[JayMillz]

Let the hating begin!!

   

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/...investing/

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.

[It_is_my_time]

Yes, he has destroyed full time jobs and replaced them with part time jobs. This is like cutting a pizza into 8 pieces and then later cutting it into 16 pieces and being proud to double the "amount" of pizza.

The economy is on the verge of collapse. I think even Obama knows it deep down and has checked out. He realizes he has no answers and no ideas left.

[Deluge]

It won't help the Democrats.

Quote:

In his first two years in office, Ronald Reagan endured a crunching recession, during which the unemployment rate reached almost eleven per cent. But all we hear about these days is “the Reagan recovery.” Why don’t people talk about “the Obama recovery”?

I’ve been looking at some historical data, and one answer is that job growth rebounded more strongly under Reagan than it has under Obama. In the five years from the end of 1982 to the end of 1987, the economy created almost fifteen million jobs, which is obviously quite a bit more than ten million. However, I’m not sure that’s the defining difference between then and now. Although the economy created a lot of jobs in the nineteen-eighties, the labor force was also growing rapidly, and, amid widespread fears of deindustrialization, unemployment remained stubbornly high. It isn’t widely appreciated, but at this point in Reagan’s second term the jobless rate was substantially higher than it is today: seven per cent compared to 5.9 per cent. And it stayed above six per cent for almost another year.

The more important factor, I suspect, is one which President Obama referred to in a speech at Northwestern University on Thursday: weak—and, in some cases, negative—growth in wages and income. Friday’s jobs report confirmed that wages are barely keeping up with inflation. According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, the income of the typical (median) American household in 2013 was about forty-five hundred dollars below the typical income in 2007. “It’s still harder than it should be to pay the bills and to put away some money,” Obama said. “Even when you’re working your tail off, it’s harder than it should be to get ahead.”

Last month, in a post about the new census figures, I argued that the stagnation in wages is the defining fact about modern American politics. But it’s also a phenomenon that goes back a long way—to the Reagan years and beyond. Between 1969 and 1980, the median household income barely grew at all. (In inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars, it went from $47,124 to $47,668.) After the steadily rising living standards of the postwar decades, this stagnation came as a big shock to Americans, and it helps to explain the political backlash that Reagan rode to power. For the first two years of his Presidency, the economy was in recession and the median household income actually fell. But from then on, it started to grow. Between 1983 and 1988, when his second term ended, it went from $46,425 to $51,514—an increase of about eleven per cent.

Rising incomes are what really distinguished the Reagan recovery from the Obama recovery, and that, I suspect, is why the two Presidents enjoyed such different political fortunes. (According to Gallup, Reagan’s average approval rating during his second term was 55.3 per cent. That’s about ten points higher than what Obama has averaged so far in his second term.)

This suggests that the answer to the question at the top of this post is a somewhat discouraging one for Democrats. At some point, one would hope, Americans will give President Obama and his party (and the Federal Reserve) at least a bit of credit for digging the economy out of a deep ditch and getting it back on the road. In the past five years, the U.S. economy has substantially outperformed most other advanced economies. Now that the unemployment rate has dipped back into the fives, maybe—just maybe—public perceptions will change. But until the recovery feeds into higher wages and rising living standards for ordinary Americans, the political payoff is likely to be limited.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The above quotes are from a New Yorker article. I've pulled one and want to address a question they didn't think to ask:

"Between 1969 and 1980, the median household income barely grew at all. (In inflation-adjusted 2013 dollars, it went from $47,124 to $47,668.) After the steadily rising living standards of the postwar decades, this stagnation came as a big shock to Americans, and it helps to explain the political backlash that Reagan rode to power."

Could the massive influx of women into the workforce have depressed wages and helped create the depression of median household incomes?

It's been said before, but expanding the labor pool was a boon to employers. More competition means lower pay. In 1967, male grads would be vying for jobs against the male peers. By 1977, they'd be competing with everyone. Who was the real winner here? The business owners, I'd say.

