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)   A single job chart that shows exactly how much damage can be done when you combine a massive recession, an obstructionist Congress, and dogged insistence on cutting public-sector jobs at the worst possible time   (npr.org) divider line 39
    More: Scary, congresses, radiation damages, Calculated Risk, public sector, recession  
•       •       •

4764 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Mar 2013 at 11:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 11:39:35 AM  
so we don't want the government to spend so much, then expect them to add government jobs?  Just trying to put my thumb on what they're getting at.
 
2013-03-08 11:43:39 AM  
These charts are always misleading. This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

static4.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-08 12:00:56 PM  
Over in the headline. Now I'm depressed, subby.
 
2013-03-08 12:05:35 PM  

thecpt: so we don't want the government to spend so much, then expect them to add government jobs?  Just trying to put my thumb on what they're getting at.


No, the point is that cutting spending in a down economy is exactly the wrong thing to do. You need look no farther than Europe to see what a complete shiat-stained failure austerity has been.
 
2013-03-08 12:10:05 PM  
Austerity doesn't work, but the bondholders are worried that spending to promote growth means that they won't get paid back.  And the bondholders usually win.
 
2013-03-08 12:17:44 PM  
Add me to the "austerity doesn't work" crowd.
 
2013-03-08 12:17:55 PM  

thecpt: so we don't want the government to spend so much, then expect them to add government jobs?  Just trying to put my thumb on what they're getting at.


I don't expect government jobs to be added, but eliminating hundreds of thousands of them isn't the right path either, unless they are actually completely unnecessary positions.
 
2013-03-08 12:22:30 PM  
2007 huh? Who was president then?
 
2013-03-08 12:37:19 PM  

DamnYankees: These charts are always misleading. This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 833x500]


And if you look at the trend of recent recessions we have moved to a more bell curve shape than the Vs of the past.  Our economy has changed and we look to be setup for slow recoveries until the base economy changes again.
 
2013-03-08 12:42:10 PM  
You need to get a jobby-job!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cxr1-b6Xkc
 
2013-03-08 12:57:55 PM  

abhorrent1: 2007 huh? Who was president then?


B. HUSSEIN Fartbongo...who do you think, nitwit!?

/I herd it on rushanitybach, so it must be tru
 
2013-03-08 01:22:58 PM  

Speaker2Animals: thecpt: so we don't want the government to spend so much, then expect them to add government jobs?  Just trying to put my thumb on what they're getting at.

No, the point is that cutting spending in a down economy is exactly the wrong thing to do. You need look no farther than Europe to see what a complete shiat-stained failure austerity has been.


I would agree with that 100% but the only way that works is if you cut spending during an up economy and I think you will find Bigfoot farking the Loch Ness Monster before you find a politician that will do that.
 
2013-03-08 01:39:50 PM  
Austerity doesn't work hasn't been tried.
 
2013-03-08 02:23:41 PM  

Fluxinator: Austerity doesn't work hasn't been tried.


Well, setting ourselves on fire hasn't been tried, let's do that.
 
2013-03-08 02:28:13 PM  

Fluxinator: Austerity doesn't work hasn't been tried.


Austerity is like violence: if you don't get the desired result, use more.
 
2013-03-08 02:40:26 PM  

DamnYankees: These charts are always misleading. This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 833x500]


The issue isn't the number of jobs, anymore.  The issue is the pay of the jobs being offered.  You may not think that a service sector worker "deserves" $10 an hour, but as long as inflation keeps rising, the value of that $10/hour goes downhill, so they can't buy nearly as much, to say nothing about the ability to save anything.  And when those jobs that are being offered at $10/hr require a four-year degree...well, it doesn't matter that the unemployment might get back to 6%, we're still going to be in a "recession"...or, as I continue to call it, the Great Suppression.
 
2013-03-08 03:03:03 PM  
Spending during a recession is the way to go, just as using your HMO card to pay the hospital bill is the way to go.  What?  We didn't pay our premiums first?  Oh.....
 
2013-03-08 03:18:20 PM  
Just wait until the current new bubble bursts. The farkers never learn.

As Bullwinkie used to say ...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-08 04:16:06 PM  
DamnYankees,It is a very valid chart. This is a recession. Calling it a "financial crisis" is just stating its cause. Finance-induced recessions are always nastier than recessions induced by other means.
 
2013-03-08 04:54:29 PM  

MBA Whore: DamnYankees,It is a very valid chart. This is a recession. Calling it a "financial crisis" is just stating its cause. Finance-induced recessions are always nastier than recessions induced by other means.


Yes, but comparing our recovery to non-financial crises is misleading in that it makes the recovery look much worse than it is. It's like if you have leukemia, its stupid to complain that your recovery is taking longer than the guy who had the flu. Despite the fact that you're both "sick", it's a bad comparison.
 
2013-03-08 05:21:41 PM  

FizixJunkee: Add me to the "austerity doesn't work" crowd.


You and all of Europe outside Germany.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:27 PM  

MrBallou: FizixJunkee: Add me to the "austerity doesn't work" crowd.

You and all of Europe outside Germany.


What is funny is that I thought that it was the Keynesian economics theory that advocated a pull back in spending when things started to get better.  At least that is what I have been told by the Fark graduated economist.

If you want to talk about how weak this recovery is, this will tell you why.  It will also show you that we still have a long way to go.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:54 PM  

DamnYankees: These charts are always misleading. This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 833x500]


And if you look all of them up they have something very similar in cause: banking sector.
 
2013-03-08 08:18:35 PM  

FizixJunkee: Add me to the "austerity doesn't work" crowd.


It does work, but only in a Keynesian context.

When interest rates are high and the economy is humming along, paying down debts and a bit of austerity can keep inflation rates low and put the economy safely in overdrive.  Basically what we did in the 1990's.

Austerity for austerity sake because of the misguided and irrational "make the welfare queens pay" "taxs are eval!"  "government is the deval!" teabaggers is horribly detrimental to the economy.  It really isn't about factually based economics, but wishful thinking that punishes the "bad people" the most (ie what they believe is not them).  And they only end up cutting of their own nose to spite their face, because economics IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

Same could be said for the immigration debate.  The levels of tax revenue and general boost to the economy by bringing these people into our system legally would probably be 1-2% points on GDP.  If you believe in Capitalism, that would life all boats.  Getting rid of illegal workers and wages would likewise push up wages for everyone, and add a little inefficiency to the labor markets which ends up benefiting all workers who find themselves in better bargaining positions.
 
2013-03-08 09:09:35 PM  

TyrantII: FizixJunkee:
Austerity for austerity sake because of the misguided and irrational "make the welfare queens pay" "taxs are eval!"  "government is the deval!" teabaggers is horribly detrimental to the economy.  It really isn't about factually based economics, but wishful thinking that punishes the "bad people" the most (ie what they believe is not them).  And they only end up cutting of their own nose to spite their face, because economics IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.


Also, many of these same people are major benefit recipients.  Many of them are on the taxpayer's tit in one way or another and want to cut the flow for other people, not for themselves.
 
2013-03-08 10:27:41 PM  

FizixJunkee: Add me to the "austerity doesn't work" crowd.


Bullshiat. It works great. In GOOD times. But then, in good times, rich investors really create jobs, too.
 
2013-03-08 10:30:42 PM  

Fluxinator: Austerity doesn't work hasn't been tried.


History is long, and EVERYTHING has been tried. Many times. Those who claim their pet theory has "never been tried" are all liars, without regard to what brand of snake oil they're peddling.
 
2013-03-08 10:49:02 PM  

jso2897: Fluxinator: Austerity doesn't work hasn't been tried.

History is long, and EVERYTHING has been tried. Many times. Those who claim their pet theory has "never been tried" are all liars, without regard to what brand of snake oil they're peddling.


No it hasn't. Keynes' recommendation to cut spending in up markets has never been tried.
 
2013-03-08 11:26:51 PM  

Stone Meadow: eynes' recommendation to cut spending in up markets has never been tried.


You mean like now?
 
2013-03-08 11:37:44 PM  
"Austerity doesn't work."

