Jobless Growth Forecast

[Conan71]

I agree that HCR was done out of order, but then I think that one of Obama's biggest failings was his initial underestimation of the severity of the recession.  I'm not sure he initially felt as much urgency as he should've.  The composition and size of ARRA also indicates that, as well.

We're probably never going to agree on how best to apply taxes and regulation, especially in the current environment.  I still think that businesses not hiring has MUCH more to do with a lack of demand than with regulation or higher taxes.  It's not fear that's keeping businesses in check, it's that no one's buying to support further investment.  But even that's beginning to be untrue.  My industry and your industry both are seeing all kinds of positive indicators.  Pent up demand and all that.  And it's slowly helping the employment numbers.

I don't see how he could have underestimated it.  There were plenty of indicators prior to taking the oath, like the parts of the bail-outs which were approved in the waining months of the Bush administration and the tanking stock market.  I realize there's always going to be some policy lag as a new administration has to get oriented and make the transition.

Companies are learning to do more with less.  Less workforce and less on hand inventory.  Manufacturers I deal with who used to keep deep inventory now either keep enough units on hand to anticipate and satisfy the needs of one to two weeks volume or 2-4 weeks ARO on delivery.  That's not really something an administration can change, outside of requiring a company to have x-amount of people on payroll as a ratio to gross sales or profits. 

[we vs us]

I don't see how he could have underestimated it.  There were plenty of indicators prior to taking the oath, like the parts of the bail-outs which were approved in the waining months of the Bush administration and the tanking stock market.  I realize there's always going to be some policy lag as a new administration has to get oriented and make the transition.

Companies are learning to do more with less.  Less workforce and less on hand inventory.  Manufacturers I deal with who used to keep deep inventory now either keep enough units on hand to anticipate and satisfy the needs of one to two weeks volume or 2-4 weeks ARO on delivery.  That's not really something an administration can change, outside of requiring a company to have x-amount of people on payroll as a ratio to gross sales or profits. 

There's also a lot of reporting on the recent increase in corporate profits and efficiency without huge increases in employment, and it's almost all pointing to increased automation.  In so many sectors of the economy, computers are making it easier for 5 people to do the work of 10.  There's always been a measure of fanciful talk about "when the robots come to take our jobs," but that's part of what we're seeing, too. 

And if that's the case then we're in a macro situation that radically reshapes the 20th century social contract, which among other things relies on the continued employment of a majority of adults as the avenue to societal well being.  If the jobs just simply aren't there for people to get, then we have to rethink the economic value of a person separate from the value of his work. 

And re: Obama -- I agree with you overall that he should've focused more on the economy, though he did send ARRA out the door ASAP in 2009 (HCR wasn't until 2010), and did have some economic measures in place before HCR took up all the air in the room.  I also think we have (a minor) benefit in hindsight, but you're right, he could've done much more in the first couple of years. 

[Gaspar]

Well. . .then their's this. . .

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M1EtS_mvYAE[/youtube]
I hope the president is getting his campaign advice from someone other than Jessie.

“Say, it’s an honor to be a food stamp president. Food stamps feed the hungry. Food stamps save the children. Food stamps help the farmer. Food stamps help the truck driver. Food stamps help the warehouse. Food stamps help the store. Food stamps hire people and feed people. Food stamps save people from starvation and malnutrition,” says Jackson. “Whenever you attack feeding the hungry, you undermine the moral authority of our faith. Give President Barack Obama a big hand. Show your love. Show your appreciation.”

[Conan71]

"And food $tamp$ keep poverty pimps advocate$ for the permanent undercla$$ like me relevant and help fill my coffer$ with millions of dollars er many ble$$ings."

Rev. Je$$e Jack$on

Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said unemployment benefits are great for the economy?  Just gotta love the reach-around logic it takes to be deeply liberal.

[nathanm]

Sorry guys, Jackson is right on that one. Everybody would be happier with a better economy, but since it's where it is, it's good we have food stamps to help keep people from starving in the street. Attacking the President over SNAP isn't very bright or very Christian.

[Conan71]

Sorry guys, Jackson is right on that one. Everybody would be happier with a better economy, but since it's where it is, it's good we have food stamps to help keep people from starving in the street. Attacking the President over SNAP isn't very bright or very Christian.

No one in their right mind believes food stamps are inherently evil.

Just seems like such an incredibly low achievement to be proud of.  It's not like President Obama invented SNAP.  It's a symbol of a protracted down economy- whether or not it's partially, wholly, or not at all the fault of his policies he gets the blame and legacy.  I'm not too sure there are any presidents who would like to be remembered as the "Food Stamp President".  Not such a shining legacy to look back on.

[Red Arrow]

Sorry guys, Jackson is right on that one. Everybody would be happier with a better economy, but since it's where it is, it's good we have food stamps to help keep people from starving in the street. Attacking the President over SNAP isn't very bright or very Christian.

Yep, "Let them eat cake" is not a good policy.

Leave "them" wanting a bit more is probably OK.

[Red Arrow]

I'm not too sure there are any presidents who would like to be remembered as the "Food Stamp President".  Not such a shining legacy to look back on.

If there had been Food Stamps then, would FDR have been the "Food Stamp President"?

[Conan71]

If there had been Food Stamps then, would FDR have been the "Food Stamp President"?

He left a legacy of entitlements that I'm sure he'd even be horrified to see what they have metastasized into.

[nathanm]

He left a legacy of entitlements that I'm sure he'd even be horrified to see what they have metastasized into.

Nah. He'd be happy they had successfully fended off the red menace. That was the entire point, after all. You think (most) rich people implement socialist programs for no reason? It's actually an incredibly interesting story how most of the trade unions were initially very close to CPUSA and how much support CPUSA had in the 30s. Folks like Roosevelt saw the writing on the wall and realized that if they kept treating their workers like crap that they'd upend the entire system.

The next 20 years will be similarly interesting, in that it will become less and less possible to have full employment in this country due to increased automation. How we react to that change will define us for quite some time. Will we give people busy work? Will we pay them to stay at home? Will we let them starve in the streets? The writing is on the wall, but nobody seems very interested in looking.

[Conan71]

Nah. He'd be happy they had successfully fended off the red menace. That was the entire point, after all. You think (most) rich people implement socialist programs for no reason? It's actually an incredibly interesting story how most of the trade unions were initially very close to CPUSA and how much support CPUSA had in the 30s. Folks like Roosevelt saw the writing on the wall and realized that if they kept treating their workers like crap that they'd upend the entire system.

The next 20 years will be similarly interesting, in that it will become less and less possible to have full employment in this country due to increased automation. How we react to that change will define us for quite some time. Will we give people busy work? Will we pay them to stay at home? Will we let them starve in the streets? The writing is on the wall, but nobody seems very interested in looking.

Simple. We need to enact the model you, myself, Wevus, and others have talked about: contract with unemployed people collecting benefits to do needed tasks for federal, local, or state government as a condition of drawing benefits.  One of the biggest challenges facing government and private enterprise is paying for too much idleness and not enough productivity.  Be it retirement benefits, welfare, disability, or unemployment benefits.

Austerity wouldn't be such a problem in the EU right now if they had a more realistic approach to productivity vs. entitlement all these years.

[nathanm]

Simple. We need to enact the model you, myself, Wevus, and others have talked about: contract with unemployed people collecting benefits to do needed tasks for federal, local, or state government as a condition of drawing benefits. 

While I think that will work perfectly fine for now, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there literally won't be enough work for everyone, no matter what the state of the economy, unless we reduce hours across the board. Not yet, but I think we're getting there. They're installing robots in freakin' China now because workers there are getting "too expensive."

[Red Arrow]

The next 20 years will be similarly interesting, in that it will become less and less possible to have full employment in this country due to increased automation. How we react to that change will define us for quite some time. Will we give people busy work? Will we pay them to stay at home? Will we let them starve in the streets? The writing is on the wall, but nobody seems very interested in looking.

I am more optimistic than you.  We used to have people hand dig the ROW for railroads.  Then we had steam/power shovels.  The skill sets required will be different but I don't see perennial high unemployment.  You only propose busy work or pay to stay home or starving in the streets.  If we promise to make life easy while not being productive, we will guarantee your forecast.  There will probably be some transition difficulties but ultimately I think we will be OK.

[Conan71]

Actually Red, most people I talk to in the industries we serve and the vendors we work with are saying everyone is doing more with less.  Fewer employees and as little inventory as they can keep without losing business to someone else with slightly deeper pockets.  Perhaps if our economy can re-invent itself in ways that can serve, enhance, or interface with the manufacturing sector which has gone overseas we might see more rapid growth.  Curious to think what the major driver of the economy would be right now were it not for inventions like the integrated circuit, silicon chips, or even the invention of the PC.

[Red Arrow]

Actually Red, most people I talk to in the industries we serve and the vendors we work with are saying everyone is doing more with less. 

That's been our history.  Who knows what's next to absorb those skills/jobs no longer needed on a large scale.  I believe there will be something.