.
The only thing that caught my eye in >this< story was >this< graphic.
.
The beginning of 2010 was awesome, what happened??
.
Grand Magus wrote: The beginning of 2010 was awesome, what happened?? You'll notice that the private sector (which most of the graph follows) didn't jump nearly as high at that point. My guess would then be that was part of the stimulus.
Also the census workers. Those could have caused the spike, then soon went away when the count wad over.
Yeah, I had forgotten about that. That is probably part of it too.
State and local governments laid off something like 200,000 that summer. Most states had a large deficit so a lot of things got cut.
Irontruth wrote: State and local governments laid off something like 200,000 that summer. Most states had a large deficit so a lot of things got cut. Wasn't that about when the federal aid to states in the stimulus package started to run out?
We've lost around a half a million public sector jobs since the beginning of 2010 and more since the start of the recession. Without those losses the unemployment rate would be at least a point lower.
For all the talk about bloated government, this is the only recession on record where we've cut government employment. It's also one with an abnormally slow recovery.
It is a depression, not a recession. Or at least that is what the history books will probably say.
Sharoth wrote: It is a depression, not a recession. Or at least that is what the history books will probably say. Or as I like to call it "The Second Great Republican Depression".
Seriously though, there doesn't really seem to be a formal definition for depression. (Not that the definition of recession really matches the reality.) Near as I can tell, up through the early 1900s they were called Panics, in the late 19th and early 20th century that was gradually replaced by Depression and since the Great Depression, the term recession has been used.
Well, there was the stimulus in 2010. Now, that's done with, plus states are having to cut their budgets due to tax shortfalls (what with the recession and all) so that means lots of public-sector employees—mostly teachers, fire fighters, and police—getting laid off. Traditionally, the federal government makes up for that shortfall in recessions, but it didn't happen this time since Congress is gridlocked.
Nepherti wrote: Also the census workers. Those could have caused the spike, then soon went away when the count wad over. That's accounted for in the seasonal adjustment.
A Man In Black wrote: Well, there was the stimulus in 2010. Now, that's done with, plus states are having to cut their budgets due to tax shortfalls (what with the recession and all) so that means lots of public-sector employees—mostly teachers, fire fighters, and police—getting laid off. Traditionally, the federal government makes up for that shortfall in recessions, but it didn't happen this time since Congress is gridlocked. Or to put credit where it's due, because Republicans have opposed any attempts at stimulus spending. Blaming it on gridlock misses the point. You could equally well say, without Congressional gridlock, they would have cut the public payroll even farther.
700,000 non private sector jobs lost in 1 month?
The only thing that could explain a drop like that would be census workers, or that they switched what they considered "employed" in some major way. I'm going to go with census as a guess.
EDIT:
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/jobs/temp-workers.html
I'm still not seeing 700K in one month? Maybe half of it though...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Congressional Republicans are to blame.
Congressional Democrats are to blame.
The President is to blame.
Taxes are too high.
Spending is too high.
The conservatives did it.
The liberals did it.
Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs.
Greedy corporations are offshoring our jobs.
Did I miss any?
That graph doesn't show 700,000 public jobs lost in 1 month.
It's monthly change in employment. So close to 400,000 hired one month, around 300,000 lost the next.
That matches the census more closely.
bugleyman wrote: Congressional Republicans are to blame.
Congressional Democrats are to blame.
The President is to blame.
Taxes are too high.
Spending is too high.
The conservatives did it.
The liberals did it.
Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs.
Greedy corporations are offshoring our jobs.
Did I miss any?
You missed "It's all Bush's fault," and "Romney is an outsourcing pioneer."
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote: You missed "It's all Bush's fault," and "Romney is an outsourcing pioneer." Ah yes, Mr. Bush. That should one have been obvious.
As for the Romney one, I can't be bothered with people that conflate outsourcing and offshoring. ;-)
bugleyman wrote:
As for the Romney one, I can't be bothered with people that conflate outsourcing and offshoring. ;-)
THAT'S what I'm talking about.
bugleyman wrote: Spanky the Leprechaun wrote: You missed "It's all Bush's fault," and "Romney is an outsourcing pioneer." Ah yes, Mr. Bush. That should one have been obvious.
As for the Romney one, I can't be bothered with people that conflate outsourcing and offshoring. ;-) Why not? Since offshoring is usually a subset of outsourcing and Romney's companies helped with both.
