This is Why Obama Will Lose in November

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
The fact is, both sides play fast and loose with the unemployment figures. However, Romney, the economic and business genius, has offered no solutions whatsoever. What we do know is, had he been President in 2008, he would have allowed the car industry to perish at the cost of thousands more jobs.

Predident Obama will be re-elected, though I predict it will be close. And then you, 24065 and your thread will look silly in hindsight.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
well ok, lets see. The graph is a bit imprecise about exactly where each year starts and ends, but from 82-90 there was a steady growth in the proportion of US citizens working. From 90-92 this went into reverse. from 92-98 the proportion working rose again, then was flat for 98-01, then fell 01-05. Then a bit more flatlining untill a collapse started in 2008. We all know what and why happened to the economy in 2008.

So, roughly, during the reagan administration participation in employment rose.

During the George H Bush, period it levelled out, and went into a bit of a decline.

During the clinton administration employment rose again but more slowly.

During the administration of George W Bush employment was falling, though it stabilised towards the end, before being pushed into sharper collapse by the bank crash. His rate of job loss seems to be nearly as high as the rate of job creation during his father's time.

the proportion of people working continued this fall throughout the Obama presidency.

These figures dont necessarily tell us what is happening. For example, if people are so rich they do not need to work, they may have retired and not want to work. Or, they may want work but know they cannot get it so do not appear in the figures. I dont know how US figures are calculated, but in the UK Unemploymenty figures are based on people registering themselves as unemployed and looking for work with the government. they only do this to qualify for benefits, so if they dont qualify, then they dont bother registering. So, for example, a spouse (whether main money earner or lesser earner) would not bother registering if their other half earns too much for the household to qualify. Similarly, some benefits are time limited, so no point registering if the time has expired.

Probably then, Americans are wanting work but have dropped off the official figures because they cant find it. Unemployment is therefore significantly higher than is being reported.

Whether or not Obama might lose because of this would depend on who you blame for what has happened. It started under Bush jr , at the end of his double term, so one might reasonably blame him for what happened. Hard to say from these figures whether Obama has made matters worse, better or no different to how Bush left them. If you believe that a new republican would behave like Bush jr, then a reasonable man might avoid such a candidate. If you believe a republican might have the same effect as Bush Sr, then you might anticipate turning rising employment into falling. Both Bushes ended with an employment collapse as their legacy. But a deeper analysis is needed to understand why the two Bushes initially did so differently. These figures show the result of world economic policies, they dont say anything about who really caused what.

Reagan seems to have done the best. I hear he was noted as a president who raised taxes. Cinton did quite well, too.


The figures do say the outlook is pretty grim.


* edited to correct my ignorance about US presidential reigns. I thought Bush sr. had two terms, so in my initial post gave hime credit for the Reagan boom, which in fact he seems to have terminated.
 
Last edited:

hot-rod

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
2,276
Media
0
Likes
1,286
Points
583
Location
Austin, Texas, US
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In your wildest dreams...4 years ago, maps showing red and blue states, were almost all red and Obama still won..Now look at the same maps and blue is everywhere with many more paused to go Democrat in the not too distant future. Republicans are finished. Hell, I live in Texas and it's purple now, not red, as are many other previously solid red states....:fing02:....It's gonna take years for this country to recover from the mess Bush and the Republicans put this country thru.....:011:
 
Last edited:

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Because the Faux unemployment rate of 8.1% shows that it has continued to drop over the past year, which appears to be good news. However, the rate is measured by those who are actively seeking employment against those who are employed. What the rate does not take into account is the number of people who have stopped actively lookingfor a job. Therefore they aren't counted in the ratio. The number of people who are seeking a job has dropped dramatically. Therefore the real unemployment rate, counting those who have given up, is 11.6%.

that wasnt the question...

the differenc between faux and real unemployment rate is quite clear...

but why should i took the rate of employees in a labor force in context to the faux/real unemployment rate???
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
that wasnt the question...

the differenc between faux and real unemployment rate is quite clear...

but why should i took the rate of employees in a labor force in context to the faux/real unemployment rate???

You can game the labor force participation rate so that many people who are unemployed are not counted, just as the unemployment rate doesn't count discouraged workers.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
well ok, lets see. The graph is a bit imprecise about exactly where each year starts and ends, but from 82-90 there was a steady growth in the proportion of US citizens working. From 90-92 this went into reverse. from 92-98 the proportion working rose again, then was flat for 98-01, then fell 01-05. Then a bit more flatlining untill a collapse started in 2008. We all know what and why happened to the economy in 2008.

