![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oct. 5th, 2012
Back in December I predicted that the U3 unemployment rate would go below 8%. Today, the BLS announced that the unemployment rate fell to 7.8%. A year ago, that number was 9%.
This is the U3 rate, which doesn't cover underemployed persons or persons who have given up looking for work. The statistic that does include underemployed persons and persons who have given up is the U6 rate, which saw an even more dramatic drop over the last year, from 16.4% to 14.7%. In fact, the single biggest contributor to the drop in both rates is that 873,000 more persons found jobs in the last month.
All of that is The Good. Which brings us to The Bad, which is that this is the lowest the unemployment rate has been since President Obama took office. President Obama and the Democrats are blaming this on Republican obstructionism in the Congress, but that's only part of the story. The other part is that the 2009 stimulus was completely inadequate to keep the unemployment rate below 8% for very long. It was too small, focused on the wrong priorities (such as tax cuts), and by virtue of its inadequacy, it almost certainly cost the Democrats control of the House in 2010. Krugman is right about the economics. If he's also right about the politics - that Predident Obama crafted an inadequate stimulus in a vain attempt to gain bipartisan support - then this reflects a serious strategic blunder on the President's part that has hampered his administration ever since.
The ugly bit is that this improvement in the jobs picture is somewhat fragile. The global recovery is softening in no small part due to the Eurozone crisis. Oil prices are buoyed by the Arab Spring, but if not for that they would have crashed on weak demand. And if Romney should manage to get elected with Republican-controlled Congress, his austerity measures (e.g. "fire Big Bird") would almost certainly send this unemployment rate right back up. Thus, the economic case for President Obama is that he, despite screwing up the stimulus in the name of bipartisanship, is still the far better choice for economic growth over Mitt Romney. (Yes, I know there's the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Let's see them pick up some Congressional seats first.)
In any case, Prediction #4 has now manifested. Score one for the yellow dog.
Update: BondDad says that this means the election is effectively over. Bullshit; even if the Presidency is assured (which it is not), there's still down-ticket races that the Democrats have to win, particularly Congress, state legislatures, and Secretaries of State.
This is the U3 rate, which doesn't cover underemployed persons or persons who have given up looking for work. The statistic that does include underemployed persons and persons who have given up is the U6 rate, which saw an even more dramatic drop over the last year, from 16.4% to 14.7%. In fact, the single biggest contributor to the drop in both rates is that 873,000 more persons found jobs in the last month.
All of that is The Good. Which brings us to The Bad, which is that this is the lowest the unemployment rate has been since President Obama took office. President Obama and the Democrats are blaming this on Republican obstructionism in the Congress, but that's only part of the story. The other part is that the 2009 stimulus was completely inadequate to keep the unemployment rate below 8% for very long. It was too small, focused on the wrong priorities (such as tax cuts), and by virtue of its inadequacy, it almost certainly cost the Democrats control of the House in 2010. Krugman is right about the economics. If he's also right about the politics - that Predident Obama crafted an inadequate stimulus in a vain attempt to gain bipartisan support - then this reflects a serious strategic blunder on the President's part that has hampered his administration ever since.
The ugly bit is that this improvement in the jobs picture is somewhat fragile. The global recovery is softening in no small part due to the Eurozone crisis. Oil prices are buoyed by the Arab Spring, but if not for that they would have crashed on weak demand. And if Romney should manage to get elected with Republican-controlled Congress, his austerity measures (e.g. "fire Big Bird") would almost certainly send this unemployment rate right back up. Thus, the economic case for President Obama is that he, despite screwing up the stimulus in the name of bipartisanship, is still the far better choice for economic growth over Mitt Romney. (Yes, I know there's the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Let's see them pick up some Congressional seats first.)
In any case, Prediction #4 has now manifested. Score one for the yellow dog.
Update: BondDad says that this means the election is effectively over. Bullshit; even if the Presidency is assured (which it is not), there's still down-ticket races that the Democrats have to win, particularly Congress, state legislatures, and Secretaries of State.
Back in December I predicted that the U3 unemployment rate would go below 8%. Today, the BLS announced that the unemployment rate fell to 7.8%. A year ago, that number was 9%.
This is the U3 rate, which doesn't cover underemployed persons or persons who have given up looking for work. The statistic that does include underemployed persons and persons who have given up is the U6 rate, which saw an even more dramatic drop over the last year, from 16.4% to 14.7%. In fact, the single biggest contributor to the drop in both rates is that 873,000 more persons found jobs in the last month.