I blame Romney for June's job numbers.
Why? Because "CHOPE!!!!!"
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So,.....
Obama was like "Romney is a outsource pioneer, kay?"
then Romney was all, "pfft outsourcing or offshoring,.......Really? You should, like, know stuff's, bein POTUS, kay?"
then, like, Obama was all like, "BAWWWWW! PEOPLE DON'T HAVE JERBS! YOU DON'T CORE! I CORR, LIKE LUKE SKYWALKER CORR! BAWWW!"
So, like, is that it? Did I miss something crucial?
You forgot to be funny or interesting.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A Man In Black wrote: You forgot to be funny or interesting. Which is to say he committed the two biggest sins on the internet.
bugleyman wrote: Congressional Republicans are to blame.
Congressional Democrats are to blame.
The President is to blame.
Taxes are too high.
Spending is too high.
The conservatives did it.
The liberals did it.
Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs.
Greedy corporations are offshoring our jobs.
Did I miss any?
Shape-shifting blood-drinking lizard people from the earth's core did it?
Abraham spalding wrote: A Man In Black wrote: You forgot to be funny or interesting. Which is to say he committed the two biggest sins on the internet. I thought it was being wrong.
I think there is some misunderstanding to the graphic provided.
It is, for better or worse, NOT showing the total employment. As thejeff pointed out, it is showing the rate of change in employment with units of jobs/month. For those with an understanding of calculus, this graph is the derivative of the total employment. While the graph does flatten out after 2010, wherever the graph is positive (above the line), total employment is increasing. Even when the rate drops, if it is positive, then there is positive job growth.
Now, certainly the increase has been less than stellar. Most of this can, in fact, be attributed to cutting of government spending. There is good research showing that for every 1 public sector job lost, there will be an additional 0.43 associated private jobs lost as a consequence.
(http://www.epi.org/blog/years-recovery-state-local-austerity-hurt/)
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote: bugleyman wrote:
As for the Romney one, I can't be bothered with people that conflate outsourcing and offshoring. ;-)
THAT'S what I'm talking about. Romney was a Private Equity guy, so that's what he was supposed to do.
I think he was successful in outsourcing American jobs. But I feel pretty
confident that outsourcing of jobs to other countries is not a major
factor in American jobs lost, reflected in that data/graph.
.
Republicans believe in lower taxes and lower government spending. Lower taxes boosts GDP. Lower government spending lowers GDP.
Democrats believe in higher taxes and higher government spending.
Higher taxes lowers GDP. Higher government spending raises GDP.
The U.S. Deficit is not difficult for us to pay the interest on and will grant certain benefits to future generations. The political parties are each playing their one hand against the other. If they want to boost GDP and put people to work, they need to increase the public debt by lowering taxes and increasing spending. They can pay it down later.
cranewings wrote: Republicans believe in lower taxes and lower government spending. Lower taxes boosts GDP. Lower government spending lowers GDP.
Democrats believe in higher taxes and higher government spending.
Higher taxes lowers GDP. Higher government spending raises GDP.
The U.S. Deficit is not difficult for us to pay the interest on and will grant certain benefits to future generations. The political parties are each playing their one hand against the other. If they want to boost GDP and put people to work, they need to increase the public debt by lowering taxes and increasing spending. They can pay it down later.
Hmmnnn... I am not sure about that. How far in debt are you right now?
cranewings wrote: Republicans believe in lower taxes and lower government spending. Lower taxes boosts GDP. Lower government spending lowers GDP.
Democrats believe in higher taxes and higher government spending.
Higher taxes lowers GDP. Higher government spending raises GDP.
The U.S. Deficit is not difficult for us to pay the interest on and will grant certain benefits to future generations. The political parties are each playing their one hand against the other. If they want to boost GDP and put people to work, they need to increase the public debt by lowering taxes and increasing spending. They can pay it down later.
This is full of weirdness. Are you saying that taxes have an indirect effect on GDP? Because they don't have a direct effect, while government spending totally does (government spending generally pays for goods and services). Likewise your comment about the deficit; interest is paid on the debt, not the deficit. Similarly, one doesn't "pay down" the deficit; you do that for an outstanding debt, and the debt doesn't ever have to be paid down as long as tax base growth is maintained.
A Man In Black wrote:
This is full of weirdness. Are you saying that taxes have an indirect effect on GDP? Because they don't have a direct effect, while government spending totally does (government spending generally pays for goods and services).
Taxes affect it.
On average, Americans save 5% of all of their money. Rich people tend to save more. Poor people tend to spend more than they have. If you tax a person, both their money saved and money spent are reduced. By lowering a tax, you increase the amount of money spent which will increase GPD by several times that amount.
Government spending is more useful when it comes to raising GDP because all of the money is spent - none is saved, which giving citizens a tax break requires a greater tax decrease because a portion (5% on average) is saved.
Tax decreases on the wealthy are less useful than decreases on the poor, but they still work. The argument against government spending is that it creates other problems, like increasing the size of government or skewing the perception of the invisible hand.
cranewings wrote: Taxes affect it. Indirect effect, got it.
Quote: Hmmnnn... I am not sure about that. How far in debt are you right now? Oh, I missed this.
There is no actual limit to how much a government can be in debt, so long as that government has control of its own currency. There is no reason such a government has to borrow money from anyone (or even collect taxes!) other than that it's beneficial to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. controlling investment trends, promoting the currency internationally, offering baseline safe investment tools, controlling inflation/preventing deflation, etc.) Sovereign debt is not like personal debt. The endgame for a government that does carelessly this is inflation and loss of confidence in the nation's currency, but neither of these are something the US government has to worry about in the short or medium term.
Sharoth wrote: cranewings wrote: Republicans believe in lower taxes and lower government spending. Lower taxes boosts GDP. Lower government spending lowers GDP.
Democrats believe in higher taxes and higher government spending.
Higher taxes lowers GDP. Higher government spending raises GDP.
The U.S. Deficit is not difficult for us to pay the interest on and will grant certain benefits to future generations. The political parties are each playing their one hand against the other. If they want to boost GDP and put people to work, they need to increase the public debt by lowering taxes and increasing spending. They can pay it down later.
Hmmnnn... I am not sure about that. How far in debt are you right now? At 9 Trillion in public debt, the interest was only 405 billion a year. We can afford much more.
But just think how much more we could have done for the common good with that 405 billion dollars if we weren't paying it out in interest.
But that isn't the question. As any businessperson could tell you, the question (simplified) is whether you could use the loan to generate more value for your enterprise than the cost of the interest. And we're paying rock-bottom. So darn near any spending with a positive result is fiscally responsible right now; being miserly is penny-wise and pound-foolish in the current context.
A Man In Black wrote: cranewings wrote: Taxes affect it. Indirect effect, got it.
Quote: Hmmnnn... I am not sure about that. How far in debt are you right now? Oh, I missed this.
There is no actual limit to how much a government can be in debt, so long as that government has control of its own currency. There is no reason such a government has to borrow money from anyone (or even collect taxes!) other than that it's beneficial to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. controlling investment trends, promoting the currency internationally, offering baseline safe investment tools, controlling inflation/preventing deflation, etc.) Sovereign debt is not like personal debt. The endgame for a government that does carelessly this is inflation and loss of confidence in the nation's currency, but neither of these are something the US government has to worry about in the short or medium term. True, but eventually you HAVE to pay the piper.
Sharoth wrote: A Man In Black wrote: cranewings wrote: Taxes affect it. Indirect effect, got it.
Quote: Hmmnnn... I am not sure about that. How far in debt are you right now? Oh, I missed this.
There is no actual limit to how much a government can be in debt, so long as that government has control of its own currency. There is no reason such a government has to borrow money from anyone (or even collect taxes!) other than that it's beneficial to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. controlling investment trends, promoting the currency internationally, offering baseline safe investment tools, controlling inflation/preventing deflation, etc.) Sovereign debt is not like personal debt. The endgame for a government that does carelessly this is inflation and loss of confidence in the nation's currency, but neither of these are something the US government has to worry about in the short or medium term. True, but eventually you HAVE to pay the piper. Yeah and you do that in the boom years. You borrow money in recessions to stimulate the economy. You pay it back in the good times. This also helps keeps bubbles from getting big enough to do real damage when they pop.
Government policy should be counter-cyclical to damp the boom-bust cycle, rather than reinforce it.
thejeff wrote: Sharoth wrote: A Man In Black wrote: cranewings wrote: Taxes affect it. Indirect effect, got it.
Quote: Hmmnnn... I am not sure about that. How far in debt are you right now? Oh, I missed this.
