Unemployment rate jumps to 7.2%
posted at 10:48 am on January 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Employers shed over a half-million jobs in December as the year ended in the grips of a full-blown recession. The total job loss for 2008 went over 2.6 million, mostly in the latter half of the year, as prospects for growth look dim indeed. Even with all of that truly bad news, the AP manages to add a little hyperbole:
The U.S. unemployment rate bolted to 7.2 percent in December, the highest since early 1993, as nervous employers slashed 524,000 jobs.
The Labor Department’s report, released Friday, underscored the terrible toll the deepening recession is having on workers and companies, and highlights the hard task President-elect Barack Obama faces in resuscitating the flat-lined economy.
For all of 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.6 million jobs. That was the most since 1945, when nearly 2.8 million jobs were lost. Although the number of jobs in the U.S. has more than tripled since then, losses of this magnitude are still being painfully felt.
Uh, okay, thanks for the no-context context. Job losses in 1945 were catastrophic for a nation of 132 million people. We have over 300 million today, and we have increased the workforce by a much larger factor as women have entered the workplace. Total employment in December 1945 was 39.111 million Americans. Total employment in December 2008 was 138.078 million Americans.
For the mathematically challenged, the difference between 2.6 million jobs lost in 1945 and in 2008 is that the former represented a whopping increase of 6.2% in unemployment, while the latter represents a 1.89% jump. It’s bad, but it’s not even in the same ballpark as 1945. And it’s worth noting that the US bounced back nicely in 1946, with unemployment below 4%, and managed to do that without massive new deficit spending by the federal government.
Furthermore, it’s hardly unprecedented. We had more than a decade from 1975 to 1986 when the average unemployment was higher as a percentage than it is now. Three of those twelve years had unemployment higher than 8%, and two of them (1982-3) at almost 10%. In those years, the US had over 10 million people unemployed, worse than now.
How did we fix that problem? Not through nationalization and massive works projects. We pushed investments and cut taxes in order to get capital flowing in the markets, which created jobs through innovation. So far, Washington has proposed the kind of solution that created the stagnation we had in the 1970s and 1980s, which is capital confiscation, based on a panic that will eventually become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to quit shrieking and start learning about recessions and the solutions that actually worked — and failed — in the past.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Unemploying Barry would be a good way of upping that number.
Maybe we can convince him to spend more time with his family.
Who wouldn’t want to spend 24 hours a day with Michelle Obama?
Piece of cake.
NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I’m beginning to think Obama’s stimulus plan will work simply because he will start speaking positively about the economy again. When people thought the bomb was headed this way, they built bomb shelters. When people thought Y2K was going to shut down the grid, they horded food. Now people are scared they’ll lose their job and their house and we’re hording money. Which means we aren’t supporting that local restaurant or hiring the contractor to redo our basement. Then those people lose their jobs.
So Obama can come into office and be a little less of a Mr. Gloom (and he is being soooo gloomy now). People will feel better. The economy will pick up. Ta Da! The stimulus worked.
MayBee on January 9, 2009 at 10:53 AM
It doesn’t quite work that way.
lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM
lorien- what???? You can’t talk down the economy?
MayBee on January 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM
How much of the job losses are due to minimum wage increases? That is an important factor and people should be made aware of it.
redshirt on January 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I think several percent were realtors…
*
He talks down the economy, because right now he doesn’t “own it”.
So when things turn around, despite whatever the gov. does, he will take credit.
right2bright on January 9, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Has anyone heard why our economy will recover in the 3rd Qtr of 2009? Seems like these talking heads say this because that is how long previous recessions last. Gives you a great sense that these higher-ups know what they are doing.
Here is a thought, try more liberty!
WashJeff on January 9, 2009 at 11:01 AM
High unemployement.
Low dollar value.
Low consumer confidence.
Gob’ment control of corporations.
I blame Obama. And on 1.20.09, I’ll blame him even more.
madmonkphotog on January 9, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Oh, and MayBee has a point, psychology and perception are important market factors as well.
redshirt on January 9, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Yes, the very definition of Hope and Change.
Si, se puede!
