[Byakuya769]

That's a pretty shitty thing to do to someone that doesn't follow politics/economic news every day.

I'd be more sensitive to that if his posting didn't consist of asking questions he thinks he already knows the answers to.

[Evlar]

So, then that is NOT considered "government spending" and the fluctuations of it has no bearing on the unemployment rate or health of the economy

That's a stupid thing to say.

[BobsRevenge]

1) Yes, obviously, when federal spending is being used to stuff state shortfalls. This is being done in many states to supplement their falling education budgets, for example. 2) "Austerity" is concerned with the falling level of government spending on ALL levels. Household income will fall regardless of whether the job cuts are taking place at the military place five miles to the north or the school district five miles to the south.

This isn't really happening as much anymore, outside of education. A large part of the stimulus was used to keep state budgets afloat, and that's expired. The hemorrhaging of state jobs should've been expected by every person in government.

We shouldn't even be talking about the deficit right now, tbh. We have a MASSIVE economy and plenty of leverage. If we can get that engine running at full throttle again and raise revenues, we'll eventually be making our way back into the black.

But no one is trying to rev up the economy anymore. Apparently now it's more important to shove money at the top (much of which leaves), and starve the rest of it and keep people out of work. It's absurd.

[ToxicAdam]

That's a stupid thing to say.

It's a question, not a statement.

[loosus]

Even the federal education stimulus has basically run out. All that money must have been spent by September, which is why some states will be scrambling this summer to find a way to fill that gigantic hole in their education budgets. And that applies only to public k-12 education, by the way, not higher education.

[jmdajr]

The job creators are about to create a shit ton of jobs in the Marketing, Signs, and Graphic Design sector, to the tune of a billion dollars. Relax guys.

that's funny.
But hey someone has to make all that junk.

[Sir Fragula]

But no one is trying to rev up the economy anymore. Apparently now it's more important to starve it and keep people out of work. It's absurd.

It's happening everywhere. Here in Europe it's taken we're *just* starting face up to the failure of austerity in a depression, but it's baby steps.

If only governments could adhere to the "Spend in Recession, Save in Growth" philosophy.

[BobsRevenge]

Even the federal education stimulus has basically run out. All that money must have been spent by September, which is why some states will be scrambling this summer to find a way to fill that gigantic hole in their education budgets. And that applies only to public k-12 education, by the way, not higher education.

The priorities in this country are so fucked up at this point. I hope there's a large populist movement coming. I'm sure the election will spark something.

edit:

It's happening everywhere. Here in Europe it's taken we're *just* starting face up to the failure of austerity in a depression, but it's baby steps. If only governments could adhere to the "Spend in Recession, Save in Growth" philosophy.

Luckily the Fed understands this in the US, which has been helping us. If only the actual government could get on board, we'd actually have something going.

[Evlar]

It's a question, not a statement.

Then the answer to your transparently leading question is "no", which you already know.

[ToxicAdam]

So, decreasing the amount of money allocated to transfer payments would have no effect on the economy and unemployment rate?

[Evlar]

So, decreasing the amount of money allocated to transfer payments would have no effect on the economy and unemployment rate?

Of course government transfers matter. You're just determined to put words in my mouth, aren't you? I literally just answered your question. Prior to THAT I said "transfers don't matter" was an idiotic thing to say, if it wasn't clear enough...

[GaimeGuy]

Austerity? Really? Hasn't spending exploded in the past few years? Where did all that money go?

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama) 2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama) 2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama) 2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama) 2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush) 2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush) 2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush) 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush) 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush) 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush) 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush) 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush) 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

see how spending has flatlined?

Note: figures represent requested outlays by the president. Difference between enacted and requested outlays vary wildly year by year, but in general, under obama, requested outlays have been lower than enacted outlays and requested revenues have been higher than enacted revenues.

enacted outlays for bush's last budget were actually $3.518 trillion, as opposed to $3.1. Neeither these nor any of the budgets filed under George Bush's presidency include the cost of overseas contingency operations (afhgan + iraq wars), or a ~$50B annual social security outlay deferment.

these costs are included in Obama's requested budgets. In other words, if you are comparing the Bush - Obama figures, mentally add about $150B-$200B to Bush's #s or subtract $150B-$200B from Obama's yearly budgets to approximately standardize the accounting practices.

