Unemployment Hype -- U.S. Economic Hyperbole

[DeletedUser3]

And there you are ladies and gentlemen, the unemployment rate has gone down to the same rate it was when Obama first entered into office to address the mess posed by the previous administration, demonstrating that --- indeed --- his policies, and other factors, did address unemployment. In fact, I have a list of reports that demonstrate the Republican party has been posing a buttload of hyperbole, falsely claiming the economic state of the nation has not substantially recovered.

On another point, a review of Fortune magazine's recent Fortune 500 displays Exxon and Chevron as making an absolute killing in profits over the past four years (particularly this last year), by bloating prices (holding #1 and #2 respectively) and, in fact, many other companies have been bloating prices for profits, irrespective of the economy and thus gouging the consumers. That cannot be attributed to this Administration, although it does give insight into possible Machiavellian actions by corporations to encourage dissension in the nation's populace by giving the "impression" prices are going up because of failing economic policies by the Obama administration.

Quite interesting. I will post additional reports (charts) at a later time.


(( additional reading: http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/september-jobs-report/index.html ))

 

[DeletedUser34]

Here is a question for you.....how many of those "higher" numbers were part time, and under employed?

let me edit How many of those employed NOW that make such a low unemployment rate, are part time and under employed?

 

[DeletedUser]

Since this chart looks similar to the chart in the opening post, there may be global factors at work here rather than American politics.

 

[DeletedUser]

the Republican party has been posing a buttload of hyperbole, falsely claiming...

Glad to see you've been acquainted with the right , although you're about 4 years late to the party. Really, it began 4 years ago with Obama the instant he got elected. Just off the top of my head I can name the birther stuff, accusations of being Muslim, anti-capitalist/socialist, wants to slash military spending, raise taxes on everyone, etc. Why would they stop now, and why wouldn't they include unemployment/the economy in the list?

As for MaryBethCandySue's post, I'm just thinking that it's all from countries slowly starting to recover from the global financial meltdown, and not so much some global factors. Besides, what global factors would there be that weren't present before 2009?

 

[DeletedUser]

Thought number 1: it may not be wise to celebrate a return to high unemployment (as a opposed to "very high" unemployment).
Thought number 2: the Canadian economy is so closely linked to the U.S. economy that one would expect the trends to be similar, and the ever-so-slowly-improving U.S. economy had a lot to do with the Canadian numbers...maybe MaryBethCandySue could research and see if there were similar trends in countries not so closely linked to the U.S. (that would be interesting to see)
Thought number 3: in 2009, the German banks were balking at the need to support the euro...also the world today isn't currently dealing with a major natural disaster (and I hope very much that it stays that way!)--Katrina aftereffects, Japanese earthquake/tsunami, for a while there it was bad news followed by worse (BTW I know the list should be longer and my timeline is inexact...the point is that right now there isn't a major economic impact from a recent disaster)...Daniel, the world is constantly changing, and there are always different global factors at work when comparing any two time periods
Thought number 4: I would really rather see PEOPLE coming together to find solutions to our problems than PARTIES arguing over who should come up with a plan...there are people in this country who want to be productive and cannot find a job, the current unemployment rate is shameful, and it seems that no one in Washington will lift a finger to help (except to point across the aisle).

 

[DeletedUser]

Thought number 2: the Canadian economy is so closely linked to the U.S. economy that one would expect the trends to be similar, and the ever-so-slowly-improving U.S. economy had a lot to do with the Canadian numbers...maybe MaryBethCandySue could research and see if there were similar trends in countries not so closely linked to the U.S. (that would be interesting to see)

Here's unemployment in Australia. The country is more closely linked to China, which funds its "mining boom" and exports manufactured goods:

It follows a similar pattern since the Australian government embarked on a stimulus program (A$42b across 22.5m pop) comparable to that of Obama's ($720b across 311m pop), where some money is allocated to tax breaks / one-off payments and the remainder distributed through infrastructure, investments, grants, etc. It looks a little different over the past local financial year (Jul11-Jun12) since the government has cut spending to seek a surplus by 2013, whereas Obama's plan kept $67b aside for medium-long term recovery.

In short, it appears Obama's strategy has worked. Also, it appears this (click) would be a wrecking ball through the economy.

Here is a question for you.....how many of those "higher" numbers were part time, and under employed?

let me edit How many of those employed NOW that make such a low unemployment rate, are part time and under employed?

