Is the US economy not an issue right now?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#1 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30074 posts) -

U.S. Grows at 4% Rate in Rebound From Winter Slump
Unemployment rate lowest since September 2008

This was a big deal in the 2012 election but the economy grabbing all the news headlines seems to have calmed down the past year or so and now there are other topics flooding MSM. Regardless, are you still worried about the economy? Some sources are saying the recovery is going slower than projected so obviously one needs to take that into consideration.

Would you be willing to give Obama credit for fixing it?

Avatar image for Serraph105
#2 Posted by Serraph105 (31902 posts) -

Well we are at 6.1 percent unemployment and still headed in the right direction. It would make sense for Obama opponents to focus on issues that they can win on. Don't get me wrong there are still a lot of people feeling the effects of the recession, but the last five months have seen job growth or over 200,000/month.

Hell even the argument "People are lazy and need to go get a job," can't really be made without implying that there are plenty of jobs to get.

Avatar image for airshocker
#3 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

Avatar image for jasean79
#4 Posted by jasean79 (2593 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

This.

Every time I see the headline "200,000 jobs were added..." I think, "WHERE??" I've been unemployed for 6 months and good jobs are scarce. Unless of course they mean the $8/hr factory jobs, then yeah, I guess the numbers have increased. But, who can live off that wage? Definitely not anyone that has any financial responsibilities.

Avatar image for CyberLips
#5 Edited by CyberLips (1826 posts) -

I don't know about the US but the economy in my country is pretty shitty. Are there any countries that are not affected by an economic crisis besides Germany?

Avatar image for AutoPilotOn
#6 Edited by AutoPilotOn (8655 posts) -

I'd be curious to see what the employment of full time jobs is. It seems to be the trend to hire people for part time at min wage or maybe slightly higher so people need to work at least 2 separate jobs to get by.

Avatar image for jasean79
#7 Posted by jasean79 (2593 posts) -

@AutoPilotOn said:

I'd be curious to see what the employment of full time jobs is. It seems to be the trend to hire people for part time at min wage or maybe slightly higher so people need to work at least 2 separate jobs to get by.

Employers did that because of the Obamacare mandates.

Avatar image for pyro1245
#8 Posted by pyro1245 (3287 posts) -

I dunno I usually don't pay attention to it. Waste of time if you ask me.

Avatar image for airshocker
#9 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

It could also be argued that the only reason the economy is doing as well as it is is because of Republican efforts in the house at stopping legislation by Democrats.

Avatar image for AutoPilotOn
#10 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8655 posts) -

@jasean79: when I got my job almost 2 years ago they were hiring about 300 people in a brand new factory. They received over 10,000 applicants. I did phone interviews and testing in groups of 30 before I ever got a face to face interview. Then I had 2 of those.

Avatar image for jasean79
#11 Posted by jasean79 (2593 posts) -

@AutoPilotOn: That's another thing that irks me - the hiring process. All the hoops you got to jump through from the phone interview, to the face to face, to another face to face, coupled with all of the following up you have to do it's such monotonous work just to get hired anywhere.

Avatar image for AutoPilotOn
#12 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8655 posts) -

@jasean79: and I was lucky. I was layed off in may I applied June started the process and was hired in July started in August. There were people on waiting list for months to over a year in limbo.

Avatar image for jasean79
#13 Posted by jasean79 (2593 posts) -

@AutoPilotOn: Good for you, man. I think I may have gotten lucky too with this 911 dispatcher job. I applied back in March, the guy called me in July. I had one testing interview (passed) and then a face to face a couple weeks later. Just got the call on Monday that I was selected and HR is supposed to contact me today for the pre-employment drug testing/background checks. So, hopefully looking to start that job in the next couple of weeks.

Avatar image for AutoPilotOn
#14 Edited by AutoPilotOn (8655 posts) -

@jasean79: I am pretty lucky. Between my plant and a GM plant close by they are only companies that really pay well other than medical fields. The cost of living in my area is pretty cheap so I live pretty good here with a factory job.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#15 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30074 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it.

Avatar image for airshocker
#16 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it.

Wow, only took me five seconds to find it on Google...

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#17 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30074 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it.

Wow, only took me five seconds to find it on Google...

I can easily find it myself but that's not the point. If you're going to make an assertion without posting proof, why should I take your word for it?

But yeah, interesting link. The rate is going down based off that data too so it reinforces the belief that the economy is recovering slowly.

Avatar image for airshocker
#18 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

I can easily find it myself but that's not the point. If you're going to make an assertion without posting proof, why should I take your word for it?

But yeah, interesting link. The rate is going down based off that data too so it reinforces the belief that the economy is recovering slowly.

Unfortunately I don't think it's because of anything Obama did, more what he hasn't been allowed to do.

Avatar image for BossPerson
#19 Edited by BossPerson (9177 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

not to mention many of the new jobs people are getting are crap minimum wage jobs

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#20 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (44850 posts) -

I'm surprised Canadians care so much about 'Merica.

I'm hoping the housing market remains low, and declines more to be honest. Looking into buying my first home soon, and prices are on the rise.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#21 Edited by Perfect_Blue (30074 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

I'm surprised Canadians care so much about 'Merica.

I'm hoping the housing market remains low, and declines more to be honest. Looking into buying my first home soon, and prices are on the rise.

Not so much that I "care" but what you folks south of us do does end up affecting our policies, especially since our Prime Minister is an American at heart. This goes beyond just economics too. Still, was interesting to notice the economy is barely talked about in the media when hilariously enough it's the easiest way Republicans can put pressure on Obama but instead they focus on stupid shit.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#22 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it.

Wow, only took me five seconds to find it on Google...

Well 'real' (U-6) unemployment is also a government-produced number, so...

But anyway, if you shift to U-6 unemployment, trends are basically the same just levels are different (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE). You'll also notice that 'typical' U-6 unemployment is in the 8-10 range (over the last two decades at least), so above 10% unemployment maybe isn't so surprising.

So I don't think referencing U-6 unemployment is that valuable unless you're also making a point that in general we need lower unemployment rates.

Avatar image for airshocker
#23 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@chessmaster1989 said:
@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:

Well considering real unemployment, not the bullshit numbers the government puts out, is still above 10%, I'm not sure there's any cause for celebration.

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it.

Wow, only took me five seconds to find it on Google...

Well 'real' (U-6) unemployment is also a government-produced number, so...

But anyway, if you shift to U-6 unemployment, trends are basically the same just levels are different (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE). You'll also notice that 'typical' U-6 unemployment is in the 8-10 range (over the last two decades at least), so above 10% unemployment maybe isn't so surprising.

So I don't think referencing U-6 unemployment is that valuable unless you're also making a point that in general we need lower unemployment rates.

You mean "we need lower underemployment rates"?

My only gripe is that the number purposefully gets ignored by every administration. I feel if one number is going to get mentioned, then the other one does too. Not doing so seems disingenuous to me.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#25 Posted by LJS9502_basic (162211 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@AutoPilotOn said:

I'd be curious to see what the employment of full time jobs is. It seems to be the trend to hire people for part time at min wage or maybe slightly higher so people need to work at least 2 separate jobs to get by.

Employers did that because of the Obamacare mandates.

To be fair that was happening before Obama ever took office.

Avatar image for lostrib
#26 Edited by lostrib (49999 posts) -

No we have more important things to worry about like gay people and the war on Christmas

Avatar image for dave123321
#27 Posted by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

If only obama wasnt restrained

Avatar image for shadowchronicle
#28 Edited by Shadowchronicle (26969 posts) -

@lostrib said:

No we have more important things to worry about like gay people and the war on Christmas

I think this is the real problem with America. Too much focus on trivial things.

Avatar image for AutoPilotOn
#29 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8655 posts) -

@dave123321: lol?

Avatar image for dave123321
#30 Edited by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

@AutoPilotOn: growth would be somewhat better then it is if there want needless roadblocks on some policy issues. But it doesn't all come down to Obama and the gov

Avatar image for Serraph105
#31 Posted by Serraph105 (31902 posts) -

It could also be argued that the only reason the economy is doing as well as it is is because of Republican efforts in the house at stopping legislation by Democrats.

@airshocker:

there is this argument of course, but in the wake of a world that's changing as fast as it is a government that does little to nothing isn't exactly encouraging.

Avatar image for sonicare
#32 Posted by sonicare (55482 posts) -

I generally dont blame the president when the economy is bad nor do I give them credit when it improves. They certainly can have a big influence on it, but most of the time it's others that do the heavy lifting.

I am worried about the economy however. The fed has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the market - at some point, they have to stop and I worry about it being a massive, massive bubble.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#33 Edited by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

You can't really criticize or praise the President on the basis of the economy, he hasn't really had much of a hand in the recovery since the stimulus ended (admittedly, that was when the economy was at its most unstable point). Ben Bernanke can claim far more responsibility via his monetary policies for the existing growth and unemployment rate.

Furthermore, 6% U3 and 2-3% rGDP growth is quite "average" for the U.S. historically, and because unemployment is going down, the Republicans probably do not find it worthwhile to invest the creation of a doom and gloom atmosphere based on the economy. There are many other issues that they can attack the President on, such as his diplomatic crises, achieving far better results with far less effort.

@airshocker said:

It could also be argued that the only reason the economy is doing as well as it is is because of Republican efforts in the house at stopping legislation by Democrats

Yes, that "could be argued", and it would be incorrect. Congressional Republicans have consistently blocked fiscal stimulus efforts, threatened to default on the debt ceiling in favour of tiny spending cuts, promoted an ideological, impractical, economically baseless mantra of debt reduction above all other goals, .etc. Literally all of these actions are detrimental to a recessed economy, by damaging consumer and investor confidence and income. This weakens aggregate demand, which in turn reduces economic and employment growth.

