Obama’s issues crumbling - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 09:19 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Yes, Obama 's issues are "crumbling" so bad that the GOP is about to be steamrolled on healthcare while a new liberal Justice is about to be confirmed, while on the foreign policy front, Netenyahoo has buckled under on the Palestinian state issue. Crumble away, I say.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 12:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Was the US population static as the employment rate changed?
Nope, it went up six million in the same period. That would actually help the unemployment percentage as the base would grow naturally.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #23 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:18 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=mcbear;3539477]Now, taking a peek at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Unemployment rates we see that each percentage point of unemployment is about 1.5Million people. SO, using your 8Million number, we should have dropped, from 2003-2005 around FIVE percentage points. So, if the Unemployment rate was say, 6.20 in June 2003, it would be around 1.2 by the next year. If we give it two years, that's cool too.

QUOTE]

Nice sleight of hand. You can't get to new job creation by subtracting the unemployment rate--unless your are in the Obama admin.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #24 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
[quote=bottomline1;3540950]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Now, taking a peek at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Unemployment rates we see that each percentage point of unemployment is about 1.5Million people. SO, using your 8Million number, we should have dropped, from 2003-2005 around FIVE percentage points. So, if the Unemployment rate was say, 6.20 in June 2003, it would be around 1.2 by the next year. If we give it two years, that's cool too.

QUOTE]

Nice sleight of hand. You can't get to new job creation by subtracting the unemployment rate--unless your are in the Obama admin.
I love it when you take bait.

Now, for the fun part, lets look at the base which is where any additions would come from.

Using Bureau of labor statistics, in their most optimistic Bush flavor, from June 2003 to January 2009, when Bush left office [and the tax cuts were still fully in place], the aggregate job increase number was 4,512,000.

Oddly, the 4.5Million number balances nearly directly with the Unemployment number as the two numbers track off the same set of constant stats.

So, again I ask, where did those 8 Million jobs end up?

I think the 8Million number comes from one of the anomalies of the Bush Labor Secretary's reporting where she, for a couple of years decoupled the reporting of jobs created from jobs lost. It made the jobs created number look better than reality was but the aggregate never proved that out. If you look back on conversations in BWOT over the years you will see discussions on that very subject. WH press release showing X jobs for the months with no consideration at all for 240,000 job losses the same month.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #25 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:45 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Nope, it went up six million in the same period. That would actually help the unemployment percentage as the base would grow naturally.
So between 2003 and February 2008 the unemployment figure remained somewhat constant while the population grew. Doesn't this imply that the number of jobs during that 5 yr period must have increased at a rate that kept pace with the population growth during that period?

Have the job losses since February 2008, and the population increase over that time period exceeded the unemployment figure in 2003?

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #26 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 06:46 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
So between 2003 and February 2008 the unemployment figure remained somewhat constant while the population grew. Doesn't this imply that the number of jobs during that 5 yr period must have increased at a rate that kept pace with the population growth during that period?

Have the job losses since February 2008, and the population increase over that time period exceeded the unemployment figure in 2003?
The job losses from January 2008 to present [actually March2009] are -5,132,000

Regarding population growth, that does not mean that all population when into the job market. That number is not a constant. The population 16 years ago, when the current feeders was born was less than now so the 16 year old entry base is less than the current population jump based on the current base. [250M to 305M in 16 years].

The numbers reflect that there was, over a period of six years an aggregate gain of about 4.5M jobs. The non economic factors include population increase, illegal aliens, a counting change in 2004 which disassociated gains with losses and double jobs [folks who have two or more jobs].

There does not appear to be any datasets that associate job creation to tax cuts/stimulus check as most economic matrices don't have an apparatus for that [there is no known way of tracking what is done with the tax cut/stimulus check]. That is unlike a stimulus program which defines monies for programs which have matrices for providing estimates of jobs per dollar.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #27 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 07:43 PM
37x
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Feb 2009
Vehicle: 72 Pinto
Location: In the denizens of my mind, apparently
Posts: 6,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Hey, the man has got to take ownership of his Legacy. Truly sorry that it was not what he hoped it would be. But it was what it was. And those who supported him hook, line and sinker just have to suck it up and accept that all those lost jobs from the past couple of years and much of that collapsed financial sector comes from decisions made during his eight years.

Sucks that he was a lousy decider.
By that standard anything that happens during Obama's Presidency is on him, no blaming the previous admin. I don't believe it's that simple, Bush obviously made mistakes, but the previous admin and many many Demo party members contributed to the fall. It's disappointing to see someone of your intellect make such an obviously biased statement.
37x is offline  
post #28 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 08:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
The job losses from January 2008 to present [actually March2009] are -5,132,000

Regarding population growth, that does not mean that all population when into the job market. That number is not a constant. The population 16 years ago, when the current feeders was born was less than now so the 16 year old entry base is less than the current population jump based on the current base. [250M to 305M in 16 years].