The amount of part time employment has been on the rise internationally, hardly something you can fault Obama for, at least not completely. Aside from the global financial crisis, ironically it's a category you fall under that is leading the charge, women in the workforce. Over four in five women rear a child in their lifetime yet women now constitute almost half the labor force, suggesting the vast majority return to work after maternity leave. Dare I say it's impractical if not impossible to care for a child and have both parents working full time, thus more often than not one parent (usually the mother) opts to work part time, and indeed 27% of working women "only" work part time. (And because we're not sexist, we'll also assume the amount of fathers wanting to work part time is increasing at an equal rate, right? ) It's also reflecting a shift away from traditional nine-to-five setups, where flexible hours are offered and technology cuts time required to perform paid duties, which blurs the boundary between full and part time work. In fact, the Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't even seek to define and differentiate between the two...

 

[DeletedUser34]

who said I blame Obama? It was a simple question of interest. My decision is already made. I simply found that statistic sadly missing from the report.

 

[DeletedUser]

who said I blame Obama? It was a simple question of interest. My decision is already made. I simply found that statistic sadly missing from the report.

Allow me to fill your heart with joy then, for here is the missing statistic:

U1: Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U2: Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force
U3: Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)
U4: Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers
U5: Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
U6: Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

So, to the Romney campaign's arguments:

Forced part time unemployment
When Obama came to power, forced part time unemployment was already at 5.1% trending upwards, faster than the rate of unemployment in fact. (Taking U-6 less U-5.) When unemployment peaked in April 2010, the rate of forced part time employment also peaked at 5.8%. Since then, the rate of forced part time employment has slowly trended down, as shown by the U-6 dropping slightly faster than the U-5. During September the difference was 5.4%, sure that's an increase from last month, but merely a deviation to a more significant trend. The Romney campaign is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill...

Smaller labour force
Another mountain being constructed by the Romney campaign is the argument that the labour force is contracting due to people not looking for jobs, hence the perceived drop in unemployment. Were that the case, one would expect the U-4 (which includes discouraged workers) to have remained steady. Alas no, it is 0.1% off the January 2009 rate Obama inherited, having trended down at largely the same rate as official unemployment. Similarly the U-5, which includes all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, is only 0.2% off January 2009 levels. Oops -- myth debunked.

 

[DeletedUser]

Diggo, I don't see the Underground Economy represented. You know Drug Dealers, Car Thieves and other criminals vote too!

Seriously though, Unemployment has dropped as it will during any economic recovery. The problem with politics is that it will never happen quick enough. Remember, we live in a John Wayne society, "If you can't completely fix the problems in two hours or less, you're out of here!" People do not want to hear the cold, hard facts and truths. They want everything fixed with out having to sacrifice a thing to do it.

If Obama says we have to raise taxes the people gasp in horror. If Romney said he was going to raise taxes if elected no one would even know he was running for office. We all need to pay our way out of this whether you like it or not. And all of the arguing and complaining isn't going to change a single thing about that fact.

 

[DeletedUser34]

So, to the Romney campaign's arguments:

Forced part time unemployment
When Obama came to power, forced part time unemployment was already at 5.1% trending upwards, faster than the rate of unemployment in fact. (Taking U-6 less U-5.) When unemployment peaked in April 2010, the rate of forced part time employment also peaked at 5.8%. Since then, the rate of forced part time employment has slowly trended down, as shown by the U-6 dropping slightly faster than the U-5. During September the difference was 5.4%, sure that's an increase from last month, but merely a deviation to a more significant trend. The Romney campaign is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill...

Smaller labour force
Another mountain being constructed by the Romney campaign is the argument that the labour force is contracting due to people not looking for jobs, hence the perceived drop in unemployment. Were that the case, one would expect the U-4 (which includes discouraged workers) to have remained steady. Alas no, it is 0.1% off the January 2009 rate Obama inherited, having trended down at largely the same rate as official unemployment. Similarly the U-5, which includes all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, is only 0.2% off January 2009 levels. Oops -- myth debunked.

Not sure why you threw that in there. I have already made it very very very very very very very very clear why I am voting on Romney, and unemployment has never been one of them. I simply asked for curiosity sake.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not sure why you threw that in there. I have already made it very very very very very very very very clear why I am voting on Romney, and unemployment has never been one of them. I simply asked for curiosity sake.

Because not all of us throw our head in the sand, shout "lalalala" for the whole campaign period then go to the polls to vote on some perceived stereotypical platform If you really were voting on "the economy", I would have thought job creation (the whole reason Romney is trumpeting tax cuts) and unemployment would be something you'd keep an eye on

Seriously though, Unemployment has dropped as it will during any economic recovery. The problem with politics is that it will never happen quick enough. Remember, we live in a John Wayne society, "If you can't completely fix the problems in two hours or less, you're out of here!" People do not want to hear the cold, hard facts and truths. They want everything fixed with out having to sacrifice a thing to do it.

If Obama says we have to raise taxes the people gasp in horror. If Romney said he was going to raise taxes if elected no one would even know he was running for office. We all need to pay our way out of this whether you like it or not. And all of the arguing and complaining isn't going to change a single thing about that fact.

Hehe and that's exactly the point, the "hyperbole" coming from the Romney campaign on this one is downright ridiculous, adding fuel to a fire. Scary how many people will buy into these myths after his own dribble of unsustainable economic "promises"... if he honestly believes this, he should never run an economy, ever!

 

[DeletedUser34]

Diggo,
I am voting on the Republican PARTY platform...not presidential tit for tat.
Secondly, I am voting on economics of how large our government is, and the lack of a budget. I know you have been around when I have clearly stated that. One can not vote on every issue because well, it would be impossible. I know I have not cried foul about the unemployment as far as why I am voting the way I am. .....but you are more than welcome to keep trying to draw me in....Politics are like religion.....one persons gospel is another persons bull.....

And I would thank you not to accuse me of putting my head in the sand because I am not voting on unemployment.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hehe, I am trying to draw you in indeed. Although I'm sure many will agree that voting solely on some perceived stereotypical "PARTY" platform is putting your head in the sand. Unless you want to go edit them out, all these threads have began with you saying you intend to vote on "the economy" this election; as an indicator unemployment is one part of the big picture that you cannot ignore if you're really interested in the economy, even if it's not a decisive factor in your decision to vote... "lalalala"

 

[DeletedUser34]

ok, since you are insistent upon flipping my words around. Whatever.

 

[DeletedUser]

It follows a similar pattern since the Australian government embarked on a stimulus program

Diggo, thanks for the Australian data. There are other conclusions besides "stimulus effect" that might also explain the data. (Impact from global markets in general, Chinese mining slowdown and acceleration, etc.). It might be the stimulus, or something else, or (more likely) a combination of the stimulus and something else (probably several something elses). One of the concerns I have about politicians (and other people of influence) is that they often use small amounts of data to make broad conclusions. What people should do is to hypothesize different possible explanations and then test these hypotheses by collecting more data. With macroeconomics, I know this is really hard because there are so many factors that are difficult to model, and so anyone's explanation is, at best, an educated guess.
BTW, in comparing Australia's situation and America's, I think the Australians did a much better job of thinking up the right kind of stimulus (Americans essentially just threw money at the problem...a clearer focus on what the money was to be used for--and not used for--would have led to much better results) and had a stronger job market to start with, so things worked out much better there regarding unemployment.

 

[DeletedUser]

Diggo, thanks for the Australian data. There are other conclusions besides "stimulus effect" that might also explain the data. (Impact from global markets in general, Chinese mining slowdown and acceleration, etc.). It might be the stimulus, or something else, or (more likely) a combination of the stimulus and something else (probably several something elses). One of the concerns I have about politicians (and other people of influence) is that they often use small amounts of data to make broad conclusions. What people should do is to hypothesize different possible explanations and then test these hypotheses by collecting more data. With macroeconomics, I know this is really hard because there are so many factors that are difficult to model, and so anyone's explanation is, at best, an educated guess.

Fair call, correlation is not necessarily causation. Much unlike the "hyperbole", however, the estimate does at least correlate with the data and is hence reasonable to observe (even if not to assume).

 

[DeletedUser]

That's why I don't subscribe to one party, Democrat or Republican. The problem is that there are bad apples in all of them. To just say, "I'm a Republican or Democrat" is an old, outdated view. Investigation of each candidate is a must.

Now in Domino's case, I'm really not sure what your view truly is. When I look back on your points they tend to contradict at times in different forum topics. You say here that Unemployment is not a factor in your decision to vote for Romney but in other topics you list it as a main point for your argument against Obama. I'm not trying to get you to flame, but if you were honest you'd just come out and say you like the Republican ideals and you'd vote for any Republican who ran against Obama. My feeling is that you just don't like the President regardless of what he has or has not achieved.