Oddly enough, most of Obama's numbers, either requested or enacted, have been just past the rounding up point . IE: 2010 requested outlays were $3.551B

Tax recepts plateaued at $2.5T in 2007-2008. They are $2.4T this year.

As you can tell, spending growth has trailed GDP growth over the last few years in the US (due to austerity measures by governments at both the state and federal level.), and tax receipts continue to be far outpaced by spending growth, which greatly trails GDP, as well.
Federal Tax revenues were $1.8T in 2002


Overall, the government has become a smaller part of the economy. Increasingly so under Obama, actually.

[ToxicAdam]

Of course government transfers matter. You're just determined to put words in my mouth, aren't you? I literally just answered your question. Prior to THAT I said "transfers don't matter" was an idiotic thing to say, if it wasn't clear enough...

If they matter .. then why did you post a graph that ignores them?


What has happened to transfers in the past few years? They have rose dramatically. You are purposely neglecting 44 percent of the federal government's effect on our economy.

[PhoenixPause]

Game over for Obama. Third summer in a row with a horrible jon situation. I hope he wins but I just don't see young people voting again. They went all out in 08 and all they got was 25% unemployment among their demographic

Romney is a joke, but he's safe and competent; he's no McCain. Obama has no chance if this shit continues

[ToxicAdam]

Good jon, PD.

Obama's fine. Mitt Romney has Kerry-itis. Stiff, wooden and running not on ideas, but just running as "not-Obama".

[Evlar]

So what has happened to transfers in the past few years? They have rose dramatically. You are purposely neglecting 44 percent of the federal government's effect on our economy.

Yes, I am. Because, for the purpose of stimulus spending, not all government expenditure is created equal. This does NOT reduce to the absurdity that transfers have no effect, which is again, ridiculous. However, they have LESS impact than hires and purchases in an economy that's largely driven by consumer spending.*

So I'm prioritizing that kind of spending because it's more stimulative- or the loss of it is more constrictive- than spending that's due to the increase in payout to Social Security.

* Given various and sundry other conditions that happen to exist right now, such as incredibly low borrowing rates.

[loosus]

There is probably no way that Obama gets re-elected unless something startling happens between now and November. Younger voters are too ADD to realize that Congress, not the president, creates most laws that could actually help them. Young voters showed that lack of commitment in the 2010 elections by simply not showing up, and I suspect they have their blinders on even more now.

[Zibrahim]

I think we need to realize that the unemployment rate will continue to float around 6-8% as a norm. It will get higher than that, but I can't see it getting lower unless there is a significant change in structural policy.

[el retorno]

I think we need to realize that the unemployment rate will continue to float around 6-8% as a norm. It will get higher than that, but I can't see it getting lower unless there is a significant change in structural policy.

Romney promised 4% lol

[verbum]

Georgia unemployment rate= 8.9%
National unemployment rate= 8.1%


I thought Georgia would be better with the defense spending in the state. Too much loss in light manufacturing and service jobs, I guess.

[ToxicAdam]

Yes, I am. Because, for the purpose of stimulus spending, not all government expenditure is created equal. This does NOT reduce to the absurdity that transfers have no effect, which is again, ridiculous. However, they have LESS impact than hires and purchases in an economy that's largely driven by consumer spending.* So I'm prioritizing that kind of spending because it's more stimulative- or the loss of it is more constrictive- than spending that's due to the increase in payout to Social Security.

Okay, you made your point well.

But, these stimulative purchases you propose as being essential are not sustainable. At some point, you have to pull the plug on them. I don't think we can be like China where we build phantom cities/projects in the hopes that one day people will use it.

We saw with ARRA that 1) It's HARD to actually find worthwhile/needed things to spend on (ie. shovel-ready) 2) It's HARD to find projects that will maximize the dollars spent in producing stimulative effect (ie. Buy American clause in ARRA) and lastly, with the massive amount of change happening in America (suburbanization, efficiency gains eroding industry jobs, etc) the need to "keep services" everywhere they used to be doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Josh7289]

Neither Obama nor Romney nor Congress will do anything to fix this. The system has failed and we lack the leadership to fix it. Who we need are another FDR and a Congress to support him/her.

[Neo C.]

Stock market is tanking so bad, lol. The US market disappoints, Europe has an all-high unemployment rate right now, and China's economy growth is less than 8% (still very high compared to the west, but low for its standard).

I think it's undeniable that a stimulus is needed, but the timing is crucial. If a state plays its cards correctly, it can take advantage on the stimulus of its neighbours and spend itself less. That was the case with Switzerland: Our stimulus plan in 2009 was late and modest, if not laughable, but we rode on the wave of the German and French stimulus.

[786110]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...uz6U_blog.html

Is my MO for the news.

[Averon]

Stock market is tanking so bad, lol. The US market disappoints, Europe has an all-high unemployment rate right now, and China's economy growth is less than 8% (still very high compared to the west, but low for its standard). I think it's undeniable that a stimulus is needed, but the timing is crucial. If a state plays its cards correctly, it can take advantage on the stimulus of its neighbours and spend itself less. That was the case with Switzerland: Our stimulus plan in 2009 was late and modest, if not laughable, but we rode on the wave of the German and French stimulus.

Stimulus? Ha! Good luck with that. Austerity is the rage nowadays.

[LosDaddie]

Horrible numbers. :(
But PoliGAF keeps saying that Obama is going to coast to victory. And don't forget how the SCOTUS is going to uphold Obamacare this month. :lol

[Averon]

Horrible numbers. :( But PoliGAF keeps saying that Obama is going to coast to victory. And don't forget how the SCOTUS is going to uphold Obamacare this month. :lol

I don't think us PoliGAF regulars think Obama will coast to victory. However, many do think Obama will have an easier time reaching 270 EVs than Romney. There's a difference. As for the SC ruling on healthcare, it's a very mixed bag with PoliGAF leaning towards at least some parts being struck down.

[codhand]

Amercia, fuck yeah!

[LegendofJoe]

What the country needs is a decentralized stimulus. The focus needs to be on two things: lowering large monthly outlays such as housing, utilities, and health insurance; and worker retraining. The federal government has done a horrible job of fixing the mortgage problem. It should be their top priority, because it is preventing people from retiring and therefore decreasing the amount of jobs opening up for younger workers. This in turn prevents them from settling down and buying their own homes. It's a cycle that has to be stopped if anyone on Capitol Hill is actually interested in this country having a healthy economy again.

Additionally, the unemployed need to be redeployed to sectors that are lacking available workers and/or experiencing growth. The Labor Department should be reorganized to make its primary focus worker training. I'd also try to get a stimulus passed to establish a voucher system that goes to indiviudal people to pay for their training. Make sure they know what sectors are hiring or are likely to be growth sectors in the future and give them the money they need to go out and get trained in those areas.

Unfortunately, our government no longer has the ability to get these things done so the economy will continue to sputter along until the next dip happens, where hopefully all hell will break lose which will FORCE changes on our government so that it may actually be functional once again.

[BruiserBear]

Horrible numbers. :( But PoliGAF keeps saying that Obama is going to coast to victory. And don't forget how the SCOTUS is going to uphold Obamacare this month. :lol

I've got to admit, I've been on the "Obama won't lose" bandwagon for a while now, but it really does look like things are lining up in a bad way for him. Especially if the Supreme Court truly knocks down his healthcare law. That would really look bad.

[HarryHengst]

The biggest concern about the jobs report was that the previous two were downwardly revised. At some point American politicians have to wake up and realize that this unemployment is becoming structural and quit waiting for the magical confidence fairy (1$ to Krugman) to fix it all.

Its almost like capitalism isnt the best system to get everyone a job!

[Aylinato]

So no one thinks this has anything to do with the banks in Europe failing, and having to get bailed out

[JGS]

The unemployment was already gloomy at 8.1%.

