Nine years of job growth wiped out

[one...two...tree 2,762]

LOL yes well, I already am part hippie in many ways, even if my viewpoints may not all sound "hippie". I live pretty simple compared to many and am not super high tech or spend a lot on things=hippie in my opinion. I am walking the walk, not talking the talk. I'm j/k with you. If I didn't take showers often I would be even more hippie. Too bad I do take showers every day.

Christ was the last real hippie.

...and he really didn't shower or shave.

[chri'stina 190]

LOL yes well, I already am part hippie in many ways, even if my viewpoints may not all sound "hippie". I live pretty simple compared to many and am not super high tech or spend a lot on things=hippie in my opinion. I am walking the walk, not talking the talk. I'm j/k with you. If I didn't take showers often I would be even more hippie. Too bad I do take showers every day.

Christ was the last real hippie.

Preach it. Even if you are joking, I am going to go with it.

Not joking.

Now you know why I hate hippies so much?

hmmm!

[scandal 951]

Since the start of the recession, the labor market has lost a total of 6.5 million jobs, down from 138.2 million in December 2007 to 131.7 million in June. As the chart below shows, the peak number of jobs after the expansion of the 1990s was 132.5 million jobs in February 2001. We are currently 838,000 jobs below that figure. In fact, the entire growth in jobs over the last nine years has now been wiped out — the economy currently has fewer jobs than it had in May 2000 (when there were 131.9 million jobs). And importantly, this decline was not occurring because the jobs weren’t needed — the labor force has expanded by 12.5 million workers since then, as the population continued to grow. This is the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all jobs growth from the previous business cycle, a testament both to the enormity of the current crisis and to the extreme weakness of jobs growth over the business cycle from 2000 to 2007.

I do recall that in both of the last two recessions, 1991 and 2001, when we started the climb out, the pundits and economists were talking about "jobless recoveries", and not having the same replacement of jobs to account for those that had been lost, at least for several quarters out. Inevitably employment is a lagging indicator during the business cycle - jobs are shed well after contraction begins, and are replaced only after business expansion restarts. Not that this is any solace to the unemployed, but it could well be that we've seen the worst of this cycle, regardless of the employment numbers. That's why the pundits like to focus on business inventories, earnings, etc. which tend to be leading rather than lagging indicators. Not that those are anything to brag about either... this has the makings of lasting well into 2010 and beyond.

As to who's to blame, and is the stimulus helping..... of course politicians play a role. But ultimately the economy will go through the business cycle, and nothing can be done by policymakers to avoid that. This particular cycle is nasty mainly (I think) because (a) unregulated aspects of the housing and credit markets - the derivatives traders who packaged and sold the CDOs and CDS products, the home loan originators and resellers, the liar-loans and lax underwriting (B) The Greenspan Fed, and the far-too-easy credit terms for far-too-long.

[mawilson 2,133]

IMO, we need to build a new economy. The economic stimulus jobs were mostly temporary, but we need something to drive the next boom...alternative energy. Combine it with a health care reform that effectively reduces its impact on our GDP. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a hippie.

If alternative energy was nearly that promising, this would not have ended like this.

This week, T. Boone Pickens announced that his plans to build the US $10 billion, 4,000-megawatt, Pampa Wind project are on hold. He cited lack of available transmission and funding concerns as the reason for the scale back.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/ne...s-wind-industry

Boone and his fund took a pummeling from the drop in oil and natural gas prices, so

he had to scale back. He has already bought 700 giant wind turbines - the problem

is getting power to a distribution system. He had hoped to build his own transmission

lines but apparently ran into technical problems. He's still going to do it, but it won't

happen until 2013.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Targeted? You mean people keeping more of what they earn is targeted?

Funny how there seems to be a lot of concern for the tax system being progressive while there seems to be no concern that the corporate copensation system works much in the same way - much more so. Over the last economic expansion, for the first time in recorded history, median income actually fell while executive compensation and corporate profits skyrocketed. How does the principle of people keeping more of what they earn (i.e. corporate staff sharing in the success of the corporations they work for) apply in this context? Or why doesn't it?

And since you're riding on the 2001 - 2005 period, click on this link to learn how almost a trillion dollars woth of tax cuts geared towards the upper income and wealthy folks hasn't done anything to spur economic growth. Talk about a trillion dollars gone to waste. And that was a trillion dollars spent by Bush and the GOP - with absolutely nothing left to show for it.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[alienlovechild 75]

The original article. Do you even read?

There's nothing about the Reagan tax cuts and the graph only goes to 1989 which has NOTHING to do with when Reagan was president, dummy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The original article. Do you even read?

There's nothing about the Reagan tax cuts and the graph only goes to 1989 which has NOTHING to do with when Reagan was president, dummy.

Before you call others "dummy", perhaps you could try to understand that this isn't about the Reagan years. It's about the last economic expansion having been the weakest on record.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The original article. Do you even read?

There's nothing about the Reagan tax cuts and the graph only goes to 1989 which has NOTHING to do with when Reagan was president, dummy.

Before you call others "dummy", perhaps you could try to understand that this isn't about the Reagan years. It's about the last economic expansion having been the weakest on record.

Exactly. The tax cuts being referred to are the Bush tax cuts... not Reagan.

Reagan? Seriously? Is that all you conservatives think about? I bet you even jack off to the Gipper.

[mawilson 2,133]

Before you call others "dummy", perhaps you could try to understand that this isn't about the Reagan years. It's about the last economic expansion having been the weakest on record.

