Posted on 09/07/2014 9:17:08 PM PDT by Is2C
Back in May 2013 the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? The #1 issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging “best.” Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work.
To put this week’s jobs report in economic perspective I reached out to Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” for some explanation. Since then Polaris’ investor newsletters have consistently been the best predictor of economic performance. Better than all the major investment houses.
This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history
Deitrick – “President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’
As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.
President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. The Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.
We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
These 5 Facts Debunk U.S. Jobs Recovery Myth
Employment: You might want to recork that bottle of champagne that you planned to open after another big jobs report. Reality has intervened, with jobs rising a disappointing 142,000 in August. The weakness is no fluke.
Many economists and politicians treated the six-month string of 200,000-plus job gains as a major achievement. But in fact it was merely a slight pickup in the pace of what has been an unusually slow recovery in the U.S. since the recession ended in June 2009.
The August jobs report is an example. Unemployment edged down to 6.1% from 6.2% — “good” news until you realize it fell only because more Americans stopped looking for jobs. A record 92.3 million adults are now “out of the workforce.”
Economists note that previous August job reports have tended to be revised upward — and that this report will be, too.
Fair enough. And, as we’ve said before, one month does not a trend make. But when you have 62 months, which is how long it’s been since the last recession ended, you can see some clear trends:
• For all recoveries since World War II, cumulative job growth has averaged 12.5% (see chart). This time, job growth is just 6.2%, the worst on record. Based on this, we would need 8.19 million more jobs just to reach “average.” That’s not a real job recovery at all.
• The labor force shrank 64,000 in the most recent month, pushing the participation rate to 62.8%. The last time it was that low, Jimmy Carter was president.
• A new report says 1-in-3 workers today is a “freelance” — that means 53 million workers without a regular job to go to. This is what qualifies as “employment” in the job-barren Age of Obamanomics.
• In August, the number of hours worked — a proxy for GDP growth — and average hourly wages both rose 2.1% from last year. That only barely beats the current inflation rate of 2%. Not much growth there.
• New data from the Fed show that only the top 10% of American earners have seen their incomes rise under Obama. The rest of us have taken a pay cut.
The purpose of this exercise isn’t to bash President Obama. But it’s curious that someone whose policies have so clearly failed would double down on his mistakes, prolonging America’s economic misery.
Despite 0% interest rates, $7 trillion in added debt, more than $1.5 trillion in stimulus, and the Fed creating more than $4.5 trillion in new money out of thin air, our economy just stumbles along.
Those hoping for a sudden burst of job-creating growth aren’t likely to see it until there’s a change in Washington. Until then, keep the champagne on ice.
Let’s see, my paycheck doesn’t go as far. Wife has been out of work three times since bammy took office. My house is worth less than what I paid for it 15 years ago. Gas is double what it was. Neither wife nor I have ever kept a car as long as the ones we have now. If this is a recovery economy, I need a recovery from the recovery.
Deitrick – “President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’
...
So they are comparing recessions. I think I’ll pass. But I will say that Reagan approved austerity from the Federal Reserve during his recession while recovering from Carter’s mess. Whereas the Fed has been printing trillions of dollars during Obama’s six “Summers of Recovery.”
It is BS. They are comparing recessions. They aren’t counting the 17 years of Reagan’s economic expansion that lasted until the Big Government loving W took office.
Clearly this shows that CEOs can be dumber than a box of rocks when it comes economics.
Frankly I am suspicious of this guy Deitrick. CEOs have been all for the bailouts cause it gave them an edge over their competitors. Its not surprising a CEO comes out praising Obama and big govt.
Bob Deitrick (this article is an absolute riot!):
http://www.creators.com/liberal/froma-harrop/obama-may-be-best-economic-president-ever.html
Adam Hartung (the title says it all)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
Not in SoCal!! That’s when it started going down the poop shoot!
But, why not measure job creation by net jobs created?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms And, let's not forget a lot of the jobs being created a part-time jobs under Obama due to the impact of Obamacare and the desire of employers to cut hours under 30 hours a week. That is why median incomes are down under Obama for all but the top 10%.
As far as the stock market goes, it solely the result of the Federal Reserve printing money which is increasing inflation and will, ultimately, increase it significantly. Under Reagan, the Federal Reserve was raising interest rates to decrease inflation.
Delusional..
Those lived through the Reagan Presidency know that the unemployment rate was high because there were so many jobs being created people were joining the work force that hadn’t worked in 10 years. Of course these people with a lack of experience had false starts and contributed to this unemployment number.
The entire difference was mood, people were confident that they could get a job and the future was bright.
Those lived through the Reagan Presidency know that the unemployment rate was high because there were so many jobs being created people were joining the work force that hadn’t worked in 10 years. Of course these people with a lack of experience had false starts and contributed to this unemployment number.
The entire difference was mood, people were confident that they could get a job and the future was bright.
Just say NO to drugs.
Read this...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
I was making substantially more in the Reagan years than I am making now. And that’s in nominal dollars.
Thanks for posting the book review by a Dem, as it was telling.
The Forbes article is total BS. The figures used and the charts are nothing but fabrication, like the global warming junk.
How can the US have 92 million working age people UNemployed and claim only a 6% rate of unemployment? (rhetorical)
I’m skeptical of any article that takes TWO liberal pixies to write.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.