[godelsmetric]

The only silver lining to this cloud is the hope that it might finally lead governments worldwide to abandon the massively deleterious market liberal economic theories that have driven policy for the past thirty years.

[hydragonwarrior]

What the country needs is a decentralized stimulus. The focus needs to be on two things: lowering large monthly outlays such as housing, utilities, and health insurance; and worker retraining. The federal government has done a horrible job of fixing the mortgage problem. It should be their top priority, because it is preventing people from retiring and therefore decreasing the amount of jobs opening up for younger workers. This in turn prevents them from settling down and buying their own homes. It's a cycle that has to be stopped if anyone on Capitol Hill is actually interesting in this country having a healthy economy again. Additionally, the unemployed need to be redeployed to sectors that are lacking available workers and/or experiencing growth. The Labor Department should be reorganized to make its primary focus worker training. I'd also try to get a stimulus passed to establish a voucher system that goes to indiviudal people to pay for their training. Make sure they know what sectors are hiring or are likely to be growth sectors in the future and give them the money they need to go out and get trained in those areas. Unfortunately, our government no longer has the ability to get these things done so the economy will continue to sputter along until the next dip happens, where hopefully all hell will break lose which will FORCE changes on our government so that it may actually be functional once again.

Once the republican congress quits acting like cockblocking dipshits maybe a bit more will happen.

[loosus]

I think the U.S. government needs to give about 7 million people a job for $12 a hour, 35 hours a week, for 50 weeks a year. Total yearly cost: about $150 billion. To help pay for it:

--Raise 10% bracket to 10.5%

--Raise 15% bracket to 16%

--Raise 35% bracket to 38%

--Create new bracket for single individuals making over $600,000 at 42%

--Reduce federal-employee wages as follows: $0 - $50,000: 2%; $50,001 - $70,000: 3%; $70,001 - $90,000: 5%; $90,001+: 9%

[Averon]

I've got to admit, I've been on the "Obama won't lose" bandwagon for a while now, but it really does look like things are lining up in a bad way for him. Especially if the Supreme Court truly knocks down his healthcare law. That would really look bad.

June always had the potential to be a shitty month of Obama. Jobs report. SC Healthcare ruling. SC AZ Immigration ruling. GOP Super PAC starting their barrage. Summertime seems to always be pretty crappy for Dems in general, so this is just following the trend.

[Sir Fragula]

So no one thinks this has anything to do with the banks in Europe failing, and having to get bailed out

Wondered how long it would take. ;)

[bengraven]

the experience! no but seriously thats stupid, you can get a shitty factory job through a temp agency for 8-9 bucks start.

All our temp agencies are so far into only a few corporations asses. They don't get many jobs and half have already closed since I've been unemployed a year ago.

[LegendofJoe]

Once the republican congress quits acting like cockblocking dipshits maybe a bit more will happen.

The only way that will happen is if they are beaten to death at the polls in November or if Romney wins the presidency. As much as I would like to see a GOP beatdown akin to 2008 it isn't happening, Romney winning the presidency is the only realistic shot we have to get the GOP to actually attempt to do something good for the country.

[Redux]

I can't wait to find a job where my talent for making excuses is useful, I'm thinking politics.

[Kinitari]

Why would companies hire people when they don't need them? It's more economical to have fewer people and hit the same rev/profit as they would with more people.

[loosus]

Realistically, the only way I can see anything changing is to give the GOP exactly what it wants: lower taxes, lower spending, total de-regulation of everything, etc. Don't get in the way; just give them exactly what they want to a tee. Once it inevitably blows up in their faces and the United States is put into a real, true-blue depression, maybe that's when we can see a turn-around.

Why would companies hire people when they don't need them? It's more economical to have fewer people and hit the same rev/profit as they would with more people.

Well, when the economy totally hits the skids, I guess we'll see if it's still more profitable for them.

[ElectricThunder]

Rough developments all around, always expectant to see my state of GA doing extra terrible as per usual.

What a kickoff to summer....no telling how much worse it gets from here. What wondrous idiotic ideas will the states and the federal side of things jump on next?

[quadriplegicjon]

Game over for Obama. Third summer in a row with a horrible jon situation. I hope he wins but I just don't see young people voting again. They went all out in 08 and all they got was 25% unemployment among their demographic Romney is a joke, but he's safe and competent; he's no McCain. Obama has no chance if this shit continues

I'm not that bad! :(

[orientalNoodle]

I think the U.S. government needs to give about 7 million people a job for $12 a hour, 35 hours a week, for 50 weeks a year. Total yearly cost: about $150 billion. To help pay for it: --Raise 10% bracket to 10.5% --Raise 15% bracket to 16% --Raise 35% bracket to 38% --Create new bracket for single individuals making over $600,000 at 42% --Reduce federal-employee wages as follows: $0 - $50,000: 2%; $50,001 - $70,000: 3%; $70,001 - $90,000: 5%; $90,001+: 9%

What kind of job would that be? For $12 an hour, that is only enough to pay some low skill labor works. Not a good way to spend tax money.

[Flying_Phoenix]

The sad part is that the economy could easily be fixed. This isn't a financial crisis anymore, but a political one. This is why Obama has changed the route to gay marriage instead of economy. He can't pass anything.

Its almost like capitalism isnt the best system to get everyone a job!

[BobsRevenge]

Why would companies hire people when they don't need them? It's more economical to have fewer people and hit the same rev/profit as they would with more people.

Capitalism has a reinforcing loop between profits and capital (including human capital). If nothing is mucking up the economy, the general trend will be increases in jobs to the point where turnover and laziness/delinquency are by far the largest sources of unemployment.

Something is happening somewhere along the chain that is keeping that from taking place, and that is an unwillingness to invest due to low sales, and low sales occurring from a lack of jobs and/or high private debt. Those things feed into each other and you're left with a system adjusting needlessly to a lack of demand that could, and should, be subject to a government intervention on a scale that matches the size of the problem.

[Kinitari]

Capitalism has a reinforcing loop between profits and capital (including human capital). If nothing is mucking up the economy, the general trend will be increases in jobs to the point where turnover and laziness/delinquency are by far the largest sources of unemployment. Something is happening somewhere along the chain that is keeping that from taking place, and that is an unwillingness to invest due to low sales, and low sales occurring from a lack of jobs and/or high private debt. Those things feed into each other and you're left with a system adjusting needlessly to a lack of demand that could, and should, be subject to a government intervention on a scale that matches the size of the problem.

Of course, I agree with you. I just feel like we're hitting a stagnation point - when it gets to the point that hiring people isn't about any direct benefit to your company, but an indirect benefit to your society - it means that fundmanentally, there aren't enough opportunities out there for jobs. As in, there is nothing else for people to do.

[loosus]

What kind of job would that be? For $12 an hour, that is only enough to pay some low skill labor works. Not a good way to spend tax money.

Well, first of all, there is not a lack of low-skill labor stuff that needs to be done. There is lots of trash and pollution that needs cleaning, pot holes that need to be filled, simple repairs that need to be done to governmental and non-profit buildings, etc. There is a LOT of little simple shit lacking in the U.S. right now.

Second, you could very easily get medium-skill labor for $12 an hour right now. I would not see these as careers but as temporary jobs (2 to 5 years) to get people back in the work force, getting them pepped up, ready to work, feeling better about their circumstances, getting money flowing in all communities again, and that sort of thing. We might have some really aggressive workers who use their money to create businesses on the side.

I think depression has set in for a lot of people, and they are in a downward spiral. Letting them earn their own money -- because, let's face it, most people WANT to earn their own money -- is one of the best ways to get them out of their funk, in my opinion. We need to let people have some fucking financial and job security after being rattled so much for the past 8 years.

Of course, I agree with you. I just feel like we're hitting a stagnation point - when it gets to the point that hiring people isn't about any direct benefit to your company, but an indirect benefit to your society - it means that fundmanentally, there aren't enough opportunities out there for jobs. As in, there is nothing else for people to do.

There is stuff to do. Americans have simply lowered their expectations too much. They look at nice things as a "waste." Everything that doesn't directly contribute to putting food in a person's mouth, shelter over a person's head, or clothes on a person's back is seen as a waste. Oh, except church.