Because of that, we got "the two-income family," which changed the economic environment. Once that became the norm, one-income families fell behind. So now you had a situation where "both parents have to work."

This took us to a dangerous place when it came to family budgets. In bad economic times in the '50s and '60s, women could get a part-time job to help make ends meet. But once women gained full employment that wasn't an option. Economic downturns really started to hit people.

And so you have President Obama saying the following, but people not getting the historical context: “It’s still harder than it should be to pay the bills and to put away some money,” Obama said. “Even when you’re working your tail off, it’s harder than it should be to get ahead.”

(There is more here than I'm addressing -- like the disproportionate increase in the population because of the immigration law of 1965 -- but this main point should be made by someone, even if you won't see it in the mainstream media.)

[Corroncho]

Those two graph lines look pretty similar to me; I'm not seeing where it supports the argument that "Obama's administration has outperformed Reagan's." Also, isn't it a little early to claim that Obama is keeping inflation low? A shitty American and world economy has helped to keep inflation down for the past six years, but now that the USA is cranking it up a little while continuing to pour gas on the fire, the real perils of possible inflation are just beginning.

[Que enspastic]

Reagan while held up as a model Conservative wasn't really that fiscally conservative though was he ?

He had socially conservative values and was no doubt charismatic on the world stage but he spent a truckload of money the government didn't have. Someone help me out with a graph.

[Saweeep]

(10-07-2014 05:30 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Yes, he has destroyed full time jobs and replaced them with part time jobs. This is like cutting a pizza into 8 pieces and then later cutting it into 16 pieces and being proud to double the "amount" of pizza.

The economy is on the verge of collapse. I think even Obama knows it deep down and has checked out. He realizes he has no answers and no ideas left.

We have the exact same phenomenon here in the UK.

It doesn't help that here you get to keep a lot of your benefits if you work up to 16 hours per week and no more. The real tax rate for work more than that for some people ends up being 90% or something insane.

Employers have figured this out and a lot of jobs are only 16 hours per week contracts.

We are as fucked as you guys.

[Phoenix]

Yep this is well known. Reagan was all good talk, but didn't walk the walk.

I recall seeing that even Thatcher only managed to 'stop an increase' in government spending.

[MidWest]

Yeah I know. Ronald Reagan was vastly overrated, I don't know why many of his supporters claim he had a great economy, cause his unemployment numbers were abysmal. Its funny because I was just doing a paper for a class right now on unemployment and which president had the best unemployment numbers.

After looking at research I found that Bill Clinton had the best employment numbers out of all the modern presidents. Ronald Reagan had the same identical numbers of unemployment as Obama. I don't know where all the Obama hate is coming from, in fact unemployment has gone down since 09.

Heck, poverty started to go down under Clinton as well:



^^^^^Heck, no wonder Clinton was considered to be the first Black president. Whatever he did to lower poverty rates especially among the black community was clearly working. Notice how it started going up again once Bush came into office. Now I'm starting to think that Democrats are the way to go.

[lskdfjldsf]

Why does the Left have such a fascination with Reagan? The only people who seem to flaunt his name around are Democrats, as if the comparison itself is a validation of their policies.

Presidents can't be fairly compared if more than 10 years exist between terms. Economies change and evolve. Would creating 1,000 manufacturing jobs in 1930 be comparable to adding 1,000 software engineering jobs in 2010? These "jobs" Obama created (as if the President were a CEO and HR department himself) are simply numbers on a spreadsheet, and don't hold up to any form of scrutiny.

It's the same Democratic logic that spreads around the "1 in 4 women are raped in their lifetime!" lie. People can't seem to fathom that a party so vocal about helping the little guy can simultaneously exploit and manipulate for political gain and votes.

Immigration: Feigned sympathy to attract Hispanic voters
Race and social justice: Feigned sympathy to attract Black voters
Gender and social justice: Feigned sympathy to attract female voters

[It_is_my_time]

(10-07-2014 06:29 AM)MidWest Wrote:  

Yeah I know. Ronald Reagan was vastly overrated, I don't know why many of his supporters claim he had a great economy, cause his unemployment numbers were abysmal. Its funny because I was just doing a paper for a class right now on unemployment and which president had the best unemployment numbers.

After looking at research I found that Bill Clinton had the best employment numbers out of all the modern presidents. Ronald Reagan had the same identical numbers of unemployment as Obama. I don't know where all the Obama hate is coming from, in fact unemployment has gone down since 09.

Heck, poverty started to go down under Clinton as well:



^^^^^Heck, no wonder Clinton was considered to be the first Black president. Whatever he did to lower poverty rates especially among the black community was clearly working. Notice how it started going up again once Bush came into office. Now I'm starting to think that Democrats are the way to go.

If you want a bankrupt socialist shithole with no opportunities for the average person, the Democrats are your party.

Clinton spent his first two years trying to ram a socialist shithole system down our throats. His dingbat wife tried to push Hillarycare, or basically socialist healthcare.

By the 1994 midterm elections the people had enough and the Democrats got tossed out of office. Clinton then had 6 years to either...

Go along with the Republican playbook

OR

Get impeached and kicked out of office as a disgrace.

He played ball and let Newt Gingrich run the country for 6 years while he lived the high life and took credit for the tech boom.

The Democrats are the epitome of the blue pill.

[JayMillz]

(10-07-2014 06:31 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Why does the Left have such a fascination with Reagan? The only people who seem to flaunt his name around are Democrats

[weambulance]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louisefron/2...rate-12-6/

Quote:

Tackling The Real Unemployment Rate: 12.6%

Imagine being served your poolside drinks by a lawyer, or getting your chicken sandwich delivered by an experienced marketing professional. The first is a friend of mine, the second my waitress a few weeks ago. Both lost jobs due to economic downturns at their organizations. Both took available work to pay the bills while looking for new positions in their chosen professions.

My friend and the waitress are victims of a massive but hidden problem called underemployment. Watching falling unemployment numbers being reported at 6.2%, down from nearly 10% four years earlier, is simply misleading.

Despite the significant decrease in the official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment rate, the real unemployment rate is over double that at 12.6%. This number reflects the government’s “U-6” report, which accounts for the full unemployment picture including those “marginally attached to the labor force,” plus those “employed part time for economic reasons.”

...Article continues.

Let's see, federal workforce... nope, since Obama took office the federal workforce has grown by several hundred thousand personnel.

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight...ince-1962/

Federal deficit is dropping, but the national debt certainly has not been reduced. So, what exactly am I supposed to be happy about? Besides the fact that the federal budget is controlled by congress, not Obama, all we did was tap the brakes while we're still headed right off the cliff.

Under Obama, the national debt has increased more than 3x as much as it did under Reagan, and he still has a few more years to go. Yippee.

...So basically, the author of the article is pushing his agenda with a combination of using magic math and taking advantage of public misconceptions. What's the point of the article anyway? Even if it was accurate, exactly what relevance does it have?

Don't piss down my back and call it rain. Things in this country are ate the fuck up, no amount of number-torturing can change that, and Obama is a major reason we're where we are.

[speakeasy]

A president has little control over job creation and what type of jobs are created unless we're talking about new government jobs. These are decisions that are made collectively by millions of businesses large and small based on supply and demand. If more part-time jobs are being creating, this is a trend in the economy that has been at work for decades, not something you can pin on any single individual. People just want someone to point and blame for their problems, and the president is always an obvious choice, but it's just not that simple.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-07-2014 07:19 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

A president has little control over job creation and what type of jobs are created unless we're talking about new government jobs. These are decisions that are made collectively by millions of businesses large and small based on supply and demand. If more part-time jobs are being creating, this is a trend in the economy that has been at work for decades, not something you can pin on any single individual. People just want someone to point and blame for their problems, and the president is always an obvious choice, but it's just not that simple.

Depends on many things.

But Obama has taken this on himself. His biggest mistake and his biggest connection to job loss/destruction of the middle class is signing the ACA or aka Obamacare.

The Fed released a survey in which 20% of private companies have either let people go, stopped hiring, or changed full time employees into part time employees due to Obamacare alone. That is a HUGE impact by the president on jobs.

[Double Salad]

The left-right paradigm.

[Dismal Operator]

The claim from the article just doesn't hold up.

Jobs:

The article says

Quote:

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.

During Obama's administration, the economy has lowered the unemployment rate and created jobs on the back of two factors: the lowest labor participation rate in roughly 40 years, and policies which have resulted in the fragmenting of one full time job into multiple part time jobs.



A labor force that is constantly rising is going to negatively impact unemployment in the short term, all else equal, because there are more people coming in battling for the same jobs. This also puts downward pressure on wages. The opposite is true. Reagan technically had a tougher environment to 'create jobs' in if you want to focus on raw statistics and not what they actually represent. That's where things get interesting.

The author writes that the growing Baby Boomer class flooding into the workplace was like a tidal wave that couldn't do anything but grow the economy, and now Obama is hamstrung by their retirement. That isn't actually true, as the following chart shows:



The 55-69 age group represent the bulk of the job gains during Obama's administration, so the idea that they are retiring is rubbish, let alone those retirements are creating a headwind that has been successfully repelled.

The real issue is the quality of the jobs being created. The fact that wages are barely rising suggests that all of these 55-69 year olds are coming out of retirement to work low paying jobs because their savings (or lack thereof) have been decimated. Furthermore, the 25-54 segment, the workers in their prime years are getting destroyed. Ironically, the Boomers were in that 25-54 segment during Reagans time, meaning that their entrance into the workforce back then was a net positive, while their re-entrance into it now is a net negative. That 60 year old guy greeting people at Walmart is taking the job of the 16 yearold who should be having it as his first job after school. Once you don't get your first job, you don't get your second and your third. It's one thing to create a bunch of jobs, it's another to create high quality jobs.

Growth & Investment

The article points to the S&P 500 as evidence for growth and investment being off the chart, but that is down to the Federal Reserve. Even then though, actual business investment and capital formation, the building blocks of advances in living standards, have been on a downward slide for years.



As others have said, Reagan wasn't the greatest, and as the years go by the myths that surround him grow. He talked the talk well, and presented a fundamentally different message than what preceded him. If you ask most left leaning people, their history of the US basically begins at the end of WWII. From that point until 1980 was supposedly the greatest period in American history, and then Reagan came along and it's been downhill ever since.

The reality was that from 1950 to 1980, the US furthered the transformation FDR began into some sort of quasi socialist setup, with the explosion in government spending and setting up the welfare state that we now consider to be as integral to life as the sun coming up every day. Reagan came along and gave a different message, which is why left leaning people hate him. Ultimately though, Reagan at the very most slowed the pace at which America drifted into full on social democracy, he didn't really reverse it as the myth is. He ran eastward on a western moving ship.

[Uzisuicide]

Forget the unemployment number. Look at the workforce participation rate and you'll see how many people are sitting on their ass collecting unemployment or disability. Lots of $10 an hour jobs to be had out there which is nothing to celebrate.

[Deluge]

(10-07-2014 07:56 AM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

Ultimately though, Reagan at the very most slowed the pace at which America drifted into full on social democracy, he didn't really reverse it as the myth is. He ran eastward on a western moving ship.

Hell, if Ted Kennedy hadn't unexpectedly died in office and been replaced by a one-term Republican, there's a good chance America would have single-payer healthcare right now like there is in Europe, Canada, Australia etc. Now in a twist of fate you have a Republican party up in arms over a healthcare plan they themselves devised in 1993. Oh the irony.

