Jerbs

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

So the big news yesterday was that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.6% to 8.3% in January, with 243,000 jobs being added. This news caused the DOW and Nasdaq to climb to 4-year and 11-year highs, respectively. This is the fifth straight month that the unemployment rate has dropped. Good news, right?

Not if you're playing the partisan politics game. Like clockwork, the right-wing blogosphere discredited the jobs report as they have every previous jobs report. This time, the big talking point is how 1.2 million people supposedly dropped out of the workforce. This was promptly debunked by economic journalists at the WSJ and Washington Post as a misinterpretation of the report due to adjustments from the 2010 census. Yet even after this was explained, they kept right on repeating the lie.

Given the ongoing economic turbulence for the last 4 years, and the situation in Europe that threatens to wreak havoc again around the world, why is the economy being used a political football to get some guy into the White House? Is it worth hurting the economy? Do the ends justify the means? Am I completely wrong about this? Bueller?

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

How dare he improve the economy!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, I seem to remember that when the GOP claimed Bush wanted to make the economy better that was pooh-poohed. Obama has had just as much impact, good or evil, on the economy as George Bush did. Make of this sentence what you will.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I've wondered about that political football thing. I've got two possible conclusions. First, it's possible that Congresspeople have actually read some of those papers that polisci professors churn out, demonstrating that the President is possibly one of the least important factors in job growth, so there is no real risk to the economy if one guy or another gets into office, as it largely ignores executive action. It's sort of a "Whose Line" approach to politics - where the facts are made up, and the outcome doesn't matter. That's my cynical side. My patronizing side says that perhaps partisans are so brainwashed that they think the other side is inevitably wrong, even when it's doing something right, so anything that serves to discredit them is good because it gets their bad policies out of the way so we can put in Real American Governance, whatever shape that might take. So, any means to the end.

And before you ask, I don't think I have any other sides than cynical and patronizing.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I think both your sides can be right at once.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

And before you ask, I don't think I have any other sides than cynical and patronizing.

You and me both, brother.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its like when we finally realize that we've done irrecoverable climate damage and the conservatives are going to claim its all from big government meddling. And the news is going to give equal time to this plausible alternative viewpoint. Those are going to be good times.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't hold your breath.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You say that like it's inevitable?

What if it isn't?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Given the ongoing economic turbulence for the last 4 years, and the situation in Europe that threatens to wreak havoc again around the world, why is the economy being used a political football to get some guy into the White House? Is it worth hurting the economy?

While the 1.2m calculation appears to be untrue (this estimate makes sense to me (http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1697) that we still "lost" 450k out of the labor force, which does help the numbers), I don't see how trying to get a better grasp as to exactly what's going on with the economy hurts it - it has shades of the "X candidate is talking down the economy" from a few cycles ago. We arguably a) have more data than ever and b) more platforms in which to dissect and understand the data.

The reality is that the unemployment rate is dropping, but we're seeing a significant decline in labor participation which helps fuel that. The numbers yesterday were the first nearly-unequivocal good news we've seen on the job front, IMO, and gives me some pause on the double dip I've been anticipating. The reality, though, is that we need to get those labor participation numbers up if we want to see these job numbers translate into real economic growth.

The other thing that's interesting is how much the private sector job growth is matching up with the public sector job shrinking. It's correlation without causation at this stage for me, but that follows exactly the trend I would have expected, and it's not exactly surprising to me that the stimulus spending has been done for a while now, and we're finally seeing things kickstart in a significant way.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Politicalmath is *awesome*. You should re-click the link however, he's retracted his estimate. He's now in agreement that the 1.2 million was all in "we found new old people".

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

...but we're seeing a significant decline in labor participation which helps fuel that.

I haven't dug into the figures yet, but it would be nice to know exactly how many of these people are baby boomers that are retiring. The baby boomers are roughly 79 million of the population, and they just started turning 65 last year.

Also, I'm glad you aren't hopping onto the doom and gloom bandwagon and seeing this as good news. :D

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

You should really remember that news such as the "debunking" of the labor force thing takes *time* to disseminate. There's no reason to assume bad faith on the part of anyone for repeating what turns out to be false.

When you use phrases like "kept on repeating the lie", you are assuming perfect knowledge of the correction, which inherently makes a smaller splash than the original complaint.

Anyway, no, *if* those continuing to report the "decline in the labor force" as the reason for the good number were aware of the correction, then it would be bad faith reporting, and would damage their credibility. Of course, anyone going to limbaugh for either news or economic analysis has bigger problems, but that's a separate issue.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

You're right, that was bad wording on my part. However, my point about partisan narrative of doom and gloom still stands. I think legitimate news outlets are being drowned out by blogs (from both sides, mind you) with questionable journalistic integrity. And the population, for the most part, doesn't seem to care about that kind of integrity anymore.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

They're just thinking big picture. They may be throwing 2012, but every positive thing that happens under Obama could be carrying over into 2016.

You may ask, 'Wouldn't putting up a relatable, likable candidate - with more charisma than a cardboard box - be a better strategy?'

Well that's just nonsense, and today isn't the day for that.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

Not to give anyone ideas but what are the chances the big money Romney supporters will fire their workers and sell their stocks come next October to crash the economy in time for the election. Sort of as an investment.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Ooo, this is conspiracy month, idn't it?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

At the risk of inciting a tu quoque war, in 2007 to early 2008 when the economy was weak but overall numbers were still good those praising these numbers were talking about how awful the economy really was. Since then the economy got worse and Europe slid into a crisis.

So people belittling doom and gloom have absolutely no clout with me.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yup, just like the Republican claim that the body politic was a nation of whiners and that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." But do go on about how the GOP can't be trusted on economic analysis. *smiles*

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Expecting honesty and concern about the public welfare from the people sorely mislabeled public servants? You're.....very optimistic.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Idealistically, yes, I would hope everyone expects that. But realistically, I know better. Still, if we don't make a stink about it, we're essentially condoning it.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

If republicans would stop the austerity measures and pass obamas jobs bill we would be at close to 6.5%

[professor-bobo.livejournal.com]

[citation needed]

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Of course the ends justify the means, what else would they be justifying?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

The new beginnings?