NeighborhoodCatLady on January 9, 2009 at 11:04 AM
No, you can’t talk it up.
lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 11:05 AM
How many illegals lost their wrongful employment?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 9, 2009 at 11:06 AM
No, you can’t talk it up.
Really? How interesting.
What happens when you stop talking it down? Does it keep going down?
MayBee on January 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Is it any wonder that people are getting canned?
Obama said it himself:
“If you make over $250,000 we are going to raise your taxes.”
I wonder if the Obama supporters understand that the “you” might include
your boss or employer whose company makes over $250,000?
And with Obama talk of mandatory medical coverage and a vague reference to fining employers who don’t provide medical coverage?
Wrap that all up in a pretty socialist bow and it’s no wonder that with the
messiah in control the pink slips are flying out in record numbers.
And now talk of the BIGGEST government spending ever that will make
even George Bush blush – I would think we will see record layoffs and plant closings like you have never seen.
Government payroll is paid from the taxes that you, me and your employers pay.
How about we SLASH government and make permanent TAX REDUCTIONS
that will boost the economy. It’s the only way. You cannot spend your way out of a Recession (Depression) – what comes after a Depression??
izoneguy on January 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM
2.8 million jobs were lost in the past year. But the real tragedy here is the AP’s reporting. Thanks for cutting out the noise and getting to the heart of the issue, Ed.
e-pirate on January 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM
lorien meant you aren’t going to stimulate the economy that way. We know you can talk it down because the press had been doing it for years before now and I would hear people at work talking about how bad things were. If I asked them for examples, of course, none of them could name anything specific to themselves, just cite the news.
But to stimulate there actually has to be things going on. Talking about cool you are in Phoenix in the summer is nice, but it’s still 120 here and I’m not going to feel that chill breeze unless I’m heat-stroking.
We need real incentive to move the economy back in the other direction. If there is incentive to spend private money, such as me getting less stolen from my paycheck every week, I am more likely to go out and spend that rather than forming a tighter budget so I know there’ll be plenty there if something happens to my job.
How about that flat tax or consumption tax and get rid of the IRS =)
Kelligan on January 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM
That is a good thing, actually. It means people are investing in useful things, rather than spending on useless things.
Count to 10 on January 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM
That’s not the major issue these days, not by a long ways.
I’m in North Carolina, where we haven’t gotten whacked with the housing collapse, and we’re some distance away from any banking center. I’m a senior software engineer, so in no way am I close to the minimum wage market, even indirectly.
But I’m also a contractor, and my current contract ends this month. I can tell you what recruiters are telling me: in my job market, there’s nothing out there. I have a very effective resume, and I normally get calls on a regular basis, even when I haven’t reposted my resume for a while. But right now, the phone is virtually silent. Again, there’s nothing out there.
2009 is going to be a very difficult, if not disastrous, year for many good people. I’m hoping not to be one of them, but it’s looking very scary right now.
NeighborhoodCatLady on January 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM
2nd look at the Amero…
I kid.
blankminde on January 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM
7.2%?
That will be Obama’s approval rating in 24 months.
artist on January 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM
This is the real definition of “hope and change”.
God Bless You, RR.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM
OK, I know you can’t actually stimulate the economy that way. I’m saying he can (or should I say will) claim credit that his policies are working, when in reality he just stopped trying to tank it with his gloom.
MayBee on January 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM
And I still can’t get over that Shield….when did we ever invent the “Office of the President Elect”
chief65 on January 9, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Don’t forget that the minimum wage increases automatically increased a number of union wages–that will cause unemployment there, as well.
Count to 10 on January 9, 2009 at 11:14 AM
On target. He is a strategic opportunist. I hate the fact that his underlying motivation is to punish those who appear to have it better than others.
sherry on January 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM
We could cut corporate tax rates…just a thought.
kirkill on January 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Without outside factors actually setting in, repeating over and over again that “the economy is great and wonderful” isn’t going to do anything besides use up oxygen.
You can induce a state of panic in people by saying “the sky is falling” to talk down the economy, but it doesn’t work the other way.
Hate to burst a bubble, but there are real underlying issues here and once the recession (which is a natural part of the business cycle) fixes them, things will improve. Until then, hold onto your hat.
And no, government intervention will not fix it. If anything, it’ll encourage the bad practices that caused the recession in the first place.
lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM
This dolt is fueling the fire and creating fear, panic and social unrest . . . we’re observing the underpinnings of a classical communist revolution. Has he been consulting with Hugo lately?
rplat on January 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM
And capital gains.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Nope. Re-reading Alinsky.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Last time I looked, the US economy was NOT a Soviet-style central planning morass of multiple bureaucracies not caring what any of the others did and everybody was ‘working’ thus no unemployment. The President of the United States is not a king (much to the dismay of Michelle, Nancy, Harry and their Ilk) and does not have direct influence upon business decisions. Nor does the US economy exist in a Roddenberry or Hogan-inspired world where cash is gone and people just obtain what they want from people who freely give it to them.
We might as well get used to Carter-level unemployment (anyone looking for a stellar IT Project Manager?) usurious interest rates and true Balkanization while the elites jet across fly-over country for their pleasure.
Pity we can’t make Congress, their Staff(s) and the Federal Bureaucracies feel the same pain as the rest of this country.
SeniorD on January 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM
This seems to imply that the US has been in recession for over a year at least. No attempt at hyperbole though, right?
It’s like how traditionally a Chinese baby born the day before new year was considered 2 the day after.
DarkCurrent on January 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Ah yes . . . that slipped my mind.
rplat on January 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Why should we let the socialists benefit from this economic downturn?
Right now people are afraid because times are uncertain.
The Left knows that it’s the perfect time to slip some major changes in, but why should it be their changes?
Why can’t we use the current job loss to help promote the fair tax which would bring investment, money and jobs to the U.S.? Or, to promote an end to funding of the U.N….afterall, shouldn’t that money be brought back to the U.S. where it can directly benefit Americans?
Whether the left is doing this by ineptitude or by design, the last thing we should do is let them benefit from it.
JadeNYU on January 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Thanks Ed, math has not been one of the strong suits of the media. Now that I think about it, the media uses math to lie more than most. Huh.
RR created more than 20 million new jobs in his eight years.
Obammuinsm isn’t going to be a pretty place, equal misery for all, just like Kenya and Indonesia.
tarpon on January 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM
When you stop saying “the sky is falling” and the people stop panicking, what happens? Does the economy keep getting worse and worse?
This is so stupid. I’m saying he will stop panicking people with his gloom and can claim his stimulus worked because people stopped panicking. I am NOT saying talking up the economy works as a stimulus.
MayBee on January 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM
The recession is good news for me. Us community college professors are seeing increased enrollment as people flock back to school for education.
Downside? Huge classes coupled with decreases in budgets. We keep our tuition low because we are an “open enrollment” institution. In Indiana, Governor Daniels wants a 4% reduction in funding for higher education. Yikes!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM
1945…1945…say, that year rings a bell. Oh yeah, that’s the year WWII ended and the US transitioned back to a peacetime economy, which explains the job loss. There was a recession in 1946 as a result of this transition as well.
Kenrod on January 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM
The ACORN revolution is upon us. It’s been decades in the making. We must start the counter-revolution NOW.
rockmom on January 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM
I’ll back this story up. I too live in NC (the Triangle) with a PhD in Engineering. There’s nothing in my field right now — colleagues left and right are graduating with no jobs to be found. Local firms (Wyeth, GSK, BASF) are all frozen or have stopped hiring research (PhD) level employees. There’s no money left for innovation due to the economy, so companies around here have shed workers and spread their Bachelor’s degrees around to plug the holes until the economy rights itself.
LastRick on January 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Obviously you are only looking out for the top 1% and want to take money away from programs that help the kids.
I have practicing by Democratic talking points. Quite fun to do as long as do not think how Democratic policies reduce liberty and prosperity.
WashJeff on January 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Remember, businesses might have some role but they are not to confuse it with the one already taken – God. When our nation fully sold out to India and China with offshoring of white-collar work, something was inevitable. They looked at what happened in the 1980′s and decided that the GOP no longer represented the common man and kicked them out where they could.
Reagan’s ideology: 1/1981-1/2009 – It shall never rise again.
sethstorm on January 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Whenever he does anything break out Alinsky and do a comparative analysis.
thomasaur on January 9, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I did the same thing yesterday with the presser and Carter’s “Malaise” speech.
They were eerily similar.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 9, 2009 at 11:40 AM
7.2%? Dang..a couple more clicks and we’ll be where France was in “good times”.
Itchee Dryback on January 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM
In what is turning to be a date of bitter irony, the company I work for intends to slash 3000 jobs on the 20th.
swash_plate on January 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Sounds good to me. Besides posting on blogs, what are YOU doing as part of the counter-revolution, so that others may follow in your example?
e-pirate on January 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Look on the bright side. Think about how many bridges and highways will be made good as new this year by Obama’s Out-of-Work People’s Brigade.
On a side note, I guess we can scratch these 2.6 million jobs from the 3 million jobs Obama was going to “save”.
fogw on January 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Really? How interesting.
What happens when you stop talking it down? Does it keep going down?
MayBee on January 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Doughboy on January 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM
rplat on January 9, 2009 at 11:46 AM
No effective leader ever prevailed in the face of adversity by dwelling on the negative. If Obama is correct then perhaps we should simply lie down and die, or relinquish our freedoms to the state. If he’s not, then we should develop a sound plan to correct the problems and move in a positive way to rebuild and restore our free market economy. He is attempting to create a controlled environment wherein everyone responds appropriately to the rewards offered by the state . . . or, like rats in a Skinner box. If you yield to this then you will surely lose your freedoms, your liberties, your self-esteem and your dignity.
rplat on January 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM
All I know is that when I play Monopoly & I land on Park Place with a hotel & I have to borrow $$ from my fellow players to stay in the game, that will only work for so long.
Badger40 on January 9, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Speculation does not create wealth. Nor does speculating that bad things will happen destroy wealth.
The price of homes skyrocketed on the assumption that someone else would pay even more for them later. The stock market is a good example of that. You buy a stock only because you think another sucker will buy it for even more from you. You have added nothing to the economy, you have produced no good or service of any value, but you, if some sucker does pay more for it, have enriched yourself. With this new “wealth”, you buy more goods or take a vacation.
It is a pyramid scheme because that new “wealth” didn’t actually exist except by virtue of someone coming in behind you to pump his money into the scheme. At some point the house, or the stock, drops in price, as real value returns to the market and the sucker that bought from you loses his money. As for the wealth you got, you spent it on real things but since it wasn’t real wealth, just the proceeds of speculation, you have now indebted the nation by that much by consuming goods and services with wealth that didn’t exist. It was a loan. The only real wealth injected was injected by the last participant of the pyramid scheme. Everybody else made money from thin air.
This is what happened. House prices rose, people borrowed against that as home equity loans to buy goods or take vacations, then when house prices dropped, they discovered they spent wealth they never had. Ditto the stock market. In both cases, the nation consumed goods and services by spending ethereal wealth derived from speculation. In other words, they spent real wealth that never existed. That means debt. Add to that credit card debt, and you begin to see that consumption is not the ticket to recovery, but the cause of the calamity.
Talking good things about the economy simply encourages speculation, and the consumption that rising home and stock values seems to allow. So talking good will encourage more ethereal wealth to be spent, which means more real wealth to be consumed.
The way for a nation to prosper is to produce wealth, not consume it.
keep the change on January 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM
My prediction of unemployment is coming to pass. Hmmmmmmm
upinak on January 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM
A good thing, too, that Obama has the breadth of experience to reject out of hand the failed policies of the past! Doesn’t he?
Sheerq on January 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Excellent points . . . and a considerable challenge.
rplat on January 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM
“The way for a nation to prosper is to produce wealth, not consume it.”
Can someone send this note to Obama?
How can we reverse his years of marxist training?
America is not an experiment for socialists to tinker with.
Americans won’t stand for it.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO VOTES FOR THESE IDIOTS IN 2010 0r 2012!!!!!
izoneguy on January 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Yes, absolutely nothing the government did between 1945 and 1946 could have contributed to changes in employment in the USA.
Big S on January 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I agree with you ED. Unfortunately not enough Americans agree with you to prevent the bailout to come.
