Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
Let me know when you get to the rest of my post- the part that started with "Setting that aside". Take your time...
Hey man, when you start by implying that a seemingly neutral source is somehow tainted, and then retreat behind a wicker framework of "Setting that aside," you get what you get. I try to post from reputable sources. You got a problem with them, please, don't retreat behind some weasel words. Bring it.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Looks like the Orgs cafterteria ran out of ensure
GET IT
GET IT!
BECUASE BOTH OF YOU ARE OLD
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Strike For The South
BECUASE BOTH OF YOU ARE OLD
I'll need you to enunciate clearly when you shout into my hearing trumpet.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...t_soldiers.jpg
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Hey man, when you start by implying that a seemingly neutral source is somehow tainted, and then retreat behind a wicker framework of "Setting that aside," you get what you get. I try to post from reputable sources. You got a problem with them, please, don't retreat behind some weasel words. Bring it.
As I've said, even if your chart is completely non-distorting & accurate, it isn't proving your point. Private sector employment growth is extremely weak, so much so that it can't have a positive effect on employment. Seeing as how the recession began 5 years ago, that alone makes it different than the others on your chart. Your comparisons- and the following assertion aren't valid.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
As I've said, even if your chart is completely non-distorting & accurate, it isn't proving your point.
Translation: "I got nuthin.' " (OLD MAN FIGHT!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5CGFVTIZwI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
Private sector employment growth is extremely weak, so much so that it can't have a positive effect on employment.
Private sector employment growth has been positive for the better part of two years. I'll take that over the reverse, thanks very much. Is it weak? Sure. But it's growth.
Furthermore, reinforcing the net point of this thread, employment has been growing in the face of State and Federal layoffs, which have dinged the unemployment number by at least a percentage point. Details were posted in the thread, reposted here. Hence my observation: This has been an exclusively private-sector recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
Seeing as how the recession began 5 years ago, that alone makes it different than the others on your chart.
And we returned to real (but weak) growth at least two years ago. Please explain how this invalidates the comparison of public sector employment in various recessions. And please speak loudly. I am quite old.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
That one on the left is so gay. But aren't all people on the left so?
Kidding, really.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Private sector employment growth has been positive for the better part of two years. I'll take that over the reverse, thanks very much. Is it weak? Sure. But it's growth.
Yes, it's growth. Yes, it's better than losses. But it's still bad. The rate of growth as it is, and I'm talking about private sector jobs, will have no positive effect on the unemployment rate.
Quote:
Furthermore, reinforcing the net point of this thread, employment has been growing in the face of State and Federal layoffs, which have dinged the unemployment number by at least a percentage point. Details were posted in the thread, reposted
here. Hence my observation: This has been an exclusively private-sector recovery
And we returned to real (but weak) growth at least two years ago. Please explain how this invalidates the comparison of public sector employment in various recessions. .
This is all typical for a recession. Private sector jobs react (drop) the fastest in response to a souring economy. As a result, tax receipts dry up and local/state governments are forced to cut their payrolls to stem the tide of red ink. Public sector jobs lag private in the recession and they lag in the recovery.
What's different here vs the average recession is that this one has been longer and deeper, with a very tepid recovery. The private sector has shown meager job gains, but it's not enough growth to fuel the public sector.
Quote:
And please speak loudly. I am quite old.
Try this.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
This is all typical for a recession. Private sector jobs react (drop) the fastest in response to a souring economy. As a result, tax receipts dry up and local/state governments are forced to cut their payrolls to stem the tide of red ink. Public sector jobs lag private in the recession and they lag in the recovery.
Um, no, that is the pattern of tax receipts, but not the usual response. In the '81, '90 and '01 recessions, deficit spending boosted the public sector, which boosted activity. In theory, at least, that spending should be dialed back when the economy is humming (doesn't work that way for the most part, but that's the idea). What is interesting about this recovery is that it is taking place despite government cutbacks. That's the observation I made in the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
You kids with your computational devices and their softcore. Where is that "any" key? This thing keeps telling me to press "any" key. Where is it?
-edit-
FWIW, every economist I've read bears this out. Your argument seems to be, "But jobs aren't being created fast enough," which doesn't make a metric ton of sense, given that you are also in favor of austerity and total government paralysis. My point, which seems to be either missed or ignored in your comments, is that this is an interesting recovery in that it rests entirely on the private sector. Yet another article:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ov-jobs-ue.png
As we’ve noted before, the numbers back this up completely.
Obama’s been hobbled by public-sector layoffs during this crisis in a way his predecessor George W. Bush never was back in 2001. Where the federal government stepped up to prevent states and municipalities from laying off teachers and other government workers in previous recessions, it’s fallen on its face under Obama.
More broadly, government spending at all levels rose steadily under Presidents Reagan and both Bushes, but was mostly flat under Clinton and has gone negative under Obama.
How does this phenomenon contribute to current economic woes? It’s impossible to know for sure. But if like the Wall Street Journal you imagine that the massive government job losses in Obama’s first term had never happened, then, all else equal, the unemployment rate right now would be down near 7 percent, a full percentage point below where it actually is.
But that’s not how the economy works. If those state and local workers had kept their jobs, they would’ve been making and spending money the whole time, which would have further boosted the economy and provided jobs for other people in the private sector. Economists call this the multiplier effect, and it would’ve pulled the unemployment rate down further. On the flip side, if that demand had never been subtracted from the economy, fewer people would’ve grown discouraged by the economic outlook and would’ve remained in the workforce — instead of dropping out entirely as they did in reality, in large numbers. That would have pushed the unemployment rate back up.