So, roughly, during the reagan administration participation in employment rose.

During the George H Bush, period it levelled out, and went into a bit of a decline.

During the clinton administration employment rose again but more slowly.

During the administration of George W Bush employment was falling, though it stabilised towards the end, before being pushed into sharper collapse by the bank crash. His rate of job loss seems to be nearly as high as the rate of job creation during his father's time.

the proportion of people working continued this fall throughout the Obama presidency.

These figures dont necessarily tell us what is happening. For example, if people are so rich they do not need to work, they may have retired and not want to work. Or, they may want work but know they cannot get it so do not appear in the figures. I dont know how US figures are calculated, but in the UK Unemploymenty figures are based on people registering themselves as unemployed and looking for work with the government. they only do this to qualify for benefits, so if they dont qualify, then they dont bother registering. So, for example, a spouse (whether main money earner or lesser earner) would not bother registering if their other half earns too much for the household to qualify. Similarly, some benefits are time limited, so no point registering if the time has expired.

Probably then, Americans are wanting work but have dropped off the official figures because they cant find it. Unemployment is therefore significantly higher than is being reported.

Whether or not Obama might lose because of this would depend on who you blame for what has happened. It started under Bush jr , at the end of his double term, so one might reasonably blame him for what happened. Hard to say from these figures whether Obama has made matters worse, better or no different to how Bush left them. If you believe that a new republican would behave like Bush jr, then a reasonable man might avoid such a candidate. If you believe a republican might have the same effect as Bush Sr, then you might anticipate turning rising employment into falling. Both Bushes ended with an employment collapse as their legacy. But a deeper analysis is needed to understand why the two Bushes initially did so differently. These figures show the result of world economic policies, they dont say anything about who really caused what.

Reagan seems to have done the best. I hear he was noted as a president who raised taxes. Cinton did quite well, too.


The figures do say the outlook is pretty grim.


* edited to correct my ignorance about US presidential reigns. I thought Bush sr. had two terms, so in my initial post gave hime credit for the Reagan boom, which in fact he seems to have terminated.

Reagan enacted the largest tax cut in modern history shortly after he took office. As a result the USA saw a huge economic boom. Toward the end of his presidency, he raised taxes slightly to help cut the deficit. To your point though, Reagan was known for his radically pro growth supply side economics which is a tax cutting strategy.
 

B_24065

1st Like
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Posts
639
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
163
that wasnt the question...

the differenc between faux and real unemployment rate is quite clear...

but why should i took the rate of employees in a labor force in context to the faux/real unemployment rate???

You should count those who have left the work force because it gives a more accurate picture of unemployment. Hell, if 50 millions workers got fired tomorrow and not one applied for unemployment insurance but decided to starve to death, the unemployment rate would be 1% by this standard. It's just not realistic.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
You should count those who have left the work force because it gives a more accurate picture of unemployment. Hell, if 50 millions workers got fired tomorrow and not one applied for unemployment insurance but decided to starve to death, the unemployment rate would be 1% by this standard. It's just not realistic.

Good, now explain how liberal policies are at fault for the high unemployment rate.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes the unemployment rate sucks, and is often gamed by politicians to be lower than it should be.

Can you explain why it is so high, other than going "LIEberals!!!!!!11!1!!" and running, or do you just repeat numbers other people told you about and then hope that correlation will equal causation?

I'll do that for him. The current administration has given businesses no incentive to hire. They haven't set forth a game plan that will be in place for 8 years. Businesses don't hire because of a promise made to spur growth for 1 year, they need a long-term commitment of what the business and political climate is going to be like for an extended period...this is something the Bush admin actually did pretty well. The political risk is pretty high right now, deterring many owners to take risks and try to grow their companies.

The biggest flaw of Keynesian theory is the idea that you only need to spur one side of the equation. The administration has tried to address the consumer side through spending, but they haven't really done much for the business side. The argument is growth is brought on by demand. No sane business owner is going to try and grow their company if the demand isn't there. In order for there to be demand, consumers need to spend. In order for consumers to spend, they need confidence that the business climate is healthy and they won't be losing their jobs. It's a pretty vicious circle which is why both sides of the equation need help. Addressing only the spending side of the equation is the biggest reason why the economy has stalled.

Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, so I can't blame him for the rapid increase in unemployment at the beginning of his term, it would have happened regardless of who was in the WH. But by providing incentives to only consumers and not offering much of anything for business, he has failed to jump start the economy. Also, the administrations stance on the value of our currency is leaving consumers with even less spending power. Wages are the same, but products are more expensive, leaving consumers with less discretionary income.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
I'll do that for him. The current administration has given businesses no incentive to hire. They haven't set forth a game plan that will be in place for 8 years. Businesses don't hire because of a promise made to spur growth for 1 year, they need a long-term commitment of what the business and political climate is going to be like for an extended period...this is something the Bush admin actually did pretty well. The political risk is pretty high right now, deterring many owners to take risks and try to grow their companies.

Businesses don't hire because they don't have the demand to hire. They currently have huge piles of cash and are sitting on them because the consumer doesn't have money. There's no magic "well if you do this policy we'll hire people" route. If there is need to add an employee, they will add an employee. Anyone who's ever run a business should know this.

You haven't really given any specifics though. Obama has governed conservatively, he's mostly just continued the policies of the previous administration, so if you liked Bush you should be OK with Obama. But neither of them is a liberal.

Also don't forget, Bush's administration ended with the biggest crash since the great depression, so uh...yeah.


The biggest flaw of Keynesian theory is the idea that you only need to spur one side of the equation.

No, that's not a flaw of Keynesian theory, that's a flaw of your understanding of economics. All Keynesian theory is about is counter-cyclical spending. Keynesian don't simply address one side, it simply addresses the government's reaction.

The administration has tried to address the consumer side through spending, but they haven't really done much for the business side.

Hilariously, you have the complete opposite of reality here. The administration has been very, very good to the business side, and not nearly good enough to the consumer, hence our current economic doldrums. Businesses have huge piles of cash, we're buying up their bad debt, relaxing policies, etc. The administration keeps hiring pro-business types, and is also hugely favored by Wall St, even moreso than Republicans, when it comes to contributions.

The argument is growth is brought on by demand. No sane business owner is going to try and grow their company if the demand isn't there. In order for there to be demand, consumers need to spend.

This is accurate. Consumers don't have the money, or the jobs, to go buy things right now. Public spending would be a good thing right now, but we're really not getting much of it. As you've correctly stated, giving piles of cash to banks and corporations isn't really helping hiring.

In order for consumers to spend, they need confidence that the business climate is healthy and they won't be losing their jobs. It's a pretty vicious circle which is why both sides of the equation need help. Addressing only the spending side of the equation is the biggest reason why the economy has stalled.

In order for consumers to spend, they need money and job security....companies have security, they don't have demand. You need to make the consumers better off, not the businesses, which we have been doing.

Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, so I can't blame him for the rapid increase in unemployment at the beginning of his term, it would have happened regardless of who was in the WH. But by providing incentives to only consumers and not offering much of anything for business, he has failed to jump start the economy.

Again, this is quite frankly bizarre, because it's pretty much the exact opposite of what has happened. Somehow you've looked at a massive unemployment rate, huge increases in poverty, and said the government has given the people too much. What earth are you on?

Also, the administrations stance on the value of our currency is leaving consumers with even less spending power. Wages are the same, but products are more expensive, leaving consumers with less discretionary income.

Wages have been stagnating for decades, while healthcare and housing have risen due to unregulated businesses and banking. You're correct on the lack of discretionary income, but you've misidentified the cause. Look at the % of money spent on healthcare and housing over the past few decades. We actually spend less on almost everything than our grandparents did, including food, as a % of income. Rising product prices in general aren't actually happening at a drastic rate(core inflation nearly flat).

You're close, but not quite there.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You can game the labor force participation rate so that many people who are unemployed are not counted, just as the unemployment rate doesn't count discouraged workers.


You should count those who have left the work force because it gives a more accurate picture of unemployment.

there is still a leck of logic... i can work without being a member of the labor force. in this case i wouldnt show up in the labor force data, but also not in the unemployment data. or is it impossible to work without being a labor force member???

so, again... why should i take bouth data in a context?



about the "faux" and "real" unemployment rate...

Hell, if 50 millions workers got fired tomorrow and not one applied for unemployment insurance but decided to starve to death, the unemployment rate would be 1% by this standard. It's just not realistic.

at least for the gov. it would make a differenc... they wouldnt have to pay for these unemployees.
so if the state publishes the "faux" unemployment rate, its granted to the reason, that people who arent apply for unemployment insurance, doesnt cost money AND arent in the data (by this its more problematic to find the "real" rate). also some people get fired and they dont searche for a new job, cause they just dont need to. - this would push the rate to a to high level...

If you desite to publish the "real" unemployment rate, you talk more about the economical and social cost of unemployment.

So its only apolitical desition what number gets published... At least it shows, what really counts for a gov., by the desittion of what rate they publish.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No, that's not a flaw of Keynesian theory, that's a flaw of your understanding of economics. All Keynesian theory is about is counter-cyclical spending. Keynesian don't simply address one side, it simply addresses the government's reaction.

and even this is a dangerous sentence, as we can see, out of the past 45 years.

what keynes means, is counter-cyclical spending - but only in a big depression.
but the politics and a lot of economics used it to say, as soon as there is a little recession, the state has to push the economy.

but it didnt work like this... as we can see since the 1970´s
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
there is still a leck of logic... i can work without being a member of the labor force. in this case i wouldnt show up in the labor force data, but also not in the unemployment data. or is it impossible to work without being a labor force member???

If you're working, you're in the labor force. Where the number manipulation comes in, is in how it counts people who are unemployed.

If you move people off "unemployed" and into "not in the labor force", your unemployment number goes down, and you look like things are improving. That's been happening for months and years.

Also look at revisions in the hiring numbers. They're often revised downwards after the initial report.

at least for the gov. it would make a differenc... they wouldnt have to pay for these unemployees.

They still do, through other social spending, though admittedly that doesn't amount to a whole lot in the US.

so if the state publishes the "faux" unemployment rate, its granted to the reason, that people who arent apply for unemployment insurance, doesnt cost money AND arent in the data (by this its more problematic to find the "real" rate). also some people get fired and they dont searche for a new job, cause they just dont need to. - this would push the rate to a to high level...

If you desite to publish the "real" unemployment rate, you talk more about the economical and social cost of unemployment.

So its only apolitical desition what number gets published... At least it shows, what really counts for a gov., by the desittion of what rate they publish.

People who are searching for work but no longer receive unemployment are not counted. There are a bunch of other loopholes besides that.

The number you're talking about, U-3, is the most optimistic number out there, but not really a clear picture.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
and even this is a dangerous sentence, as we can see, out of the past 45 years.

what keynes means, is counter-cyclical spending - but only in a big depression.

No, not at all. It means counter-cyclical at all times. In good times, you save, in bad times you spend.

You need to read up on your econoimcs.

but the politics and a lot of economics used it to say, as soon as there is a little recession, the state has to push the economy.

That's exactly what it says to do. You don't understand economics.

This also hasn't been whats happened, so you don't have history either.

but it didnt work like this... as we can see since the 1970´s


No, since the 70's we've been seeing "spend in good times and bad times" which is not Keynesian at all.
 

lovinglife

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Posts
1,731
Media
100
Likes
3,371
Points
208
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Also don't forget, Bush's administration ended with the biggest crash since the great depression, so uh...yeah.
I am curious. What do you think are the reasons the crash happened? Which policies were in play by whom that made it occur?

Was it Clinton? Bush Sr.? Bush Jr.? Was it business decisions? Was it a combination of things? Could it have been prevented from a political standpoint? Is there anything being done to correct the mistake?
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If you're working, you're in the labor force. Where the number manipulation comes in, is in how it counts people who are unemployed.

If you move people off "unemployed" and into "not in the labor force", your unemployment number goes down, and you look like things are improving. That's been happening for months and years.

Also look at revisions in the hiring numbers. They're often revised downwards after the initial report.



They still do, through other social spending, though admittedly that doesn't amount to a whole lot in the US.



People who are searching for work but no longer receive unemployment are not counted. There are a bunch of other loopholes besides that.

The number you're talking about, U-3, is the most optimistic number out there, but not really a clear picture.


okay as i notice, its a bit weared in the usa :wink:
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
I am curious. What do you think are the reasons the crash happened? Which policies were in play by whom that made it occur?

Was it Clinton? Bush Sr.? Bush Jr.? Was it business decisions? Was it a combination of things? Could it have been prevented from a political standpoint? Is there anything being done to correct the mistake?

The crash is easy. You had an unregulated banking sector, the same thing that causes most crashes. A bunch of people were way overleveraged on essentially worthless things, and since there the financial regulatory system is largely captured and worthless, you had a noticeable portion of the economy built on what was a house of cards.

Both parties played a part in that. It's not really a red or blue thing, they've both been busy deregulating for decades, what else could have happened.

How to prevent it? The government could have regulated the industry. But as I said, it was captured, the people involved were in a revolving door with the very industry they regulated.

Has anything been done to prevent it from happening again? Not anything significant, no.