realize that and that they all can vote.
 
2012-09-07 11:56:13 AM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

Not really. Those things cannot be attributed to the policies of the previous administration (which are basically the policies of the current GOP candidate). I'd say it is relevant to the current election cycle.


to the election, sure. I suppose your slashy was in reference to that context. My bad
 
2012-09-07 11:56:31 AM  

Galloping Galoshes: NateGrey: ITT

Fark Cons explain why the unemployment rate going down is bad.

Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck. The unemployment rate can go down if people simply quit looking for work, which is what the Post said happened. Quit trying to sell a turd as excellent sweet-smelling nutrients that encourage young things to grow. "I need more time" is a far easier case to make.


You know who else stopped looking for work?

aarphealthquotes.com
 
2012-09-07 11:56:54 AM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: The government could go massively into debt and hirer a ton of ditch diggers, which would show up as a huge jobs gain on these reports, but that would actually be bad for the economy.

I don't believe it would be, actually.

Well, sorry to say, but you've been brainwashed. Going into debt to hire completely unproductive workers serves only to provide a temporary boost in the economy. It also massively distorts the economy, and sets it up for a crash when the spending spigot is eventually turned off.

What do you think would happen if the government started spending billions on digging ditches and filling them back up? The shovel industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand. The logging industry would get a huge boom due to increased demand from the shovel industry. The towns around the ditch fields would get a huge boom due to all of the workers there. The towns around the shovel factories would get a huge boost due to all of the increased employment there.

Now in Keynesian fantasy land, the economy is booming, so they can turn down the government spending. They lay off a bunch of ditch diggers, assuming that they will be hired by the now booming shovel and lumber industry, or find a place in the now booming service/retail sectors in those towns. But clearly, they do not, and the economy crashes, reverts to status quo, except with massively misplaced resources.

Or you can keep on believing that going into debt then spending that money on absolutely nothing productive is somehow beneficial for the economy in the long run.


A bunch of guys start running taco trucks to feed the diggers. The taco truck guys can now afford to see the doctor, who hires another nurse. The truck dealer can now send his kids to private school. Their teacher starts lunching at a taco truck because she's more overworked and it's convenient. A guy learns to fix machines at the shovel factory, later opening his own diesel garage.

Some of that does indeed persist once the spigot closes. Since most employment these days is in nontradable local services, it's not that hard to get a self-sustaining increase in employment.

Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:03 AM  

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added. What is important is what those jobs actually are. There is quite a difference between adding 96,000 burger flippers or 96,000 paper pushers or 96,000 manufacturers or 96,000 R+D guys.


That sure as hell didn't seem to matter in the decade before Jan. 20, 2009, when after the dot-com bubble collapsed the Bush administration's unemployment numbers were boosted by low-wage, service sector, job growth, while white- and blue-collar employment contracted.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:05 AM  

sten: Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...


and...


may have something to do with this...


And that's fine! People hadn't been retiring, which was hurting employment opportunities for young people. If the old people feel confident about their retirement, I say good. Get them out of there and get the younger crowd employed stat!
 
2012-09-07 11:57:15 AM  
The last thing I ever want to do is give Republicans advice that might help. But they got thoroughly out-conventioned this week so here's a pity freebie:

The jobs report wasn't great news for America but it wasn't awful news. So If Mitt Romney--and ONLY Mitt Romney--is able to find it in himself to hit the campaign trail this weekend and repeat, with the same cadence, tone, and vocabulary, Stringer Bell's 40 Degree Day speech (NSFW) I'll consider voting for him.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:37 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: sten: Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...
[i376.photobucket.com image 600x300]

and...
[i376.photobucket.com image 744x503]

may have something to do with this...

But what's wrong with that? Clearing out the old workers so new workers can come up is a good thing. In the place my wife works, there are TONS of boomers and even older workers just hanging out, sucking up benefits and working at 1/10 the pace of everyone else because them computers be confusing, yo. Honestly? I'd rather they move into the retirement phase of life and start clearing up some space for promotion. I'll eat the necessary tax hikes to keep them from starving to death. The colo-rectal and lung cancers and heart disease will get them soon enough anyway. Just like all of us.


I meant "not everything is great with the economy in general". Retiring workers...going to happen.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:41 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Dr Dreidel: Probably not all 368k, but significantly enough?

Well just consider the oldest baby boomers are 66 or turning 66 this year. If we take 65 as a standard that means there are are already a ton of people who either have retired or will soon retire.


OK, but is it statistically significant?

If 70% of those 368,000 are over 59, it's a safe bet that retirements are helping. If it's only 15% over 59, retirements (at least, planned retirements at the end of a life spent working) are not the likely cause.

If the average age of the people who dropped out is 55+, it's a good bet that retirement is driving the drop. If the average age is 35-, we have a problem.

Numbers, Raven. I know what the demographics are - and both my parents are boomers.

rumpelstiltskin: "Underemployment" is like me, who should be a free safety in the NFL but instead has to do whatever it is I've been doing for the last 20 years while I wait for Clark Hunt to answer my emails.


And what is the name of the measurement they take of underemployment?

// I'd be a TE
// see you on the playground, punk
// unless your name is John Lynch; in which case I wish you a fine day and the best of happiness that scantily-clad and morality-free women of shapely form can bring, good sir
 
2012-09-07 11:57:47 AM  

Cletus C.: AirForceVet: I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration.

Wise strategy if you're an Obama supporter.


Yeah, luckily we have the Romney supporters who care about the economy so much they're willing to support the party that has done nothing but obstruct jobs bills. YAY!
 
2012-09-07 11:57:48 AM  

Galloping Galoshes: Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck.


Look at everyone trying to spin job growth as a BAD THING

It's so funny. "He's not making it better but it's not fast enough! Let's go ahead and elect some Republicans. I'm sure they know how to fix what they broke!"
 
2012-09-07 11:58:38 AM  

WhyteRaven74: MattStafford: Can't you see the problem? T

Or because of the spending of those ditch diggers demand increases across the board leading to new jobs which the ditch diggers take bit by bit as they find jobs they prefer to digging ditches.


More than that, 'make-work' programs and projects are rarely as unproductive as ditch digging.

Things like the interstate highway system, the Hoover dam, the vast number of modernized bridges in the 20th century, these were government projects crafted as 'make-work'. Once these men were done with these projects, they had talents, skills, marketable skills that enabled them to find more work elsewhere.

So, the idea that economy would be artificially boosted with an inevitable collapse after the money is gone/project is done...that's deliberately obtuse or plainly ignorant of how such things actually work.
 
2012-09-07 11:59:35 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.


Honestly? You could just give them the money for free. They'd still spend it. At least if you make them dig a ditch, you have a ditch. A ditch can be a really useful thing. A ditch can move water from one point to another. One of the reasons the Roman empire was so powerful was because it knew how to move water from one point to another. If this country stopped moving water from one point to another half of us would be dead of dysentery inside of a year. A ditch is a critical thing.
 
2012-09-07 11:59:47 AM  

DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.


Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?
 
2012-09-07 12:00:08 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: quit looking for work


It's not that they all quit looking for work just because they gave up. Some quit looking because school started up, some retired.
 
2012-09-07 12:00:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No, I understand completely and that it'll probably be revised upward next month like the last few have


Last month was reported 163K and revised down to 141K

cameroncrazy1984: I'm not disappointed that our economy is adding jobs, if that's what you're asking.


nope, I have no idea how you would construe that I was asking that.

cameroncrazy1984: That's like being disappointed you're getting an ice cream cone when you were promised a slightly larger ice cream cone.


no, it is nothing like that at all.
 
2012-09-07 12:00:53 PM  

skullkrusher: are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?


The margin or error on job numbers is 100K jobs. Don't you think you're being a little more precise than is statistically possible?
 
2012-09-07 12:01:12 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I dont' know what this means.

To use a real world example, think of our military industrial complex. We are employing millions of people directly through defense contracts. Think of all the engineers at Boeing/Lockheed, all of the factory workers building the planes/bombs/whatever, all of the paper pushers at the DoD, all of the actual soldiers. People have been trained for decades to do jobs that are only supported by government debt. These factories build things only demanded by government debt. If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy. These factories are tooled to build things that aren't demanded by the private economy.

Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.

DamnYankees: I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.

Sure, let them spend it on food, consumable, and entertainment. Grocery stores/food production expand, retail stores/manufacturing expands, entertainment industry expands. What happens to those industries when the government lays off those individuals?


Thank you for your further explanations.
 
2012-09-07 12:01:46 PM  

GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.


You dear sir deserve a drink...

www.politifake.org
 
2012-09-07 12:01:50 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?


Prudent for him, personally? But its better for the economy if he were to do that than if the bank just sat on that money and did nothing.

But this is not a good analogy, since the increased spending does not, in any way, increase the drunk's ability to earn income in the future. The government creating economic activity does increase its ability to take in revenue in the future.
 
2012-09-07 12:02:12 PM  

CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)


also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.
 
2012-09-07 12:02:15 PM  

skullkrusher: nope, I have no idea how you would construe that I was asking that.


You asked me if 96,000 is disappointing. I'm sorry, I just don't see how the economy adding jobs is all that disappointing. Is it less than projected? Sure. Disappointing? No.
 
2012-09-07 12:02:25 PM  

MattStafford: Who cares how many jobs have been added


8.1% of the United States definitely do
 
2012-09-07 12:02:30 PM  

Infernalist: More than that, 'make-work' programs and projects are rarely as unproductive as ditch digging.

Things like the interstate highway system, the Hoover dam, the vast number of modernized bridges in the 20th century, these were government projects crafted as 'make-work'. Once these men were done with these projects, they had talents, skills, marketable skills that enabled them to find more work elsewhere.

So, the idea that economy would be artificially boosted with an inevitable collapse after the money is gone/project is done...that's deliberately obtuse or plainly ignorant of how such things actually work.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Money doesn't have much of a use beyond its ability to change hands. The faster it changes hands, the better off we all are. When money changes hands, things get built. People get fed. Jobs get created. When money sits and does nothing it becomes paper again. When it moves, it becomes energy. Who cares who moves it? If the government is willing to move it, I say they should move it.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:05 PM  
So for every 1 job gained only 4 people stopped looking? Wow, that's certainly great news!!

No matter how bad the economy gets, there's still more than enough of kool-aid to go around, it seems.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:15 PM  

skullkrusher: also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor


So to you, "less than projected" equals "disappointing"

So it is exactly like being promised a slightly larger ice cream cone and only receiving a smaller one.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:32 PM  

Brick-House: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

You dear sir deserve a drink...

[www.politifake.org image 640x640]


What is this I don't even
 
2012-09-07 12:03:36 PM  

Brick-House: GAT_00: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

It's still growth and the unemployment rate fell. That's probably enough. Incumbents usually win when the unemployment rate falls during re-election.

You dear sir deserve a drink...

[www.politifake.org image 640x640]


You sound tired, brick.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:41 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Graffito: No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

Not really. Those things cannot be attributed to the policies of the previous administration (which are basically the policies of the current GOP candidate). I'd say it is relevant to the current election cycle.

to the election, sure. I suppose your slashy was in reference to that context. My bad


No problem.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:42 PM  

MattStafford: The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate


That would be a very foolish bank and they would be sure to lose their money. Banks used to not make bad bets on people they knew were going to spend their money on wine and women. I don't think even a modern bank would make such a bet.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah, four out of five of those are dubious/questionable.

Okay, explain why.


They all at based on economic assumptions and expectations of how the economy would react if the GOP had acted otherwise. A right wing blogger could make a similar list citing how Obama has stood in the way of job growth by passing health care reform, signing Dodd frank, or not agreeing to extend all tax cuts while the economy is still soft. Those would all rest on assumptions as well.

Again, though, I'm not going to assign proportional blame here.
 
2012-09-07 12:03:54 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?


My intro econ classes were divided up by semester into Marco and Micro. It's a shame yours were not.
 
2012-09-07 12:04:00 PM  

impaler: skullkrusher: are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?

The margin or error on job numbers is 100K jobs. Don't you think you're being a little more precise than is statistically possible?


no. If it turns out that this number is revised and actual jobs exceeds projections, then it becomes a good job number.
 
2012-09-07 12:04:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor

So to you, "less than projected" equals "disappointing"

So it is exactly like being promised a slightly larger ice cream cone and only receiving a smaller one.


I'm with skullkrusher. Worse than expected is pretty much the definition of disappointing.
 
2012-09-07 12:04:25 PM  

Libertrollian: So for every 1 job gained only 4 people stopped looking? Wow, that's certainly great news!!

No matter how bad the economy gets, there's still more than enough of kool-aid to go around, it seems.


Yeah, damn you Retireeeeeeeees!
 
2012-09-07 12:04:48 PM  
What concerns me are the reports that most of the jobs being created are LOW-WAGE.
 
2012-09-07 12:05:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: are you serious? We don't need to look at what happened under Bush to know that the expectations for this month was 125K new jobs and this number is well short of the mark and therefore rather disappointing. You honestly don't understand this?

No, I understand completely and that it'll probably be revised upward next month like the last few have. I'm not disappointed that our economy is adding jobs, if that's what you're asking. That's like being disappointed you're getting an ice cream cone when you were promised a slightly larger ice cream cone.


No, it's not, unfortunately. It's like getting a 1300 calorie diet when you need 2000. That number isn't even enough to keep pace with population growth. We need about 125,000 or more new jobs just to keep pace with population growth. I was really hoping this would be a good report, but the fact is it's just absolutely lousy and it couldn't come at a worse time for Obama.

Sources:
Link
Link
 
2012-09-07 12:05:18 PM  

MattStafford: I don't understand how you can't think this all the way through.

Government hires people to dig ditches. People digging ditches buy washing machines. Washing machine company expands. Government lays off ditch diggers, expects them to get a job at the washing machine factory. Can't you see the problem? These places are only expanding due to the increased demand from the ditch diggers. Once the ditch diggers are laid off, the demand falls off, and those places contract.


Again, most employment is in local services:

Ditch diggers and washing machine builders eat out more.
Restaurants open and expand, hiring.
Strip-mall owners buy new cars.
Restaurant employees and owners buy some ditches and washing machines.
Washing machine factory middle managers hire kids to mow their lawns. Kids take their girlfriends out for nice meals.

Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.
 
2012-09-07 12:05:20 PM  
Rape-ublicans: "It's not about the economy, stupid. It's about vaginas."
 
2012-09-07 12:05:36 PM  

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.


Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.
 
2012-09-07 12:05:41 PM  

SixPaperJoint: My intro econ classes were divided up by semester into Marco and Micro. It's a shame yours were not.


You have to admit, given the characterization of that analogy and the real-world parallels that surround it, the irony is astounding.
 
2012-09-07 12:06:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So to you, "less than projected" equals "disappointing"


yes, that's what it means. Like when a company is projected to earn $.10 per share on revenues of $200mm but reports $.06 EPS on revenues of $150mm that is very commonly referred to as a "disappointing" earnings report. I suppose you would argue that the fact that they earned any money at all makes it not disappointing - this is, of course, ridiculous.
 
2012-09-07 12:06:53 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.


What I don't get is how this is different from private sector jobs. If I hire someone to build a house for me, is that not a real job because it eventually ends? I'm not paying those contractors in perpetuity or anything.
 
2012-09-07 12:07:10 PM  

SuperTramp: What concerns me are the reports that most of the jobs being created are LOW-WAGE.


Yep.

www.chicagomag.com

Link, .pdf
 
2012-09-07 12:07:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor

So to you, "less than projected" equals "disappointing"

So it is exactly like being promised a slightly larger ice cream cone and only receiving a smaller one.


Less than projected is the definition of disappointing.
 
2012-09-07 12:07:44 PM  

Libertrollian: only 4 people stopped looking


Some retired, some went back to school. And given how many people will be retiring as the baby boomer hit retirement age, it's going to take finding a slightly different number to really measure things. There are roughly 10,000 people turning 65 each day now. And 64, 63, 62, 61 and 60. That's a metric assload of people who are reaching retirement and many will indeed be retiring. Now how many retired last month? Can't find the number, but it's not going to be an insignificant number.
 
2012-09-07 12:07:59 PM  

Libertrollian: So for every 1 job gained only 4 people stopped looking? Wow, that's certainly great news!!

No matter how bad the economy gets, there's still more than enough of kool-aid to go around, it seems.


You sure have drunk a lot of it.
 
2012-09-07 12:08:13 PM  

impaler: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

The "real" number? All countries use U3 as the standard metric.

U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


So, basically what you;re saying is that the economy started to turn around a few months after Obama was inaugurated and he had a chance to put some of his policies in place. That number started dropping around july/august 2009. You just disproved your own point.
 
2012-09-07 12:08:22 PM  
ITT: Everyone overstates everything

/preemptive welcometofark.jpg
 
2012-09-07 12:08:25 PM  
Here's the funny part. This is how it's going to be condensed by the end of the day:

Chip Goodhair: "The government reports that the economy added nearly 100k jobs in its latest report!"

Democrat pundit: "Unemployment is down, jobs are going up, who wants a margarita?"

GOP pundit: "DISAPPOINTING REPORT! MANIPULATED DATA!! U-6! U-6!!"

Democrat pundit: "That number is down, too."

GOP pundit: *cranial explosion*

Chip Goodhair:"Valid points to you all. Once again, both sides appear to be equal. More after this Cialis commerical."
 
2012-09-07 12:08:38 PM  
Hi Dusk!

Here's another graphic of same, with wage dollar amounts:

i64.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-07 12:09:12 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They all at based on economic assumptions and expectations of how the economy would react if the GOP had acted otherwise. A right wing blogger could make a similar list citing how Obama has stood in the way of job growth by passing health care reform, signing Dodd frank, or not agreeing to extend all tax cuts while the economy is still soft. Those would all rest on assumptions as well.


Well, except for the fact that independent organizations have scored those things and we have actual numbers that bear that assumption out to be false. It's like you don't understand that we can test these things.
 
2012-09-07 12:09:25 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.


leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.
 
2012-09-07 12:09:46 PM  

MattStafford: To use a real world example, think of our military industrial complex. We are employing millions of people directly through defense contracts. Think of all the engineers at Boeing/Lockheed, all of the factory workers building the planes/bombs/whatever, all of the paper pushers at the DoD, all of the actual soldiers. People have been trained for decades to do jobs that are only supported by government debt. These factories build things only demanded by government debt. If the government ever slowed down defense spending, these people are trained for jobs that don't exist in the private economy. These factories are tooled to build things that aren't demanded by the private economy.

Sure, there would be some overlap, but that is basically what I mean by distorted. We are training our people and tooling our factories to do things that won't be around forever.


I don't think that's a good example of distortion, because we do need a military after all, and national defense is a textbook public good. Now if air forces become obsolete, peace breaks out, or something, those folks will be out of luck, but that sort of thing happens all the time in the private sector.

(We have politically-driven inefficiencies in the military-industrial complex, e.g. Congress keeping around weapons that the Pentagon doesn't want because they're built in key districts, but that's a different problem).
 
2012-09-07 12:09:50 PM  

Cletus C.: AirForceVet: I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration.

Wise strategy if you're an Obama supporter.


Obama is working hard, dude, and the unemployment numbers would be lower if companies weren't on record as being specifically hostile to Obama's administration. I am someone who will not forget that certain companies are sitting on assloads of cash right now, and want unrealistic promises of profit which they then promise they'll translate into opening up jobs once they get what they want from congress .............. jobs which will open up overseas, but they'll still be jobs opened up. That was another point in Biden's speech last night, that utter chutzpah, which should be getting more play.

Obama has many things he's accomplished, and it's not just wise, it's plain common sense to not just see the fall of unemployment, no matter how small, as something Obama can be proud of.

The sarcastic 'wise' type comments need to be reserved for the obstructionists and those who follow them. Are you one of them?
 
2012-09-07 12:09:52 PM  
Kool-Aid drinkers the whole lot of you.

Median household income is down $4,000 since Obama took office. We have added + Six Trillion dollars to the debt, so the debt burden is now $132,000 for each and every American. And the solution that Obama promised would keep unemployment below 8% was spend money. That was achieved how? In the greatest swindle of our history. Borrowing on the backs of our childrend and grandchildren. Trillions of dollars in stimulus. Don't even get me started on the shell game they are playing with Obamacare and robbing Medicare and relying on unicorn farts and leprechauns to fund its future.

Oh, but we got a 2% decrease in our payroll taxes. From where? Social Security. So now we are funding that trust less, fewer people are paying into it, and I as a 30 something am supposed to feel good about that? I am already resigned to there being no Social Security or Medicare when I get to be in my 70s... But, the asininity and contortions that the politicians are going through to buy votes is mind boggling. Instead of promoting real solutions, and having an honest conversation with the American people about the future and the sacrifices we will all have to make to pass along to our children something better than we have, we are instead passing along the promise of Greece, Spain, and the rest of the Euro-zone. We are passing along the promise stagflation and an America in decline. Forgive me for not partaking in the Kool-Aid drinking.

Remember Obama promised that premiums wouldn't rise? Well, guess what they are rising, at a faster rate and the deductibles and co-pays are increasing as well. So, the burden is ever increasing on the American worker. Those who are lucky enough to remain employed are earning less and spending less all the while seeing the buying power of their dollar diminish at a faster and faster rate.

I know I know, it's Bush's fault and Obama inherited a mess. He also inherited Bush's congress (Pelosi and Reid) and they promptly sold America out to China, thanks Timmy Geithner.

Did Bush in 2004 go, oh woe is me, I inherited a recession from Bill Clinton (.COM bust) and a war on Terror from Bill Clinton (1993 WTC, Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, etc..) Or Iraq from Bill Clinton (operation Desert Fox and the No Fly zones). No, I think Bush ran on his record. All Obama does is say, I prevented the US from going into a Depression. Really, he can prove that? He can prove he prevented something. If so this statement is equally as true, he prevented the US from having an unprecedented Economic Boom!!!
 
2012-09-07 12:10:16 PM  

skullkrusher: projected to earn


There's the problem, projections do not necessarily predict future numbers very well. Sure the prediction may look solid, but things may happen that make it utterly impossible for the predicted outcome to result.

Debeo Summa Credo: Less than projected


Read what I just wrote above.
 
2012-09-07 12:10:20 PM  

skullkrusher: I suppose you would argue that the fact that they earned any money at all makes it not disappointing - this is, of course, ridiculous.


I disagree that this is a ridiculous argument. I think that earning any profit at all is a good thing. I think that we generally have unrealistic expectations about the state of the world, and I think that given the global economy is currently in a state where it is finding its equilibrium (as the fella that wrote Snow Crash said "The invisible hand of the free market smooths everything out to the level a pakistani brick layer would call prosperity) any growth at all is a good thing. But I have lowered expectations. 30 years of watching Pax Americana collapse like a flan in a cupboard will do that.
 
2012-09-07 12:10:29 PM  

MattStafford: ddam: Just to play along with your example, while those workers get that money from the government they start spending it too thus increasing demand from private businesses like cars, washing machines, TVs, food, etc and once the private sector takes off those government workers can be phased out and switched to private jobs.

I don't understand how you can't think this all the way through.

Government hires people to dig ditches. People digging ditches buy washing machines. Washing machine company expands. Government lays off ditch diggers, expects them to get a job at the washing machine factory. Can't you see the problem? These places are only expanding due to the increased demand from the ditch diggers. Once the ditch diggers are laid off, the demand falls off, and those places contract.


I was going off with the example. A better example would be investing in infrastructure which is what the New Deal was and what the Jobs bill from Obama included. While the government pays for the work done, the work is actually performed by private companies that receive contracts from the government (preferable contracts that they can bid on, not that no-bid process going on with majority of DOD contracts).

Now, not only are you putting people to work that will drive demand for everything in the economy but you're also re-building the infrastructure that is in dire need of upgrades that will benefit a lot of private businesses as well.

Not only that but if people have money maybe they'll start buying homes again (prices have started to go up - I know as I'm in the house buying process right now). Government spending could also be used to demolish neighborhoods of abandoned houses or condemned houses that exist in many of our cities and have the land be re-developed by private companies or taken over by cities and have them do with the land what they wish - sell it to raise revenue, establish public parks that increase the quality of life etc.

Bottom line is that private businesses will not invest in their business additional money (no matter how many tax cuts you give them) if they do not see an increase in demand. The job of the government in times like these (recession or slow recovery) is to increase that demand for the good of the country and the good of the economy.

I have not seen any plan from the GOP that is directed AT increasing demand. All they have provided is tax cuts which does not do that directly and evidence has shown that tax cuts do not create the same type of return on the dollar as government hiring individuals directly or through government contracts to private businessed.
 
2012-09-07 12:11:50 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: sten: Now, I'm not saying everything is great. But...


and...


may have something to do with this...

And that's fine! People hadn't been retiring, which was hurting employment opportunities for young people. If the old people feel confident about their retirement, I say good. Get them out of there and get the younger crowd employed stat!


Y'all make it sound like older people are leaving voluntarily instead of being pushed out.
Couple it with very real job discrimination, many people aren't retiring because they want to, they're retiring because they have to/the choice is being made for them.
 
2012-09-07 12:12:06 PM  

hugram: nmrsnr: hugram: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

It helps that Clinton gave Bush a 4.2% U3 rate to start with.

Bush
1/20/2001: 4.2%
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Unemployment Rate Change: 83.33% increase

Obama
1/20/2009: 7.7%
Currently: 8.1%
Unemployment Rate Change: 5.19% increase

those numbers are nice, but what would be even more valuable was if you could post the rate of change in the unemployment in the month when they took office vs. the rate of change at the end. Because just from the numbers you posted it could be that Obama just had slow unemployment growth over 4 years instead of illustrating how it was skyrocketing in the beginning and is slowly lowering now.

I have posted this graph before as well on other threads...

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 620x355]


Actually you should be fairer and at least start the numbers in February. Remember Jan 20th is when he was inaugurated. So not much he could do about January.
 
2012-09-07 12:12:10 PM  

Dinki: my.barackobama.com


sparklingeagletears.files.wordpress.com

Fixed that for you, you stupid libs.
 
2012-09-07 12:12:11 PM  

earthwirm: Median household income is down $4,000 since Obama took office.


That would be the private sectors fault. Funny how people like you will scream personal responsibility but never put any pressure on the private sector to take responsibility for things.
 
2012-09-07 12:12:13 PM  

SuperTramp: Hi Dusk!

Here's another graphic of same, with wage dollar amounts:

[i64.photobucket.com image 190x336]


yes, it sucks. But I'm viewing things from the vantage point of this decade being an economic disaster, quite literally leveling the economic structure that existed before.

Those middle-wage jobs are 'gone'. They're not coming back. The middle class was gutted by this economic collapse and we're having to start over from scratch and we lack a World War to spur employment upward.

We're at ground zero and low-wage service jobs are the first step in rebuilding the middle class structure. No, it won't happen quick, nor easy. You can blame the GOP and the super-rich for that.
 
2012-09-07 12:12:14 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Libertrollian: only 4 people stopped looking

Some retired, some went back to school. And given how many people will be retiring as the baby boomer hit retirement age, it's going to take finding a slightly different number to really measure things. There are roughly 10,000 people turning 65 each day now. And 64, 63, 62, 61 and 60. That's a metric assload of people who are reaching retirement and many will indeed be retiring. Now how many retired last month? Can't find the number, but it's not going to be an insignificant number.


It's shocking that no one in the media bothers to posit the "Not enough swinging qualified dicks to cover the number of retirees leaving the workforce mixed with companies not backfilling those positions to save a buck" theory. I am sure Freakonomics will look at this in a few years and say most of the stagnation in decreasing the unemployment rate was 1) Boomers leaving the workforce and 2) companies saving money and not creating jobs so that R-money can come in and give them sweeping tax cuts.
 
2012-09-07 12:13:20 PM  

WhyteRaven74: There's the problem, projections do not necessarily predict future numbers very well. Sure the prediction may look solid, but things may happen that make it utterly impossible for the predicted outcome to result.


which makes a shortfall disappointing and a result in excess of projections of nice surprise. If the economy is projected to grow 2% per quarter but only grows at .5% per quarter, we call that disappointing. We don't just throw our hands up and say "lol projecting is hard!"
 
2012-09-07 12:13:54 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Dinki: my.barackobama.com

[sparklingeagletears.files.wordpress.com image 480x352]

Fixed that for you, you stupid libs.


You should have inverted the photo or inverted the Y axis or something instead of this crude P-shopped misfire.
 
2012-09-07 12:13:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Galloping Galoshes: Kee-ryst, even the Washington Post says these numbers suck.

Look at everyone trying to spin job growth as a BAD THING

It's so funny. "He's not making it better but it's not fast enough! Let's go ahead and elect some Republicans. I'm sure they know how to fix what they broke!"


Cameron, dude, what looks good on paper doesn't help put food on the table in reality. 99 weekers and the underemployed are NOT going to be impressed by spin, man. Spin won't pay the rent. Paper stats won't keep the lights on this month. That's all.
 
2012-09-07 12:14:01 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?

Prudent for him, personally? But its better for the economy if he were to do that than if the bank just sat on that money and did nothing.

But this is not a good analogy, since the increased spending does not, in any way, increase the drunk's ability to earn income in the future. The government creating economic activity does increase its ability to take in revenue in the future.


Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

To fund the governments Keynesian borrowing, which other asset class should investors/lenders reduce their investment in?

Mortgage lending? Should banks lend less to homeowners, further hurting prices?

Commercial lending? Should banks stop lending to expanding businesses and start ups to instead fund the deficit?

Municipal securities? Should investors lend their money to the federal government rather than to states and cities?
 
2012-09-07 12:14:31 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.


the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object
 
2012-09-07 12:14:39 PM  

ghare: skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs

Liters. How stupid.


Don't group me in with that guy.
 
2012-09-07 12:14:40 PM  

coeyagi: I am sure Freakonomics will look at this in a few years


heh nice one :)
 
2012-09-07 12:14:45 PM  

that bosnian sniper:

You have to admit, given the characterization of that analogy and the real-world parallels that surround it, the irony is astounding.


I have hope that he is full of that special excitement one has when they start a semester full of classes that are in or relate to their major. Then when he starts his senior year, he can look back and quietly shake his head and realize there is still so much to learn.

Or he's a lousy troll.
 
2012-09-07 12:14:52 PM  

Hobodeluxe: starsrift: LucklessWonder: Politics has gotten so divisive. Let me post something that will help the healing of this country, whether you are Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Fascist or Communist. Behold, the healing power of.... [www.989thedrive.com image 500x569]

I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient. More is required.

so tell your congressman to quit filibustering the jobs bill


:D

LucklessWonder: ...[collider.com image 740x493]... etc

Well, that was fast!
 
2012-09-07 12:14:53 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: skullkrusher: I suppose you would argue that the fact that they earned any money at all makes it not disappointing - this is, of course, ridiculous.

I disagree that this is a ridiculous argument. I think that earning any profit at all is a good thing. I think that we generally have unrealistic expectations about the state of the world, and I think that given the global economy is currently in a state where it is finding its equilibrium (as the fella that wrote Snow Crash said "The invisible hand of the free market smooths everything out to the level a pakistani brick layer would call prosperity) any growth at all is a good thing. But I have lowered expectations. 30 years of watching Pax Americana collapse like a flan in a cupboard will do that.


you're expecting a 10% raise but you get a 2% raise, is that disappointing or is it just one of those things where you had unrealistic expectations about the state of the world?

/I can't believe this conversation is actually happening
 
2012-09-07 12:15:28 PM  

starzman2003: ghare: skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs

Liters. How stupid.

Don't group me in with that guy.


no, he's right. Liters are stupid. You especially so, apparently
 
2012-09-07 12:15:37 PM  

earthwirm: Did Bush in 2004 go, oh woe is me, I inherited a recession


Your post is bad and you should feel bad. I point this single item out because yes, yes he did say that. It was referred to as the popping of the dot com bubble. And he sent not one, but two stimulus tax cut bills to the Congress because of it.
 
2012-09-07 12:16:04 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: SuperTramp: What concerns me are the reports that most of the jobs being created are LOW-WAGE.

Yep.

[www.chicagomag.com image 600x430]

Link, .pdf


Would you like Fries with that Hope and Change.
 
2012-09-07 12:16:10 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.

the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object


so you want dishonest analysis of data in light of that? Who am I kidding, of course you do.
 
2012-09-07 12:16:51 PM  

starzman2003: ghare: skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs

Liters. How stupid.

Don't group me in with that guy.


Not the perennial contrarian?

Skullkrusher is Armond White's handle.
 
2012-09-07 12:17:07 PM  

skullkrusher: We don't just throw our hands up and say "lol projecting is hard!"


Actually, you just look at projections as academic exercises and instead focus on actual real numbers. Whether or not in any given month projections match reality is nice for compiling statistics, but judging reality based upon what someone thought might happen is not really a good way to go.
 
2012-09-07 12:17:09 PM  

skullkrusher: you're expecting a 10% raise but you get a 2% raise, is that disappointing or is it just one of those things where you had unrealistic expectations about the state of the world?

/I can't believe this conversation is actually happening


It is disappointing if I desired the 10% raise. Which I must have been doing if you said I expected it. If a 2% raise is the state of the world, then I would be foolish to desire anything else. It is my desire that caused my suffering.
 
2012-09-07 12:17:34 PM  

MindStalker: Dusk-You-n-Me: SuperTramp: What concerns me are the reports that most of the jobs being created are LOW-WAGE.

Yep.

[www.chicagomag.com image 600x430]

Link, .pdf

Would you like Fries with that Hope and Change.


You're carrying water for the very people who see you as little more than a serf.

Even if you're just trolling, you're not helping the situation at all.
 
2012-09-07 12:17:39 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.


Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.
 
2012-09-07 12:18:53 PM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs


Remember 3 and a half years ago when we we lost 818,000 jobs in a single month? Of course you don't. For the rest of us, suddenly that "only" +96,000 doesn't seem so bad.
 
2012-09-07 12:18:57 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?


If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.
 
2012-09-07 12:19:21 PM  

earthwirm: Kool-Aid drinkers the whole lot of you.

Median household income is down $4,000 since Obama took office. We have added + Six Trillion dollars to the debt, so the debt burden is now $132,000 for each and every American. And the solution that Obama promised would keep unemployment below 8% was spend money. That was achieved how? In the greatest swindle of our history. Borrowing on the backs of our childrend and grandchildren. Trillions of dollars in stimulus. Don't even get me started on the shell game they are playing with Obamacare and robbing Medicare and relying on unicorn farts and leprechauns to fund its future.

Oh, but we got a 2% decrease in our payroll taxes. From where? Social Security. So now we are funding that trust less, fewer people are paying into it, and I as a 30 something am supposed to feel good about that? I am already resigned to there being no Social Security or Medicare when I get to be in my 70s... But, the asininity and contortions that the politicians are going through to buy votes is mind boggling. Instead of promoting real solutions, and having an honest conversation with the American people about the future and the sacrifices we will all have to make to pass along to our children something better than we have, we are instead passing along the promise of Greece, Spain, and the rest of the Euro-zone. We are passing along the promise stagflation and an America in decline. Forgive me for not partaking in the Kool-Aid drinking.

Remember Obama promised that premiums wouldn't rise? Well, guess what they are rising, at a faster rate and the deductibles and co-pays are increasing as well. So, the burden is ever increasing on the American worker. Those who are lucky enough to remain employed are earning less and spending less all the while seeing the buying power of their dollar diminish at a faster and faster rate.

I know I know, it's Bush's fault and Obama inherited a mess. He also inherited Bush's congress (Pelosi and Reid) and they promptly ...


I think I speak for all of us when I say, TL;DNR
 
2012-09-07 12:19:34 PM  
Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

img507.imageshack.us

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.
 
2012-09-07 12:20:17 PM  

skullkrusher: starzman2003: ghare: skullkrusher: Not really seeing the "spiffy" here, subs

Liters. How stupid.

Don't group me in with that guy.

no, he's right. Liters are stupid. You especially so, apparently


Pfft I ain't payin' for this shiat.
 
2012-09-07 12:20:26 PM  
I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.

That said, I must admit that this report is NOT good news. It shows that job growth continues to be frighteningly sluggish, and that the biggest reason for this month's drop in the unemployment rate is people who stop looking.

Romney's "solutions" are bogus. Tax cuts don't create jobs. That's axiomatic, no matter what the Repubs tell you. There are, however, billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure projects that could be undertaken by the private and public sector, or a combination thereof, that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs NOW, and even provide a return on our investment by increasing the tax base and having more efficient roads, bridges, utilities, etc.

Unfortunately, all efforts to actually get these moving have been blocked by partisan chicanery in Congress. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to put Americans to work, but they'd rather sacrifice them all just to try and put ONE guy out of a job.

The Republican apologists around here can deny it all they want, but no one's buying it, especially when their party freely and openly admits to hijacking the legislative process, regrdless of the consequences, just to sabotage the Obama administration.
 
2012-09-07 12:20:29 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

[img507.imageshack.us image 400x820]

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


I'm a little worried about his projections - his Nov. 6 projection and his Nowcast have greatly diverged.
 
2012-09-07 12:21:13 PM  

coeyagi: You should have inverted the photo or inverted the Y axis or something instead of this crude P-shopped misfire.


I already did that once. The rule is that you can only reuse troll threads on FARK once every seven months. It hasn't been seven months. Taxbongo destroys jobs. The end.
 
2012-09-07 12:21:14 PM  

DamnYankees: If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields?


This is a wonderful question and should be asked more often. This is what the investor class is dumping their cash into, I think, because they are very risk-averse people (when it's their money). This is only my perception, as I am not of the investor class. However, if people are willing to give the government money for free, it should use that money and increase its velocity. Because sitting on treasury bonds in order to maintain the most anemic of growth is cowardly, and Americans cannot afford to be cowardly. We should be brave and build something.
 
2012-09-07 12:21:38 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?

If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.


This is where you're going to run into issues.

The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.
 
2012-09-07 12:22:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?

Prudent for him, personally? But its better for the economy if he were to do that than if the bank just sat on that money and did nothing.

But this is not a good analogy, since the increased spending does not, in any way, increase the drunk's ability to earn income in the future. The government creating economic activity does increase its ability to take in revenue in the future.

Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

To fund the governments Keynesian borrowing, which other asset class should investors/lenders reduce their investment in?

Mortgage lending? Should banks lend less to homeowners, further hurting prices?

Commercial lending? Should banks stop lending to expanding businesses and start ups to instead fund the deficit?

Municipal securities? Should investors lend their money to the federal government rather than to states and cities?


Are you seriously arguing that the deficit and low interest rates have led to a scarcity of liquidity?
 
2012-09-07 12:22:19 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


Oh, it's a referendum election alright. But in typical fashion Republicans can't even figure out what the question is, let alone how they can answer it.
 
2012-09-07 12:22:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

[img507.imageshack.us image 400x820]

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


If you're using the Nov 6 tab then 538 is taking in account the possible bounce. If you're looking at the Now Cast tab, that doesn't take in account expectations. At least that's how I see it and I could be wrong.
 
2012-09-07 12:22:48 PM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.


It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.
 
2012-09-07 12:24:04 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.

the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object

so you want dishonest analysis of data in light of that? Who am I kidding, of course you do.


And of course you want to remind people of the failure of your party, so bringing W is forbidden, amirite?
 
2012-09-07 12:24:47 PM  
In other news:
Hunger is down across the kingdom primarily due to starvation deaths.
 
2012-09-07 12:24:51 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.


Well, this is just a question of what method of stimulus you prefer - tax cuts is supply side with a low multiplier, spending is demand-side with higher multiplier. But make no mistake - arguing for tax cuts to help the economic IS Keynesian economics.
 
2012-09-07 12:25:06 PM  
MindStalker: Would you like Fries with that Hope and Change.

Infernalist: You're carrying water for the very people who see you as little more than a serf. Even if you're just trolling, you're not helping the situation at all.

Nah, he's a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire. All of the serfs who support Republicans think of themselves that way.
 
2012-09-07 12:25:42 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Read 'em and weep, teatards! And this is before the DNC bounce hits.

[img507.imageshack.us image 400x820]

Despite your leadership's best efforts to destroy one man at the expense of the rest of the country, we're doing too well for this to be the "referendum" election that the right wingnuts have been working toward for nearly four years.


The forecast you pasted does not factor in convention bounces, includes economic indicators, and I don't think it's been updated in light of this jobs report. Silver says that this report will mean a lot for Obama's lead. He's been talking it up all week. I have no idea what he'll make of this. It's a good news/bad news mess.

I predict he'll cut about 6 EV and 8% odds off Obama's lead. I base this on absolutely nothing.
 
2012-09-07 12:25:54 PM  

skullkrusher: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: skullkrusher: I suppose you would argue that the fact that they earned any money at all makes it not disappointing - this is, of course, ridiculous.

I disagree that this is a ridiculous argument. I think that earning any profit at all is a good thing. I think that we generally have unrealistic expectations about the state of the world, and I think that given the global economy is currently in a state where it is finding its equilibrium (as the fella that wrote Snow Crash said "The invisible hand of the free market smooths everything out to the level a pakistani brick layer would call prosperity) any growth at all is a good thing. But I have lowered expectations. 30 years of watching Pax Americana collapse like a flan in a cupboard will do that.

you're expecting a 10% raise but you get a 2% raise, is that disappointing or is it just one of those things where you had unrealistic expectations about the state of the world?

/I can't believe this conversation is actually happening


I'm sure Bush will be gratified to learn that his term wasnt disappointing from an employment perspective.

Sure, total employment increased less than 1% from his inauguration to his departure from office, when all expectations would have been for far more job growth than that, but hey, projections are hard and ice cream is yummy.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:02 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DamnYankees: If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields?

This is a wonderful question and should be asked more often. This is what the investor class is dumping their cash into, I think, because they are very risk-averse people (when it's their money). This is only my perception, as I am not of the investor class. However, if people are willing to give the government money for free, it should use that money and increase its velocity. Because sitting on treasury bonds in order to maintain the most anemic of growth is cowardly, and Americans cannot afford to be cowardly. We should be brave and build something.


Amen.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:02 PM  

Infernalist: Gaseous Anomaly: MattStafford: DamnYankees: We can either borrow, tax or print. Given our current interest rates, I think borrowing makes the most sense.

Out of curiousity, suppose there was a drunk who spent all of his money on wine and women, building bigger houses and taking extravagant trips. The bank was funding all of this at an extremely low rate. Would you think it fiscally prudent for him to double down on this just because of the low rates?

If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.

This is where you're going to run into issues.

The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.


Yup. Lending to the government is exactly like lending to a person - if the person lived forever and could create arbitrary quantities of the thing you're lending them out of thin air.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:31 PM  

DamnYankees: How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.


Government builds a military base in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that military base. Government eventually shuts the base down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had the government not distorted the economy.

DamnYankees: Nothing 'happens'. The money flows around the economy; that's how economies work.

Ditch digger pays money to buy food.
Grocer pays employees with that money.
Employee goes to a movie with that money.
Movie theater buys popcorn with that money.
Popcorn maker buys house with that money.
Contractors buys food with that money.

And around and around we go. You need to create the demand, and without people there's no demand.


And when the government stops paying those ditch diggers and has to pay down the debt, they take that money out of the circulation. Perhaps that is the key disconnect. I agree with you that when the government (or any entity, as many do) creates money through debt, they boost the economy. However, when that debt is paid back, they remove money from the economy, and all of the gains are lost.
 
2012-09-07 12:26:59 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.

It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.


So the best way to reduce the national debt is to add $5 trillion to it as Romney proposes? What kind of math are you using?
 
2012-09-07 12:27:35 PM  

Polly Ester: In other news:
Hunger is down across the kingdom primarily due to starvation deaths.


well said.

did you steal that?

may i?
 
2012-09-07 12:27:36 PM  

ddam: If you're using the Nov 6 tab then 538 is taking in account the possible bounce. If you're looking at the Now Cast tab, that doesn't take in account expectations. At least that's how I see it and I could be wrong.



Those graphs are from the Nov. 6 tab. You are correct - some of the bounce could be recorded there, although I don't think many, if any, polls have been conducted yet to record the DNC bounce.
 
2012-09-07 12:28:17 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Yup. Lending to the government is exactly like lending to a person - if the person lived forever and could create arbitrary quantities of the thing you're lending them out of thin air.


And it that thing you're lending them was the single most important version of that thing the world had to offer. If it's movement was, in fact, the very lynchpin of world economics. The American government can, literally, sh*t value.
 
2012-09-07 12:28:19 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Or because of the spending of those ditch diggers demand increases across the board leading to new jobs which the ditch diggers take bit by bit as they find jobs they prefer to digging ditches.


THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. Ditch digger demand leads to expansion by washing machine company. Ditch digger leaves ditch digging job and gets job at washing machine company. Don't you see the issue with that?
 
2012-09-07 12:28:22 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

Government builds a military base in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that military base. Government eventually shuts the base down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had the government not distorted the economy.


How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.
 
2012-09-07 12:29:04 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It is my desire that caused my suffering.


ooh, forgive me Siddhārtha
 
2012-09-07 12:29:17 PM  

MattStafford: And when the government stops paying those ditch diggers and has to pay down the debt, they take that money out of the circulation. Perhaps that is the key disconnect. I agree with you that when the government (or any entity, as many do) creates money through debt, they boost the economy. However, when that debt is paid back, they remove money from the economy, and all of the gains are lost.


Again - how is this different from the private sector? Yes, of course, when people get fired it hurts the economy. But you're essentially arguing this means they should never have been hired in the first place. And that doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-09-07 12:29:29 PM  

Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...


Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.
 
2012-09-07 12:29:56 PM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.


Huh? Yeah, they're already buying treasury securities but you think we should issue more debt. Where is that money going to come from? The market cant collectively sell the t-bills they already have to buy the new ones we issue.
 
2012-09-07 12:30:44 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Actually, you just look at projections as academic exercises and instead focus on actual real numbers.


which is what we're doing. Focusing on the prelim results. Those prelim results were less than we expected. Therefore, they are disappointing.
 
2012-09-07 12:30:55 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Graffito: theknuckler_33: 96,000 jobs added and Unemployment down to 8.1%

Hmm, I'm an Obama supporter and am pretty liberal, but that seems a bit odd to me.

/96K was NOT a good number for Obama.

No, but it's sure beats the 700K jobs lost in a quarter under the previous administration.

it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.

We are about to have an election that could give W's party more power.

which has farkall to do with whether this is a "spiffy" jobs report number


The republicans are saying, "Don't vote for Obama - look how bad the job growth numbers are."

I'm saying that we should vote for Obama because the last time a republican was in charge we were hemorrhaging jobs. Tepid job growth is preferable to massive job loss.
 
2012-09-07 12:31:25 PM  

earthwirm: Kool-Aid drinkers the whole lot of you.

Median household income is down $4,000 since Obama took office. We have added + Six Trillion dollars to the debt, so the debt burden is now $132,000 for each and every American.


Wouldn't it be nice to have an actual discussion about this with actual proposed solutions? We agree on the problems, but there is no alternative proposal to what Obama is suggesting. The Republicans have no proposal to reduce the debt nor address income nor jobs. You get to write a nice long post criticizing Obama's proposal, we don't get to counter criticizing Romney's because he has no alternative proposal.

Seriously, start criticizing your own team for not proposing something alternative.
 
2012-09-07 12:32:36 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah, they're already buying treasury securities but you think we should issue more debt.


Selling treasury securities *is* issuing debt.

You realize that, right?

Debeo Summa Credo: The market cant collectively sell the t-bills they already have to buy the new ones we issue.


What? I'm starting to think you don't understand what t-bills are. The market doesn't sell them. The government does.

If you are arguing that the market doesn't have the liquidity to buy t-bills, you're just empirically wrong. I mean...we're selling our t-bills fine. Clearly there's demand for them. That's not now nor has it ever been a problem.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:21 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.

the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object

so you want dishonest analysis of data in light of that? Who am I kidding, of course you do.

And of course you want to remind people of the failure of your party, so bringing W is forbidden, amirite?


you're not even trying anymore. Seriously, if you aren't farking around you're an extra special sort of idiot
 
2012-09-07 12:33:29 PM  

Highroller48: I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.


Unfortunately that makes less difference than Congress, and Congress, from what I read, is very likely to remain in Republican control. (They only need half the House and 38 or so Senators to do so).

Though Obama could probably keep them from enacting some of their worse ideas (repealing Obamacare, eviscerating Medicaid, etc.) But he's very likely to win in any case (we doubt 538 at our peril).

I used to worry that if Obama was re-elected we'd get another debt ceiling clusterfark that would actually lead to a default, imploding the economy. (Whereas GOP Congress would raise the debt ceiling for President Romney without a peep). However, Obama actually has some leverage now - the expiring Bush tax cuts. Complete gridlock would deal a double blow to Republicans: tax increases and defense cuts.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:35 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: I'll be honest: I'll take that short term solution; I'll take it even more if it meant 30s style infrastructure 'we're going to employ you because you want to work regardless of education, credit or felonies' government programs. Get people employed, and then figure out the rest as you go.


This is idiotic. "Let's do things in the short term with no regard for how it might effect us in the long term. I'm sure we'll be fine." Guess what? We're not.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It is my desire that caused my suffering.

ooh, forgive me Siddhārtha


Forgiveness is never required. It is your nature to be a sophist. You cannot deny your nature.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:37 PM  

Graffito: I'm saying that we should vote for Obama because the last time a republican was in charge we were hemorrhaging jobs. Tepid job growth is preferable to massive job loss.


just curious, what specifically do you think that 0bama did to stop the job hemorrhaging?
 
2012-09-07 12:33:37 PM  

Dinki: ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.

What "total failure" Looks like-

[my.barackobama.com image 480x352]


They should mark where Obama starts leading the Democratic polls. That's the real sign.
 
2012-09-07 12:33:47 PM  
Is Fark running incredibly slowly for anyone else right now?
 
2012-09-07 12:39:32 PM  
BTW everyone understands that "left the workforce" is not the same as "Gave up looking for work" right?
 
2012-09-07 12:40:06 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...

Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.


So Obama is creating jobs but not nearly as fast as people want but we should replace him with a man that does not provide any plan for adding jobs except tax cuts that are unpaid for... Romney won't even provide specifics as to how he's going to pay for the $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the rich.

If the GOP candidates would provide a viable plan that passes the math test (none of their plans have done this) then we could have a debate... but as of right now all I hear from the GOP is "Trust us, we'll use the same plans we've used from 2001 to 2008 but this time it'll work... TRUST US!!!"

I'm sorry but I don't trust any politician especially those that refuse to provide specifics. Obama has provided a specific job plan.
 
2012-09-07 01:00:00 PM  
And we're back.
 
2012-09-07 01:01:16 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: A bunch of guys start running taco trucks to feed the diggers. The taco truck guys can now afford to see the doctor, who hires another nurse. The truck dealer can now send his kids to private school. Their teacher starts lunching at a taco truck because she's more overworked and it's convenient. A guy learns to fix machines at the shovel factory, later opening his own diesel garage.

Some of that does indeed persist once the spigot closes. Since most employment these days is in nontradable local services, it's not that hard to get a self-sustaining increase in employment.

Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.


No, none of that persists when the spigot is turned off, at least not in aggregate. If the government creates 1000 jobs by creating debt, they are going to destroy 1000 jobs when the pay that debt down.
 
2012-09-07 01:02:00 PM  

DamnYankees: And we're back.


What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.
 
2012-09-07 01:02:16 PM  

MattStafford: No, none of that persists when the spigot is turned off, at least not in aggregate. If the government creates 1000 jobs by creating debt, they are going to destroy 1000 jobs when the pay that debt down.


And how is this different from private enterprise?
 
2012-09-07 01:02:37 PM  

mcsmiley: So, basically what you;re saying is that the economy started to turn around a few months after Obama was inaugurated and he had a chance to put some of his policies in place. That number started dropping around july/august 2009. You just disproved your own point.


My point was U3 and U6 say the same thing, they just have a different scale. So when someone states U6 (when everyone is used to U3's smaller scale), they're trying to mislead.

The fact that the economy started to turn around a few months after Obama was inaugurated and he had a chance to put some of his policies in place, is just a side-point.

What point did you think I was trying to make?
 
2012-09-07 01:03:17 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Cletus C.: AirForceVet: I'm not particularly worried about unemployment as the sole measure of the Obama Administration.

Wise strategy if you're an Obama supporter.

Obama is working hard, dude, and the unemployment numbers would be lower if companies weren't on record as being specifically hostile to Obama's administration. I am someone who will not forget that certain companies are sitting on assloads of cash right now, and want unrealistic promises of profit which they then promise they'll translate into opening up jobs once they get what they want from congress .............. jobs which will open up overseas, but they'll still be jobs opened up. That was another point in Biden's speech last night, that utter chutzpah, which should be getting more play.

Obama has many things he's accomplished, and it's not just wise, it's plain common sense to not just see the fall of unemployment, no matter how small, as something Obama can be proud of.

The sarcastic 'wise' type comments need to be reserved for the obstructionists and those who follow them. Are you one of them?


You're either with us or you're against us? Sounds familiar.
 
2012-09-07 01:04:22 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: skullkrusher: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It is my desire that caused my suffering.

ooh, forgive me Siddhārtha

Forgiveness is never required. It is your nature to be a sophist. You cannot deny your nature.


says the guy trying to get transcendental to avoid talking about employment number disappointments
 
2012-09-07 01:04:33 PM  

DamnYankees: Prudent for him, personally? But its better for the economy if he were to do that than if the bank just sat on that money and did nothing.


This must be the dumbest line of reasoning of all time. Seriously.

How can you, a seemingly otherwise intelligent person, possibly think that spending on luxuries entirely financed by debt is good for the economy. You're advocating a massive safety net, and cushy jobs for everyone funded completely on debt! Shouldn't that trigger something in your brain that lets you fundamentally know this is a bad idea. I don't understand your thought process on this.

IT'S DEBT, IT ISN'T FREE MONEY!
 
2012-09-07 01:05:18 PM  
Also, historically when employment growth is slow that means corporate profits aren't so hot either. Right now corporate profits are the highest they've ever been. Arguing about this or that government course of action or this or that government actor is rather missing the point.
 
2012-09-07 01:05:26 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That would be a very foolish bank and they would be sure to lose their money. Banks used to not make bad bets on people they knew were going to spend their money on wine and women. I don't think even a modern bank would make such a bet.


Sure, but finish the line of reasoning. Eventually the bank loses their money and cuts off funding to the drunk. What happens to his lifestyle?
 
2012-09-07 01:05:30 PM  
...is it just me or are the people who are and have been in favor of policies that are known, have been proven, and easily demonstrated to depress wages, like right-to-work, union busting, axing the minimum wage, and enhancing visa programs; and have led to job flight and deindustrialization like free trade agreements, deregulating factory closure, and preventing/lowering taxes that would preclude decapitalization; suddenly seem to be very, very concerned about low-wage job growth and creation, despite it being the source of the Bush-era low unemployment rates?
 
2012-09-07 01:05:57 PM  

KarmicDisaster: DamnYankees: And we're back.

What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.


I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
 
2012-09-07 01:06:12 PM  

SixPaperJoint: My intro econ classes were divided up by semester into Marco and Micro. It's a shame yours were not.


Don't worry, they were.
 
2012-09-07 01:06:23 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com

Because obviously Republicans know how to make instantaneous momentum shifts.
 
2012-09-07 01:07:07 PM  

MattStafford: possibly think that spending on luxuries entirely financed by debt is good for the economy.


Think of it in these terms - would it be good for the economy if a rich person bought some luxuries? I assume you think, all else being equal, yes, it would be.

So what if that rich person gives his money to a bank, who gives it to a drunk, who buys the luxuries. Shouldn't that also be a good thing?

Whether the drunk pays the bank back or not is sort of irrelevant to the economy at large. If I'm the drunk and someone is offering me unsecured money at a low interest rate, I'm confused why I *wouldn't* take that money and spend it on whatever I want.
 
2012-09-07 01:07:36 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Again, most employment is in local services:

Ditch diggers and washing machine builders eat out more.
Restaurants open and expand, hiring.
Strip-mall owners buy new cars.
Restaurant employees and owners buy some ditches and washing machines.
Washing machine factory middle managers hire kids to mow their lawns. Kids take their girlfriends out for nice meals.

Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.



What is self sustaining about it?! If the government creates 1000 jobs by deficit spending, they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.
 
2012-09-07 01:08:37 PM  

MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.


Because you say so?
 
2012-09-07 01:10:01 PM  

Zumaki: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 630x378]

Because obviously Republicans know how to make instantaneous momentum shifts.


They clearly do. That jump from 2008 to 2009 was a pretty instantaneous momentum shift
 
2012-09-07 01:11:05 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: Again, most employment is in local services:

Ditch diggers and washing machine builders eat out more.
Restaurants open and expand, hiring.
Strip-mall owners buy new cars.
Restaurant employees and owners buy some ditches and washing machines.
Washing machine factory middle managers hire kids to mow their lawns. Kids take their girlfriends out for nice meals.

Of course SOME demand will fall off when the ditch-digging program winds down. And some is self-sustaining.


What is self sustaining about it?! If the government creates 1000 jobs by deficit spending, they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.


you're ignoring the multiplier
 
2012-09-07 01:11:45 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is that "distorted"? That's just part of the economy. Are you claiming that an economy with no military expenses is somehow "normal", and that the existence of a military "distorts" that baseline? That seems a little strange.

Government builds a military base in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that military base. Government eventually shuts the base down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had the government not distorted the economy.

How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.


Except your scenerio actually happened in towns in bumblefark PA.

Mostly with the steel industry but you get the idea.

I mean I'm not an economics genius or anything but even I know that MattStafford doesn't have a grasp on the most simple of economics concepts.

Either he's really this stupid or just trolling.
 
2012-09-07 01:12:14 PM  

DamnYankees: What I don't get is how this is different from private sector jobs. If I hire someone to build a house for me, is that not a real job because it eventually ends? I'm not paying those contractors in perpetuity or anything.


This is actually a great example to illustrate my point.

Suppose you hire someone to build a house for one. In situation one, you've worked for a while and have enough saved up for a down payment, along with a steady income to pay the mortgage, where the principal is reduced every month. In situation two, you just take out a massive mortgage with no real way to pay for it. The principal on the mortgage gets bigger every month In example one, you should be fine, and the economy in general should be fine. In example two, we get the housing bust, and everything is farked.

Which of those situations best describes what is going on with our government right now.
 
2012-09-07 01:12:14 PM  

KarmicDisaster: DamnYankees: And we're back.

What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.


Trust him, he's the Doctor.
 
2012-09-07 01:12:31 PM  
Clearly we all want to see more growth.

It's time for the 'job creators' to step in and do what's best for the country and pivot off that low tax rate to start creating jobs to get America back to work!

Now, where are those job creators? Let me hear it! Anyone? Anyone at all?
 
2012-09-07 01:13:23 PM  

ddam: tenpoundsofcheese: Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad happened to the economy in 2008...

Yes, we elected 0bama.

Average number of jobs created per month in 2011: 153,000
Average number of jobs created per month in 2012: 139,000

Conclusion: but, but, but, bbbbuush!

Whatever 0bama thinks he is doing to create jobs has failed.

So Obama is creating jobs but not nearly as fast as people want


Where do you get that "0bama is creating jobs"?? What has 0bama done to create jobs (he admitted that the shovel ready jobs was a failure).

No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.
 
2012-09-07 01:14:31 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.


Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!
 
2012-09-07 01:14:48 PM  
Corporate profits, last 2 presidential terms:

research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-07 01:15:05 PM  

Highroller48: I'm 100% certain that Obama needs to be reelected. I think Romney would be an economic disaster.

That said, I must admit that this report is NOT good news. It shows that job growth continues to be frighteningly sluggish, and that the biggest reason for this month's drop in the unemployment rate is people who stop looking.

Romney's "solutions" are bogus. Tax cuts don't create jobs. That's axiomatic, no matter what the Repubs tell you. There are, however, billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure projects that could be undertaken by the private and public sector, or a combination thereof, that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs NOW, and even provide a return on our investment by increasing the tax base and having more efficient roads, bridges, utilities, etc.

Unfortunately, all efforts to actually get these moving have been blocked by partisan chicanery in Congress. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to put Americans to work, but they'd rather sacrifice them all just to try and put ONE guy out of a job.

The Republican apologists around here can deny it all they want, but no one's buying it, especially when their party freely and openly admits to hijacking the legislative process, regrdless of the consequences, just to sabotage the Obama administration.


Excellent. I may even say THIS ^^^
 
2012-09-07 01:15:47 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: What I don't get is how this is different from private sector jobs. If I hire someone to build a house for me, is that not a real job because it eventually ends? I'm not paying those contractors in perpetuity or anything.

This is actually a great example to illustrate my point.

Suppose you hire someone to build a house for one. In situation one, you've worked for a while and have enough saved up for a down payment, along with a steady income to pay the mortgage, where the principal is reduced every month. In situation two, you just take out a massive mortgage with no real way to pay for it. The principal on the mortgage gets bigger every month In example one, you should be fine, and the economy in general should be fine. In example two, we get the housing bust, and everything is farked.

Which of those situations best describes what is going on with our government right now.


What are you talking about? You do realize the government only funds about 1/3 of its expenditures with debt, right? It has revenue.

The government put up far more 'equity' in relation to debt than any private individual does in the case of a mortgage. For a mortgage, you might put up 20% in equity and take out a mortgage for the other 80%. For the government's expenses, it puts up about $2.5T in equity (the money it has from taxes) and about $1.1T in debt.

You're simply wrong. You seem like a well spoken and earnest guy, but your facts simply don't make sense.
 
2012-09-07 01:16:05 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.


Absolutely? Even though when the bank eventually cuts him off, he'll have to go from living the high life to living a shack? Wouldn't it be better advice for him to live within his means? You basically just said that it was a good idea for everyone who took subprime loans to take those loans, you do realize that, right?
 
2012-09-07 01:17:21 PM  

ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.


Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?
 
2012-09-07 01:17:24 PM  

Infernalist: The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.


Please explain. The debt will have to be paid back eventually, either by reduction in services and increase in taxation, or a dramatic devaluation of the dollar.
 
2012-09-07 01:18:17 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?


Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.

At least that's what Romney told us. ;)
 
2012-09-07 01:18:28 PM  

SuperTramp: MindStalker: Would you like Fries with that Hope and Change.

Infernalist: You're carrying water for the very people who see you as little more than a serf. Even if you're just trolling, you're not helping the situation at all.

Nah, he's a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire. All of the serfs who support Republicans think of themselves that way.


Actually I was just being sarcastic. Troll easily?
 
2012-09-07 01:19:22 PM  
I was told quite clearly that we lost 4.1 million jobs last month.
 
2012-09-07 01:19:37 PM  
As long as you're going to the store and the shelves are not empty, I'm not seeing a problem with this. Some level of unemployment (or people not in the workforce) is healthy. Furthermore, the more productive individuals become, either because of technology or additional human capital, the more people will be unemployed or not in the labor force. Until you start seeing shortages of goods and services, I wouldn't worry about it that much. What I would worry about is how are we going to support the people who are unemployed and not in the workforce. I think that we need to do that. Nobody in this country should starve to death or go homeless or go without healthcare, because there aren't enough jobs to go around. We can't force companies to hire people, and economically it's better for the country as a whole to pay people to remain unemployed up to a certain level. Perhaps that's what we need to be focusing on, rather than forcing companies to create jobs they don't need. Perhaps the better solution is to start taxing businesses at a higher rate than we are and using those funds to support those who are not in the workforce for whatever reason.
 
2012-09-07 01:20:11 PM  

DamnYankees: How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.



Well, the exact same thing, except GM has to respond to market pressures. The government does not. I'm not saying that GM could do the exact same thing, and distort the economy through things like that. I'm just saying, it is far less likely for the private sector to do that on a massive scale like the government is able to do.
 
2012-09-07 01:20:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!


Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.
 
2012-09-07 01:21:08 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.


Well, the exact same thing, except GM has to respond to market pressures. The government does not. I'm not saying that GM could do the exact same thing, and distort the economy through things like that. I'm just saying, it is far less likely for the private sector to do that on a massive scale like the government is able to do.


I still have no idea what your definition of "distortion" is. It seems to consist off entirely of things the government does that the private sector also does, the government just does more of it.
 
2012-09-07 01:21:50 PM  

MattStafford: Infernalist: The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.

Please explain. The debt will have to be paid back eventually, either by reduction in services and increase in taxation, or a dramatic devaluation of the dollar.


You're actually painfully wrong in your basic understanding of national debt.

National debt is an 'asset'. It is not repaid, but is rather seen as a stake in the issuing nation. Our national debt pays 'interest' to the holders of that debt and is seen as a valued form of revenue for those holders. It is NEVER repaid, for the most part, but rather simply paid down to a reasonable amount(determined by economic geniuses by means of formula that I don't even pretend to grasp fully).

The Government Is Not A Person. The Government's Debt Does Not Function In The Same Manner As Your Debt. You Can Not Use The Same Rules, It Doesn't Work That Way.
 
2012-09-07 01:22:53 PM  

DamnYankees: Again - how is this different from the private sector? Yes, of course, when people get fired it hurts the economy. But you're essentially arguing this means they should never have been hired in the first place. And that doesn't make any sense.


In some cases, yes, they shouldn't be hired. If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.

And I have problems with private debt as well. Student loan debt is a huge issue. Financial debt is a huge issue. Mortgage debt is still a huge issue.
 
2012-09-07 01:22:55 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.


Holy Hyperbole Batman!

Anti-Success? Really? Give me a farking break dude! 

/BTW: How come the stock market has done the best under Obama than under any other President if hes' so "anti-business" and "anti-success"?
 
2012-09-07 01:23:02 PM  

Infernalist: The Government Is Not A Person. The Government's Debt Does Not Function In The Same Manner As Your Debt. You Can Not Use The Same Rules, It Doesn't Work That Way.


It's even worse than that - debt is an asset to a person as well. There's a reason you have a higher credit score if you have some debt rather than no debt.
 
2012-09-07 01:23:04 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?


Link

It took all of 30 seconds on Google to find that. It's the same act that the GOP has been blocking in Congress for the past 365 days.
 
2012-09-07 01:23:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.



So you don't have an answer about how the person in office who has been at this for almost 4 years plans to improve the job situation? Figures. Where is the 0bama job plan that ddam claims 0bama has?
 
2012-09-07 01:23:31 PM  

Dinki: adiabat: From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


It's almost as if something pretty bad Bush happened to the economy in 2008...


Better
 
2012-09-07 01:24:14 PM  

DamnYankees: I like in your telling of the story, the money earned by these individuals does absolutely nothing. They don't spend it on food, consumables or entertainment. It just sits there waiting for a crash.


And I like that his story always (he's told several varieties of the same story) includes the public worker doing something useless. Such as digging holes or ditches and then filling them back up. Never does that worker do something useful like building or repairing roads and bridges. Or training to fill jobs in new industries.
 
2012-09-07 01:24:15 PM  

MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.


It would only be bad for the economy to the extent it hurt Google. It would actually be a relatively good thing for the economy if Apple did this, for example, since Apple is sitting on a huge amount of cash which is not doing anything to help the economy.
 
2012-09-07 01:24:20 PM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


89,000,000 (Citation?) not in the work force? There are about 200,000,000 people between 16 and 65 in this country. That means 45% of them aren't "in the work force." How many of those are by choice? Take out all of the stay-at-home moms and dads, the kids who go to school rather than work and what actual information does that 89,000,000 give you other than "BOOGIE BOOGIE BIG NUMBERS!!!"?
 
2012-09-07 01:24:22 PM  

Infernalist: You're actually painfully wrong in your basic understanding of national debt.


See also:

Link
 
2012-09-07 01:25:11 PM  
Hmmmm, poor jobs report, eh?

Nothing a little tax cut for the rich can't cure!
 
2012-09-07 01:25:31 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: How is this different from the private sector?

GM builds a factory in bumblefark Pennsylvania. Stores and people move to that town, because there is demand created from that factory. GM eventually shuts the factory down. Those towns and stores that are now useless and failing would not have been there had GM not distorted the economy.

It's the exact same thing.


Well, the exact same thing, except GM has to respond to market pressures. The government does not. I'm not saying that GM could do the exact same thing, and distort the economy through things like that. I'm just saying, it is far less likely for the private sector to do that on a massive scale like the government is able to do.


This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've read about economics on Fark.

How the fark do you explain Detroit and the fact that the auto industry is the lifeblood of that city and therefore the cities fate depends on how the Big 3 are doing?

Face it, the real answer is that it's ok when private industry "manipulates economies" because it's not the government because government is bad...or something.
 
2012-09-07 01:25:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.


Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.
 
2012-09-07 01:26:26 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.

So you don't have an answer about how the person in office who has been at this for almost 4 years plans to improve the job situation? Figures. Where is the 0bama job plan that ddam claims 0bama has?


Where is the jobs plan from the guy who's spent nearly a decade campaigning for President?
 
2012-09-07 01:26:57 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: possibly think that spending on luxuries entirely financed by debt is good for the economy.

Think of it in these terms - would it be good for the economy if a rich person bought some luxuries? I assume you think, all else being equal, yes, it would be.

So what if that rich person gives his money to a bank, who gives it to a drunk, who buys the luxuries. Shouldn't that also be a good thing?

Whether the drunk pays the bank back or not is sort of irrelevant to the economy at large. If I'm the drunk and someone is offering me unsecured money at a low interest rate, I'm confused why I *wouldn't* take that money and spend it on whatever I want.


If the rich person put his money in a bank, and the bank loaned that money out to a poor person, no I would not have any issue with that. Assuming the poor person blows it, the end result is a transfer of money from the rich person to whereever that money went.

What I am railing against is the creation of money through debt. Suppose the rich person puts 1000 bucks in a bank. Through fractional reserve lending, that 1000 bucks eventually turns into 10,000 bucks. Now if they blow all of that 10,000, then we're going to have some serious issues.
 
2012-09-07 01:26:57 PM  
What we really need are more restrictions on abortion.
 
2012-09-07 01:27:15 PM  

MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy.


Uh, actually that would be great for the economy. I dont think you understand how the economy works dude.
 
2012-09-07 01:27:16 PM  

Dog Welder: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Link

It took all of 30 seconds on Google to find that. It's the same act that the GOP has been blocking in Congress for the past 365 days.


You mean the one that Reid, Tester and Nelson voted against in the Senate...oh those mean GOP members.
 
2012-09-07 01:27:21 PM  

skullkrusher: it is also not as bad as the Holocaust and the Black Death combined. Just as relevant.


But there's no denying that it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:31 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the one that Reid, Tester and Nelson voted against in the Senate...oh those mean GOP members.


Reid's vote was procedural. Allows the bill to be brought back to the floor for another vote later.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:37 PM  

MattStafford: If the rich person put his money in a bank, and the bank loaned that money out to a poor person, no I would not have any issue with that. Assuming the poor person blows it, the end result is a transfer of money from the rich person to whereever that money went.


Hooray, we're on the same page so far.

MattStafford: What I am railing against is the creation of money through debt. Suppose the rich person puts 1000 bucks in a bank. Through fractional reserve lending, that 1000 bucks eventually turns into 10,000 bucks. Now if they blow all of that 10,000, then we're going to have some serious issues.


This is an entirely different issue than whether debt can help the economy and has NOTHING do with the government's incurrence of debt. I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:46 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: ddam: Obama has provided a specific job plan.

Really? Where?

What is his job plan and how is that one different than the one that has the economy creating fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011?

Don't worry, he'll go over the details once you peons elect his as President.

So you don't have an answer about how the person in office who has been at this for almost 4 years plans to improve the job situation? Figures. Where is the 0bama job plan that ddam claims 0bama has?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-amer i can-jobs-act

as linked above by Dog Welder. The plan that is being blocked by the GOP. That is a huge reason why jobs reports are not as good as last year. But in whatever alternate universe you live in that hasn't happened.
 
2012-09-07 01:28:49 PM  

lennavan: MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy.

Uh, actually that would be great for the economy. I dont think you understand how the economy works dude.


I know, this guy is actually making me feel smarter about economics. Mainly because I can grasp basic economics concepts that he seem to be unable to.
 
2012-09-07 01:29:01 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?


Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.
 
2012-09-07 01:29:27 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-07 01:29:51 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: What I am railing against is the creation of money through debt. Suppose the rich person puts 1000 bucks in a bank. Through fractional reserve lending, that 1000 bucks eventually turns into 10,000 bucks. Now if they blow all of that 10,000, then we're going to have some serious issues.

This is an entirely different issue than whether debt can help the economy and has NOTHING do with the government's incurrence of debt. I seriously don't know what you're objection is anymore.


How the hell did you make any sense of that paragraph he wrote?
 
2012-09-07 01:30:42 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


How exactly does raising taxes destroy an equal number of jobs?
 
2012-09-07 01:31:04 PM  

MattStafford: Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


So...because you say so.
 
2012-09-07 01:31:24 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?
 
2012-09-07 01:32:01 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: A bunch of guys start running taco trucks to feed the diggers. The taco truck guys can now afford to see the doctor, who hires another nurse. The truck dealer can now send his kids to private school. Their teacher starts lunching at a taco truck because she's more overworked and it's convenient. A guy learns to fix machines at the shovel factory, later opening his own diesel garage.

Some of that does indeed persist once the spigot closes. Since most employment these days is in nontradable local services, it's not that hard to get a self-sustaining increase in employment.

Since unemployed people produce nothing, it's hard to make them less productive by paying them to do something. So much the better if it's something useful, but even make-work has macroeconomic value.

No, none of that persists when the spigot is turned off, at least not in aggregate. If the government creates 1000 jobs by creating debt, they are going to destroy 1000 jobs when the pay that debt down.


So how is that not true of, say, Google? If I get hired by Google, work there a couple years and get laid off, no lasting value was created?
 
2012-09-07 01:32:07 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?


Yes.
 
2012-09-07 01:32:24 PM  

DamnYankees: What are you talking about? You do realize the government only funds about 1/3 of its expenditures with debt, right? It has revenue.

The government put up far more 'equity' in relation to debt than any private individual does in the case of a mortgage. For a mortgage, you might put up 20% in equity and take out a mortgage for the other 80%. For the government's expenses, it puts up about $2.5T in equity (the money it has from taxes) and about $1.1T in debt.

You're simply wrong. You seem like a well spoken and earnest guy, but your facts simply don't make sense.


That would be true, if the federal budget was a one time purchase. It would be like a person buying a house every year with a two thirds down payment, but never making a payment on any principal.
 
2012-09-07 01:32:31 PM  

gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]


next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo
 
2012-09-07 01:32:44 PM  

lennavan: How exactly does raising taxes destroy an equal number of jobs?


I mean duh, remember the horrible 90s?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-07 01:32:50 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.

Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?


That seems to be the main lesson I'm getting out of this idiot's ramblings as well.
 
2012-09-07 01:33:12 PM  

MattStafford: If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


This makes no sense.

Imagine I take out a loan of 100K. I hire 10 people at 10K a year. They bring in revenue of of 11K each. So after 1 year, I now have 10K more than I did last year. After 10 years I will have repaid all my debt and my guys all still have jobs.

This is basic, basic business stuff. I mean, seriously.
 
2012-09-07 01:35:07 PM  

MattStafford: That would be true, if the federal budget was a one time purchase. It would be like a person buying a house every year with a two thirds down payment, but never making a payment on any principal.


Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.

That's what known in financial terms as "reasonable".
 
2012-09-07 01:35:16 PM  

MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.


The government doesn't hire people to dig ditches and fill them back up. When the government employs people to build infrastructure (or hires contractors to do the hiring), something tangible (and of value to the commons) is left when the work is complete. The improvements to infrastructure encourage private business growth,and there are more jobs available for everyone.

Our infrastructure is in pitiful shape compared to the rest of the industrial world. Government spending isn't a zero-sum game.
 
2012-09-07 01:36:48 PM  

DamnYankees: I still have no idea what your definition of "distortion" is. It seems to consist off entirely of things the government does that the private sector also does, the government just does more of it.


Distortion is allocating the resources of an economy into unproductive areas via the use of debt. Government goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Google goes into debt to hire people to dig ditches in the middle of nowhere, the economy is distorted. Government is far more likely to do this than Google is, however.

And note, the fact that it is funded by debt is key.
 
2012-09-07 01:36:50 PM  

WhyteRaven74: It's not that they all quit looking for work just because they gave up. Some quit looking because school started up, some retired.

cameroncrazy1984: Look at everyone trying to spin job growth as a BAD THING


When the White House's best spin is "Don't read to much into this", it's bad news.  Things are bad, and there's no clear sign things are getting better. That's a fact. Now, how we choose to deal with that, and which candidate is a better choice for dealing with it, is a separate question. Denying the obvious is a big turn-off to independents and undecideds.
 
2012-09-07 01:37:20 PM  

DamnYankees: Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.


are you referring to the US economy or the US government?
 
2012-09-07 01:38:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and a political system in paralysis and a fiscal policy on auto-pilot they don't hire.


The bond traders and raters told you this a year ago. You didn't listen then and now you feign outrage at the predictable macroeconomic effects hoping for partisan advantage. Cool story, bro.
 
2012-09-07 01:38:16 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: WhyteRaven74: It's not that they all quit looking for work just because they gave up. Some quit looking because school started up, some retired.
cameroncrazy1984: Look at everyone trying to spin job growth as a BAD THING

When the White House's best spin is "Don't read to much into this", it's bad news.  Things are bad, and there's no clear sign things are getting better. That's a fact. Now, how we choose to deal with that, and which candidate is a better choice for dealing with it, is a separate question. Denying the obvious is a big turn-off to independents and undecideds.


I don't think there's much danger of anyone listening to those two
 
2012-09-07 01:38:25 PM  

MattStafford: Gaseous Anomaly: If they're lending it unsecured (as investors lend to governments), absolutely. Why would any rational profit-maximizing self-interested agent *turn down money*? If people's behavior is that far away from rational self-interest, where does that leave economic theory?

Ignoring that national debts don't have to be "paid back" in the sense personal debts do, he can determine whether borrowing more money than he can pay back is worth the eventual hit to his credit rating.

Absolutely? Even though when the bank eventually cuts him off, he'll have to go from living the high life to living a shack? Wouldn't it be better advice for him to live within his means? You basically just said that it was a good idea for everyone who took subprime loans to take those loans, you do realize that, right?


If we're using microeconomic theory here, those people were rational self-interested agents participating in a voluntary arm's-length transaction, if it didn't create value for them they would not have done it. Likewise, they're generating value for the bank (or the bank wouldn't make the loan).

More seriously, note the "unsecured" in my response. For this hypothetical debtor, default is an option. There's a cost (ruined ability to get more credit) but that might be just fine with him, depending on his situation.

Also note this has no bearing on government borrowing whatsoever.
 
2012-09-07 01:38:42 PM  

MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.


WOW. Please stick to being bad at football, you're TERRIBLE at economics and logic.
 
2012-09-07 01:38:42 PM  

MattStafford: And note, the fact that it is funded by debt is key.


Almost all business is funded by debt.

And whether you think the government is worse or better than the private sector is irrelevant. It's just a matter of degree, and you're line of at what degree that investment becomes "distortion" is just arbitrary and prejudicial.
 
2012-09-07 01:39:19 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Some people don't realize that adisappointing jobs report doesnt necessarily mean Romney could do better (or good at all)

also, some people don't realize that honestly looking at a jobs report and saying "this is disappointing" is not a criticism of Obama nor an endorsement of Romney. It is an objective analysis of results vs expectations.

Those people must not realize we are 2 months from an election.

leave the spin to those running for office. You should be able to pull off objective analysis this close to an election.

the real possibility the election could bring us back to those good old days makes it part of the object

so you want dishonest analysis of data in light of that? Who am I kidding, of course you do.

And of course you want to remind people of the failure of your party, so bringing W is forbidden, amirite?

you're not even trying anymore. Seriously, if you aren't farking around you're an extra special sort of idiot


you: comparing job growth now to W's term is meaningless.
me: in the context of the bigger picture, an election 2 months away, it isn't.
you: of course you want to point that out.
me: troll for a troll
you: omg yer so stoopid
 
2012-09-07 01:39:28 PM  

KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.


154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.
 
2012-09-07 01:39:38 PM  

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.

are you referring to the US economy or the US government?


The government.
 
2012-09-07 01:40:02 PM  

MattStafford: And note, the fact that it is funded by debt is key.


The debt is a concern, not a crisis. Unemployment is a crisis. Fix unemployment and you'll fix the debt, not the other way around. That's called austerity, and is part of the reason the US, relative to Europe, is kicking economic ass right now.

Or,

Talking about the deficit right now is like having your house on fire and saying "the most important issue right now is water usage."

- sethdmichaels (@sethdmichaels) September 7, 2012
 
2012-09-07 01:40:21 PM  

KarmicDisaster: DamnYankees: And we're back.

What happened, it was horrible. The whole universe blinked out for a minute.


All the right wing links finally overloaded the servers.
They had to derpfrag the hard drives.
 
2012-09-07 01:40:27 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: When the White House's best spin is "Don't read to much into this", it's bad news.


So explaining what numbers mean is now spin? And if things aren't good, how about putting the blame on the private sector?
 
2012-09-07 01:41:18 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


What were Bush's month average during 2008?
 
2012-09-07 01:41:58 PM  

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo


Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!
 
2012-09-07 01:41:58 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: You mean the one that Reid, Tester and Nelson voted against in the Senate...oh those mean GOP members.

Reid's vote was procedural. Allows the bill to be brought back to the floor for another vote later.


So? GOP members have reasons for their vote too.

Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House. One GOP member votes yes.. The bill fails the vote by 50-49. Conclusion from the left: it is the GOPs fault.

0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.
 
2012-09-07 01:42:00 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


Blame the private sector, and at any rate isn't that different from similar situations in the past.
 
2012-09-07 01:42:05 PM  
Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.

It's not better. It's just not worse.
 
2012-09-07 01:42:44 PM  

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: Yes, its possible to have this be a problem. What you need to watch out for is your debt-to-revenue ratio. Right now, in the US, that ratio is about 6%.

are you referring to the US economy or the US government?

The government.


what numbers you using for that? US Debt to revs is over 100%. A far lower ratio than many major companies but certainly not 6%
 
2012-09-07 01:43:08 PM  

ddam: Gaseous Anomaly: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Banks and lenders don't just sit on money. That's the part you're missing. The money used by the bank/investor to fund the drunk/Keynesian borrowing would otherwise have been used somewhere else.

Yeah, it's being used to buy treasury bonds - that's the point. This argument makes no sense in the context of low interest rates. If people with money were actually willing to invest their funds in private enterprise, why the hell would they be buying treasury bonds with negative real yields? But they are, for whatever reason. And while they are willing to do it, we should take advantage.

It's actually an interesting case for tax cuts. Because of these negative rates it currently costs the economy less in the long run for the government to borrow money than it does for the government to collect taxes. So a big-ass deficit-financed tax cut (a la Bush 2003) might be the long-run prudent thing to do.

So the best way to reduce the national debt is to add $5 trillion to it as Romney proposes? What kind of math are you using?


Spending $5T and collecting $5T in taxes right now will in fact add more to the long-run national debt more than spending $5T and collecting no taxes, yes. Welcome to the bizarro-land of negative interest rates. (In the short run of course it would go up, but that would be counteracted by us having to collect less than $5T in taxes later to pay back the bonds).
 
2012-09-07 01:43:21 PM  

impaler: Corporate profits, last 2 presidential terms:

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


So the trickle-down should be a thunderstorm apparently.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:25 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


I have to ask. Are you only using the first 8 months of 2011 for that number or the whole year?

Because that would be an incredibly dishonest talking point to use if you were using 12 months in 2011 to compared to 8 months in 2012.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:30 PM  

adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( 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 - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.


Considering the crash came in 2008, that would make sense.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:45 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo

Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!


man, I can't quit you
 
2012-09-07 01:43:45 PM  

skullkrusher: what numbers you using for that? US Debt to revs is over 100%. A far lower ratio than many major companies but certainly not 6%


Debt *payment*. Not total debt. I'm saying how much of our budget is spent on servicing debt. When people get mortgages, the important thing is whether you can make the monthly payments, not the actual total amount outstanding. That's how you judge whether you are in over your head.
 
2012-09-07 01:43:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.


On the day Obama took office unemployment was rapidly increasing. And hey why not blame the private sector? Or is the private sector utterly blameless in everything?
 
2012-09-07 01:44:07 PM  

Infernalist: National debt is an 'asset'. It is not repaid, but is rather seen as a stake in the issuing nation. Our national debt pays 'interest' to the holders of that debt and is seen as a valued form of revenue for those holders. It is NEVER repaid, for the most part, but rather simply paid down to a reasonable amount(determined by economic geniuses by means of formula that I don't even pretend to grasp fully).

The Government Is Not A Person. The Government's Debt Does Not Function In The Same Manner As Your Debt. You Can Not Use The Same Rules, It Doesn't Work That Way.



The government's debt does function in the same manner as my debt. I can use the same rules, and it does work that the way. The only difference, the government can print money. That is it. The single, solitary difference. Everything else operates the exact same way. And if you suggest money printing as a solution to our debt problems, you're a joke.

Entity A lends money to Entity B. Entity B spends that money. Entity B then has to pay back principal, plus interest to Entity A.

That is how all debt works, mine, yours, Google's, the Government's. Everyone's.

The government just has a lot more credit, and people are far more willing to lend to it. It doesn't change how debt works.
 
2012-09-07 01:44:25 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House.


Not when the AJA was introduced. That was 2011.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.


No they didn't. Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill

Do you even watch the news?
 
2012-09-07 01:44:35 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Fix unemployment and you'll fix the debt, not the other way around. That's called austerity,


Not to nit-pick, but that's not what Austerity is.

"In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided."
 
2012-09-07 01:45:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.


Now if only the Republicans hadn't filibustered his jobs plan. I wonder what the slope would have looked like then?
 
2012-09-07 01:45:37 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: And I like that his story always (he's told several varieties of the same story) includes the public worker doing something useless. Such as digging holes or ditches and then filling them back up. Never does that worker do something useful like building or repairing roads and bridges. Or training to fill jobs in new industries.


I am actually in favor of investment in productive things. You can look through my comment history (I think) and see that I support necessary infrastructure and education, and I am fine going into debt for that. Debt for unproductive things destroys countries, however.
 
2012-09-07 01:45:52 PM  

impaler: U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?


A dash a scare tactics, a smidgeon of sensationalism, and a heaping bowl full of ignance.
 
2012-09-07 01:46:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Unemployment rate when Obama won the election: 6.7%
Unemployment rate when Obama took Office: 8.3%
Unemployment rate Today: 8.1%

That is not success. It's just not. For almost four years now, the administration has been saying be patient, we're working on it. It will get better.

It's not better. It's just not worse.


Vote Republican?
 
2012-09-07 01:46:10 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Good lord, are all Republicans this retarded? Or do they really believe that everything done by government has no inherent value (infrastructure, education, defense, etc) strictly because it's funded by the government?


YES.

Unless it's defense spending. Somehow that government spending can magically create jobs.

Congress should really take advantage of this magical property - make every dollar a "defense" dollar.

Food stamps - relabel them "Wartime family sustenance certificates."
US Postal Service - "Service for Cyber-attack Resistant Information Distribution"
US Department of Education - "US Department of Defense Worker Training"
 
2012-09-07 01:46:39 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

I have to ask. Are you only using the first 8 months of 2011 for that number or the whole year?

Because that would be an incredibly dishonest talking point to use if you were using 12 months in 2011 to compared to 8 months in 2012.


Just like how he takes his other figures from "when Obama won the election" and not when he actually took office.
 
2012-09-07 01:46:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House.

Not when the AJA was introduced. That was 2011.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.

N


here ya go.
 
2012-09-07 01:46:55 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: "In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided."


By 'fixing the debt' I meant exactly this. Since we can never raise taxes, apparently, fixing our debt would involve a lot of cuts. The middle class gets the shaft, the wealthy sigh heavily.
 
2012-09-07 01:47:12 PM  

skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo

Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!

man, I can't quit you


Dont mind me, throwing some numbers around, continue trolling! =)

teehee
 
2012-09-07 01:47:50 PM  

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: what numbers you using for that? US Debt to revs is over 100%. A far lower ratio than many major companies but certainly not 6%

Debt *payment*. Not total debt. I'm saying how much of our budget is spent on servicing debt. When people get mortgages, the important thing is whether you can make the monthly payments, not the actual total amount outstanding. That's how you judge whether you are in over your head.


oooooooh.
gotcha. Debt SERVICE to revenues. That makes more sense
 
2012-09-07 01:48:03 PM  

ferretman: Spiffy? It's a total failure. only +96,000 jobs....with 368,000 people who dropped out and almost 89,000,000 not in the work force.


Yeah, it's like the deficit: If you can't fix it all at once, it's not worth even trying.
 
2012-09-07 01:48:13 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: If Google took out a billion dollar loan, and hired people to dig ditches and fill them back up, that would be terrible for the economy. It is just that the government is far more likely to do that, because it is politically popular to hire people and spend money.

It would only be bad for the economy to the extent it hurt Google. It would actually be a relatively good thing for the economy if Apple did this, for example, since Apple is sitting on a huge amount of cash which is not doing anything to help the economy.


If Apple paid cash for this, than yeah, who cares. If Apple took out a billion dollar loan, then it would be extremely damaging to the economy. And that money isn't just sitting in a vault in Cupertino, sorry to burst your bubble, but it is out doing things.
 
2012-09-07 01:48:54 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Just like how he takes his other figures from "when Obama won the election" and not when he actually took office.


wut? when did I do that? Or are you lying?
 
2012-09-07 01:48:54 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: [i48.tinypic.com image 403x403]

next time someone tells you Obama is destroying the economy, lie about the stock market? That is a terrible plan. That shiat is easy to check, yo

Uh the stock market isnt high?

Oh this is where you derp away that because its 8% away from the record high it doesnt count.

Derp away!

man, I can't quit you

Dont mind me, throwing some numbers around, continue trolling! =)

teehee


man, easy with the commas. There are kids in China who'd love just one comma and you're being all showy with your three

/vote NateGrey
//teehee
 
2012-09-07 01:48:59 PM  

MattStafford: Infernalist: The GOP and the ignorant among us insist on treating the government as if it were a 'person' with 'personal' debts, assets, income and other individual aspects to an individual economic situation. They literally go cross-eyed when you try to explain to them that national debt is not a bad thing in the proper amount and utilized correctly.

They'll go bug-eyed if you try to show them how national debt has actual 'value'.

Please explain. The debt will have to be paid back eventually, either by reduction in services and increase in taxation, or a dramatic devaluation of the dollar.


Or economic growth making the debt small relative to tax revenue. But what are the odds of that?
 
2012-09-07 01:49:08 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Face it, the Dems had a majority in the House.

Not when the AJA was introduced. That was 2011.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama's own party killed it, not the GOP.

N

here ya go.


Are you really this stupid that you can't even read your own sources?

Majority Leader Reid, D-Nev., changed his vote from yes to no in order to preserve the motion to proceed. A Senator has to be with the winning side in order to have the ability to bring the measure up again at any time without filing cloture.

It was a procedural thing and not because Harry Reid thought 9Bama's jobs bill was a bad idea.
 
2012-09-07 01:49:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: here ya go.


Right, it was filibustered by the Senate GOP. So your point about the Dems controlling the House at the time was not only wrong it was completely irrelevant. Do you even watch the news?
 
2012-09-07 01:49:46 PM  

Pincy: tenpoundsofcheese: KarmicDisaster: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: No, the economy is creating jobs, fewer this year than last year which means the economy has no faith in whatever it is that 0bama claims he is doing to create jobs.

Because it's all Obama's fault and nothing to do with market forces in general.

Got it!

Good, you are learning. Now you should try to understand what influences market forces.

If companies see an anti-business, anti-success President who doesn't have a clue about how to improve the economy, they don't have faith in the economic strength and they don't hire.

Actually, as I mentioned before, the slope of the recovery under Obama on the unemployment chart above is the same as other growth periods. Jobs are not being created at a slower rate.

154,000 jobs a month in 2011
139,000 jobs a month in 2012
That slope ain't good.

Now if only the Republicans hadn't filibustered his jobs plan. I wonder what the slope would have looked like then?


a lot worse. that is why the 3 dems voted against it in the Senate.
 
2012-09-07 01:49:52 PM  

MattStafford: If Apple took out a billion dollar loan, then it would be extremely damaging to the economy


...why?

If Apple spent their billion dollars to hire people, that's good.

If Apple loaned the billion dollars to Google and Google hired people, it would bad.

...why?
 
2012-09-07 01:50:22 PM  

lennavan: MattStafford: Dusk-You-n-Me: MattStafford: they will destroy 1000 jobs when they pay that debt down.

Because you say so?

Just think about it. Government creates 10,000 dollars, and hires 1000 workers to dig a ditch and fill it back in. Eventually the government will be forced to cut that spending or raise taxes, either of which will destroy jobs (right around 10,000 dollars worth of jobs).

If debt creation creates job, then paying down debt destroys jobs.

How exactly does raising taxes destroy an equal number of jobs?


The same way trickle down economics works.


/it doesn't