home

The Jobs Crisis

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:19:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Atrios, Brad DeLong:

"May’s ADP Report estimates employment in the service-providing sector rose by 48,000, marking 17 consecutive months of employment gains while employment in the goods-producing sector fell 10,000 following six months of increases. Manufacturing employment fell 9,000 in May following seven consecutive monthly gains." [. . . This was well below the consensus forecast of an increase of 178,000 private sector jobs in May. [. . .] This is a very weak ADP report - and more evidence that the BLS report will be below consensus on Friday.

Austerity Now!

Speaking for me only

< A Case Study In Media Management | Sentencing Commission Hearing on Retroactivity of Crack Cocaine Reduction >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Jobs Crisis | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If there is too much austerity, where (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by observed on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    will we get the money for school uniforms?

    Vouchers n/t (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 02:40:39 PM EST


    Parent
    We also didn't have (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:13:17 AM EST
    the people who started the fire standing on the sidelines screaming on how to put it out.

    take note: Abdul

    Wall St (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    Didn't respond well to the bleak economic news today:

    "A monthly report from ADP Employer Services, the payroll processing firm, said that private employers added 38,000 jobs in May, the smallest increase since last September. And an index of manufacturing fell to a 19-month low".

    The attitude that we can cut the budget to fix everything is blowing up in Obama's face.

    Time for a major shake up in strategy. He needs to clean house with his economic advisors and start again.

    Maybe with a few people that really understand life in the real world?

    Those (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 04:39:12 PM EST
    advisors should have been fired long ago. Now even if he does it, it's going to be too late with an election 18 months away.

    Parent
    No alternative (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:11:13 PM EST
    Obama and the Democrats can't just throw up their hands and say there's "Nothing we can do". Things aren't improving. The plan didn't work. Well then you go to plan B or you pack your bags and go home in 2012. The American public wants results. If you can't deliver, they'll try someone else.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:21:29 PM EST
    the problem is they can and they have. All you hear is Obama can't do this or Obama can't do that. You can pick your myriad of reasons out there. But, yeah, absolutely he SHOULD fire his economic team but have you thought that he sees nothing wrong with them? Maybe he's that out of touch. Frankly, one of the largest problem I have had with him from the beginning is that he has no knowledge or understanding of economics nor does he seem interested in learning them either. It's just another one of those things he delegates trying to keep his fingerprints off of it. The thing is, he is going to take the hit on it no matter how he tries to hide on this issue.

    Parent
    I tend to think that part of the problem (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    is that Obama does think he understands economics on a deep level.

    Parent
    I think that what Obama (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:59:36 PM EST
    thinks is that he considers Ronald Reagan a "transformational" President.  Given that Reagan was the god of supply-side, trickle-down, rising-tide-lifts-all-boats economics, that apparently is good enough for Obama.  

    Parent
    I guess he left out the part though (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:25:44 PM EST
    where Reagan regulated his banks.  If his goal is to be Ronald Reagan he isn't even being THAT economically responsible.  I think there has only been one other President since the Great Depression who was more economically irresponsible and that was the second Bush.

    Parent
    I'm afraid its worse, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:29:10 PM EST
    much worse.

    We must face some very disturbing, and painful facts. Of course Obama knows "trickle down" doesn't work, he is unquestionably a smart man. This simply illustrates the point I have been making over and over again since early in the Primary campaign. There is something wrong with the man.

    Please understand, this is only my opinion, but I believe, a pretty informed opinion. When I say something "wrong," I don't mean mentally ill in the common sense of the word. Most sociopaths, and many psychopaths function among us effortlessly, and unless you're specially trained, no one is the wiser. No, I mean wrong in the sense that he's disturbed by forces within himself that keep him from acting, and feeling, in a way that most of us would rationally expect.

    Since this is a blog, and not a post-grad thesis, I have to keep this  short.  

    So, an appropriate question might be, "why would an ethnic minority person, with all the pain he's suffered because of that, running on the Democratic platform, and absolutely knowledgeable about the yearning so many Americans felt when they voted for him, so affirmatively betray them once elected? Its not because he's weak, or out-maneuvered, or even inexperienced. As I said, its worse than that. I believe he has such a powerful disdain, even contempt, for the weak and downtrodden, that it can't be shrugged off, or excused with any of the usual bromides.

    I'll stop here; but I just want to say, its so discouraging reading blogs like this one and listening to all these bright people offering suggestion after suggestion as to how to fix our problems....when the problem is not even a problem. The man we trusted to fix the problem is the problem.

    He doesn't want to. He wants to be a member of the elite club populated with the people who caused the problem. And unless we isolate what the problem is, Obama's clinically based obsession to be accepted by the Power Brokers, we have a disaster of biblical proportion inexorably advancing towards the abyss.

    He truly is the Manchurian Candidate.

