Job numbers continue to decline

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There has been a net increase of only 4.997 million jobs during the entire Bush adminstration. The resulting 0.5% average annual percentage increase in jobs is the worst since President Hoover.

This last month, another 84,000 jobs were shed, while July's job numbers were revised downward by 58,000 jobs. This year, 605,000 jobs have been lost.

This chart is kind of old, but the only change is that G. W. Bush should have an average annual percentage increase in jobs of 0.5%. Note that his daddy has the 2nd worst record since Hoover.

[Cubby]

The Republicans answer to that chart is "Sarah Palin". (Thats their answer to everything now)

FDR probably had some wild swings depending on which term it was. 1940-1944 must have been a huge increase.

I know the economy is bad now but I was surprised that the Unemployment Rate shot up to 6.1%. Thats the highest since September 2003. Once we get deep into a recession, the rate doesn't increase much because so many people give up looking for work and then aren't considered officially unemployed.

Thats what happened last time in '01-'03. There was a big increase throughout 2001, it stalled at around 5.8% or so for all of 2002, and then peaked in June 2003 at 6.4% right as the economy was starting to improve and lots of people started looking again.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I love how Carter is higher than Reagan.

[Nym90]

I love how Carter is higher than Reagan.

There were other economic problems under Carter (such as inflation) but job growth wasn't one of them. At least people had work so that they could mostly afford to pay the higher prices.

Much of that inflation was of course also caused by high oil prices. If Reagan hadn't put the kaibosh on Carter's plan to raise CAFE standards to 40 MPG by 1985, we wouldn't be in the pinch we are today. The very introduction of CAFE is what helped lead to the huge drop in gas prices in the 80's. Of course, opebo's favorite cars would've been phased out sooner if Reagan hadn't been elected, so I'm not sure how that affects your take on this.

Now we've got both inflation and job loss. Fun times eh?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

An economist made a chart of

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers...



http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/u6.html

[JSojourner]

My brother in law doesn't understand why we Democrats are "whining" about jobs.  He says President Bush has created millions of new jobs.  And as proof, he cites the new Arby's that opened up in his town.  And a Wal Mart.  There are plenty of jobs.  But poor whites and "mud people" don't believe in hard work.

Now the thing is, I think his view is pretty typical of Republicans...though most would not stoop so low as to use the racially loaded "mud people" term. 

Here in Indiana, we have been bleeding jobs like a stuck sow.  But the Governor -- Mitch Daniels -- is succeeding in persuading Hoosiers that he is bringing new jobs to the state in record numbers.  Because everytime a fast food restaurant, a discount store or a 1-800 call center opens -- all minimum wage payers -- he's there smiling and taking credit.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Take heart, friends, for we have but 4 1/3 months until this president is back in Crawford, Texas where he can't do any more damage to the nation's economy.  As of right now, I think either Obama or McCain would be better than Bush on the economy.  I give Bush credit, he and the Republican Congress brought us out of his first term recession, but his administration and the Democratic Congress have plunged us into what I call his "lame-duck recession", meaning the recession after the Democrats took back the Congress in 2006 effectively making Dubya a lame-duck.

I can see this recession lasting maybe another 12-15 months (pretty much the rest of the decade), because it will take some time for the next administration to clean up the mess that this current, out-going administration has made.

Now, it could be said that the responsibility for this recession could fall partly on the Democratic Congress, and to some extent they are correct.  However, I think this administration is mostly responsible and thus voters will see McCain as more of the same for the economy (which I don't agree with).

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, the economy is in the worst shape since 1980. 

Second, neither McCain nor Obama has a plausible plan to deal with the fundamental problems.

Third, it is traditional to "punish" the party holding the presidency for bad economic times, so this issue works against McCain.

Fourth, the next president is likely to have an economic situation even worse than the current situation!

[Raccoon]

Take heart, friends, for we have but 4 1/3 months until this president is back in Crawford, Texas where he can't do any more damage to the nation's economy.  As of right now, I think either Obama or McCain would be better than Bush on the economy.  I give Bush credit, he and the Republican Congress brought us out of his first term recession, but his administration and the Democratic Congress have plunged us into what I call his "lame-duck recession", meaning the recession after the Democrats took back the Congress in 2006 effectively making Dubya a lame-duck.

I can see this recession lasting maybe another 12-15 months (pretty much the rest of the decade), because it will take some time for the next administration to clean up the mess that this current, out-going administration has made.

Now, it could be said that the responsibility for this recession could fall partly on the Democratic Congress, and to some extent they are correct.  However, I think this administration is mostly responsible and thus voters will see McCain as more of the same for the economy (which I don't agree with).

No, wrong again. This is the fault of the American people, not the government. The American People brought themselves into this mess, not elected politicians.

You can see how dumb americans are by nomination Obama and McCain as Presidential candidates.

Palin is about the worst choice for Veep I have ever see, I truly and truly hate her as much as I do Obama.

Hillary will save us in 2012.

[War on Want]

Take heart, friends, for we have but 4 1/3 months until this president is back in Crawford, Texas where he can't do any more damage to the nation's economy.  As of right now, I think either Obama or McCain would be better than Bush on the economy.  I give Bush credit, he and the Republican Congress brought us out of his first term recession, but his administration and the Democratic Congress have plunged us into what I call his "lame-duck recession", meaning the recession after the Democrats took back the Congress in 2006 effectively making Dubya a lame-duck.

I can see this recession lasting maybe another 12-15 months (pretty much the rest of the decade), because it will take some time for the next administration to clean up the mess that this current, out-going administration has made.

Now, it could be said that the responsibility for this recession could fall partly on the Democratic Congress, and to some extent they are correct.  However, I think this administration is mostly responsible and thus voters will see McCain as more of the same for the economy (which I don't agree with).

No, wrong again. This is the fault of the American people, not the government. The American People brought themselves into this mess, not elected politicians.

You can see how dumb americans are by nomination Obama and McCain as Presidential candidates.

Palin is about the worst choice for Veep I have ever see, I truly and truly hate her as much as I do Obama.

Hillary will save us in 2012.

What the hell? Just when you think people can't get any dumber...

[NDN]

Take heart, friends, for we have but 4 1/3 months until this president is back in Crawford, Texas where he can't do any more damage to the nation's economy.  As of right now, I think either Obama or McCain would be better than Bush on the economy.  I give Bush credit, he and the Republican Congress brought us out of his first term recession, but his administration and the Democratic Congress have plunged us into what I call his "lame-duck recession", meaning the recession after the Democrats took back the Congress in 2006 effectively making Dubya a lame-duck.

I can see this recession lasting maybe another 12-15 months (pretty much the rest of the decade), because it will take some time for the next administration to clean up the mess that this current, out-going administration has made.

Now, it could be said that the responsibility for this recession could fall partly on the Democratic Congress, and to some extent they are correct.  However, I think this administration is mostly responsible and thus voters will see McCain as more of the same for the economy (which I don't agree with).

No, wrong again. This is the fault of the American people, not the government. The American People brought themselves into this mess, not elected politicians.

You can see how dumb americans are by nomination [sic] Obama and McCain as Presidential candidates.

Palin is about the worst choice for Veep I have ever see, I truly and truly hate her as much as I do Obama.

Hillary will save us in 2012.

Holy crap I agree with James Pol.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My brother in law doesn't understand why we Democrats are "whining" about jobs.  He says President Bush has created millions of new jobs.  And as proof, he cites the new Arby's that opened up in his town.  And a Wal Mart.  There are plenty of jobs.  But poor whites and "mud people" don't believe in hard work.

Now the thing is, I think his view is pretty typical of Republicans...though most would not stoop so low as to use the racially loaded "mud people" term. 

Here in Indiana, we have been bleeding jobs like a stuck sow.  But the Governor -- Mitch Daniels -- is succeeding in persuading Hoosiers that he is bringing new jobs to the state in record numbers.  Because everytime a fast food restaurant, a discount store or a 1-800 call center opens -- all minimum wage payers -- he's there smiling and taking credit.

The total number of jobs just hasn't kept pace with the labor pool. Somewhere around 150,000 new jobs needed to be created per month. Well, there should have been an increase of around 13 or so million jobs, not 5 million. That's 8 million short, and that's of all jobs. Of course good jobs are scarcer, but I'm just talking about all jobs.

[King]

Fred Thompson is right.  This isn't the 2nd Great Depression.  It's just the 2nd Greatest Depression.

[A18]

There's actually no a priori reason to think "more jobs" is better than "fewer jobs." And there is no "labor pool," unless by that you mean essentially the entire population.

[JSojourner]

Fred Thompson is right.  This isn't the 2nd Great Depression.  It's just the 2nd Greatest Depression.

I thought we were a nation of whiners.  Oh wait, nevermind.  That was Phil Gramm.

[หมูเด้ง]

The Republicans answer to that chart is "Sarah Palin". (Thats their answer to everything now)

FDR probably had some wild swings depending on which term it was. 1940-1944 must have been a huge increase.

I know the economy is bad now but I was surprised that the Unemployment Rate shot up to 6.1%. Thats the highest since September 2003. Once we get deep into a recession, the rate doesn't increase much because so many people give up looking for work and then aren't considered officially unemployed.

Thats what happened last time in '01-'03. There was a big increase throughout 2001, it stalled at around 5.8% or so for all of 2002, and then peaked in June 2003 at 6.4% right as the economy was starting to improve and lots of people started looking again.

Well, look at my sig. God has given them lemons, so they found a new God.

[Nym90]

There's actually no a priori reason to think "more jobs" is better than "fewer jobs." And there is no "labor pool," unless by that you mean essentially the entire population.

It's true that more jobs might not always be better, if the average job is of lesser pay, but Beet's signature chart clearly shows this hasn't been the case.

[A18]

With respect, I have no idea what your reply has to do with my post. The level of pay is entirely beside the point.

Employment has an opportunity cost. That being so, why should we assume that more of it is optimal?

[หมูเด้ง]

There's actually no a priori reason to think "more jobs" is better than "fewer jobs." And there is no "labor pool," unless by that you mean essentially the entire population.

It's true that more jobs might not always be better, if the average job is of lesser pay, but Beet's signature chart clearly shows this hasn't been the case.

There is also no a priori reason to think "faster growth" is better than "slower growth"...but I digress...but the irony is simply incredible.

[A18]

Curious. Do you think it would be a glorious thing to have young children working? How about the elderly? If more people retire early, is that unfortunate? Your attitude makes no economic sense whatsoever.

The purpose of employment is to serve consumption. A person should work only if his pay--and the additional purchasing power that comes with it--outweighs the personal value he assigns to the foregone leisure, education, child care, or whatever else he might do with his time. Indeed, this is just a subset of the broader question of how much time to devote to work.

Oh, and I don't think you know what "irony" means.

[opebo]

There's actually no a priori reason to think "more jobs" is better than "fewer jobs." And there is no "labor pool," unless by that you mean essentially the entire population.

Of course there is a 'labour pool' - it is that segment of the population that is compelled by necessity to work.  Thus, this does not generally include most children, the fortunate elderly who do have some pension, and of course, and most importantly, the owners.  It basically includes the vast majority of people from around 20-65.  Your pretense that you do not understand this is rather tiresome.

Obviously 'fewer jobs' relative to the supply of serfs is beneficial to the owners and harmful to the serfs, and vice versa - a lot of jobs tends to be better for the serfs and at least somewhat disadvantageous to the owners (at least in their power relationship with the serfs; they do benefit from other effects of 'lots of jobs').  The only way that a surfeit of employment (ostensible excuse for income for the working class) can be created in a basically capitalist system is through Keynesian reform of said system. 

The reason that 'more jobs' benefits workers is that they may be able to bargain for higher pay and more benefits, and less abuse at the hands of their owners.  If we are to create a 'capitalist' capitalist that benefits someone other than the elite and and a few fortunate lackeys, we must always make sure that there are far more jobs available than there are people who are compelled by necessity to take them.  This is the only way to equalize the enormous power disparity between owner and serf.  This can be done both by providnig a generous dole which means that no one has to work (in other words giving the workers a bargain basement/mass produced version of the option the rich currently enjoy), as well as implementing redistributionist spending specifically to increase demand-led growth. 

[A18]

If you want to define "labor pool" to be the same thing as "workers," then very well. But the point is that at high enough pay, virtually anyone can be made to work, and at low enough pay, none will.

No firm is required to hire anyone. If "fewer jobs" were categorically good for them, there would be precisely zero. Workers, however, are necessary for work, which is in turn necessary for production. A profit-maximizing firm will hire up to the point where the additional product of another hour of labor no longer exceeds the cost.

The same basic analysis applies to potential workers. A utility-maximizing individual works up to the point where the increase in his income no longer exceeds the value he assigns to the leisure, education, etc. foregone. It is simply not true that "more jobs" is inherently preferable.

Your argument seems to be that "more jobs" is categorically better for those who will be working in either case. Even that is unlikely. If the opportunity cost of the next hour (or half-hour, etc.) of work were to decrease for a number of people, thus resulting in an increase in the supply of labor, the quantity of labor would increase. Presumably--though, strictly speaking, not necessarily--this would mean that there would be "more jobs." But the equilibrium wage rate would fall; it would not increase.

In truth, though, none of this really matters. The issue is not whether "more jobs" is better than "fewer jobs" for X group. The question is whether it is better from the standpoint of society at large. Because you think labor markets are strictly a labor-vs.-employer contest, it's easy to see why that question isn't very meaningful to you. Even so, it's the one I was addressing.

[Nym90]

Curious. Do you think it would be a glorious thing to have young children working? How about the elderly? If more people retire early, is that unfortunate? Your attitude makes no economic sense whatsoever.

The purpose of employment is to serve consumption. A person should work only if his pay--and the additional purchasing power that comes with it--outweighs the personal value he assigns to the foregone leisure, education, child care, or whatever else he might do with his time. Indeed, this is just a subset of the broader question of how much time to devote to work.

Oh, and I don't think you know what "irony" means.

Ok, you are correct that greater job opportunities are what's relevant, not simply more jobs. If people have the option to work but choose not to, I have nothing wrong with that.