The numbers reflect that there was, over a period of six years an aggregate gain of about 4.5M jobs. The non economic factors include population increase, illegal aliens, a counting change in 2004 which disassociated gains with losses and double jobs [folks who have two or more jobs].

There does not appear to be any datasets that associate job creation to tax cuts/stimulus check as most economic matrices don't have an apparatus for that [there is no known way of tracking what is done with the tax cut/stimulus check]. That is unlike a stimulus program which defines monies for programs which have matrices for providing estimates of jobs per dollar.
5.1M - 4.5M = 0.6M jobs lost.

Now let's take a third of the 16 year interval to get the same (305-250)/3 = 18 million increase in population. Let's be optimistic and assume that 3/4ths of those 18 M are eligible for work = about 13M increase, while jobs increased by 4.5 M. So even without a recession, unemployment would have increased by a couple of percent. Economic expansion did not keep pace with population growth.

That explains why lower-end wages have not increased while middle and upper end has increased. If we continually add people at the bottom there is no incentive to increase wages at the bottom.

Now let's say we did the politically unthinkable -- sent 20 million illegal aliens home. We only had a 13 M increase in labor yet we have (an estimated) 20 million illegals in the USA. Sending illegals home would put businesses in the position of competing for unskilled as well as skilled labor. That would put upward pressure on wages.

If we controlled our borders we wouldn't feel the need to introduce an artifical floor on wages -- demand would increase the wages.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #29 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 09:00 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
5.1M - 4.5M = 0.6M jobs lost.

Now let's take a third of the 16 year interval to get the same (305-250)/3 = 18 million increase in population. Let's be optimistic and assume that 3/4ths of those 18 M are eligible for work = about 13M increase, while jobs increased by 4.5 M. So even without a recession, unemployment would have increased by a couple of percent. Economic expansion did not keep pace with population growth.

That explains why lower-end wages have not increased while middle and upper end has increased. If we continually add people at the bottom there is no incentive to increase wages at the bottom.

Now let's say we did the politically unthinkable -- sent 20 million illegal aliens home. We only had a 13 M increase in labor yet we have (an estimated) 20 million illegals in the USA. Sending illegals home would put businesses in the position of competing for unskilled as well as skilled labor. That would put upward pressure on wages.

If we controlled our borders we wouldn't feel the need to introduce an artificial floor on wages -- demand would increase the wages.

B
Interesting match of numbers come from your para. Latest numbers I saw for illegals was right at 13M. Part of that is due to unemployment and folks no longer having work here so they go back home. When the construction biz died, so did the reason to wander over the border.

The only thing NOT factored into those datasets, from what I can tell [and I keep digging through BLS looking for more data] is the expanding number of people who moved off the unemployment roles and are not back on the employment roles, that collection of folks who are "off the books". The projection is there is a "potential" workforce of 196M which includes everyone from 16-66 EXCEPT declared housewives, SSI disabled, disabled VETS, college. In other words anyone who CAN work. The number of folks IN the workforce is 153,993,000 which includes 141,578,000 employed and 12,415,000 unemployed.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #30 of 30 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 09:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
I took the upper range of estimates of illegal immigrants. That we don't have a more precise figure is due to the fact that illegal people aren't the most reliable source of census data. So take the midpoint of our range = 16.5M. I don't think high, low, or midpoint makes a big difference, the drag on low-end wages is due at least in part to the steady influx of illegal aliens. So I suspect what we have is a conveyor system, the input for which is stable at the bottom (always going for the cheapest possible labor compensation) and variable on the upper end.

I have no doubt that many if not most of the illegals are upwardly mobile (in contrast to our native "poor" who appear to prefer gaming the system to gainful employment). I suspect that there's some sort of exponential decay factor that predicts the proportion of people who are upwardly mobile at any given income level. It's probably an inverse square relationship (as so many functions are...). So for each doubling of income you have 1/4 of the population advancing. It doesn't take long to get to the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett extrema.

The folks who give-up working have always been a voodoo function. Like illegal aliens, those who quit looking for work are not often a reliable source of information.

It's useful to remember that the economy is NOT a zero-sum game. Because some number of people make $X does not mean that other people must make $(X-N). The economy, thus far, has been an open-ended system. Were this not the case we would all be fighting over beaver hides and fire sticks.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Crumbling Dashboard - '98 230SLK mhildebr General Mercedes-Benz 0 04-26-2009 11:04 AM
    Team Obama 'winging it on issues large and small'... Jayhawk Off-Topic 17 02-20-2009 08:26 PM
    OBAMA CAMPAIGN ISSUES TALKING POINTS TO MEDIA AHEAD OF DEBATE Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 0 10-15-2008 12:03 PM
    Engine wiring harness crumbling Nirky W140 S-Class 19 10-31-2007 02:20 PM
    The day it all came crumbling down... gothammer W126 S,SE,SEC,SEL,SD,SDL Class 3 04-14-2003 03:06 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome