Interesting.
LINK (http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/) to Forbes
QuoteObama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
Comment Now Follow Comments
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America's latest jobs report covering August. And it's a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After six consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August.
One month variation does not change a trend
Even though the plus-200,000 monthly string was broken (unless revised upward at a future date,) unemployment did continue to decline and is now reported at only 6.1%. Jobless claims were just over 300,000; lowest since 2007. Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014.
And that is great news.
Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? Through discussion of that question, the number one issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging "best." Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work.
To put this week's jobs report in economic perspective I reached out to Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box (which I profiled in October, 2012 just before the election) for some explanation. Since then Polaris' investor newsletters have consistently been the best predictor of economic performance. Better than all the major investment houses.
This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history
Unemployment Reagan v ObamaBob Deitrick: "President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this 'Great Recession.'
"As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama's job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.
"President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today's number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.
"We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms."
What about the Labor Participation Rate?
Much has been made about the poor results of the labor participation rate, which has shown more stubborn recalcitrance as this rate remains higher even as jobs have grown.
U3 v U6 1994-2014Deitrick: "The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a "hidden" unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called 'U6.' today by the BLS.
"As this chart shows, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment – including those on the fringe of the workforce – has remained pretty constant since 1994.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics - Databases, Tables and Calculators by Subject
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics – Databases, Tables and Calculators by Subject
"Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew.
"Now that 'Boomers' are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.
"What's now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth."
Economic growth, including manufacturing, is driving jobs
When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation.
This week the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, two points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion.
New orders were up 3.3 points to 66.7, with 15 consecutive months of improvement and reaching the highest level since April, 2004 – five years prior to Obama becoming President. Not surprisingly, this economic growth provided for 14 consecutive months of improvement in the employment index. Meaning that the "grass roots" economy made its turn for the better just as the DJIA was reaching those highs back in 2013 – demonstrating that index is still the leading indicator for jobs that it has famously always been.
As the last 15 months have proven, jobs and economy are improving, and investors are benefiting
The stock market has converted the long-term growth in jobs and GDP into additional gains for investors. Recently the S&P has crested 2,000 – reaching new all time highs. Gains made by investors earlier in the Obama administration have further grown, helping businesses raise capital and improving the nest eggs of almost all Americans. And laying the foundation for recent, and prolonged job growth.
Investment Returns Reagan v ObamaDeitrick: "While most Americans think they are not involved with the stock market, truthfully they are. Via their 401K, pension plan and employer savings accounts 2/3 of Americans have a clear vested interest in stock performance.
"As this chart shows, over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear "winner" from an investor's viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership.
"However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone.
"In 2009, with pension funds underfunded and most private retirement accounts savaged by the financial meltdown and Wall Street losses, Boomers and Seniors were resigned to never retiring. The nest egg appeared gone, leaving the 'chickens' to keep working. But now that the coffers have been reloaded increasingly people age 55 – 70 are happily discovering they can quit their old jobs and spend time with family, relax, enjoy hobbies or start new at-home businesses from their laptops or tablets. It is due to a skyrocketing stock market that people can now pursue these dreams and reduce the labor participation rates for 'better pastures."
Where myth meets reality
There is another election in just eight weeks. Statistics will be bandied about. Monthly data points will be hotly contested. There will be a lot of rhetoric by candidates on all sides. But, understanding the prevailing trends is critical. Recognizing that first the economy, then the stock market and now jobs are all trending upward is important – even as all 3 measures will have short-term disappointments.
There are a lot of reasons voters elect a candidate. Jobs and the economy are just one category of factors. But, for those who place a high priority on jobs, economic performance and the markets the data clearly demonstrates which presidential administration has performed best. And shows a very clear trend one can expect to continue into 2015.
Economically, President Obama's administration has outperformed President Reagan's in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a "smaller government." Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.
[Update 10/4/14 - August jobs report revised upward to 180,000 as September jobs creation returns to 248,000 lowering unemployment rate to 5.9% - lowest unemployment number in 6 years.]
Then why are we still calling this one the Great Recession?
QuoteDow Jones Industrial Average
Dow Jones Indices: .DJI - Oct 6 2:24 PM ET
17,018.308.61 (0.05%)
All that matters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2014, 01:29:24 PM
Then why are we still calling this one the Great Recession?
Because "we" have no perspective and are highly suggestible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2014, 01:29:24 PM
Then why are we still calling this one the Great Recession?
Because it's good politics to do so?
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Because it's good politics to do so?
I agree.
But it's still interesting how much of the commentariat, who have no vested interest in political outcomes, have bought into the line.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2014, 02:02:37 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Because it's good politics to do so?
I agree.
But it's still interesting how much of the commentariat, who have no vested interest in political outcomes, have bought into the line.
Yeah for sure. I guess that's the power of narratives, for good and ill.
I'm unconvinced that the drop in labor participation can be fully attributed to demographic trends.
I think labor force participation has a lot to do with opportunity cost. A woman with a working husband might think working is glorious if interesting, well-paying jobs are abundant and think staying at home is the right thing to do if they're not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2014, 02:26:27 PM
I think labor force participation has a lot to do with opportunity cost. A woman with a working husband might think working is glorious if interesting, well-paying jobs are abundant and think staying at home is the right thing to do if they're not.
That sounds reasonable.
Reagan beats Obama on job growth . Federal employees increased significantly under Reagan (either total or just civilian exec branch), whereas the count has decreased slightly under Obama. Since Presidents do not hire people in the private sector, that means Reagan outperforms Obama handily, although perhaps not in the way his usual boosters would appreciate.
Obama probably outperforms Reagan on investment as he has all those book royalties to invest.
Obama is better than a dead Alzheimer's patient?
Obamo outperforms Reagan?
Hahahaha, hahaha, hahahahaha.......Hahahaha.
QuoteObama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
I blame Obama :mad:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2014, 03:44:17 PM
Federal employees increased significantly under Reagan
There must be some way to blame Obama for that too!
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2014, 04:21:19 PM
Obamo outperforms Reagan?
Hahahaha, hahaha, hahahahaha.......Hahahaha.
Only if you look at facts. If you look at Fox News talking points, the picture is much less clear.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2014, 01:29:24 PM
Then why are we still calling this one the Great Recession?
Because it was worse.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Foriginal-size%2F20110730_WOC311.gif&hash=cd0ecf5cb600f4a0e9a6daa35d561c61e0187d12)
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm
The US, at least, has recovered to pre-recession peak.
In the UK we managed that this year.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/sep/27/recessions-compared-1930-2008
In Europe on the other hand :bleeding:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FUSvsEZ.png&hash=2d488af6c930736bacc7e8c06dc05d802dccb847)
QuoteI'm unconvinced that the drop in labor participation can be fully attributed to demographic trends.
I agree.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 06, 2014, 03:44:17 PM
Federal employees increased significantly under Reagan (either total or just civilian exec branch), whereas the count has decreased slightly under Obama.
"Slightly"?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Ffederal-eye%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F08%2FGraph-1.jpg&hash=05cfe5069e7e56f64d27041e5aaae76a70b78fb2)
No wonder government employees like Siege prefer Reagan.
Quote from: Siege on October 06, 2014, 04:21:19 PM
Obamo outperforms Reagan?
Hahahaha, hahaha, hahahahaha.......Hahahaha.
It is heresy, the author should be thrown off the Laffer curve.
What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 07:53:04 PM
What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?
Politically inconvenient.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 07:53:04 PM
What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?
The long term jobless are still count as unemployed if they're looking for a job. :huh:
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
It is hard to make the case the recession is over or that we are in boom times when the middle class is so clearly stagnating.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 06, 2014, 08:21:52 PM
It is hard to make the case the recession is over or that we are in boom times when the middle class is so clearly stagnating.
It's very easy to make the case the recession is over, since it's definitional.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
Why?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
What are you getting at? Are you saying that long-term unemployment - aka "people who have given up" as well as "homemakers" - was significantly different during Reagan's years compared to Obama's? If so, feel free to tell us how you're reaching that conclusion.
If you don't think there's much of a difference, then what does it matter when the topic of discussion is comparing Reagan's performance with Obama's?
Or are you saying that we should include long-term unemployed during Obama's years but not during Reagan's, so we can preserve Reagan's apparent status as being good for the economy in spite of inconvenient facts?
... or something else?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
And they do, in U4, U5, and U6 indices of unemployment.
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2014, 09:49:45 PM
What are you getting at? Are you saying that long-term unemployment - aka "people who have given up" as well as "homemakers" - was significantly different during Reagan's years compared to Obama's? If so, feel free to tell us how you're reaching that conclusion.
If you don't think there's much of a difference, then what does it matter when the topic of discussion is comparing Reagan's performance with Obama's?
Or are you saying that we should include long-term unemployed during Obama's years but not during Reagan's, so we can preserve Reagan's apparent status as being good for the economy in spite of inconvenient facts?
... or something else?
I have no idea what the long term unemployment rate in the 80s was. I'd like to know so that it can be compared to the long term unemployment rate now. Otherwise we're just throwing around pointless numbers that don't mean anything. You can't draw an accurate conclusion over whose better with those.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 09:59:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 06, 2014, 09:49:45 PM
What are you getting at? Are you saying that long-term unemployment - aka "people who have given up" as well as "homemakers" - was significantly different during Reagan's years compared to Obama's? If so, feel free to tell us how you're reaching that conclusion.
If you don't think there's much of a difference, then what does it matter when the topic of discussion is comparing Reagan's performance with Obama's?
Or are you saying that we should include long-term unemployed during Obama's years but not during Reagan's, so we can preserve Reagan's apparent status as being good for the economy in spite of inconvenient facts?
... or something else?
I have no idea what the long term unemployment rate in the 80s was. I'd like to know so that it can be compared to the long term unemployment rate now. Otherwise we're just throwing around pointless numbers that don't mean anything. You can't draw an accurate conclusion over whose better with those.
You objection is on the face of it valid, until one looks at the facts. The the official unemployment rate, and the more expanded measure that includes "unemployed but not officially so", are always going up and down in lockstep. That relationship hasn't really changed appreciably going all the way back to Great Depression. Therefore, the unemployment numbers you declare pointless are in fact very pointful.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 07:53:04 PM
What's the real unemployment rate when you add in all the long term jobless?
See, that doesn't matter, because according to Yi, it's just housewives that would prefer to stay home.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2014, 11:23:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.
:lol: Uh, no. You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.
Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2014, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2014, 11:23:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.
:lol: Uh, no. You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.
I'm not Googling any hoes. And no hoe is going to tell me that they're successfully tracking the long-term unemployed to the degree of those on the welfare rolls.
Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2014, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2014, 11:23:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.
:lol: Uh, no. You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.
man times are tough when even hookers can't get a job
Yes I know I'm the last one to make a spelling joke.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2014, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2014, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2014, 11:23:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.
:lol: Uh, no. You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.
I'm not Googling any hoes. And no hoe is going to tell me that they're successfully tracking the long-term unemployed to the degree of those on the welfare rolls.
Speaking from ignorance is more convenient?
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me, but I don't remember Guller or Jacob gushing about how well the economy is doing in threads where the discussion didn't begin with an article couching the debate in terms of praising Obama for "his" awesome economy. :yeahright:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 08:08:36 AM
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me, but I don't remember Guller or Jacob gushing about how well the economy is doing in threads where the discussion didn't begin with an article couching the debate in terms of praising Obama for "his" awesome economy. :yeahright:
You're right, I wasn't gushing about how well the economy is doing in other threads. You can even expand that to say that I'm not gushing about how well the economy is doing in this thread either. I'm just responding to invalid counter-arguments here of the type "well, if you add up all the discouraged workers, part-time workers, and workers who have a job but hate their bosses, the unemployment now is higher than it was in Great Depression :o".
Quote from: HVC on October 06, 2014, 11:39:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2014, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2014, 11:23:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2014, 08:17:27 PM
A lot of them have given up. They should still count.
There's no way to count them if their unemployment benefits are exhausted.
:lol: Uh, no. You may want to Google hoe unemployment statistics are calculated.
man times are tough when even hookers can't get a job
Yes I know I'm the last one to make a spelling joke.
Oh, I just got that. :(
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2014, 08:22:20 AM
You're right, I wasn't gushing about how well the economy is doing in other threads. You can even expand that to say that I'm not gushing about how well the economy is doing in this thread either. I'm just responding to invalid counter-arguments here of the type "well, if you add up all the discouraged workers, part-time workers, and workers who have a job but hate their bosses, the unemployment now is higher than it was in Great Depression :o".
Considering the labor participation rate has been going down since 2008, while it was rising in the 1980s, it's disingenuous to simply compare the unemployment rates straight up.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 08:40:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2014, 08:22:20 AM
You're right, I wasn't gushing about how well the economy is doing in other threads. You can even expand that to say that I'm not gushing about how well the economy is doing in this thread either. I'm just responding to invalid counter-arguments here of the type "well, if you add up all the discouraged workers, part-time workers, and workers who have a job but hate their bosses, the unemployment now is higher than it was in Great Depression :o".
Considering the labor participation rate has been going down since 2008, while it was rising in the 1980s, it's disingenuous to simply compare the unemployment rates straight up.
I already addressed that in several posts to Tim. Besides the official U3 index, there are other more expansive indices, up to U6, that count even people that work part-time for economic reasons. They don't bear out that criticism.
And people who don't work part time? Not counted, right?
Besides, the unemployment rate isn't being used here simply as a measure of how easy or difficult it is to get a job, but as a measure of the economy's ability to create jobs. Older people deciding to retire and go on social security(whether voluntarily or because they simply can't find another job that pays what they're used to) make the unemployment rate look better.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 09:02:23 AM
And people who don't work part time? Not counted, right?
If they're looking for work, they are counted. If they're not looking for work because they're discouraged, they're still counted in U6.
Quote
Besides, the unemployment rate isn't being used here simply as a measure of how easy or difficult it is to get a job, but as a measure of the economy's ability to create jobs. Older people deciding to retire and go on social security(whether voluntarily or because they simply can't find another job that pays what they're used to) make the unemployment rate look better.
Yes, every statistic can be misleading. The burden is on you to show how it's misleading, and how the situation is different now compared to Reagan's time. Otherwise, any number can be selectively dismissed without any debunking.
Meh, the entire argument is just politics.
The numbers that go into unemployment are complex and varied enough that you can probably get them to say what you want by simply picking which index or whatever you like to focus on - hell, even choosing unemployment as your measure instead of something else is largely a political choice anyway.
But more to the point - the idea that if we are recovering it is because of Obama (or not) is ridiculous anyway.President's don't have nearly that kind of control over the economy, for better or for worse.
Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2014, 09:11:53 AM
and how the situation is different now compared to Reagan's time.
Unemployment going down, participation going up = jobs being created faster than population growth
Unemployment going down, participation going down = ?
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it's Reagan's or Obama's policies responsible for this difference. But there's been an awful lot of data as well as anecdotes posted on this board showing the job market has been getting tougher and paying less proportionally to the people on the bottom.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2014, 09:25:18 AM
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it's Reagan's or Obama's policies responsible for this difference. But there's been an awful lot of data as well as anecdotes posted on this board showing the job market has been getting tougher and paying less proportionally to the people on the bottom.
Nonsense. Everything's coming up Goldman Sachs.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 09:20:26 AM
.President's don't have nearly that kind of control over the economy, for better or for worse.
They do make Fed nominations. And Obama has done a pretty crappy job at that.
Again, however, that is not the argument of the vast majority of the anti-Obama mob. Especially since a significant proportion of them are batshit crazy goldbugs or neo-Austrians.
Quote from: Berkut on October 07, 2014, 09:20:26 AM
Meh, the entire argument is just politics.
The numbers that go into unemployment are complex and varied enough that you can probably get them to say what you want by simply picking which index or whatever you like to focus on - hell, even choosing unemployment as your measure instead of something else is largely a political choice anyway.
But more to the point - the idea that if we are recovering it is because of Obama (or not) is ridiculous anyway.President's don't have nearly that kind of control over the economy, for better or for worse.
I agree, but it's reasonable to bring it out when you're facing down a whole bunch of Siegy-like BS about Obama destroying the economy.
For better or worse, those indicators seem a significant part of the political game surrounding the economy.