And unemployment is not 7.2% Add in the people they have dropped from the unemployment rolls from the last three months because they “aren’t actively seeking employment” and you get a much bigger number. I used to quote government statistics all the time. I read about hedonics and I had egg al over my face. Government numbers are bogus. We do not need to panic our way into hyperinflation. We do need to recognize how bad it is and turn away from the government and the Fed instead of to it.
Theworldisnotenough on January 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Well said. You nailed it.
Thanks.
fogw on January 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM
How might the retirement of baby boomers be affecting these overall unemployment numbers? This year, and for many years to come, the boomers will be dropping out of the work force by the millions.
Are the government’s unemployment numbers based on employers reporting of loss of employees only, or do they qualify the reason for loss?
Just curious, if anyone knows.
fogw on January 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Worth noting in part because we had massive government spending in the Marshall plan to create consumers out of Europe and Japan who had had their manufacturing capacity damaged by the war.
In 2009 we have U.S. industry that has grown on the back of cheap credit for almost a decade. With that credit contracting existing businesses will downsize or disappear. A cheap dollar helped exports in 2008 but now other countries are cheapening their currency to support their local industry.
The big question probably is whether we can find enough foreign investors to buy the all the debt we need to issue in hopes of reflating the economy.
dedalus on January 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Ed, as usual, I don’t have any idea where you are coming from. What are you trying to say? Bad news on job losses are some ‘mental recession’ again?
I don’t understand why you would make a post like this. Unemployment is going WAY UP! It is VERY BAD! And all you want to do is blame the messenger? As a ‘journalist’, I would expect a little better from you.
YOU must have the ONLY positive post and article concerning the loss of a half a million jobs in December in America. . . and I have no idea why. It makes absolutely no sense.
You always complain about moral relativism. This is prosperity relativism. Your post was basically hey, it’s not as bad as they say it is. . . even though technically it is (by the numbers and all).
Come on Ed. You can do better than this. Of course I’ve been baffled by most of your ‘economic’ posts.
ThackerAgency on January 9, 2009 at 12:12 PM
And no, it isn’t worth noting that ‘the US bounced back nicely’. I recommend you stop making suggestions and recommendations. The only recommendation now for this economy is get cash and get out of debt.
When will the NASDAQ get back to 5000? The Dow won’t make it back to 14,000 any time soon. It’s going to be bad for a long time no matter what happened in 1945. Of course I suppose everyone is an ‘expert’ these days which is why we are in crisis and it is getting worse because idiots with no clue are trying to ‘fix’ it artificially.
ThackerAgency on January 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM
This is more serious than ’45. Perhaps not in terms of unemployment (yet) but the fiscal condition of the US is dismal. Since the 70′s we have been spending more than we put in. We were a creditor nation and now we are the world’s largest debtor. The real damage is just starting. I’ve heard many serious economists saying that US equity markets are no better than casinos now and we should all sell up. I have never heard them talk like this. The prognosis gets worse and worse. I am sure the country will pull out of this but I think we need to be honest with ourselves about how bad this is going to be and how painful the remedies actually are.
lexhamfox on January 9, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Oh, c’mon Ed. I’m sure all of the folks from the charitable foundations that are closing and the fundraisers from non-profits that are down-sizing in reaction to the markets and in anticipation of the new administration’s tax policies would be terrific ditch diggers and road crew workers. You need to have more faith in Lightworker’s vision, man.
/sarc
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Thanks Ed.
Today I continue to rest (assuming you and AP don’t put up another Sarah thread and I have to defend the most lovable governor on the planet again, which of course I happily will do) to finish off a mild flu I picked up in CA while on Christmas vacation.
The way you get out of recessions is when business and consumers believe they can buy, make, trade stuff again in an environment of less uncertainty. Basically, most of the work is done by simply letting excessive bubbles burst and settle, along with loosening up the money supply, or simply REST. That is half or more of it right there.
Obama has created uncertainty since even before the election. These job losses are also partly due to him and the uncertainty he is bringing to the presidency.
The problem with this recession is that our country fundamentally is a huge debtor nation. We are becoming more and more like Argentina before the inflation takes off. The only thing that is holding the dike in place is the willingness of Japanese and Chinese business, government and individuals to buy our Treasury securities denominated in US Dollars. This has enabled us to survive with a zero savings rate for quite a while. We therefore, in effect have pretty much exhausted what we can do via monetary policy.
