CBS Marketwatch:The U.S. economy lost 524,000 jobs in December, closing out the worst year for job losses since World War II, the Labor Department said Friday.
Nearly 2.6 million jobs were lost in 2008, with 1.9 million destroyed in just the past four months, according to a survey of work places. It's the biggest job loss in any calendar year since 1945, when 2.75 million jobs were lost as the wartime economy was demobilized.
The 1.5 million jobs lost in the fourth quarter were the most in any three-month period since 1945.
The unemployment rate rose to 7.2%, the highest in 16 years. Unemployment increased by 632,000 to 11.1 million, according to the survey of households. That same household survey showed employment falling by 806,000 in December.
Throughout the middle period of the grand and glorious Bush II era, conservatives like Larry Kudlow waved the household survey numbers around, arguing that they were a superior indicator of true national employment trends, because the household numbers showed (temporarily) sunnier totals than the Labor Dept's official number. The Kudlows of the world said the household number better reflected the legions of self-employed "EBay" entrepreneurs who were popping up like mushrooms after Bush's "stimulative" tax cuts. It was "the greatest story never told." These days, you won't hear them mention the "untold story" of how the household survey best reflected the "Bush Boom". (If you think I'm making this up, you never watched Kudlow on CNBC. For years on end the former coke addict would say this silly shit on a near-daily basis.)
The report was worse than expected, with payrolls in October and November revised lower by a total of 154,000 jobs. November's loss was revised to 584,000, the highest in 24 years.
Bush gets to own whatever abysmal January number comes out, too. When the final net jobs totals of his presidency are calculated, they will be utterly pathetic. Bush took us into war, cut taxes, massively increased spending, had an historic housing bubble juiced by low interest rates... and yet, as I predicted, FAR FEWER jobs were created under his administration than during Jimmy Carter's four year term. I'll have to check the final numbers after revisions, but it's entirely possible that more jobs were created during one year of Carter than during eight years of Dubya. I'm not saying the Carter years were economically robust, but I'd love to have a conservative explain why the supply side "Bush Boom" was so bloody pathetic in terms of employment, comparing and contrasting the Bush numbers to the Clinton and Carter terms.
More on this a little later.
Soon, Obama gets to deal with this mess. I haven't said much about Obama recently. Some of his appointments have puzzled me (Hillary at SOS, for one, though I think Leon Panetta as CIA chief will prove to be an excellent choice-- he can cut the fat). I think Obama wants to avoid the incredibly frustrating growing pains that Clinton went through when he first came into office. For those that don't remember '93 and '94 clearly-- they were a real tough time for Democratic apologists. It was one flub after another regarding Clinton's appointments, and the media and the Republicans absolutely ran with it. The Clinton administration had high hopes and grand plans (read: health care reform), but it kept shooting itself in the foot with political mistakes. One after another. It was brutal. I think Obama is relying on so many "old hands" of the Clinton administration, because they've learned some lessons and have seen the mistakes that can be made with an incoming administration, and they have the caution and experience not to make them again. Hopefully.
Labels: Bush, Dismal Science
10 Comments:
If the Clinton's are now the gray-headed eminences of Washington, then maybe it's time I started opening those solicitations from AARP. I think you're right of course. O is one smart fella and I'm sure he specifically does not want to recapitulate the early Clinton years.
Somehow I don't remember a "Let's give all the Clinton people a do-over" being a prominent 2008 campaign slogan. Are we really building that bridge back to the 20th Century?
Also... of course "supply side" isn't really about employment at all. Quite the contrary... it's about subsidizing ownership part of which involves keeping the supply of LABOR relatively high.
Unemployment/underemployment is a good thing in supply side land.
I love the folks that compare the jobless claims to 1945 as some sort've historical perspective.
Do you realize we've more than TRIPLED our total jobs total since 1945?
Wait...That stat never got mentioned, huh?
Gross job totals are somewhat misleading, in that many are added back immediately after end of the year reconciliations. Lots of plants locally turn off on a year-end turnaround, which end up with a lot of folks always filing for UI benefits until the turnaround's over.
Also, every four years, UI benefits are extended by the President, based on the fact that its an election year. Go back and look it up. It's a bi-partisan tradition. Those are all considered "new claims" as well. We also gave them an additional 7 week "extension on the extension" to bring most through the Holidays in the current economic climate.
Locally, the Disaster Unemployment Claims affected our numbers, as did the Texas Workforce Commissions', as well.
We also have shrimping season end locally. They all immediately file.
My point is that there are a myriad of reasons that jobless claims might be-and in most cases very much are-skewed to look inconsistent.
But, this is a bit of a minute point to delve into with you, because that was only part of your missive, and I'm talking in respect to a far more regional breakdown.
What fat must "Panetta" cut out? What experience does he bring to the job from the Hill?
Hi! I am an actual unemployed person, like y'all been discussin'? I just wanted to pitch in at this opportune moment and note that as far as I'm concerned, the economy sucks. My economy sucks! We can talk numbers but here in real life I am not scratching my head wondering if the recession is real, because i ain't tripping, this ish is happening to my life right now!!!!
@Go, yr stat about tripling total jobs might have something to do with the fact that women entered the workforce en masse at that time and moreover you might want to include something about actual wages now vs. then, etc etc, or anything to put "total jobs" in context with regard to economic activity, personal wealth, etc etc. Maybe there are ten times as many burger flipping jobs now as there were in 1945, but that don't mean sh1t.