Looking at the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratios, it becomes clear that the 2003-2007 "bull market"

was actually an extended bear market rally.

The same goes for the labor market - all that growth was illusory.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Reagan? Seriously? Is that all you conservatives think about? I bet you even jack off to the Gipper.

Before you call others "dummy", perhaps you could try to understand that this isn't about the Reagan years. It's about the last economic expansion having been the weakest on record.

Looking at the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratios, it becomes clear that the 2003-2007 "bull market"

was actually an extended bear market rally.

The same goes for the labor market - all that growth was illusory.

So, you're saying that Bush didn't even manage to eek out a weak expansion?

[alienlovechild 75]

Funny how there seems to be a lot of concern for the tax system being progressive while there seems to be no concern that the corporate copensation system works much in the same way - much more so. Over the last economic expansion, for the first time in recorded history, median income actually fell while executive compensation and corporate profits skyrocketed. How does the principle of people keeping more of what they earn (i.e. corporate staff sharing in the success of the corporations they work for) apply in this context? Or why doesn't it?

Newsflash- Median income has dropped most years since 1974 so trying to pin income disparity on s sinlge president or party is silly. Corporations pay employees and the government doesn't set pay scales so if you're angry that someone made more money than you did you may seek a new career. The idea that simply punishing high salary income earners may somehow make poorer folks like me somehow feel better only works around election time.

And since you're riding on the 2001 - 2005 period, click on this link to learn how almost a trillion dollars woth of tax cuts geared towards the upper income and wealthy folks hasn't done anything to spur economic growth. Talk about a trillion dollars gone to waste. And that was a trillion dollars spent by Bush and the GOP - with absolutely nothing left to show for it.

Economic growth went up from 2001-2005 and rate of growth declined in later years but still the tax cuts had a real effect faster than Obama's spending which has been so poorly carried out. My guess is Obama's numbers are going to be worse this year than any since 1982.

I'm wondering so many liberals now use Bush's spending policies as justification for Obamas?

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gd...rowth_rate.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Median income has dropped most years since 1974

And yet...

By most widely-accepted and honest measures, the most recent economic expansion should receive a failing grade. Measures of total output, investment, consumption, employment, wage and income growth, all rank at or near the bottom when compared with past business cycles.

[alienlovechild 75]

The original article. Do you even read?

There's nothing about the Reagan tax cuts and the graph only goes to 1989 which has NOTHING to do with when Reagan was president, dummy.

Before you call others "dummy", perhaps you could try to understand that this isn't about the Reagan years. It's about the last economic expansion having been the weakest on record.

That was in response to A.J.'s making up stuff from the article.

[mendeleev 69]

Unemployment dropped during those "trickle down" years.

The BIGGEST tax cuts in history, targeted directly at the wealthy, produced an expansion that ranked LAST in average growth of GDP, investment, employment growth, and employee compensation.

Facts are stubborn things. Expect resistance.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Funny how there seems to be a lot of concern for the tax system being progressive while there seems to be no concern that the corporate copensation system works much in the same way - much more so. Over the last economic expansion, for the first time in recorded history, median income actually fell while executive compensation and corporate profits skyrocketed. How does the principle of people keeping more of what they earn (i.e. corporate staff sharing in the success of the corporations they work for) apply in this context? Or why doesn't it?

Newsflash- Median income has dropped most years since 1974 so trying to pin income disparity on s sinlge president or party is silly.

What's silly is to make statements that have nothing to do with reality. Since reading isn't something you seem to entertain much, perhaps a picture will make it clear to you:

And since you're riding on the 2001 - 2005 period, click on this link to learn how almost a trillion dollars woth of tax cuts geared towards the upper income and wealthy folks hasn't done anything to spur economic growth. Talk about a trillion dollars gone to waste. And that was a trillion dollars spent by Bush and the GOP - with absolutely nothing left to show for it.

Economic growth went up from 2001-2005 and rate of growth declined in later years but still the tax cuts had a real effect faster than Obama's spending which has been so poorly carried out. My guess is Obama's numbers are going to be worse this year than any since 1982.

I'm wondering so many liberals now use Bush's spending policies as justification for Obamas?

In 2005, there was nothing that indicated that the trillion dollar tax cuts enacted by Bush and the GOP Congress in 2001 had any beneficial effect on the overall economy.

The fact that all major economic indicators are higher today than in early 2001 does not mean that the tax cuts have been beneficial. Since the Great Depression, the resilient U.S. economy has always had gains over such four-and-a-half-year periods. The appropriate question to ask is: How well has the economy performed compared to similar past periods? If the last four years of tax cuts had worked as promised, the economy should have done better than in previous cycles, when taxes were either not cut or cut much less.

By virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones, including that of the early 1990s, which saw major tax increases. The single area that has excelled in the current cycle, housing, has actually done so despite reduced tax incentives since 2001. And the tax cuts certainly didn’t boost investment levels: the expiration of over $60 billion a year in business tax cuts at the end of 2004 had virtually no observable negative effect on investment.

In fact, over the last four-and-a-half years, nearly every indicator—from job gains to economic output to spending—have fallen far short when stacked against comparable periods in past cycles.

Source

Worth noting, too, that the above looked at the effects of the Bush administration's economic policies after the economy came out of the recession and enjoyed 19 quarters of growth - albeit substandard growth. Yet here is the Obama hating crowd calling for his head after he's been in office but a few months having inherited an economy in free fall - and that on a global scale.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog