We all know about the wretched failure of Obama’s stimulus, and we can update the chart showing that the joblessness rate is two-and-one-half percentage points higher than the White House claimed it would be at this point if we flushed $800 billion down the Washington rat-hole.
But we also should pay attention to the second Obama jobs disaster. This chart shows the employment-population ratio from the Department of Labor, and it reveals that the number of people participating in the labor force has fallen off a cliff since 2008.
The decline began during the big-government Bush years, so Obama does not deserve all the blame. But we can say that his policies have hindered the economy’s natural tendency to bounce back from a downturn.
[…] Back during the Obama years, I repeatedly pointed out the real health of the labor market should be measured by looking at either the rate of labor force participation or the employment-population ratio. […]
[…] but not least, we have the chart that should be the most troubling of all. It shows a sustained drop in the labor […]
[…] the chart I posted last month. It hasn’t changed, and it’s perhaps the clearest evidence that Obama’s policies are […]
[…] why one of the best statistics to look at is the employment-population ratio, which measures the number of people who have jobs and compares it to the number of people who […]
[…] why one of the best statistics to look at is the employment-population ratio, which measures the number of people who have jobs and compares it to the number of people who […]
Like most economists, you ignore some of the most significant demographics, including the long term impact of the Baby Bust (55 million abortions since 1967) and a 43% drop in the birth rate since 1960 . . . combined with the accelerating retirement of the Baby Boomers starting in 2000 and continuing. Obviously, shifts like the export of our manufacturing base compounded this impact. But a lot of those retiring Boomers were simply never replaced. Attrition is probably the friendliest way to reduce your work force and a lot of employers used it. I don’t see any hope of long term recovery until the birth rate and new household formation begin rising, and we make a serious attempt at bringing back manufacturing. Santorum’s tax break for manufacturing would help, but until we seriously tighten up our abortion laws and start educating families about the negative economic effects of high abortion rates and lower birth rates, recovery will be slow to nonexistent. The latest numbers are nothing but a blip combined with spin by the administration and the liberal media. See our latest video, “No Kids, No Future” at http.//www.movementforabetteramerica.org
[…] why one of the best statistics to look at is the employment-population ratio, which measures the number of people who have jobs and compares it to the number of people who […]
[…] important, I think the unemployment rate will continue to drift downwards (even if only because workers get discouraged and drop out of the labor force) and that will allow Obama to claim – with lots of help from the media – that his […]
United States of America before the event the increase in internal debt ceiling had the option to negotiate their debt securities in the possession of other Countries. You can still do this, of course with minor success. But it can. The internal political struggle did not let anything happen. Now lost again with China buying all the gold possible in the world. All believe that Chinese is to control inflation in China. It is not. China buys the gold at ridiculous prices through exploration contracts with miners and mining cooperatives worldwide. What astonishes and terrifies any observer is that the United States observes everything as if oblivious to the fact that serious. Or into this vein of gold with purchase at ridiculous prices or will bitter over a big headache to balance its economy very soon. You should see who knows. Political fights are for later.
[…] the chart I posted last month. It hasn’t changed, and it’s perhaps the clearest evidence that Obama’s policies […]
[…] the chart I posted last month. It hasn’t changed, and it’s perhaps the clearest evidence that Obama’s policies […]
[…] obviously tailor-made for a joke about the Obama Administration not needing any help when it comes to stimulating […]
[…] obviously tailor-made for a joke about the Obama Administration not needing any help when it comes to stimulating […]
[…] This certainly doesn’t reflect well on the Obama White House, which claimed that flushing $800 billion down the Washington rathole would prevent the joblessness rate from ever climbing above 8 percent. […]
[…] This certainly doesn’t reflect well on the Obama White House, which claimed that flushing $800 billion down the Washington rathole would prevent the joblessness rate from ever climbing above 8 percent. […]
[…] This certainly doesn’t reflect well on the Obama White House, which claimed that flushing $800 billion down the Washington rathole would prevent the joblessness rate from ever climbing above 8 percent. […]
[…] Two interesting stats from Dan Mitchell at Cato. […]
[…] just how has the US economy been doing during the Bush-Obama spending binge? Judge for yourself. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
Daniel, the Obama stimulus was wildly successful at creating jobs in those foreign countries where our consumer products are manufactured and where the stimulus money eventually wound up. As PAT BUCHANAN points out in a recent column, the US lost 57000 factories and 6 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade. In future, please refrain from repeating the meme that the stimulus was a “wretched failure.”
Mr. Mitchell better expand the vertical axis scale on that second graph so that he can continue plotting the line after 2014, when the ObamaCare invitation to indolence program kicks in (yes, the one that says that if you drop your productivity enough to merit a compensation less than $90k per year, then some other American will be tapped to foot almost the entire Health Insurance and Healthcare expenses for you and your family).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704628404576265692304582936.html
Sorry I keep posting this, but everyone is too afraid to admit that it is one of the most pernicious measures taken by this administration, something that will set the American work ethic into a vicious spiral of decline and, of course, American prosperity will inevitably follow. Uppercut punch on American productivity for top earners who will be asked to foot the cost, below the belt punch on middle and lower class productivity as people become more insulated from the consequences of mediocrity. That measure alone should have been enough to downgrade the chance that the American people will produce enough to repay in full creditors who lend them money long term ie. loss of AAA bond rating.
But I understand. You can’t go to voters, tell them that their hope that somehow some distant unknown others will somehow work for them will not only fail but also destroy both them and American prosperity in the end, and hope to get elected into office. Even Mr. Mitchell would be shut off the main media networks if he dared to explicitly state the obvious. So yes, let’s all admire the emperor’s wonderful parka.
I would like to see another chart that objectively plots the intensity of public anger with Washington as measured over time. I’m willing to offer the hypothesis that the rise in anger from 2008 forward would more closely resemble a ‘hockey stick’ curve than the climatological chart with the same description.
[…] Mitchell has put up two graphs showing the state of the US labour market – the first we’re familiar […]
the dems have controlled at least 2 of either the house, senate or presidency since 2007. that can be fittingly described as controlling washington (i don’t think keeping the focus on congress gives the whole picture of who’s been running the show.)
@phineas, to clarify. When democrats control Congress you blame the Democrats. When GOP control the Congress, you still blame the democrats. How does it work?
I wasn’t a fan of Bush’s big domestic spending, but I think it’s stretching a point to say the decline in chart two began in any meaningful way under him. Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007, about when the decline really seems to start. And, as you point out, recent policies have only made it worse.