Be glad y'all live in Louisiana, where, as far as I could tell on my recent visit, the slaughter hasn't really hit yet....
cb,
I work for the Louisiana Workforce Commission. If you truly are unemployed, please e-mail me at gary.onealjr@gmail.com.
I will set you up with an Unemployment Insurance Claim, and we'll get you into the system and get registered for membership at one of local Business & Career Solutions Centers.
We do not recommend jobs there at less than $10/hour, and most employers that are listing positions with us offer benefits as well.
Please...I'm 100% serious...E-mail me...
Hell, even if you're out of state, I can get you in touch with the state employment agency/labor office for the state you do live in.
I don't see the fuss over all these ex-Clintons in Obama's cabinet. Obama is a member of the same political machine. He has to draw from roughly the same pool of talent as Clinton. Not to mention they both lean pretty close to the center. I think he went with experience so he could hit the ground running.
Ever hired someone for a very specialized job? Training and growing pains take a lot of time, especially with fresh new faces. What will be telling is if Obama will work in new people over time.
We are getting change, change from W and the neo-cons. Change from the whole political machine in place in this country will take something big like maybe a 3rd party candidate getting elected or the Apocalypse. Guess which is more likely?
Since you bring up health care reform, how exactly is Obama going to avoid Clinton's mistakes? By finding honest opponents?. Of course, the MSM won't be as likely to assume that it's Obama fudging the numbers as it was with Clinton, in part because the "liberal" New Republic probably won't make it look like the attacks are coming from the left and right. But, I don't see where he needs the help pf Clintonistas to avoid that. While I'm on the subject, I'll once again ask why so many liberals still act like Andrew Sullivan is somebody you'd invite in through your front door. E, Huck, you reading this?
BTW, "former coke addict" is a cheap shot. It would be relevant if if Kudlow were talking tough about drug issues, but it's not in this case. Like I said in a comment at First Draft months ago, I still think that talking about Carter and job creation sounds Kudlowesque. Other than pundits and apologists, who even discusses "job creation" when judging economic performance? As population increases, demand for goods and services increases, so jobs should be created -- unless there's some aggravating factor like resource shortages. What matters is the unemployment rate (also the underemployment rate). It was 7 to 7.5% at the start and end of Carter's term, with a drop to around 5% in the middle. In Carter's defense, you could argue that the tight money policies that were necesary to bring inflation under control began at the end of Carter's term. In both Carter and Ford's defense, you could mention the resource shortages of the seventies -- oil and copper both to mind. What's amazing to me is that, under Bush, we have Carter/Ford level unemployment with an expansionary monetary policy, no real resource shortages and thirty years of Pollyanna creep.
I really think that liberals outside of the administration need to start focusing more on Bush's expansionary monetary policy. If conservatives want to oppose the stimulus package on general principle, as guardians of the public purse, liberals should acknowledge and discuss the fact they're risking real inflation if a prolonged, severe recession is avoided. Let's discuss eight years of guns and butter* now, before the inflation poosibly hits at the end of Obama's first term.
*War and tax cuts is every bit as much a "guns and butter" policy as war and increased social spending.
Of course, we've also had real inflation in areas like food prices already. "Core inflation' and other types of Pollyanna Creep have helped to disguise it.
"Gross job totals are somewhat misleading"
RIGHT! That's why it's even more impressive that 10 million jobs were created during the Carter administration, 30 years ago, when there were 100 million fewer Americans versus the pathetic jobs number total of the Bush years.
"How exactly is Obama going to avoid Clinton's [health care] mistakes?"
A good first step would be "selling" it in a competent manner, and having stinging rejoinders to predictable criticisms ready at hand.
"I still think that talking about Carter and job creation sounds Kudlowesque. Other than pundits and apologists, who even discusses 'job creation' when judging economic performance?"
The statistic resonates, politically, because it's discussing "jobs" not some abstract monetary principle. Most importantly, and conservatives have no good answer to it. I continually post on this and conservatives can't respond in an effective way. You lob them a sentence containing the word "Carter" in it, and they're flummoxed. That doesn't happen very often. So this stat, I believe, is an effective tool every liberal should have in their rhetorical workbelt when pundits and politicians (and the legions who echo their talking points around the water cooler) say "Tax cuts create jobs, Dems destroy jobs... the Carter economy sucked..."
"Then why did Carter create 5 times as many jobs as Bush did in half the time, with only 2/3 of the population?"
One of the reasons I use the Labor Dept. absolute stats is because I trust them a lot more for comparison purposes than I do using Unemployment RATES. Of course you have to factor in population change-- preferably in a job growth per capita model.
I'd compare the unemployment rates if it was apples to apples. But comparing the U3 rate over time is ridiculous (and works against liberal interests in this case) because it's calculated so much differently now than it was, say, during the Carter years.
Yes, calling Kudlow a former coke fiend is a cheap shot.
Hi Go,
Thanks for the offer, though I should clarify, I am not currently a LA resident. I live in a city+state that has historically had employment issues, and currently it's a nightmare...I recently went home to LA to visit fam for the holidays, and was shocked by how good things are in Lafayette (my hometown) and even NOLA, though as one old associate there put it "once you're at the bottom, there's nowhere to go but up". I am currently enrolled at my states Workforce program, and I'm definitely finding more leads on my own, which still ain't much.
Thx