    My theory, and one that I've heard others (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 07:09:57 AM EST
    express, is that this is all about the effect of being rejected/abandoned by the father who looks like you, and then functionally abandoned by the mother who doesn't, and who then more or less dumps you on her parents while she goes off in pursuit of her own goals.  The father already had a family, one that he returned to; the mother found a new husband, had a daughter, and Obama was never a big part of that.

    The man is damaged goods - as we all are, in our own ways - the difference is that he's playing his damage and dysfunction out on a national stage, and involving us in it.

    He has a driving need to prove to those who most reject him that he is worthy of being accepted, hence his constant attempts to "reach out" to Republicans and conservatives.  So, why isn't he responding to criticism from Democrats?  Because we're the grandparents - the ones who loved him no matter what, but whom he resents more than a little because it was their daughter who treated him like so much excess baggage.

    The whole thing would be a lot more interesting if we all weren't feeling - and ultimatley, suffering - the effects of it.

    Sadly, I don't think anyone remotely "normal" ever aspires to the highest office in the land.

    Parent

    Not that this applies to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    But I just heard two different short interviews with Jon Ronson about his new book, The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry (he also wrote Men Who Stare at Goats.

    The one statistic that he mentioned in both interviews was this:  While every person has some psychopathic tendencies, 4% of CEOs are psychopaths (think:  banksters). It wouldn't be hard to extrapolate how many politicians, especially at the highest levels are too. (Also, as an aside, 25% of people in prison are psychopaths, so those CEOs and politicians would feel right at home).

    But Anne's right - at this point, I have to wonder about anyone who wants those high offices.

    Parent

    The problem IMO is that the U.S. (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 07:36:05 AM EST
    is wholly owned and has become a subsidiary of Wall St. Unless politicians dance to the tune of their corporate masters, the majority of the money for their campaign coffers will dry up, and huge amounts of cash will be directed against them while the corporate owned media will be championing the opposition.

    This will only get worse thanks to the decisions of the corporate owned majority of the Supreme Court and decisions like Citizens United.

    Parent

    Austerity Now! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    .

    Well, we have seen post war record breaking federal spending has resulted in a post war record breakingly weak recovery.  We don't have "Austerity Now!", we have profligacy now and it appears to be not just ineffective but the actual results point more towards this profligacy being counterproductive.

    The unanswered question remains, how did every other post war recession recover more strongly but with much lower federal spending?

    .

    We had a regulated banking system (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    that wasn't deemed too big to fail.

    Parent
    The problem could be solved by (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    applying Chinese jurisprudence to the finance sector.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    This wasn't your father's recession. This was your grandfather's recession.

    Parent
    Much higher taxes (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    on high incomes.

    Keeping the money here instead of allowing it to run around the world looking for the highest return (benefiting only one class of people) would certainly help.

    Investment in public goods (much, much higher) in the pre-Conservative Movement US was an ongoing big boost.

    Our deficit, the deficit you whine about is basically the result of 1: Bush tax cuts 2: unfunded wars (1st time in our history taxes weren't raised to fund a war) 3: the recession brought on by childish Conservative anti-regulation ideology

    Our 'spending' is heavily tilted to tax cut spending.  Not nearly enough money actually spent. Tax cut spending does not boost demand and demand is the only way an economy thrives.

    RAISE TAXES.

    We could go into other matters like foolish trade agreements, territorial taxation, etc. but the bottom line is:

    Our governments, over the last few decades, have been controlled and/or overly influenced by Conservative Movement ideology that's based on fantasy and wishful thinking.

    Parent

    Raises taxes (none / 0) (#8)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    won't help. All that will do is drain money from the economy. What we need is MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING NOW!

    Parent
    As long as there is a deficit scare (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    Higher taxes on the rich with higher government spending is preferable to no tax increase for the rich and lower government spending.

    Parent
    But the deficit scare (none / 0) (#10)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    is a phoney issue.

    Which is preferable? Raising taxes in response to a phoney issue and making the recession worse, or leaving them where they are in order not to make the economy worse? My vote is for the latter.

    Parent

    Not an option imo (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:47:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Higher taxes on the rich (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    and higher spending don't seem to be options either with the current administration.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:19:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Raising taxes (none / 0) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    is very sensible.

    A huge part of the 'spending' that so many people cry about is tax spending ie tax cuts.

    Our revenue to debt ratio is a joke.

    Of course it won't happen.  Today we can't expect sensible policy from any quarter.  We are truly governed by idiots and people with very dark ulterior motives.

    Parent

    Idiots? Maybe, (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    but only in a pejorative sense

    "...people with very dark ulterior motives?"

    Bingo!


    Parent

    I should add (none / 0) (#12)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    that higher taxes on the rich accompanied by higher spending is something I generally favor, but as a response to the deficit scare it's no response at all since it will increase the deficit.

    Parent
    Increasing spending (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    would fire the economy AND INCREASE revenue collections, reducing the deficit.

    Money spent directly into the economy has a significant multiplier effect.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#18)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    but it won't decrease this year's deficit or the complaining of deficit hawks.

    Parent
    Screw them! (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    We either want to fix this economy, or we want to be loved by the scum that have no ideas, and nothing worthwhile to add.

    Take the deficit off the table; we will never get back to anything like a balanced budget if we don't fix this economy, get everyone who can work back to work, and get all 300 million Americans contributing.

    Once the economy is firing on all cylinders, you'll see how fast the "Deficit" becomes a memory.


    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:45:24 PM EST
    As I said above, the deficit is a phoney issue. The way to address it is to point out each and every day that it's a phoney issue.

    I advocate increasing the deficit. My point was simply that doing so, and nothing more, doesn't directly address the issue.

    Parent

    of course, you're right (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    and my point was that we must decide, once and for all, who is here to help, and who is here to hinder. The hinderers have been given chances, ad nauseum, so now, like you would with an unruly child....no more!

    As Obama's pathologically indefensible fetish of "reaching out" to those who would only "reach back" with a knife to cut his throat has shown....it doesn't work.

    Grown ups have work to do; "children, go stand in the corner and pee your pants. If you come near us, you'll get slapped across your cherubic little faces."

    THAT'S what a Bully Pulpit was for, or so I thought.

    As FDR ("The only thing we have to fear...") or JFK ("We will bear any burden....") or Bill Clinton ("A rising tide lifts ALL boats...") have shown, the American public can understand, and will listen, and will follow, if talked to in a way they can understand.

    Parent

    They can kiss my (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    entire a$$.

    Parent
    Raising taxes (none / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    on high incomes would most certainly help the economy.

    Raising taxes on people with high levels of disposable income keeps the money here, in this country and makes it possible to target spending into economy expanding activity.

    Parent

    Money (none / 0) (#20)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    never leaves the country. China has a ton of US money but it's all sitting in treasury accounts stored in computers at the federal reserve bank in DC.

    Some paper currency does leave the country, but in negligible amounts in relation to the overall money supply.

    You can increase the amount of money by the government simply spending money. You don't need to tax the rich in order to do that.

    Parent

    Sorry Warren (none / 0) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 07:48:35 PM EST
    money does indeed leave the country.

    The rich must be taxed to reduce the deficit everyone is whining about.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#42)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:47:10 PM EST
    No, it does not. People often use the jargon of money leaving the country, but all they really mean by that is ownership of some money has been acquired by foreigners. With the exception of a small amount of paper currency and coins, modern money has no physical existence and can't go anywhere. So all your talk about raising taxes in order to prevent money from leaving the country is, frankly, nonsense.

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    You're wrong.

    What may be confusing you is the foreign purchase of American debt.  I'll remind you that the debt is a liability.

    A great deal of American money is INVESTED overseas.

    End of discussion.

    Parent

    My point was simply (none / 0) (#51)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    that taxing the rich in order to get them to 'bring home' their money is of no consequence. The US is sovereign in its own currency. This means the US Treasury can create at will all the money it needs to stimulate the US economy right here right now.

    End of discussion.

    Parent

    Another point is that (none / 0) (#23)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 02:07:33 PM EST
    spending and taxation are not linked in any way. The amount of money that the US government spends each year is determined by congress, not by tax receipts. Treasury spends what congress says it can spend. Treasury never phones up the IRS and asks 'how much money have you guys collected in taxes so far?' so that Obama can spend it.

    Treasury spends, the IRS collects taxes, and the difference between the two is calculated at the end of the year and labelled a deficit or a surplus.

    So raising taxes on people with high levels of disposable income has no relation to targeting spending into economy expanding activity.

    Parent

    Taxing the Rich (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 08:25:31 PM EST
    is indicated if, for no other reason, to, quote, "level the playing field."

    All the tax cuts the Rich have enjoyed, from Reagan thru "The Deal," had no market, or economic, purpose; it was naked, crony Capitalism at its worst. Yes, maybe the Private Showing rooms at Tiffany's might be affected marginally, but the Moguls that existed when Clinton left office weren't exactly greeting customers at Wall Mart after hours either.

    And the money collected, quite substantial if I recall correctly, could go for anything: stimulating the economy thru job programs, or to reduce the debt/deficit. This would strengthen our capital markets, keeping rates low. And that's a benefit even the Rich would enjoy, and benefit from.

    Further, I don't discount the psychological benefit of the great mass of working Americans knowing Grownups are in charge, and that everyone is paying their fair share.

