next »

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped,"

If you stray outside the conservative blogosphere, you'd notice that liberals have been calling for Obama's head on this issue, Paul Krugman most famously.

Obama himself will attribute it to 1) the recession being worse than what was expected (which is defensible), or 2) not predicting the depths of Republican intransigence and supposing that he'd have a second bite at the apple if the first ARRA didn't do the trick (also defensible). "Off the record" comments are the only place where you'll hear the idea that the stimulus was not properly put together in the first place.

I don't know if that's because Obama actually doesn't believe it, or because he doesn't want to get beat up on it, but it is what it is: the administration is standing behind their decision.

The only conservative blog I've ever made a habit of reading is Townhall.com. Most of my news reading comes from mainstream news sites, such as those of local CBS affiliates, and they're not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

The stimulus was just one example, anyway. Though it does sort of go to the heart of the issue: Mr. Obama seems to believe that the state is the solution to most problems, and that continuing to spend like mad is the right thing to do.

[chicagoceltic]

I very well may be wrong here but I feel as though this thread is a bit of a sour grapes thread started because the OP's candidate did not get elected.  This is just my opinion but I am pretty confident that these layoffs were bound to happen regardless of who won the election.  I am equally as confident that had Romney won the election and these layoffs were to happen that we would have had a very similar sour grapes thread started by one of our Democrat members.  It is my hope that now that the election is over that politicians from the opposing parties are more willing to listen to each other and work together than the members of Celticsblog from opposing parties seem to be willing to do.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.

This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Mr. Obama's character

Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

I didn't bring up the issue of character, Bombastic Jones did.

And I don't see it as picking and choosing. I accept it as evidence, and I'm truly glad it was pointed out to me. My point was that, on the whole, the Obama administration never put off a general vibe of admitting that the plan didn't work; in fact, the message I kept hearing was that more of the same type of spending was needed, which could easily lead one to think that there was no admitting to the initial plan being something of a failure.

[Bombastic Jones]

That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.

This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Mr. Obama's character

Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

I didn't bring up the issue of character, Bombastic Jones did.

And I don't see it as picking and choosing. I accept it as evidence, and I'm truly glad it was pointed out to me. My point was that, on the whole, the Obama administration never put off a general vibe of admitting that the plan didn't work; in fact, the message I kept hearing was that more of the same type of spending was needed, which could easily lead one to think that there was no admitting to the initial plan being something of a failure.

My bad.  Since you were conciliatory, and stated you did not want to worsen the conversation, I thought would be a natural issue to reassess.  I agree though that this thread doesnt need to go down that route.  The other thread you started can continue to host that debate quite suitably.  Sorry about that.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.

This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Mr. Obama's character

Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

I didn't bring up the issue of character, Bombastic Jones did.

And I don't see it as picking and choosing. I accept it as evidence, and I'm truly glad it was pointed out to me. My point was that, on the whole, the Obama administration never put off a general vibe of admitting that the plan didn't work; in fact, the message I kept hearing was that more of the same type of spending was needed, which could easily lead one to think that there was no admitting to the initial plan being something of a failure.

My bad.  Since you were conciliatory, and stated you did not want to worsen the conversation, I thought would be a natural issue to reassess.  I agree though that this thread doesnt need to go down that route.  The other thread you started can continue to host that debate quite suitably.  Sorry about that.

No worries.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I will say that since the election, I've come to feel that there is at least some hope that Mr. Boehner and Mr. Obama (or their representatives) can work something out.

[Bombastic Jones]

146,000 new jobs.  7.7% unemployment.  Downward revision might occur due to Sandy related missed work.  All of the gains came in the private sector.  Clearly the recovery continues.

[angryguy77]

146,000 new jobs.  7.7% unemployment.  Downward revision might occur due to Sandy related missed work.  All of the gains came in the private sector.  Clearly the recovery continues.

The report released Friday by the Labor Department also showed the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest level in four years. But the drop came largely from a decline in the number of people seeking work and counted as officially unemployed

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/business/economy/us-creates-146000-new-jobs-as-unemployment-rate-falls-to-7-7.html?hp&_r=0

This isn't great news nor is it encouraging.

The Labor Department revised job growth in previous months downward somewhat. October growth fell to 138,000 from an initial estimate 171,000, and September’s declined to 132,000 from 148,000.

Can't imagine what this latest number will look like after it's revised.

[Interceptor]

This isn't great news nor is it encouraging.

It's better than bad news, and the lack of bad news is actually sort of encouraging.

Can't imagine what this latest number will look like after it's revised.

It'll probably be a two to three digit number with trailing zeroes.

I wouldn't obsess over the month-to-month numbers, really. They are wildly inaccurate, and subject to huge swings in both directions upon revision. Pay more attention to the ones where they look back a year, which are more precise.

[the_Bird]

146,000 new jobs.  7.7% unemployment.  Downward revision might occur due to Sandy related missed work.  All of the gains came in the private sector.  Clearly the recovery continues.

The report released Friday by the Labor Department also showed the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest level in four years. But the drop came largely from a decline in the number of people seeking work and counted as officially unemployed

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/business/economy/us-creates-146000-new-jobs-as-unemployment-rate-falls-to-7-7.html?hp&_r=0

This isn't great news nor is it encouraging.

The Labor Department revised job growth in previous months downward somewhat. October growth fell to 138,000 from an initial estimate 171,000, and September’s declined to 132,000 from 148,000.

Can't imagine what this latest number will look like after it's revised.

Keep in mind, all of October's revision was in public sector employment; the change in private payrolls was revised up, from 184k to 189k.  I'm a lot more concerned with the private sector than I am with government employees; hell, if the number of public sector job growth was smaller than originally thought, in some ways that's a [dang] good thing!

[Brendan]

Workforce continues to shrink. This is not meaningful until the number is growing normalized to the workforce.

Simple math example:

100 ppl are working or looking for work (let's say 90/10): 10% unemployment


Economy gets bad.

10 people get laid off (80/20): 20% unemployment

5 people get jobs (85/15): 15% unemployment

10 people leave the workforce (85/5): 5.6% unemployment

Hey things are better than when we started!! Not true. 5 less people have jobs, even though the rate has gone up.

(Bonus points: calculate public sector (takers) and private sector (producers) separately -- uh oh, things look even crappier.)

[kozlodoev]

Not all departures from the workforce are created equal. It is no secret that we're entering a period when you'll see the baby boomers retire.

[Brendan]

Not all departures from the workforce are created equal. It is no secret that we're entering a period when you'll see the baby boomers retire.

It's also no secret that if you look at the age breakdown of workers, older people are working longer and have better employment numbers.

I don't have detailed stats to prove this, but I'd be shocked if "old age" type exits or controlling for normal exits in strong economies make sense. And given that young people don't stop getting old enough to enter the workforce, I'd guess "good exits" are very low.

[Interceptor]

I don't have detailed stats to prove this, but I'd be shocked if "old age" type exits or controlling for normal exits in strong economies make sense. And given that young people don't stop getting old enough to enter the workforce, I'd guess "good exits" are very low.

It should be a red flag that you don't have the stats to support your hypothesis. I've linked this before, I'll link it again: Constant-demography Employment. Shows his work, explains the decisions he made, etc.

[Brendan]

I don't have detailed stats to prove this, but I'd be shocked if "old age" type exits or controlling for normal exits in strong economies make sense. And given that young people don't stop getting old enough to enter the workforce, I'd guess "good exits" are very low.

It should be a red flag that you don't have the stats to support your hypothesis. I've linked this before, I'll link it again: Constant-demography Employment. Shows his work, explains the decisions he made, etc.

He doesn't deal with it either. He cuts at 55, precisely covering up what I was saying: older people are either going back to work and/or delaying retirement. Which means the shrinking workforce is worse relative to the old age "good" leaving the workforce measure.

Bigger picture: Krugman has no credibility with me.

BTW "I don't have the data" = just that, I don't have the data right now. I've seen plenty of analysis showing the economic recovery as defined by shrinking unemployment is totally fake. We're not even close to back where we were with Bush, AND we're way behind with slower ramp previous recessions.

I hope things get a lot better, I know they are not currently.