What we need is rest to let our body fight this recession. There will be pain, but since monetary policy at this point has already been loosened, and fiscal stimulants like what Obama propose will stimulate mainly consumption and not investment, we shall probably see many more job losses.
I wouldn’t be surprised if as we are half-way through 2011 and we still have high, maybe double-digit unemployement and the beginnings of inflation approaching 10%.
If the above happens, Obama will be vulnerable in 2012, and you will see the GOP candidate try to run a campaign similar to what Reagan ran on the economy where they will preach freedom, less government, and let the people grow, not the government. Sarah Palin already is showing some of those characteristics. She is bubbly, upbeat, and thinks the government needs to be on the side of the people and not hampering people’s efforts to get ahead. Other GOP candidates for 2012 need to also study the 1980 election.
Obama may be vulnerable in 2012, and the GOP and whoever runs in the primary need to be the bright light and preach the shiny city on the hill. Others can attack the record of Obama, but the candidate must inspire and lead and be optimistic.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM
So all the ACORN peeps filed for unemployment…probably on orders…
Buckeye Babe on January 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Speculation does indeed create wealth. It does so by helping to stabilize prices so that produces are better able to plan for the future.
And the stock market creates lots of wealth, by providing companies with the money they need to expand.
MarkTheGreat on January 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Maybe
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Not nearly enough. But don’t worry, as soon as Obama’s “stimulus” (i.e. massive new debt) program kicks into effect, there will be lots of illegals hired to dig all those ditches and re-pave those roads that are going to magically resusitate our economy.
AZCoyote on January 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
You’re saying the GOP should run on a platform of “hope” and “change”?
e-pirate on January 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM
That’s what he will try to do, but really the numbers for Obama begin Nov. 4th and maybe even before.
Yes, Rahm and Axel are trying to up the unemployment numbers now so they can track it for comparisons starting from Jan. 20th, but the Obama effect in the economy started long before today. People I talked to are afraid of what he’ll do and his inexperience and this is causing part of it.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM
They will also be required to instill confidence when debating economic issues. The economic conversation in 2010 and 2012 will be more complex than in the past. A McCainesque statement on economics “…going to read Greenspan’s book” won’t work, neither will optimism unless it is accompanied by expertise.
dedalus on January 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Absolutely, which is why it would behove the so-called Party Leaders to mentor Governor Palin and give her opportunities to “expand her world view,” rather than knocking her down all the time. The thing she has that none of the other prospective candidates (including Jindal) have is the ability to convey optimism and faith in America in a way reminiscent of, well, you know who.
Instead of focusing on whether or not she should run or whether at this moment she is less well-prepared than others in the GOP, the party should be preparing her — and others — for a good showing in the next primary… and then trust the GOP rank-and-file to decide who they want to put put forward as their candidate. Acting like she doesn’t “count” because Alaska is too remote or she is not well-traveled or whatever is defeatist. And, assuming that voters want to go with whoever the GOP insiders prefer is really
naivedumb.Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Yep. But oh the solution is so different: Freedom! Not big government.
Cries for change WILL arise if Obama cannot ‘fix’ the economic problems.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Are there fundamental economic challenges facing our country. Yes. Is the world ending, no.
I miss having a POTUS that actually conveyed his belief in the greatness of our country. Somebody who projected his honest belief in the special place America holds within the world. For a guy who ran on the concept of “hope” he sure comes across as a sour puss.
What if he came out with a smile, and said with conviction that yes we face challenges, we’ve faced bigger challenges throughout our history and came through them stronger and more prosperous. We are not looking into the sunset of America but the dawning of a new day. American ingenuity is boundless… etc. etc. etc.
Our POTUS must project confidence, but I’m not getting that at all. But then again, the left is filled with people who don’t believe in American exceptionalism. They believe that our place in the sun is over and we need to be relegated to the status of being a former super-power.
However, we face not only structural economic issues but also psychological problems too… As a nation we are feeling depressed and scared. Scared people don’t spend money either for things they want to buy or to build companies which causes the cycle to continue to grow in magnitude.
More important than a government attempting to spend our way out of this, we need people to believe again. Government doesn’t create jobs, entrepreneurs create jobs. Sadly the community organizer is better at feeding off of victim hood than fueling confidence.