[heavy]

Without jumping into the discussion...is OP suggesting our economy has boomed over the last 8-10 years?

Edit: I tire of discussions involving specific politicians. It's not about the politician (economically speaking anyway). It's about the policies. I can understand referring to the Reagan presidency (as a time period of certain policies) vs Obama (as a time period of certain policies). Women vote for a personality or a person. Men vote for the guy they agree with politically. I don't care if I can't stand a candidate, if I agree with his policies and feel he'll roll back government spending and handouts, I'll probably vote for him.

[TheWastelander]

(10-07-2014 05:57 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

Reagan while held up as a model Conservative wasn't really that fiscally conservative though was he ?

He had socially conservative values and was no doubt charismatic on the world stage but he spent a truckload of money the government didn't have. Someone help me out with a graph.

We were fighting something called the Cold War and trying to bankrupt a superpower that was oppressing millions and had a string of unstable leaders (Andropov, being chief among them) during the 80s.

Was there waste?

Sure, but the goal was a noble one and worth the money.

Besides, Congress has the power of the purse. They could've put a stop to any of it if they actually gave a damn.

[Jack198]

Barely an election ago Obama was comparing himself to Reagan the same way that dottering fool McCain was. He's doing it again, but in the inverse manner? smh...

[not_dead_yet]

How can anyone credibly claim that Obama cut the deficit vis Reagan? After running trillion dollar deficits, we managed to cut that to only $680 billion last year.

[SteveMcMahon]

(10-07-2014 05:18 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

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.

Hmmm.

Federal deficit 1988: $155 billion.
Gross public debt 1988: $2,600 billion
Total spending: $1,064 billion

Federal deficit 2014: $648 billion
Gross public debt 2014: $17,800 billion
Total spending: $3,600 billion

Granted, there's been inflation since 1988, and the US population has grown from 244 million to 320 million, but those are still starkly different numbers that don't support what the quote above would have you believe.

Reagan increased deficit spending at a time when there was a cold war on and US national debt and public spending were both fractions of what they are now, so it's a misleading comparison. It's like comparing a well-heeled man who takes out a loan to buy a new car that he can comfortably afford to pay back with a man who is already up to his oxters in credit card debt and living well beyond his means who decides to get a third mortgage to build a new swimming pool.

(10-07-2014 05:18 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,)

This part seems to be true, though the statistics available online vary wildly based on their source and counting methods, and total government employment is still much higher than it was in 1988.

(10-07-2014 05:18 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

and truly delivered a “smaller government.”

Only true if you equate the size of government with its growth or reduction in number of employees. Not if you calculate the size of government by the amount of new laws and regulations and scope it has to meddle in the lives of private citizens.

Under Ronald Reagan, there was no federal healthcare regime, no Department of Homeland Security, no PATRIOT Act, no federal government oversight of the sex lives of college students, and the IRS wasn't being used as a tool to punish the government's political opponents. You could smoke in bars and run a business with less fear of the EPA or other government busybodies.

You could mock and lampoon Ronald Reagan all you wanted, without fear of the Department of Justice sending someone after you to see if they could prosecute you for a hate crime:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...ry-parade/

(10-07-2014 05:18 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

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.

This is true, albeit I think most Western governments are using a lot of statistical sleight of hand in measuring inflation these days.

However, the sky hasn't (yet) fallen in on the global economy, for which we should be thankful.

[Jack198]

(10-07-2014 08:16 AM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  

Forget the unemployment number. Look at the workforce participation rate and you'll see how many people are sitting on their ass collecting unemployment or disability. Lots of $10 an hour jobs to be had out there which is nothing to celebrate.

And there are plenty more who are doing neither welfare nor disability and are not eligible for unemployment. Don't ask me how I know this.

Meanwhile we continue to send billions in foreign aid to ungrateful middle eastern shitholes and listen to uptalking billionaire dweebs blather on about how we need more H1B workers to fill up all these jobs since no Americans can do them.