Depends on the definition of work. If "work" means to change the economy such that it has a solid foundation for stable growth and accumulation of resources by all contributing individuals, then no, austerity does not work. shiat no.

What "work" actually means according to the people calling the shots and technocrats implementing policy is "stop at nothing to make sure the banks get as many bond payments as can possibly be obtained." Austerity works.

You want the real definition of austerity?  Repudiate all national debts.  The banks get squat and go bankrupt.  fark 'em.  Parasites the whole lot of them.  The financial Armageddon they tout out to argue for their TBTF status is fluff and self-serving lies.  Nothing more than terrorists weaponizing bits, exchanges, and contracts.  Worse than terrorists as terrorists don't profit from their inflicted destruction.

Then the governments can't borrow money.  Good.  Fantastic.  Make the current generation pay for all their own bullshiat largess instead of passing the bill to innocent descendents.  The government will be forced to make due with the consumption of fewer resources.  Good; more stuff for the rest of us.  Though i'm not interested in buying flying robots that shoot missiles so maybe we can just get rid of that evil shiat completely.   Imagine how much better consumer electronics would be if we had all those Oppenheimers designing for apple and google and samsung instead.
 
2013-03-09 12:39:30 AM  

HeadLever: Stone Meadow: eynes' recommendation to cut spending in up markets has never been tried.

You mean like now?


7.7% unemployment with who knows how many underemployed is not an "up" market.
 
2013-03-09 03:32:48 AM  
"But its all cool you guys, the country got all the wealth it lost back!"
 
2013-03-09 07:29:40 AM  

Stone Meadow: jso2897: Fluxinator: Austerity doesn't work hasn't been tried.

History is long, and EVERYTHING has been tried. Many times. Those who claim their pet theory has "never been tried" are all liars, without regard to what brand of snake oil they're peddling.

No it hasn't. Keynes' recommendation to cut spending in up markets has never been tried.


See what I mean?
Just for balance, can I get a "free-market" Rand worshiper to come in and say that "real" capitalism has never been tried, either?
Damn, this is fun.
 
2013-03-09 09:17:01 AM  

Speaker2Animals: thecpt: so we don't want the government to spend so much, then expect them to add government jobs?  Just trying to put my thumb on what they're getting at.

No, the point is that cutting spending in a down economy is exactly the wrong thing to do. You need look no farther than Europe to see what a complete shiat-stained failure austerity has been.


I hear that argument a lot. The problem is, we don't cut spending in any economy, down or up. If the economy is strong, the good times are rolling and we're supposed to hire more public sector employees and enact more social programs for those who aren't getting their fair share of the prosperity. If the economy is weak, we're supposed to keep public payrolls staffed up and enact more social programs for the unemployed. I have yet to hear anybody who makes your argument finally say, "Hey, things are great, at last we can lay off some government workers."
 
2013-03-09 01:00:44 PM  

Alebak: "But its all cool you guys, the country got all the wealth it lost back!"


I get the sarcasm, but it's way too easy for someone to point to the stock market and make that claim.  However, for the average American, for whom the majority of their wealth is in their homes, it will take another 15-20 years, if ever, to recover the lost equity from 2007.

In the meantime we've moved from one million foreclosures a year to a million short sales a year (same result for the homeowner, they still lose their home, but hey it saves the bank a lot of money to do a short sale instead of foreclosing) and there's still 14 million homes underwater - more debt than the property's worth.  It's going to be a huge drag on the economy and consumer spending for a loooong time.

/why yes I am a short sale realtor, why do you ask?
 
2013-03-09 02:47:18 PM  

jjorsett: Speaker2Animals: thecpt: so we don't want the government to spend so much, then expect them to add government jobs?  Just trying to put my thumb on what they're getting at.

No, the point is that cutting spending in a down economy is exactly the wrong thing to do. You need look no farther than Europe to see what a complete shiat-stained failure austerity has been.

I hear that argument a lot. The problem is, we don't cut spending in any economy, down or up. If the economy is strong, the good times are rolling and we're supposed to hire more public sector employees and enact more social programs for those who aren't getting their fair share of the prosperity. If the economy is weak, we're supposed to keep public payrolls staffed up and enact more social programs for the unemployed. I have yet to hear anybody who makes your argument finally say, "Hey, things are great, at last we can lay off some government workers."


Cut spending really means slow spending as a % of GDP, so that spending over time decreases.  People wrongly try to think of credit cards, or normal joe finances and you simply can't relate them to the largest economy in the world.  Corporate finance is a much better analogy, but still not there 100%.... and hell if 90% of people could even start to understand it.

People hear big numbers and scream "This is an outrage".  You need to compare it to the annual GDP of 15 TRILLION, to population size, and to the increases needs of post industrial, technological information society.

Government that grows with the economy in good times, but at a slower rate and becomes more efficient, is a shrinking government.  Yes, yar over year you are spending more, because everything else is going up too.  You have to.

Conservatives would be winning if they were making that argument.  Instead they want to re-fight the civil war and dissolve any influence of the federal government (union) over their states.
 
2013-03-09 07:53:36 PM  

DamnYankees: MBA Whore: DamnYankees,It is a very valid chart. This is a recession. Calling it a "financial crisis" is just stating its cause. Finance-induced recessions are always nastier than recessions induced by other means.

Yes, but comparing our recovery to non-financial crises is misleading in that it makes the recovery look much worse than it is. It's like if you have leukemia, its stupid to complain that your recovery is taking longer than the guy who had the flu. Despite the fact that you're both "sick", it's a bad comparison.


It's still not a great comparison, although your chart has some interesting merit. It loses meaning in that it compares a lot of other countries with different governments and economies, not to mention vastly different times in the past. To use your analogy, I might be stupid to complain that my leukemia takes longer to recover from than the guy with the flu, but I'm still sick, damnit, so show me some graphs of other people with leukemia so I can complain about that!

It's a lot easier to look at graphs from our own economy because we can easily see how differences in public policy and changes in our economy over the past century affects recoveries. When you boil it all down, I don't care about how well other economies did, especially those which have good social safety nets.
 
2013-03-10 09:18:34 PM  

IlGreven: DamnYankees: These charts are always misleading. This was not a normal recession, it was a financial crisis. You need to compare it to other financial crisis, and in that context we're doing ok:

[static4.businessinsider.com image 833x500]

The issue isn't the number of jobs, anymore.  The issue is the pay of the jobs being offered.  You may not think that a service sector worker "deserves" $10 an hour, but as long as inflation keeps rising, the value of that $10/hour goes downhill, so they can't buy nearly as much, to say nothing about the ability to save anything.  And when those jobs that are being offered at $10/hr require a four-year degree...well, it doesn't matter that the unemployment might get back to 6%, we're still going to be in a "recession"...or, as I continue to call it, the Great Suppression.


I think it's a disgrace that anyone is paid as little as $10 an hour.
 
2013-03-10 09:23:31 PM  

Larofeticus: "Austerity doesn't work."

Depends on the definition of work. If "work" means to change the economy such that it has a solid foundation for stable growth and accumulation of resources by all contributing individuals, then no, austerity does not work. shiat no.

What "work" actually means according to the people calling the shots and technocrats implementing policy is "stop at nothing to make sure the banks get as many bond payments as can possibly be obtained." Austerity works.

You want the real definition of austerity?  Repudiate all national debts.  The banks get squat and go bankrupt.  fark 'em.  Parasites the whole lot of them.  The financial Armageddon they tout out to argue for their TBTF status is fluff and self-serving lies.  Nothing more than terrorists weaponizing bits, exchanges, and contracts.  Worse than terrorists as terrorists don't profit from their inflicted destruction.

Then the governments can't borrow money.  Good.  Fantastic.  Make the current generation pay for all their own bullshiat largess instead of passing the bill to innocent descendents.  The government will be forced to make due with the consumption of fewer resources.  Good; more stuff for the rest of us.  Though i'm not interested in buying flying robots that shoot missiles so maybe we can just get rid of that evil shiat completely.   Imagine how much better consumer electronics would be if we had all those Oppenheimers designing for apple and google and samsung instead.


What you are advocating would result in a sink or swim, survival of the fittest society. I assume you are one of the fittest and you think you always will be.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report