    Parent

    Umm (none / 0) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 07:45:30 PM EST
    I'm kind of aware of how the deficit is calculated.  Not exactly rocket science.  For that matter are you talking about 'total' budget or 'on' budget?

    Revenue projections tell us how much money we'll have and laying back on taxing the rich is ludicrous.

    The nation needs revenue.

    Parent

    The nation (none / 0) (#41)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 11:42:01 PM EST
    needs spending.

    Parent
    yes, that's true (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:06:04 AM EST
    The nation does need spending, also known as "demand."

    The nation also needs revenue, the reasons obvious.

    But, if I might stick my 2 cents into the discussion you and cal are having; what's the problem? Besides some technical details, I don't see where there's a dispute? Both are substantially correct; just seems like 2 good guys talking past each other.

    Like my old boss said to me many years ago, "Kid, don't go looking for trouble, it'll find you."

    o.k, I'll save both the trouble, you don't have to say it, I'm going to hell.

    Parent

    Then, we actually (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Madeline on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 09:45:58 PM EST
    manufactured something.

    Parent
    Jesus the markets are a mess (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    But they all have feet of clay standing
    on feet of clay so how can anyone be surprised?  I bet the whole Timmy and friends crew is flipping out, this is only Wednesday and even the tripping circuit breakers trying to save us from the fall can't stop it.  Some guy was on the tube saying the markets are looking for something that will have a return.  Guess what, there isn't anything.  Every but this was all their grand design.  We are coming in hot with no landing gear.  We will be skidding in on our faces.

    This (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 01, 2011 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    just shows how incredibly stupid the "masters of the universe" strategy has been.

    I guess they don't realize that people not having jobs is going to affect the markets sooner rather later.

    I've been having a political discussion with a friend of mine about all this. She buys into the Randian plantation economy theory. Maybe this will change her mind? Probably not.

    Parent

    Yup, by now we know enough (none / 0) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 08:48:21 AM EST
    We can psychoanalyze, and we can point out the causes, but like they say, we might as well "talk to the hand."

    When a house is on fire, first put out the fire, look for the cause later. Maybe I should take a break from all this horror, like BTD did a while back. I feel like an Oncologist, the further in you look, the more the metastasization is evident.

    A certain amount of criticism was natural, but it just keeps coming and coming. As much as I considered Obama a phony from the get-go, never in a million years did I think the word, "sadist" would enter my perception. I don't care what area of governess you look at the administration's response is always pain, punishment, neglect, brutality, and the smug elitism of sociopathic dictators.

    I just can't get my head around it, I was the most virulent Obama-exposer on the net, from the beginning, and now I have to live with the idea that I didn't even scratch the surface.

    And just as it seemed the comments against me then on the blogs ran about 1000 to 1, tragically I proved prophetic; I simply can't bring myself to think what lays ahead.

    p.s.
       damm you, Anne, I'm up to my eyeballs with MMT literature, more piling up by the minute. Can't say i'm making much headway in my understanding, but now I'm obsessed. I mean, you got two experts on the subject talking to each other, and before you know it they're ripping each others eyeballs out disagreeing on just about everything.

    Thanks a bunch:)

    Sorry, Shooter...if it's any consolation, (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 10:10:45 AM EST
    I continue to try to make sense of economic theory, and can't say that I am doing very well at it.  I read the articles and follow links, too, and I think I definitely know more than I did, but not sure I will ever know enough.

    And that's part of the problem - there are so few of us who do know enough, that things can be said that make sense, but may not be correct - and how would we know?  This is where Krugman really pushed some buttons with some of his columns, by misrepresenting what MMT-ers do believe - and he kept doing it even when called on it.  Why?  I mean, it helps him make the argument he wants to have, but it's not really a fair argument, I don't think, when it's set up that way.  Krugman's a smart guy - and I would have thought him smart enough to make the argument without having to distort the position of the side he's arguing against; have to say that that was disappointing - but then again, we see this kind of thing all the time in the media, so why not Krugman, too?

    I would be a much happier person, I think, if I just decided I didn't care about all this crap anymore.

    Parent

    I hear you, but i don't think Krugman distorts (none / 0) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    MMt'ers positions maliciously.

    Like I said in another post, this subject is a hornet's nest in a bramble bush. I could show you a dozen article where two avid MMT advocates start out having a nice talk about how the others don't get it. By the third sentence one of them says, "yeah, but what you just said isn't quite correct either," and within minutes there's blood all over.

    I read Cullen roche every day, and Yves, and many, many more. There's no bigger advocate than Roche, and he has a big number of acolytes following him. Just read their comments. Even after so much time, they say, " well, I think I've got it, but,"   and away we go.

    Nothing should be this hard to explain, or to understand.

    But I'm not giving up (nor am ever going to forgive you for this &%$#&%!!!  

    Parent

    The Jobs Crisis | 51 comments (51 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment