Jobless Growth Forecast

[nathanm]

I don't think it's intensional.  That would indicate leadership.  It's simply the chaotic result of continued uncertainty and instability nurtured by a lack of leadership.  More and more intensions with fewer and fewer results.

Is there anything you don't blame on Obama? You seem to think his real name is Yahweh, given how you expect him to snap his fingers and give us low oil prices or whatever.

Your post is so disconnected from reality that I really am beginning to get concerned.

[Gaspar]

Is there anything you don't blame on Obama? You seem to think his real name is Yahweh, given how you expect him to snap his fingers and give us low oil prices or whatever.

Your post is so disconnected from reality that I really am beginning to get concerned.

I encourage you to share your opinion.  Do you think he has a more powerful message to run on than the "fairness"  or middle class expansion mantra?  Should he continue to push the positive recovery theme or the "America is back" theme?  Should he focus on his jobs progress?

I mean, it comes down to focus on class or focus on growth.  What do you think will generate more support from his base?

[Townsend]

I encourage you to share your opinion.  Do you think he has a more powerful message to run on than the "fairness"  or middle class expansion mantra?  Should he continue to push the positive recovery theme or the "America is back" theme?  Should he focus on his jobs progress?

I mean, it comes down to focus on class or focus on growth.  What do you think will generate more support from his base?

What does it matter to you really?  No matter what, you'll find some fault in it.

You go on these little Gaspar mind trips and sputter anti-Obama's.  You'll say things like "You're right!" and then babble on about something else until someone shows you're wrong.  Then you move onto another thread and start all over.

[dbacks fan]

My comment was mostly sarcasm, but when you look at market numbers the DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P are approximatley where they were three years ago, oil is at $109/bbl (it was $160/bbl then and the price per gallon here has gone up $.47/gal in the last nine days) but unemployment has remained at ~9%, and prices for food have gone up recently as well. What I want to know is, where are the jobs at? Granted there are improvements, but has there really been the job creations we were promised? And I'm not refering to any of the short term "stimulus" crap we were promised, I'm refering to long term jobs improving.

[Gaspar]

What does it matter to you really?  No matter what, you'll find some fault in it.

You go on these little Gaspar mind trips and sputter anti-Obama's.  You'll say things like "You're right!" and then babble on about something else until someone shows you're wrong.  Then you move onto another thread and start all over.

Yet you still follow me around to lend empty criticism.  Perhaps i'm on the right track, perhaps not, but unless others provide a different prospective there is no constructive discourse. I find it interesting that you can even be critical of my ability to respect and at times agree with the opinions of others.  Perhaps if you were to offer a logical prospective or opinion rather than flinging spit-wads, we could both learn from each other.

It looks like Carville and Greenberg are also advising the administration to stay away from touting a message of economic recovery.  They want him to stick with the class/fairness mantra also.

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/February-Economic-Messaging-Memo.pdf

[Townsend]

Yet you still follow me around to lend empty criticism.  Perhaps i'm on the right track, perhaps not, but unless others provide a different prospective there is no constructive discourse. I find it interesting that you can even be critical of my ability to respect and at times agree with the opinions of others.  Perhaps if you were to offer a logical prospective or opinion rather than flinging spit-wads, we could both learn from each other.

What for?  Your entire political discourse is nothing but "spit wads".  You start these with nowhere to go with them.

I call you out when you do it and you claim I'm just attacking you.  I'm asking you to stop them and come up with something else to get through your day.

Your political drop offs are tedious.  All are anti-administration until someone crushes your posts.  Then you tell them they are right and say they are an intelligent poster.  I assume you're doing this to make yourself somehow feel superior.

If you're so concerned about how people look at you regarding politics, try harder.

[nathanm]

I mean, it comes down to focus on class or focus on growth.  What do you think will generate more support from his base?

I think that you might have more luck in your predictions if you understood who Obama's base is. As long as you think he's part of the Red menace or that lefties actually care for him, you will continue to misunderstand the politics.

dbacks, we've been on a mostly positive trajectory for a long time now (since the stimulus spending got into full swing, actually). The problem is that the job losses in 2008 were so massive that even with what would normally be considered reasonably good job growth it will take the better part of a decade to reach full employment again. And what improvement there is is being held back by continuing job losses in state & local governments, school systems, and the like as states continue to cut back because of low revenue.

Add that to the economy being weighed down by the austerity in Europe ruining most European economies, it's freakin' amazing that we're seeing the gains we're seeing.

[dbacks fan]

Employment numbers for 2011:
                  |                                 |                               |
                   |              Level              |    Over-the-month change        |
                   |---------------------------------|---------------------------------|
     Year and month|    As    |          |           |    As    |          |           |
                   |previously|    As    | Difference|previously|    As    | Difference|
                   |published |  revised |           |published |  revised |           |
    _______________|__________|__________|___________|__________|__________|___________|
                   |          |          |           |          |          |           |
         2011      |          |          |           |          |          |           |
               |          |            |        |           |      |           |
    January........|  130,328 | 130,456  |   128     |    68    |   110    |    42     |
    February.......|  130,563 | 130,676  |   113     |   235    |   220    |   -15     |
    March..........|  130,757 | 130,922  |   165     |   194    |   246    |    52     |
    April..........|  130,974 | 131,173  |   199     |   217    |   251    |    34     |
    May............|  131,027 | 131,227  |   200     |    53    |    54    |     1     |
    June...........|  131,047 | 131,311  |   264     |    20    |    84    |    64     |
    July...........|  131,174 | 131,407  |   233     |   127    |    96    |   -31     |
    August.........|  131,278 | 131,492  |   214     |   104    |    85    |   -19     |
    September......|  131,488 | 131,694  |   206     |   210    |   202    |    -8     |
    October........|  131,600 | 131,806  |   206     |   112    |   112    |     0     |
    November.......|  131,700 | 131,963  |   263     |   100    |   157    |    57     |
    December (p)...|  131,900 | 132,166  |   266     |   200    |   203    |     3     |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Looks pretty damn flat to me.

[nathanm]

Looks pretty damn flat to me.

100,000 jobs a month is generally considered good. And as I mentioned, the numbers are being depressed quite significantly by continuing job losses in state & local government to the tune of about 20,000 workers a month since the recession "ended".

[we vs us]

Very important that Democrats get their narrative correct for this election.  The president and many others have been talking about "Jobs" and pushing the "America is back" message.  That's the wrong direction for them.  It puts them in a very weak position.

The concept of middle class expansion and "fairness" is still by far the strongest position they could possibly take.  They need to say as far away from discussions of economic recovery, growth, and progress as possible.

It will be a big mistake for Democrats if they stray away from the "fairness" theme.  The president simply has no other ammo that resonates with his constituency.   The fairness thing also offers the best defense against the Republicans who can successfully mount an attack on economic issues but have very little interest in pandering to the more emotional issues.

The next few months will be very interesting because energy costs, if not managed, are going to start to erode the small economic gains we have experienced.   I think if the president is wise, he will become more OWS-like in his message and abandon any real economic message.

It's not one or the other, growth or fairness.  Obama is putting the two together, and emphasizing (rightly, IMO) that a fairer playing field widens opportunity and increases chances for growth.  He will make the argument that fairness is integral to recovery, and I think that message is resonating much more strongly than it used to, even a year or two ago.

Romney -- or whomever -- will have a hard time turning that around and arguing the opposite.  Actually, Romney ESPECIALLY will have a hard time arguing the opposite.  There's nothing better than a mouthpiece for the 1% who is actually a card carrying member of the 1%. And, as we've established -- regardless of the actual popularity of the Occupy movement, it has succeeded admirably in putting a specific frame around our political conversation. 

Re: energy costs, etc -- yep, that's one of a gajillion possible pitfalls in the year ahead.  Possible catastrophes for Obama's re-election include a collapse of the euro, the Iranian nuclear situation spiralling out of control in any number of ways, gas prices, food prices, the economy slowing just for the heck of it.  And if Occupy has a helluva springtime like they're planning, that could play into it too.  And those are only the major things on the front burners.  There's a bunch of stuff simmering in the background that would just as bad (hard landing in China, anyone?). 

And finally:  you're the only person here using "fairness" as a pseudo-socialist codeword.  When most of the rest of us use the word in conjunction with the economy, it's not about giving free smile to freeloaders, it's about helping people who were and are decent folks through a tough time not of their making.  It's also a recognition that the American Dream is out of whack and has been for maybe decades now, and that that isn't right.  The pushback you're seeing on this board, I think, stems from what seems like your inability to see that fairness isn't about confiscating your hard earned money but is about doing your neighbors a decent turn.

 

[Hoss]

What for?  Your entire political discourse is nothing but "spit wads".  You start these with nowhere to go with them.

I call you out when you do it and you claim I'm just attacking you.  I'm asking you to stop them and come up with something else to get through your day.

Your political drop offs are tedious.  All are anti-administration until someone crushes your posts.  Then you tell them they are right and say they are an intelligent poster.  I assume you're doing this to make yourself somehow feel superior.

If you're so concerned about how people look at you regarding politics, try harder.

Might be better off sticking to something he's decent at...BBQ comes to mind.

[Gaspar]

It's not one or the other, growth or fairness.  Obama is putting the two together, and emphasizing (rightly, IMO) that a fairer playing field widens opportunity and increases chances for growth.  He will make the argument that fairness is integral to recovery, and I think that message is resonating much more strongly than it used to, even a year or two ago.

Romney -- or whomever -- will have a hard time turning that around and arguing the opposite.  Actually, Romney ESPECIALLY will have a hard time arguing the opposite.  There's nothing better than a mouthpiece for the 1% who is actually a card carrying member of the 1%. And, as we've established -- regardless of the actual popularity of the Occupy movement, it has succeeded admirably in putting a specific frame around our political conversation. 

That's exactly what I'm saying.  President Obama needs to stay on message with the Fairness mantra.  It's going to be very hard, especially with the growth and mobilization of the OWS crowd for Romney/Gingerich/whoever to fight that.  If he strays more toward touting economic recovery or jobs, he gives his opponent something more to work with.

I think it's also very important that the OWS movement grow and continue to make headlines.  We've seen a decline, perhaps due to media fatigue, in coverage of Occupy protests.  These are what the right sees as "Obama's Children" and what the left views as examples of economic inequality.  If the movement dies or the kids go back to mom's basement, the president loses a crutial example of the class inequality he needs to visually promote the Fairness theme.

I think Greenburg and Carville hit it right on the head because their polling shows that the majority of voters are very negative on the economy.  A continued "blame Bush" strategy is out of the question, and a mixed message is irresponsible because it produces a mixed response.  As I said before, he needs a strong singular message that resonates with the majority of his base and a significant percentage of independents, and "fairness" is that message.

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/February-Economic-Messaging-Memo.pdf

It fits with the historical precedents too. . .

[nathanm]

 If he strays more toward touting economic recovery or jobs, he gives his opponent something more to work with.

Yes, in bizzaro-world, the President has handled the economy poorly. This, despite the fact that we're doing better than most other major economies.

[Hoss]

Yes, in bizzaro-world, the President has handled the economy poorly. This, despite the fact that we're doing better than most other major economies.

Nate, I do believe you've just penned Gas's new nickname....

Bizzaro.

LOL.

[Gaspar]

Yes, in bizzaro-world, the President has handled the economy poorly. This, despite the fact that we're doing better than most other major economies.

It doesn't matter if it's bizzaro or reality, it matters how the voters perceive it, and according to polling, the voters do not perceive positive economic results for the President's actions.