In my case Unemployment is huge factor in my decision. It's a key economic factor that points to the recovery as well as the over-all health of a nation. Of course you have to look at it with a Micro view and not the over all numbers to see it and that includes crime rates and the underground economy with migrant workers. You also have to take into consideration that the holidays are approaching and large retail chains are hiring massive amount of people in order to prepare for the Christmas shopping. That drives the over all unemployment rate down, but it's only temporary.

Next we have to look at the candidates running for office, not just the Presidential election but the Senate and Rep races. Again, the micro view per state. If Obama stays in office he will most likely enjoy an increased Democrat presence in both the house and senate. If Romney gets in he'll most likely contend with a majority of democrats that may stalemate him as the Republicans have done to Obama. That could mean more failure of government and a slowed economic recovery especially if his focus is on Health Care and not on what really matters, Job creation and foreign policy on foreign trade with American companies.

So you see how tangled the web really is. Diggo is correct in is premise about legislative elections, they have a lot to do with how well the next 2 to 4 years are going to affect this country. With all that said it may make sense to vote for Obama in order to see more cooperation and quicker economic recovery. Sometimes we have to use logic and not emotion when we choose who we're voting for no matter how much we like or dislike a candidate because of the outside forces that impact the over all economy that we CAN'T control in other states.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Now in Domino's case, I'm really not sure what your view truly is. When I look back on your points they tend to contradict at times in different forum topics. You say here that Unemployment is not a factor in your decision to vote for Romney but in other topics you list it as a main point for your argument against Obama. I'm not trying to get you to flame, but if you were honest you'd just come out and say you like the Republican ideals and you'd vote for any Republican who ran against Obama. My feeling is that you just don't like the President regardless of what he has or has not achieved.

Actually I have. If you'd bother to look back at my posts, you'd have seen, BUDGET for me was key, and I also stated when I decided to vote for Romney, it was a case of picking the two party platforms apart, and agreeing more with the Republican platform. You would also have seen that I am absolutely voting for party, because with the government so polarized, you pick the side you like better and go with it. Is it perfect? No, and I said that. SOOOO, since I am going on absolute strike for people who put words in my mouth, and/or take what I say out of context, I will not participate in this. But next time do your homework on how I feel about politics...I have not mushed on anything. Whereas there was a time I fought just to fight, this debate forum I have actually remained fairly true to my real opinions. I'd thank you next time to actually LOOK.

oh yes, and if you had looked you would have seen that I actually DID think about voting for Obama. I actually still like him to a point. I am not one of those who has been crying foul about his every move.

That said. I made the comment it burns me up to have to suffer this (by choice, granted) to get ahead, when so many others are satisfied living outside their means and expecting a hand out to cover the net loss.
Soooo taking all of that....I have finally made my decision. It has come down to more than the economy in truth. That is my biggest issue. I have waffled because I really don't like Romney. I like Ryan. I don't hate Obama, I dislike the Democratic platform. I have decided that neither side is going to ever actually get around to hard truths and tough choices about how to pick up the economy.

BUT, If I wanted to work my ass off, and sacrifice so much to get ahead, there is no way in hell, I am willing to take a higher tax bracket simply because I did what I had to do to get to that level, simply so that someone who is perfectly fine with "OK" and "just enough" can take a bit of my money.

Ergo, I don't like Romney, but I will vote straight ticket as normal. I find I dislike Democrats more.

And there you have it.

For me it is the big picture. I have agreed that certain tax breaks need to be looked at. I am all for taxing higher for dividends, for bonuses etc etc. I am not for raising taxes on small business who make more than 200,000 a year. I find the idea of taxing Corporations assanine. I am more interested in Long term. I don't agree with what is being said about Ryan's plan. It isn't for those at 55. I have looked into it, and find it overall ok, not perfect, but definitely preferable.

The overall factor for me ended up being two things for me:
A) Since 2008 the government has become more active in the business industry. Before that, we were mainly a decentralized economic price system.....Now the government has a large stake in many industries, something I think the government needs to stay out of.
B) I am a very centered voter when it comes to issues of social importance. I happen to agree many things need to be done, I simply disagree on how to do them. I am very conservative when it comes to economic issues.

It truly came down to, I dislike the Democratic platform. I have stated, I dislike the Healthcare reform, not in what it is, but in how it is done. I dislike the loss of the American dream. I dislike that the Democrats want to penalize those of us who have struggled to achieve, only to say but if you don't want to risk, no worries...we got your back. I happen to agree with privatizing many services. I believe as with anything competition can improve the product, and I think that also is true with benefits.