Wake me up in 2012.
crashland on January 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM
As someone who is unemployed right now this is so depressing. This is the longest I have been out of a job. There is nothing out there. With my husband being military we have relocated to Florida and I was hopeful that the job market would be better here than NC where we came from. So far after 3 months and 17 job applications I am still hunting. It would be great if someone could put a positive spin on things but our soon to be “historical” leader insists on kicking me while I am down. Hope and change at it’s best.
milwife88 on January 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM
May I ask, what sector are you in?
I know a lot of people in financial services and non-profit administration who are out of work now.
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I agree. And, I’d add that the GOP primary candidates and those in primaries for the 2010 elections need to be careful not to criticize with negative attacks each other. Fight for who has the best vision forward. Negative attacks can be something for the general election done by a veep or the RNC or GOPTrust, etc.
The economy will probably still be stagnant two years out, and only whining about it will not win elections. Optimism, unity in the GOP, and solutions will help to win and add that upbeat atmosphere that can help lead to recoveries.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM
I wish some of our “pundits” would learn that lesson, too.
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I have been in the banking industry for 7 years. None of the banks in this area are hiring. Specifically I assisted business loan officers with construction loans and business loans.
milwife88 on January 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I bet the one sector that is hiring (or will be) is the federal government. Maybe you could take the Civil Service Exam and see if that leads anywhere.
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Great idea. I have applied for work on the base here, just waiting to hear back.
milwife88 on January 9, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Hang in there, milwife88!
Oh, and here’s a better link (government site). It has a searchable database (by radius from a zipcode) of federal jobs.
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Normally a bad but not terrible position. This is still a few percentage points below what what the EU [em]hope[/em] to attain.
The scary, very scary part is a socialist at the head of HOR and a communist as president. I’m an optimist but this is going to get real bad with the leadership in power.
jukin on January 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Thanks, now I have something to do today!
milwife88 on January 9, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Ed, you deserved that. You have a ton of bi-partisan fairness credibility in my book (its the only reason I followed you over from Captain’s Quarters), but this is nitpicking partisan spin.
That number of job losses is alarming regardless of the appropriateness of the comparison. Unemployment hasn’t been this high in 16 years (interestingly, right after Bush 41 had left office). Unfortunately, all signs point to it continuing to go up and, as a couple of posters have pointed out, that doesn’t include the people that have had their benefits expire or have stopped looking. Saying that this economic/employment flood can’t be compared to 1946 doesn’t change the fact that it is a flood and is of little importance to folks with floodwater at their doorstep (or ankles).
Oh, and best wishes to milwife and others in her situation.
okonkolo on January 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Oh conservatives, you guys are like the Global Warming nuts on this falsehood that FDR “extended” the Depression. It’s an outlandish notion and it’s not supported by the facts.
First of all, who are the authors behind this false claim. Inevitably they are economists, journalists or those directly funded by right wing think tanks. Economists are not trained historians, yes there is a training and a methodology behind the practice of history. It’s the reason why most people can’t write history books. Economists are trained in lots of important skills, researching and writing history is not one of them.
There is not a single professional historian, i.e. has a PhD in history, that argues FDR prolonged the Great Depression. Ben Bernanke, who I guess must be a liberal hack now, points out that “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.” And the proof is in the pudding. Of course unemployment remained high during the First New Deal. But the Second New Deal, which Bernanke is referencing put together the federal systems that regulated growth, provided an economic safety net so that unemployed workers would not go hungry (as they did during previous boom and bust cycles in the 1880s) and, most importantly, make it impossible for their to be a total loss of value for investors. Of course now all of these things are obsolete, but they worked.
Now before you say that unemployment was not solved by the second New Deal, you’re right. It was still MASSIVELY lower than it was during the end of the Hoover Admin and the early years of FDR’s first admin. More importantly, WHY did WW2 save the economy? Anyone? That’s right, Private and Public partnerships put Americans to work in defense industries and Americans were encouraged to support American made products AND to purchase war bonds, i.e. to fund the federal government because the government was EMPLOYING PEOPLE. It was called the “politics of sacrifice.” No doubt you’d think it communist today. But it’s how FDR used the War to implement New Deal programs on a massive scale.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM
When I first read it, I thought it was a little harsh, too, but I don’t think Ed intended it that way. My husband (who at one time worked at the National Bureau for Economic Research) has made similar comments about the current situation. Although he’s not an economist, he picked up a great deal while working at the NBER about how numbers are analyzed and interpreted.