But broadly, the unemployment rate would be significantly lower than it is in the absence of the past three years’ public-sector job losses, which in turn were the direct consequence of the austerity Republicans at the state and federal level demanded.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Um, no, that is the pattern of tax receipts, but not the usual response. In the '81, '90 and '01 recessions, deficit spending boosted the public sector, which boosted activity. In theory, at least, that spending should be dialed back when the economy is humming (doesn't work that way for the most part, but that's the idea). What is interesting about this recovery is that it is taking place despite government cutbacks. That's the observation I made in the OP.
But federal spending spiked during the recession. It spiked in 2009- two years after you peg the start of the recession. That's 2009, the same year that the GDP bottomed out and we nominally left the recession. Federal spending fell, slightly, in 2010, but only compared to the 2009 spike. Then it continued upward since. Both Bush and Obama threw alot of money at the economy- but it's still stagnant.
Quote:
Obama’s been hobbled by public-sector layoffs during this crisis in a way his predecessor George W. Bush never was back in 2001. Where the federal government stepped up to prevent states and municipalities from laying off teachers and other government workers in previous recessions, it’s fallen on its face under Obama.
Again, the Obama stimulus package threw hundreds of billions of dollars at creating local government jobs. See if you can still find the "Jobs created or saved by the stimulus" counter on the white house website.....
Quote:
More broadly, government spending at all levels rose steadily under Presidents Reagan and both Bushes, but was mostly flat under Clinton and has gone negative under Obama.
Federal spending is higher. Local government is funded largely by property taxes. I seem to remember something bad happening to the real estate market.
Also...
Quote:
But if like the Wall Street Journal you imagine that the massive government job losses in Obama’s first term had never happened, then, all else equal, the unemployment rate right now would be down near 7 percent, a full percentage point below where it actually is.
A couple of points on this. First, it's a WSJ blog post. Secondly you, and the entirety of the left wing blogosphere are cherry-picking it.
"The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%.
Ceteris is rarely paribus, of course: If there were more government jobs now, for example, it’s likely that not as many people would have left the labor force, and so the actual unemployment rate would be north of 7.1%."
That figure is speculative, not factual. The author dismissed the figure just as quickly as he stated it.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
But federal spending spiked during the recession. It
spiked in 2009- two years after you peg the start of the recession.
Recessions after financial meltdowns are harder and longer-lasting than normal boom-bust cycles. Just ask the Japanese. Also, as for the stimulus packages from Bush II and Obama, there's a legitimate argument to be made that in the face of a demand drought, they were too small. I know, I know, this is insane comedy from your perspective. But some economists make the argument, and they're not all insane leftist lesbian hippies who hate freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
First, it's a WSJ blog post.
Yes, it is. So true. Once again you impugn the source without bothering to describe any specific or tangible element. Is this becoming some sort of verbal tic? Cast aspersions on a source, then say it doesn't matter and go make some other point that has absolutely nothing to do with your quasi-dismissal of the source?
And yes, the analyst points out that due to interrelated forces, the final number would not be 7.1%. In an article. To which I linked. THE HORROR! THIS DISPROVES EVERYTHING!
By the way, your post is just an anonymous post on an internet gaming site by a guy with a suspiciously Chinese name. That aside, and not that I'm saying anything about that, but you as a source are extremely iffy. I don't even know that you really exist. But I'm not saying that. I'm just making vaguely dismissive, content-free comments about you as a source. You're suspicious, and possibly tainted by leftism. Not that it matters to my argument. I'm just saying it. Oh, I can't back it up, but that's okay, because I'm leaving it aside.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
Recessions after financial meltdowns are harder and longer-lasting than normal boom-bust cycles. Just ask the Japanese. Also, as for the stimulus packages from Bush II and Obama, there's a legitimate argument to be made that in the face of a demand drought, they were too small. I know, I know, this is insane comedy from your perspective. But some economists make the argument, and they're not all insane leftist lesbian hippies who hate freedom.
Using the White House's data, we're borrowing about 42 cents of every dollar we spend. Back, to the spreadsheet I linked from the White House's website, the 2012FY spending is pegged at $100bn more than 2009's spending- 2009 being the year the stimulus was passed, meaning we've exceeded even that. How much more money, and for how long would you recommend the federal government spend to make everything, "ok"? The deficit is already ballooning- but you say its not by enough. Don't you have any concerns about the current rate of debt accumulation? Should we really accelerate it?
Quote:
Yes, it is. So true. Once again you impugn the source without bothering to describe any specific or tangible element. Is this becoming some sort of verbal tic? Cast aspersions on a source, then say it doesn't matter and go make some other point that has absolutely nothing to do with your quasi-dismissal of the source?
A blog posting isn't expected, or required to meet the same standards that a regular news story would in the WSJ. I didn't think I'd need to spell that out for you.... but here we are. :shrug:
Quote:
And yes, the analyst points out that due to interrelated forces, the final number would not be 7.1%. In an article. To which I linked. THE HORROR! THIS DISPROVES EVERYTHING!
It pretty well disproves your claim that without government job cuts the unemployment rate would be almost 7%. An assertion you've made repeatedly. It's based on a statement that even it's author dismisses.
Re: The Private-Sector Recovery
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
Don't you have any concerns about the current rate of debt accumulation? Should we really accelerate it?
I've said it before and I'll say it again; the United States has a short-term growth problem and a long-term debt problem. In the meantime, I think I'll trust Mr. Market about the validity of our debt. Short-term borrowing is costing us what percentage again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xiahou
It's based on a statement that even it's author dismisses.
The author says that the unemployment rate would be "north of" 7.1%, which is not exactly the thundering dismissal you imagine. An economic analyst says that a final number would not, in fact, be 7.1%. To you this is game, set and match? Really?
What intrigues me about your elliptical, half-hearted dismissal of sources is that you seem to do it reflexively, with no purpose toward furthering your own argument. It's more of a tic, as I said.