@airshocker said:
You mean "we need lower underemployment rates"?

My only gripe is that the number purposefully gets ignored by every administration. I feel if one number is going to get mentioned, then the other one does too. Not doing so seems disingenuous to me.

It doesn't mean anything. U6 is higher than U3 because it is a broader, more expansive definition of unemployment. It is similar to how "White Americans" is a much larger number than "German Americans". Most administrations and economists simply don't see the point in using a measure that reflects the exact same trends as U3, when both historical precedent and global convention shows blatantly that U3 is the preferred measure.

Avatar image for Jebus213
#34 Posted by Jebus213 (10011 posts) -
@airshocker said:

Unfortunately I don't think it's because of anything Obama did, more what he hasn't been allowed to do.

Do you have proof of this?

Avatar image for Master_Live
#35 Edited by Master_Live (18817 posts) -

Actually, the economy is the main issue going into the 2014 mid term elections.

Republicans Have Edge on Top Election Issue: the Economy

It is always the economy, stupid.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#37 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (9405 posts) -

@airshocker said:

It could also be argued that the only reason the economy is doing as well as it is is because of Republican efforts in the house at stopping legislation by Democrats.

lol They've only been successful at threatening to default and impose budget cuts which have HURT the recovery. Take a look at the shutdown which actually lowered the GDP growth for that quarter, a direct result of their anitcs. Austerity hawks have been wrong since 2007 and their continued reiteration of falsehoods have only slowed the recovery as a whole.

Anyways on to topic, the economy is still an issue as most of the gain have been going to the elite in this country. Its an issue of who is benefiting from the recovery the best.

Avatar image for Jebus213
#38 Edited by Jebus213 (10011 posts) -
@Master_Live said:

Actually, the economy is the main issue going into the 2014 mid term elections.

Republicans Have Edge on Top Election Issue: the Economy

It is always the economy, stupid.

I'd rather pay more attention to the New York times when it comes to elections.

I think they were the only place that got their predictions right the last time.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#39 Posted by Master_Live (18817 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:
@Master_Live said:

Actually, the economy is the main issue going into the 2014 mid term elections.

Republicans Have Edge on Top Election Issue: the Economy

It is always the economy, stupid.

I'd rather pay more attention to the New York times when it comes to elections.

I think they were the only place that got their predictions right.

I think you mean Nate Silver got it right, he ain't at the New York Times anymore.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#40 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30074 posts) -

@Master_Live: "based on voters"

Yeah, this thread isn't about that, stupid. I was specifically talking about the media and the political parties themselves.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#41 Edited by Master_Live (18817 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@Master_Live: "based on voters"

Yeah, this thread isn't about that, stupid. I was specifically talking about the media and the political parties themselves.

Oh Alji, it is completely legitimate for a thread discussing whether or not the economy is an issue for me to bring up that voters still see the economy as their top issue. More so when you ask: "Would you be willing to give Obama credit for fixing it?" which goes directly to my post, it would suggest voters don't think he has "fix it".

So don't get your panties in a bunch, I was just quoting a legendary phrase from Carville, not referring to you. Such sensitives souls in OT.

Avatar image for dave123321
#42 Posted by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

Why appeal to the masses about how the economy is doing

Avatar image for plageus900
#43 Edited by plageus900 (2370 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Why appeal to the masses about how the economy is doing

The masses care about whats going on in Gaza or Israel or Syria, or which TV dinner they're having tonight. Who gives a shit about how our own country is handling itself, right?

Avatar image for whipassmt
#44 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

I think it's still an issue. Some of the economic data look good, but I think most Americans still feel that the economy is not good and that their own personal conditions are not too good. It's possible that the economy could lurch downward, especially as the federal gov't acquires more and more debt and as individual Americans also get into debt.

I think there are multiple reasons for the economy starting to come around. Obama may deserve some credit, I think most economists do think the stimulus helped. I would say that more important than the stimulus is the Bush-Obama "bailouts" (loans) to the financial sector and automobile companies. Though it's possible that the economic benefits of the stimulus and bailouts may be short-term and may set up long-term negative consequences. I also think Speaker Boehner and House Republicans deserve some credit for the economic rebound for reining in spending, reducing the deficit, and preventing Democrats from getting as much tax increases as they would like. Also I think the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision will be beneficial to the economy as it will enable Hobby Lobby and other businesses to continue to offer their current health care plans and prevent the government from fining these companies or forcing them to drop their health-insurance (in other words it means that Hobby Lobby and other companies will have more money and that their workers will be able to keep their health-care and their jobs).