I dislike the fact that our debt keeps growing, I dislike the fact that the democrats have refused to pass a budget. I dislike the wizzing contest they are crying about. They had no issue bucking the bull on the healthcare bill, but to say now they don't want to is redundant. They don't want to because they are afraid to face the tough choices, and I have no interest in a party not wanting to put for anything in fear that they might tick off their base (and future votes)...it shows no true interest in our future.

I think that about covers it. So, anyone with half a mind looks to the future and thus knows that there is really only one person to vote for....the very person who built his success, the same person who has run a successful company (or two) the same person who isn't afraid to at least try......

Edit: don't get me wrong, I don't like Romney as a person...but I am not interested in the "person", I am more concerned with policy, and I waffled for a long time on this until I realized that fact.

 

[DeletedUser]

In my case Unemployment is huge factor in my decision. It's a key economic factor that points to the recovery as well as the over-all health of a nation. Of course you have to look at it with a Micro view and not the over all numbers to see it and that includes crime rates and the underground economy with migrant workers. You also have to take into consideration that the holidays are approaching and large retail chains are hiring massive amount of people in order to prepare for the Christmas shopping. That drives the over all unemployment rate down, but it's only temporary.

One point of contention -- the official unemployment rate is already seasonally adjusted by the Department of Labor. Presuming you trust their analysis, the actual unemployment rate of 7.6% has already been adjusted up 0.2% to account for the pre-Christmas rise in temporary employment and various other factors, hence the reported 7.8%.

 

[DeletedUser]

One point of contention -- the official unemployment rate is already seasonally adjusted by the Department of Labor. Presuming you trust their analysis, the actual unemployment rate of 7.6% has already been adjusted up 0.2% to account for the pre-Christmas rise in temporary employment and various other factors, hence the reported 7.8%.

No I don't trust the Department of Labor... At all. In fact their figures are rarely adjusted correctly when it comes to seasonal labor as well as underground economics. What I do instead is take a pool of states like California, Nevada, Ohio, New York, Florida, Texas and Georgia and look at their employment numbers. I will say there has been a huge shift of employment moving from the North Western states to the Southern states in the Manufacturing fields. North Carolina has been getting a huge boon in Industry from tech and manufacturing mainly distribution and OEM's.

I see that people are relocating from Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana and Missouri to Texas, Georgia, Florida and North Carolina. Businesses, mainly Manufacturers in textiles, are relocating their businesses to these states and workers are following. To name a few; Fisher Hamilton, Kimberly Paper, Georgia Pacific, Monster and IBM. The reasons these companies are relocating are because they can pay lower wages, lower state taxes (States generally lure businesses with low state tax) and transportation costs including fuel and service taxes. This disrupts the over all unemployment rate for a fiscal quarter and we start to see wide fluctuations through out the country. A ripple affect, if you will. Generally these types of moves are healthy and spur economic growth and recovery. I'm not going to get into the hows and whys, I'm sure you all are smart enough to figure that out.

But there are companies that move their production to other countries. We saw a huge employment shift with, for example, Grove and Manitowoc Company when they merged and most of the Manufacturing of Grove's cranes and trucks ended up in China, not Wisconsin and Georgia. That was nearly 3K jobs lost to a foreign nation. What's interesting is that these cranes made in China and Korea end up back in the U.S to be sold. So that tells us that the shipping and Manufacturing of a 5 ton crane is cheaper to do over seas then it is to produce here in the U.S and That is a problem. When you break down the numbers Manitowoc Company isn't saving a lot per crane and in their defense they still do 70% of the manufacturing in Manitowoc, WI, but that's American dollars being spent on foreign soil. And don't get me started on (*Expletive Here*) Apple.

And Dom, I have read your posts and re-read them. Again, not looking to get you to wig out, but you points and tone has changed from topic to topic. To say that you like Romney's "Budget", I think you mean Economic plan, is puzzling to say the least. The reason is that no one knows what his economic plan really is and the public has more then demanded to see it. We've only gotten bits and pieces and what he has provided is a pipe dream. You don't need to be an economist to know what he's proposing, in what little he's provided, is just to garner votes and will never happen. His ideas remind me a lot of George H.W. Bush and his catch phrase, "Read my lips, no new taxes". And we saw how that worked out. So I'm still confused on your points.