All of that is The Good. Which brings us to The Bad, which is that this is the lowest the unemployment rate has been since President Obama took office. President Obama and the Democrats are blaming this on Republican obstructionism in the Congress, but that's only part of the story. The other part is that the 2009 stimulus was completely inadequate to keep the unemployment rate below 8% for very long. It was too small, focused on the wrong priorities (such as tax cuts), and by virtue of its inadequacy, it almost certainly cost the Democrats control of the House in 2010. Krugman is right about the economics. If he's also right about the politics - that Predident Obama crafted an inadequate stimulus in a vain attempt to gain bipartisan support - then this reflects a serious strategic blunder on the President's part that has hampered his administration ever since.
The ugly bit is that this improvement in the jobs picture is somewhat fragile. The global recovery is softening in no small part due to the Eurozone crisis. Oil prices are buoyed by the Arab Spring, but if not for that they would have crashed on weak demand. And if Romney should manage to get elected with Republican-controlled Congress, his austerity measures (e.g. "fire Big Bird") would almost certainly send this unemployment rate right back up. Thus, the economic case for President Obama is that he, despite screwing up the stimulus in the name of bipartisanship, is still the far better choice for economic growth over Mitt Romney. (Yes, I know there's the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Let's see them pick up some Congressional seats first.)
In any case, Prediction #4 has now manifested. Score one for the yellow dog.
Update: BondDad says that this means the election is effectively over. Bullshit; even if the Presidency is assured (which it is not), there's still down-ticket races that the Democrats have to win, particularly Congress, state legislatures, and Secretaries of State.
This is the U3 rate, which doesn't cover underemployed persons or persons who have given up looking for work. The statistic that does include underemployed persons and persons who have given up is the U6 rate, which saw an even more dramatic drop over the last year, from 16.4% to 14.7%. In fact, the single biggest contributor to the drop in both rates is that 873,000 more persons found jobs in the last month.
All of that is The Good. Which brings us to The Bad, which is that this is the lowest the unemployment rate has been since President Obama took office. President Obama and the Democrats are blaming this on Republican obstructionism in the Congress, but that's only part of the story. The other part is that the 2009 stimulus was completely inadequate to keep the unemployment rate below 8% for very long. It was too small, focused on the wrong priorities (such as tax cuts), and by virtue of its inadequacy, it almost certainly cost the Democrats control of the House in 2010. Krugman is right about the economics. If he's also right about the politics - that Predident Obama crafted an inadequate stimulus in a vain attempt to gain bipartisan support - then this reflects a serious strategic blunder on the President's part that has hampered his administration ever since.
The ugly bit is that this improvement in the jobs picture is somewhat fragile. The global recovery is softening in no small part due to the Eurozone crisis. Oil prices are buoyed by the Arab Spring, but if not for that they would have crashed on weak demand. And if Romney should manage to get elected with Republican-controlled Congress, his austerity measures (e.g. "fire Big Bird") would almost certainly send this unemployment rate right back up. Thus, the economic case for President Obama is that he, despite screwing up the stimulus in the name of bipartisanship, is still the far better choice for economic growth over Mitt Romney. (Yes, I know there's the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Let's see them pick up some Congressional seats first.)
In any case, Prediction #4 has now manifested. Score one for the yellow dog.
Update: BondDad says that this means the election is effectively over. Bullshit; even if the Presidency is assured (which it is not), there's still down-ticket races that the Democrats have to win, particularly Congress, state legislatures, and Secretaries of State.
Did @MittRomney cheat during the debate?
Oct. 5th, 2012 08:18 amSo as I understand it, the debate rules say:
So what the hell is this?
What's going on here? The President's campaign is already seizing on this.....
Update: The consensus is that this is a handkerchief.
I call bullshit.
Call me paranoid, but I've seen students cheat in all sorts of creative ways. Wrapping a cheat sheet in an ordinary kerchief would not be exactly original.
"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate."
So what the hell is this?
What's going on here? The President's campaign is already seizing on this.....
Update: The consensus is that this is a handkerchief.
I call bullshit.
Call me paranoid, but I've seen students cheat in all sorts of creative ways. Wrapping a cheat sheet in an ordinary kerchief would not be exactly original.
Did @MittRomney cheat during the debate?
Oct. 5th, 2012 08:18 amSo as I understand it, the debate rules say:
So what the hell is this?
What's going on here? The President's campaign is already seizing on this.....
Update: The consensus is that this is a handkerchief.
I call bullshit.
Call me paranoid, but I've seen students cheat in all sorts of creative ways. Wrapping a cheat sheet in an ordinary kerchief would not be exactly original.
"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate."
So what the hell is this?
What's going on here? The President's campaign is already seizing on this.....
Update: The consensus is that this is a handkerchief.
I call bullshit.
Call me paranoid, but I've seen students cheat in all sorts of creative ways. Wrapping a cheat sheet in an ordinary kerchief would not be exactly original.