Anyone here believe America'd be doing better now, if McCain had won in 2008?

[VaticanAssassin]

So ... we didn't add nearly 250,000 new jobs in January?

No. A little over 1mill were removed from the "unemployed and looking category". So those people no longer count in the equation. We have more people labeled unemployed and not looking ( people who have just given up), then we have had in decades...

 

[KingOrfeo]

FTR, economists believe the stimulus package helped -- but wasn't big enough. (No doubt McCain would've made it a bigger one?)

One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight, estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecast a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed.[77] The Congressional Budget Office considered these estimates conservative.[78] The CBO estimated according to its model 2.1 million jobs saved in the last quarter of 2009, boosting the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowering the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent.[79] The CBO projected that the package would have an even greater impact in 2010.[79] The CBO also said, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."[80] The CBO's report on the first quarter of 2010 showed a continued positive effect, with an employment gain in that quarter of up to 2.8 million and a GDP boost of up to 4.2 percent.[81] On the other hand, economists Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of the Ohio State University used state level variation to estimate that while the stimulus created or saved 450 thousand government jobs, it destroyed or forestalled 1 million private sector jobs, thus costing jobs on net.[82] Conley and Dupor's analysis has been criticized for its seemingly statistically irrelevant results.[83][84][85] Other researchers have come to significantly more positive conclusions about the bill's effects on jobs. Economist Dan Wilson of the Federal Reserve, who used similar methodology, without the same identified errors, estimates that "ARRA spending created or saved about 2 million jobs in its first year and over 3 million by March 2011." [86]

The CBO also revised its assessment of the long-term impact of the bill. After 2014, the stimulus is estimated to decrease output by zero to 0.2%. The stimulus is not expected to have a negative impact on employment in any period of time.[87]

In 2011, the Department of Commerce revised some of its previous estimates. Economist Dean Baker commented:

[T]he revised data ... showed that the economy was plunging even more rapidly than we had previously recognised in the two quarters following the collapse of Lehman. Yet, the plunge stopped in the second quarter of 2009 – just as the stimulus came on line. This was followed by respectable growth over the next four quarters. Growth then weakened again as the impact of the stimulus began to fade at the end of 2010 and the start of this year. In other words, the growth pattern shown by the revised data sure makes it appear that the stimulus worked. The main problem would seem to be that the stimulus was not big enough and it wasn't left in place long enough to lift the economy to anywhere near potential output.[88]

 

[TexasWife25]

No. A little under 1mill were removed from the "unemployed and looking category". So those people no longer count in the equation. We have more people labeled unemployed and not looking ( people who have just given up), then we have had in decades...

Well I suppose I could list sites with charts/graphs and all, that would say we did in fact add nearly 250,000 new jobs in January, but then you would say my sources weren't credible and list your own that completely disagree, and then I would say your sources are bogus...

Although, no matter the actual number .. I just cant understand anyone suggesting that we have more unemployed now then we had a year ago, or 2 or 3.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Well I suppose I could list sites with charts/graphs and all, that would say we did in fact add nearly 250,000 new jobs in January, but then you would say my sources weren't credible and list your own that completely disagree, and then I would say your sources are bogus...

Although, no matter the actual number .. I just cant understand anyone suggesting that we have more unemployed now then we had a year ago, or 2 or 3.

Unemployment numbers did improve by 250K last month. But this does not mean that these are new jobs s 1.2 million people were removed from the equation.... Get it?

unemployment numbers are in sharp contrast to the CBO’s 2012 estimates. This is due in large part to labor force participation, which has sunk to 63.7%, its lowest level in 30 years. 1.2 million people just vanished form the workforce last month and are no longer considered as unemployed. As we explained last month, the fewer employees there are in the workforce, the lower the unemployment number will be, therefore the shedding of workers is having as much effect on the unemployment number as the job creations are. Real unemployment now stands at 11.0%.

 

[Liar]

Another thing:

If McCain had won, the tea party circus wouldn't have happened.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Depends.

Are we assuming the tables were tuned in Congress too? With a Dem minority not able to pass anytyhing but block everything?

For starters, I think McCain would have gotten his economic advisors from pretty much the same place (Wall Street) and proposed by-and-large similar solutions to the finance crisis, and the Republicans in congress wouldn't have been able to shriek "ZOMG SOCHULIZM" at the top of their lungs whenever a Republican president proposed something somewhat centrist.

And secondly, I doubt the Dems would have gone into full Jihad mode just to spite him. They don't seem petty and/or ballsy and/or organized enough to that.

Agreed. So, in that scenario, McCain would've been free to do pretty much what he wanted, within reason (reason including, ignore any advice from the VP). What would he have done? Would he have us out of Iraq by now? Would he have spent as much on the stimulus? (We're fucked if he doesn't.) Somehow I don't think health-care reform would be on the table at all.

 

[TexasWife25]

Unemployment numbers did improve by 250K last month. But this does not mean that these are new jobs s 1.2 million people were removed from the equation.... Get it?

unemployment numbers are in sharp contrast to the CBO’s 2012 estimates. This is due in large part to labor force participation, which has sunk to 63.7%, its lowest level in 30 years. 1.2 million people just vanished form the workforce last month and are no longer considered as unemployed. As we explained last month, the fewer employees there are in the workforce, the lower the unemployment number will be, therefore the shedding of workers is having as much effect on the unemployment number as the job creations are. Real unemployment now stands at 11.0%.

I would say, the percentage number is rather irrelevant in this case .. only because we can both find plenty of sources that back us up. However, I am surprised that anyone would suggest, that there are more people out of work now, then there have been in the last 3 years, whether the number is closer to 11% or 8%.

I guess we just live in different worlds.
I open the paper and see more adds for jobs, and know less people struggling to find work.

 

[Wrong Element]

Depends.

Are we assuming the tables were tuned in Congress too? With a Dem minority not able to pass anytyhing but block everything?

For starters, I think McCain would have gotten his economic advisors from pretty much the same place (Wall Street) and proposed by-and-large similar solutions to the finance crisis, and the Republicans in congress wouldn't have been able to shriek "ZOMG SOCHULIZM" at the top of their lungs whenever a Republican president proposed something somewhat centrist.

And secondly, I doubt the Dems would have gone into full Jihad mode just to spite him. They don't seem petty and/or ballsy and/or organized enough to that.

This is a good point. We don't know what kind of stimulus McCain would have proposed, but he might very well have been able to get a larger stimulus through Congress: the Democrats would have favored it because they favored a larger stimulus anyway, and haven't shown a tendency to oppose things they actually favor just because a Republican president supports them too; and the Republicans would have certainly been less likely to oppose the stimulus on "socialism!" grounds with one of their guys in the White House (case in point: all the spending they uncomplainingly voted for during the Bush years).

A bigger stimulus in 2009 was clearly needed, so McCain might have helped in that narrow sense. The downside is we'd still be in Iraq, and there might be new wars with Iran and Syria in the mix also. All this warrin' does cost money.

The biggest unquestioned change would have been at the Supreme Court level, assuming Stevens and Souter would have retired anyway.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Unemployment numbers did improve by 250K last month. But this does not mean that these are new jobs s 1.2 million people were removed from the equation.... Get it?

unemployment numbers are in sharp contrast to the CBO’s 2012 estimates. This is due in large part to labor force participation, which has sunk to 63.7%, its lowest level in 30 years. 1.2 million people just vanished form the workforce last month and are no longer considered as unemployed. As we explained last month, the fewer employees there are in the workforce, the lower the unemployment number will be, therefore the shedding of workers is having as much effect on the unemployment number as the job creations are. Real unemployment now stands at 11.0%.

The BLS (you know, the people actually responsible for compiling the data) disagrees with you.


After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population
controls, the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) rose in
January, while the civilian labor force participation rate held at
63.7 percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the
effects of the population adjustments, see table C.)

You should read more. And by read more, I mean read the data, not the retards who post opinion on the internets for dummies to parrot.

 

[Liar]

Agreed. So, in that scenario, McCain would've been free to do pretty much what he wanted, within reason (reason including, ignore any advice from the VP). What would he have done? Would he have us out of Iraq by now? Would he have spent as much on the stimulus? (We're fucked if he doesn't.) Somehow I don't think health-care reform would be on the table at all.

Dunno. I think that he might have spent as much on stimulus yes, or even some more. If only because when he had told Congress "I want X billions", they wouldn't have dug their heels in as much. Even if X had been a smaller number than Obama's initial proposal. So much of what's shaping policy is unfortunately politics. Also, there would be less right wing crazies in the House right now and they wouldn't have played chicken with the debt ceiling to the point of downgrade.

Health care reform? No idea. But if by any chance it got on the table, I don't see why a "Massachusetts moderate" plan wouldn't be what he went with, and got, with a more fríendly Congress.

On the war, I don't have much of an idea about McCain other than that he had an affinity for tasteless puns involving Beach Boys tunes. He'd probably have stuck more-or-less with the Bush timetable (Obama? Check) kept Gitmo open (Check) and made the usual feeble attempts at initiating Israel peace talks (and check).

The biggest difference there is probably in the area of diplomacy. Who would have been his sec. of state?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The BLS (you know, the people actually responsible for compiling the data) disagrees with you.


After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population
controls, the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) rose in
January, while the civilian labor force participation rate held at
63.7 percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the
effects of the population adjustments, see table C.)

You should read more. And by read more, I mean read the data, not the retards who post opinion on the internets for dummies to parrot.

Wait? Are you saying that civilian labor force is not at its lowest in 30 years?
I admit I got that from a CBO report. But got check out the BLS site. They show it is;



http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS11300000_66532_1328551699966.gif

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Since Obama has been in office:


http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS11300000_144816_1328552208325.gif

 

[JohnnySavage]

Wait? Are you saying that civilian labor force is not at its lowest in 30 years?
I admit I got that from a CBO report. But got check out the BLS site. They show it is;

I'm not saying anything, other than the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I just quoted the BLS report. You said the labor force sunk. The BLS said it held steady. You both can't be right, so I'll believe them, unless you have compiled some of your own data you'd like me to consider.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I'm not saying anything, other than the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I just quoted the BLS report. You said the labor force sunk. The BLS said it held steady. You both can't be right, so I'll believe them, unless you have compiled some of your own data you'd like me to consider.

I am saying that without considering how many people left the labor force, the sunshine up your ass reports mean shit. No matter what source you want to use, the current civilian labor force participation rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years and about 4% lower than when obama took office. The denominator has changed more than the numerator.

But it appears I am not explaining it well, which I do not understand. This is a pretty dam simple concept.

I posted the graphs from the BLS. Here is a link. Look for yourself;

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

[JohnnySavage]

I am saying that without considering how many people left the labor force, the sunshine up your ass reports mean shit. No matter what source you want to use, the current civilian labor force participation rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years and about 4% lower than when obama took office. The denominator has changed more than the numerator.

But it appears I am not explaining it well, which I do not understand. This is a pretty dam simple concept.

I posted the graphs from the BLS. Here is a link. Look for yourself;

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

You are up in arms over the wrong number, dummy. The one you are looking at measures the labor force, which necessarily goes down when 10,000 people per day leave the labor force for social security. Employment to population is the measure of what you are trying to say. That one doesn't make Obama look like a schumck though, so you may have considered, then rejected it.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You are up in arms over the wrong number, dummy. The one you are looking at measures the labor force, which necessarily goes down when 10,000 people per day leave the labor force for social security. Employment to population is the measure of what you are trying to say. That one doesn't make Obama look like a schumck though, so you may have considered, then rejected it.

OK...I will try this one more time, but I see you are not getting it;

To break it out further here is a graph of discouraged workers. These are not people who have retired, but people who have given up. This can also be found the the BLS website. My point, and trust me it is a point that is not debatable, is that these numbers are not reflected in the unemployment rate reported of 8%, so 8% is not the "true" rate. 11% is. If I were trying to say we should include retired people I would have said the rate should be 30% +.....

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNU05026645_67807_1328553752258.gif

 

[VaticanAssassin]

To look even further here are the historical discouraged workers numbers:

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNU05026645_68328_1328554501648.gif


Notice when the year the trend doubles

 

[JohnnySavage]

OK...I will try this one more time, but I see you are not getting it;

To break it out further here is a graph of discouraged workers. These are not people who have retired, but people who have given up. This can also be found the the BLS website. My point, and trust me it is a point that is not debatable, is that these numbers are not reflected in the unemployment rate reported of 8%, so 8% is not the "true" rate. 11% is. If I were trying to say we should include retired people I would have said the rate should be 30% +.....

So what? The unemployment number that has been reported for years is the U-3 statistic. If you want to change to U-6 or some other measure, take it up with the press. You don't get to pick which number you want to use based on who's in the White House at a given time.

You keep harping on the "true" rate as if your vision of the true rate is the only one. The employment/population ratio is 58.5%. If you are going to cherry pick data, why don't you just say that the unemployment rate is 41.5%?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

To look even further here are the historical discouraged workers numbers:

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNU05026645_68328_1328554501648.gif


Notice when the year the trend doubles

You should start you "historical" review at least back as far as 1980

 

[VaticanAssassin]

So what? The unemployment number that has been reported for years is the U-3 statistic. If you want to change to U-6 or some other measure, take it up with the press. You don't get to pick which number you want to use based on who's in the White House at a given time.

You keep harping on the "true" rate as if your vision of the true rate is the only one. The employment/population ratio is 58.5%. If you are going to cherry pick data, why don't you just say that the unemployment rate is 41.5%?

As you pointed out you do have to consider the number of people that retire. Additionally the number reported has always removed disenfranchised workers. Most economists and mathematicians would tell you this is not correct. But as it has always been done that way, it is a apples to apples comparison. But here is the issue; The number of people who have given up on looking has always remained relatively consistent as compared to the population. Under Obama this number has more than doubled ( 500K t 1.25mill). Your differential has changed dramatically at this point. Not considering it is disingenuous at best.

Get it yet?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

You should start you "historical" review at least back as far as 1980

Agreed, but I did go as far back as the DLS allows.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

I will take your lack of response as confirmation you do in fact now understand...... *Golf clap

 

[JohnnySavage]

I will take your lack of response as confirmation you do in fact now understand...... *Golf clap

I can only take so much ignorance before I lose interest. So I'll just considered myself schooled and move on.

 

[coastal-boy]

"There is no financial crisis"


2 days later


"This financial crisis is the greatest we have faced since WW2"

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Agreed, but I did go as far back as the DLS allows.

I get what you are saying. But remember - There were a lot of people kicking the shit out of Reagan in 1983 when the same index was up around (but short of) where the chart you posted is now for discouraged workers. But you have to remember the official population was only around 240M in 1983 not he 300M is now, so adjusting for population it is a very similar circumstance.

What I am saying is that every business cycle has it % of workers who get disenfranchised during a downturn. I don't think it invalidates any of the unemployment numbers. The rule is you are counted if you are unemployed and looking - same as 1983. And there are a lot of people who give up, go to the underground economy, retire early and wait to collect SS, etc.

So it is not a sunshine up your ass report - it is what it is and the numbers are better then they were and the discouraged workers are what they are.