Labor Participation Rate Lowest Since Carter Administration

[SDBoiler1]

Slowly, somewhat quietly, the economy is taking a turn for the worse once again...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-not-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-38

 

[qazplm]

You're reaching. All of the good economic news and we've reached the "labor participation rate" portion of how things are just this close to collapse and we've ONLY added 100+ thousand jobs in one month after almost 3 years now of consecutive months with positive job growth when in Dec 07 we were losing 700K jobs a month.

The baby boomers are retiring, and the ACA means some folks who had to work but didn't want because of the need for employer health care now don't have. The U6 which is the number tied to folks who are underemployed but want to work more hours is 10 percent. Not great, but not terrible either. There are a ton of complicated reasons for the job picture today, and a lot of it has little to do with politics or parties but changing from manufacturing to a service economy.

 

[SDBoiler1]

You're reaching. All of the good economic news and we've reached the "labor participation rate" portion of how things are just this close to collapse and we've ONLY added 100+ thousand jobs in one month after almost 3 years now of consecutive months with positive job growth when in Dec 07 we were losing 700K jobs a month.

The baby boomers are retiring, and the ACA means some folks who had to work but didn't want because of the need for employer health care now don't have. The U6 which is the number tied to folks who are underemployed but want to work more hours is 10 percent. Not great, but not terrible either. There are a ton of complicated reasons for the job picture today, and a lot of it has little to do with politics or parties but changing from manufacturing to a service economy.

This is the most anemic recovery in history. That's a fact. Obama has been in office for nearly 7 years. This economic malaise is on him.

Also, when you have government policies that incentivize people to not work, guess what, they won't. What a shock...

 

[atmafola]

This is the most anemic recovery in history. That's a fact. Obama has been in office for nearly 7 years. This economic malaise is on him.

Also, when you have government policies that incentivize people to not work, guess what, they won't. What a shock...

I am all for partisan arguments but people shouldn't be allowed to create their own set of facts. Please provide stats to back the statement in bold. It is one of my biggest pet peeves arguing with some conservative. Reminds me of another universally believed but absolutely incorrect fact - that Obama has run some big spending government that is blowing up our debt. When in fact, he has increased government spending the least in that last almost 40 years. Relatively, he is far behind GWB and Regan, when it comes to expanding national debt.

By almost every statistical measure, this recover is superior to GWB recovery. And Bush didn't have the aftermath of a once-in-a-lifetime depression to contend with, or a slumping global economy either.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Let's start with this:

http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2015/07/new-gdp-revisions-show-worst-recovery.html
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/04/27/reagan-vs-obama-a-tale-of-two-economic-recoveries/
http://dailysignal.com/2014/05/04/5-years-obama-real-story/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/02/09/this_anemic_recovery_325381.html
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...th-gdp-downgrade-obama-growth-gap-expands.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/permanently-anemic-recovery_824207.html

 

[atmafola]

Let's start with this:

http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2015/07/new-gdp-revisions-show-worst-recovery.html

2 issues. This disingenuous report conveniently left out GWB's recovery. Two, It compares this recovery with the 1982 one, a recession deliberately created by FEDs in their bid to stamp out inflation. Volker, the feds chairman, jammed the brakes by raising interest sky high, the economy halted. Of course the economy promptly rebounded once the Feds took their foot off the brakes.

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/04/27/reagan-vs-obama-a-tale-of-two-economic-recoveries/

- covered above. Those two particular recessions are barely comparable for reasons explained above. And just for added measure, comparatively speaking, Regan's recovery got more fiscal help than Obama ever got. If you doubt me and have time, kindly compare increases in government spending and deficits under both, and report back to me. For extra point, make it total government spending (states and federal).

http://dailysignal.com/2014/05/04/5-years-obama-real-story/

Of all conservative talking points, this is the most disingenuous by far. Its akin to taking someone clothes when they go for a swim and then reporting them to the police for walking around naked afterwards. The policies decimating income of non-1% are 30 years plus in making and are directly and indirectly the consequences of mostly supply sided ideology. This largely reflects the imbalance of power between labor and capital. Dismantling labor unions, lower taxes at the top, lower capital gains tax, laws and regulations that favor corporations over people all lead capital ibeing able to pocket an increasing share of the profit created. The only exceptioin to this 35 year trend where the late Clinton years when unemployment was low enough that it gave labor some leverage.

On some things, I think there are arguably grounds for debate e.g. which approach is better for the economy as a whole. On other things, there really should be no debate. This is one of them. Right sided policies invariably makes income inequalites and all its attendant issues worse.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/02/09/this_anemic_recovery_325381.html
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...th-gdp-downgrade-obama-growth-gap-expands.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/permanently-anemic-recovery_824207.html

These other three are just a rehash of the earlier ones except they are even less precise in their comparisons.
If you want to make a honest comparison., how about do what I originally asked you for i.e. Compare Obama's recovery from a much deeper/ recession to GWB's recovery. Also, compare US recovery to the rest of the developed nations. Comparing to some historical recover in the 1950s recession or some fed-initiated Carter-Regan recession is bogus.

 

[SDBoiler1]

2 issues. This disingenuous report conveniently left out GWB's recovery. Two, It compares this recovery with the 1982 one, a recession deliberately created by FEDs in their bid to stamp out inflation. Volker, the feds chairman, jammed the brakes by raising interest sky high, the economy halted. Of course the economy promptly rebounded once the Feds took their foot off the brakes.

- covered above. Those two particular recessions are barely comparable for reasons explained above. And just for added measure, comparatively speaking, Regan's recovery got more fiscal help than Obama ever got. If you doubt me and have time, kindly compare increases in government spending and deficits under both, and report back to me. For extra point, make it total government spending (states and federal).


Of all conservative talking points, this is the most disingenuous by far. Its akin to taking someone clothes when they go for a swim and then reporting them to the police for walking around naked afterwards. The policies decimating income of non-1% are 30 years plus in making and are directly and indirectly the consequences of mostly supply sided ideology. This largely reflects the imbalance of power between labor and capital. Dismantling labor unions, lower taxes at the top, lower capital gains tax, laws and regulations that favor corporations over people all lead capital ibeing able to pocket an increasing share of the profit created. The only exceptioin to this 35 year trend where the late Clinton years when unemployment was low enough that it gave labor some leverage.

On some things, I think there are arguably grounds for debate e.g. which approach is better for the economy as a whole. On other things, there really should be no debate. This is one of them. Right sided policies invariably makes income inequalites and all its attendant issues worse.



These other three are just a rehash of the earlier ones except they are even less precise in their comparisons.
If you want to make a honest comparison., how about do what I originally asked you for i.e. Compare Obama's recovery from a much deeper/ recession to GWB's recovery. Also, compare US recovery to the rest of the developed nations. Comparing to some historical recover in the 1950s recession or some fed-initiated Carter-Regan recession is bogus.

By the way, it's Reagan, not Regan. Donald Regan was in President Reagan's cabinet, but he was never President himself.

Also, instead of putting the onus on me, I'll turn the tables and have you show why this "recovery" isn't the worst since the Great Depression. (You won't be able to, because the facts are not on your side.)

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Slowly, somewhat quietly, the economy is taking a turn for the worse once again...

No, it isn't.

 

[SDBoiler1]

No, it isn't.

I'm afraid it is. Have you seen the recent spike in layoffs?

 

[Purdue97]

I am all for partisan arguments but people shouldn't be allowed to create their own set of facts. Please provide stats to back the statement in bold. It is one of my biggest pet peeves arguing with some conservative. Reminds me of another universally believed but absolutely incorrect fact - that Obama has run some big spending government that is blowing up our debt. When in fact, he has increased government spending the least in that last almost 40 years. Relatively, he is far behind GWB and Regan, when it comes to expanding national debt.

By almost every statistical measure, this recover is superior to GWB recovery. And Bush didn't have the aftermath of a once-in-a-lifetime depression to contend with, or a slumping global economy either.

"Relatively, he is far behind GWB and Regan, when it comes to expanding national debt."

I will be the first to say economics is a social science and that is why it is an endless debate. Very few if any complete rights or wrongs. That is how you get away with your statement that Obama is far behind Bush and Reagan in expanding national debt. I have heard and read some pretty outlandish points of view on the debt but that one pretty much tops it. Depending on whose number you use the national debt is anywhere from 35% accrued to 45% accrued under Obama Admin-and he is not done yet.. But the bigger issue to me is that this debt he has accrued is not heavily involved in infrastructure/technology etc. Things that could actually grow economy.

Anyway, Obama supporters can claim that he inherited this terrible economy, then write off his first year budget on Bush, although Obama did not return any of the bailout package. Bush can do the same with poor Clinton economy he inherited. Future Presidents that will try/have to participate in stabilization of ME will spend the money but blame it on Obama's foreign policy, etc etc

Did Obama inherit a big mess? Sure did. Did he grow the debt? Sure did. At end of the day the best solution would be to invest in infrastructure, create a positive growth environment for business, military, and economy-which will enable govt to spend on social programs which yes, have shown to be cost effective/save money as well.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'm afraid it is. Have you seen the recent spike in layoffs?

Every measurable is pretty much growing at a faster rate than last year.

 

[qazplm]

Every measurable is pretty much growing at a faster rate than last year.

You know, if folks wanted to argue that Presidents really don't have a ton of impact on the economy one way or the other, and thus President Obama doesn't get credit for the recovery, that would be a reasonable point of discussion and there would be at least some truth there in that Presidents often get credit and blame for events that are really more a function of them being in office during a certain time period rather than anything else.

Thus, switch the the script for Reagan and Carter. Reagan is elected in 76, the economy tanks, Carter runs on a program of restoring the economy, wins in 80, and then the economy more or less performs in both cases as it did anyways. Carter gets hailed, Reagan gets panned.

Or flip Bush II and Clinton. Clinton wins in 88 (say he's the VP to Carter). Economy tanks, Bush comes in, wins in 92. Economy roars back, same thing.

Now, Bush II spent a whole lot of money on the wars, Medicare Part D, and tax cuts without paying for any of them. And a lot of changes to how banks work were done by him and Clinton. Those kind of things can't help but affect the economy. But there's a fair argument that most of the time, presidential policies are on the edges.

Or there's even an argument that Obama hasn't done this or that to make the recovery better or faster. I wouldn't agree, but there are reasonable arguments to be made in that vein.

But that's too subtle an argument for some folks. They need not simply for Obama not to get credit, but they need him to be hyper-incompetent, and they need the economy to be "the worst ever" even when there's very little reason to believe that.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yeah, the president has so little to do with the comings and goings of the economy and the stock market, it's always a bit amusing when it comes up in discussion.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Yeah, the president has so little to do with the comings and goings of the economy and the stock market, it's always a bit amusing when it comes up in discussion.

You don't think fiscal policies have much to do with the economy? Isn't the President who usually helps decide on the strategy behind his fiscal policy? Reagan and Obama had very different ideas of how to improve and grow the economy. History will show who did a better job.

 

[qazplm]

You don't think fiscal policies have much to do with the economy? Isn't the President who usually helps decide on the strategy behind his fiscal policy? Reagan and Obama had very different ideas of how to improve and grow the economy. History will show who did a better job.

How many recessions did Reagan have? Obama? Clinton? Bush? If your assertion is true, then that suggests something I strongly suspect you wouldn't agree to.

What about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-economy-grows-faster-under-democratic-presidents-than-republicans/

Of course, that article, despite the byline makes the fair point that the economy is way too complicated to do a simple Dem/Rep analysis and who is or is not President. But again the numbers would show something different on average than what you'd agree to.

Or if you want to directly compare Reagan to Obama (which is a bit silly considering the completely different time or a whole host of completely different economic factors involved):

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy

"So what does this tell us about Obama? When all of the indicators are combined, he ranks ninth out of 12, one position below Reagan but above Bush 41, Carter and Bush 43. Obama is also well below the midpoint that falls between Clinton and Nixon. For Republicans who view Reagan as an economic miracle-maker and Obama as, well, something less than that, it might come as a shock that Obama falls next in line in economic performance."

So that article says BOTH Reagan and Obama saw economies that when you combine a host of factors fall in the bottom third of the last 12 Presidents. Completely different economic theories, and yet when someone looked at all the numbers, they were right next to each other.

 

[Jedifick]

Americans have been holding back on spending even though lower gas prices have put more cash in their pockets. Employers have slowed hiring and held down pay. Home sales have flattened. And the U.S. economy has been hobbled by a stronger dollar, which makes U.S. goods costlier overseas and is depressing corporate profits.

"There's no question that the economy is losing momentum," -Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo.

 

[Purdue97]

You know, if folks wanted to argue that Presidents really don't have a ton of impact on the economy one way or the other, and thus President Obama doesn't get credit for the recovery, that would be a reasonable point of discussion and there would be at least some truth there in that Presidents often get credit and blame for events that are really more a function of them being in office during a certain time period rather than anything else.

Thus, switch the the script for Reagan and Carter. Reagan is elected in 76, the economy tanks, Carter runs on a program of restoring the economy, wins in 80, and then the economy more or less performs in both cases as it did anyways. Carter gets hailed, Reagan gets panned.

Or flip Bush II and Clinton. Clinton wins in 88 (say he's the VP to Carter). Economy tanks, Bush comes in, wins in 92. Economy roars back, same thing.

Now, Bush II spent a whole lot of money on the wars, Medicare Part D, and tax cuts without paying for any of them. And a lot of changes to how banks work were done by him and Clinton. Those kind of things can't help but affect the economy. But there's a fair argument that most of the time, presidential policies are on the edges.

Or there's even an argument that Obama hasn't done this or that to make the recovery better or faster. I wouldn't agree, but there are reasonable arguments to be made in that vein.

But that's too subtle an argument for some folks. They need not simply for Obama not to get credit, but they need him to be hyper-incompetent, and they need the economy to be "the worst ever" even when there's very little reason to believe that.

I can agree that Obama helped stabilize the economy. I am still a bit skeptical of that whole situation as supposedly the banking system was going to crash but six months later they had record earnings. Sketchy.

That said, I also realize that there is a huge lack of employment participation. But more importantly, the level of derivatives, leveraging, and financial engineering going on now is higher than in 2008. So sure economy was stabilized now, but how much of this has just been the buck been passed down the road where the pain will be deeper for many? When that financial issue occurs does that new President take the blame, Obama, Bush, or the drivers of derivatives themselves?

 

[TBR]

Slowly, somewhat quietly, the economy is taking a turn for the worse once again...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-not-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-38

Agree