There is no actual limit to how much a government can be in debt, so long as that government has control of its own currency. There is no reason such a government has to borrow money from anyone (or even collect taxes!) other than that it's beneficial to do so for a variety of reasons (e.g. controlling investment trends, promoting the currency internationally, offering baseline safe investment tools, controlling inflation/preventing deflation, etc.) Sovereign debt is not like personal debt. The endgame for a government that does carelessly this is inflation and loss of confidence in the nation's currency, but neither of these are something the US government has to worry about in the short or medium term. True, but eventually you HAVE to pay the piper. Yeah and you do that in the boom years. You borrow money in recessions to stimulate the economy. You pay it back in the good times. This also helps keeps bubbles from getting big enough to do real damage when they pop.
Government policy should be counter-cyclical to damp the boom-bust cycle, rather than reinforce it.
Exactly.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Abraham spalding wrote: A Man In Black wrote: You forgot to be funny or interesting. Which is to say he committed the two biggest sins on the internet. Does that mean I get to be canonized?
Sharoth wrote: True, but eventually you HAVE to pay the piper. No you don't, not if you're a fiscally sovereign nation. You can either just print money and pay your debts like that, which is an inflationary pressure but (in simple terms) isn't a big deal unless your economy is completely crippled or doing extremely well, or you can tell your debtors to go f@%# themselves and default, which would destroy the treasury bill market but wouldn't stop the your government from operating day to day. Nobody can force a government to pay them except at the end of a rifle, and that's not exactly a problem for the US.
In practice, it works (or should work) like thejeff said. You let the deficit grow in bad times and offset it with inflation, because inflation and government spending help stimulate the economy, and an economic collapse is a deflationary influence anyway. When times are good, you pay down debts and reduce government spending to keep inflation under control.
The biggest difference between government debt and other kinds of debt is that creditors have no hold over the government. It's different, though, if the government isn't fiscally independent (which is half of the reason for the EU crisis), but even then, a government can tell its creditors to take a flying leap, and unless those creditors invade, the only consequence is that they won't lend to that government again. For a while.
Even government debts end up costing in both the short and long terms. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, despite what all governments want you to think. Look at how the debt issues are affecting Europe. Plus the issue is what happens when the debt gets too large. Another issue is that we become more and more influenced by the people that we owe money to. It is never good to owe, be it personal or government debt. Also, look at the prices for everything. I think that prices have gone up at least 20% in the last 5 years, and in some cases much more than that. Printing more money just causes other issues. The best long tern approach is to be mature adults and governments and pay off what we owe.
Sharoth wrote: Even government debts end up costing in both the short and long terms. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, despite what all governments want you to think. Look at how the debt issues are affecting Europe. Plus the issue is what happens when the debt gets too large. Another issue is that we become more and more influenced by the people that we owe money to. It is never good to owe, be it personal or government debt. Also, look at the prices for everything. I think that prices have gone up at least 20% in the last 5 years, and in some cases much more than that. Printing more money just causes other issues. The best long tern approach is to be mature adults and governments and pay off what we owe. True in the long term, perhaps. Keep the debt manageable certainly.
Not so in the short term. Debt isn't always bad. Personal or government debt. Borrowing for education can be a good investment, for example. Government spending can boost the economy both in the short and long term, depending on what it's spent on. That can reduce the debt/GDP ratio, even if it boosts the debt in absolute terms.
Europe is a different story in many ways. The countries in trouble don't control their own currency and that's important. It's also interesting to notice that many of their attempts at cutting deficits through austerity have led to the economy shrinking, raising their debt/GDP ratio and making them worse economic prospects.
Sharoth wrote: Even government debts end up costing in both the short and long terms. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, despite what all governments want you to think. Look at how the debt issues are affecting Europe. Plus the issue is what happens when the debt gets too large. Another issue is that we become more and more influenced by the people that we owe money to. It is never good to owe, be it personal or government debt. thejeff covered Europe; basically, what I was saying about countries with sovereign currencies does not apply to the EU, because those countries can't control the Euro. For example, Greece's problems didn't really become apparent until it dropped the drachma (and euro-fuelled investment overheated the hell out of their problematic economy), and Spain could easily get itself out of its troubles if it were still on the peseta.
I did mention the consequences: inflation and/or destroying the ability to issue bonds. These are not the end of the world. As for outside influence, it's not really an issue in the US's case, since most of the federal government's debt is either owed to the Fed (and thus to itself) or to private US creditors.
Quote: Also, look at the prices for everything. I think that prices have gone up at least 20% in the last 5 years, and in some cases much more than that. Printing more money just causes other issues. The best long tern approach is to be mature adults and governments and pay off what we owe. This has little to do with monetary policy and more to do with years of unrestricted, destructive speculation in commodities markets.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: bugleyman wrote: Spanky the Leprechaun wrote: You missed "It's all Bush's fault," and "Romney is an outsourcing pioneer." Ah yes, Mr. Bush. That should one have been obvious.
As for the Romney one, I can't be bothered with people that conflate outsourcing and offshoring. ;-) Why not? Since offshoring is usually a subset of outsourcing and Romney's companies helped with both. The sad reality is the person actually responsible for that, Romney's successor, is a huge bundler for Obama. But, you know, just listen to whatever Maddow tells you, don't actually bother with facts or anything.
And, no, I am no more enamored with Romney than I am Obama. I just prefer fact in my snark.
houstonderek wrote: thejeff wrote: bugleyman wrote: Spanky the Leprechaun wrote: You missed "It's all Bush's fault," and "Romney is an outsourcing pioneer." Ah yes, Mr. Bush. That should one have been obvious.
As for the Romney one, I can't be bothered with people that conflate outsourcing and offshoring. ;-) Why not? Since offshoring is usually a subset of outsourcing and Romney's companies helped with both. The sad reality is the person actually responsible for that, Romney's successor, is a huge bundler for Obama. But, you know, just listen to whatever Maddow tells you, don't actually bother with facts or anything.
And, no, I am no more enamored with Romney than I am Obama. I just prefer fact in my snark. Source? Or at least a name. I found that line about Romney's successor being an Obama bundler in several places, but no sources or details.
And of course, there's some debate these days about how much of an active role Romney played at Bain at that time.
Evil Lincoln wrote: Shape-shifting blood-drinking lizard people from the earth's core did it? Already covered under Obama did it.
You should know I hate both sides by now. I think the easiest way to go is assume they're all liars in an election year.
I'm with family I haven't seen in a while, so I'll dig up that name for you later tonight or some time tomorrow, along with some dates and stuff, if that's cool.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Evil Lincoln wrote: Shape-shifting blood-drinking lizard people from the earth's core did it? Already covered under Obama did it. Actually, we all did it as a group, and are still doing it.
.
houstonderek wrote: The sad reality is the person actually responsible for that, Romney's successor, is a huge bundler for Obama. But, you know, just listen to whatever Maddow tells you, don't actually bother with facts or anything.
And, no, I am no more enamored with Romney than I am Obama. I just prefer fact in my snark.
The person "actually" responsible for that? So you believe that Romney wasn't at all responsible for Bain after 1999, despite being the sole owner and CEO?
Quote: You should know I hate both sides by now. I think the easiest way to go is assume they're all liars in an election year. This is such a cop-out. "So and so is a liar, here's clear evidence." "Well I guess they're all lying!"
A Man In Black wrote: houstonderek wrote: The sad reality is the person actually responsible for that, Romney's successor, is a huge bundler for Obama. But, you know, just listen to whatever Maddow tells you, don't actually bother with facts or anything.
And, no, I am no more enamored with Romney than I am Obama. I just prefer fact in my snark.
The person "actually" responsible for that? So you believe that Romney wasn't at all responsible for Bain after 1999, despite being the sole owner and CEO? And drawing a salary (Not dividends or withdrawn capital) in the top category, $100,000 or more. For doing nothing. No wonder he didn't care to get paid for the Olympics.
A Man In Black wrote: houstonderek wrote:
You should know I hate both sides by now. I think the easiest way to go is assume they're all liars in an election year.
This is such a cop-out. "So and so is a liar, here's clear evidence." "Well I guess they're all lying!" False equivalence. It's the modern way.
There is no "clear evidence". Only spin. Obama is just as big a joke as his predescessor, and, honestly, in my opinion, the only reason anyone doesn't see it is pure partisan blindness.
Right, because a bottom-up approach of floating all boats, while actually caring about competence, is identical to a top-down approach of using crony capitalism to enrich corporate welfare queens while not giving a damn. Also, having one-and-a-half branches of the Federal government against you and still improving the economy is obviously the same as having all branches in your favor, and still putting the entire world at risk of a narrowly-averted Great Depression II. I see now that it's all the same. How could I have been so blind!
|