For the first time in my life I personally know a lot of people who have been laid off (earlier in my career I was working in scientific research which has a very different job dynamic — there are always more jobs than people, it seems), so I am finding the current situation very discouraging. Lightworker’s doom and gloom doesn’t help; nor does knowing that his “solution” is ludicrous.
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM
According to conservative dogma you’re just lazy. Don’t expect anyone to help you. It’s the business cycle. Sucks for you!
DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM
You’re a self proclaimed Progressive so that response is expected; I was wondering where your response was.
thomasaur on January 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM
The study I’ve seen most widely cited (re FDR’s role in the Great Depression) was by two UCLA economists. I don’t understand why you think economists are less-qualified to assess the impact of monetary policies on the economy than historians, but, being a scientist, I have great respect for economists.
I guess we all have our biases.
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Well, I guess we’ll see ever greater financial turmoil when all the unemployed people can’t pay their mortgages.
Let’s all say a cheer for The One and Congress who put us in this mess!
1
2
3
(crickets chirping)
SeniorD on January 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM
BTW, DeathTMH, it was really classless to use a serviceman’s wife to make your point.
Y-not on January 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM
My suggestion is, look for a government job.
That’s the only industry that will thrive in the near term, anyway.
That’s where I’m moving. If you can’t beat them, join them.
NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM
One of the most painful events I experienced this election was when the beltway RINO’s of Parker and Noonan and Brooks and Frum attacked Sarah DURING the election.
The one book of Noonan’s I had hit the trash. I don’t read them unless AP posts it here, and that is so I can rip their heads off.
You NEVER attack your own like that publicly in the heat of battle like they did. Disgusting, reprehensible, and unforgivable, and I might add, in a disgusting we/elitist vs. the ignorant average American.
They are bad bad people. The kind that would have sneaked quietly at night out of the Alamo while their comrades faught bravely to the death.
Sorry to hijack the thread on this but as you can see, I still have not gotten over their behavior, and I’ll never forget it.
Sapwolf on January 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I have great respect for economists too, when they are actually engaging in their own field. But here’s the problem with economists engaging in historical research…they don’t know how to do it. As someone on the verge of a PhD in history let me break down what I mean. First, economists don’t seem to understand the distinction between recovery (the immediate effect of FDR’s policies) and reform (the long term structural changes FDR made). We can agree that in terms of recovery the First New Deal was a failure and economists often point out failed policies like the NIRA as evidence of what goes wrong when the government issues dictums to corporations. They are right.
But by failing to acknowledge FDR’s reforms we fail to acknowledge what he did to ensure that the U.S. would have steady, sustained growth for 5 decades rather than the boom and bust cycles that defined the Second Industrial Revolution in the 1880s and which have defined our own economy over the last 25 years. Boom and bust cycles are inevitable when you believe that America’s economic engine is Wall Stret investment, rather than the American workforce and the products that it produces. The Second New Deal, WW2 Defense Production/Government policy and Truman’s Fair Deal were all structured around the principle that a well paid workforce is more important than speculative investment. And they were RIGHT. American’s produced goods at a decent wage and consumed goods, enriching business owners.
Until the 80s, Americans were LOATH to take out massive debt, think about your grandparents attitude towards debt (something economists don’t factor, but historians) it tells you everything you need to know about why their generation was able to have sustained economic growth and ours is a generation of people with houses too large to pay for filled with products we really can’t afford. Their generation was eager and willing to invest in the federal government in the 40s and 50s (again, how many of our grandparents first gift to us was a treasury bond? I know mine was). Economists don’t actually know anything about the way the New Deal/WW2/Fair Deal set the tone for the nation’s culture and how that impacted the way individuals approached their finances and invested in the American economy. It’s odd. Conservatives are often nostalgic for the 40s and 50s and yet they seem to have zero knowledge about the powerful role the federal government played in the business cycle in those decades.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »