December 252,000 job added - Unemployment down to 5.6%

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Has the economy recovered then, we can start drawing down spending and reigning in the debt?

Heh, yeah... that day never comes, does it...

It comes when the U.S. starts experiencing inflation. The U.S. has done exactly what you're saying never happens repeatedly in the past.

Monetary policy is at the zero lower bound right now, cutting spending and reducing deficits makes literally no economic sense. Why on earth would you want to do that?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
It's funny what happens to those numbers when you adjust for inflation and what not....

US_Real_Household_Median_Income_thru_2012.png


U.S. real (inflation adjusted) median household income was $51,939 in 2013 versus $51,759 in 2012, essentially unchanged. However, it has trended down since 2007, falling 8% from the pre-recession peak of $56,436. It remains well below the 1999 record of $56,895.

That's median, not average, and only through 2012, so it's old news. It's trending up now.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
It fell from the recession that started under Obama's predecessor, and is now recovering. What do you see on that chart?

With the exception of the top 2, they have all been relatively unchanged for the last 3 years.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
Obviously if we had a President Romney unemployment would be .02% official numbers and .2 % of people age 16+.


.....
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Why is that amusing? Do you know what austerity is? Hint: it is not the sum total of government spending. Austerity is the attempt to reduce government budget deficits. How large the government is is irrelevant as far as the definition of austerity goes.

But yes, Europe has been doing what conservatives said the US should have been doing. Progressives said this was a bad idea, and Obama was able to limit the amount of austerity the US engaged in. The results speak for themselves. I would think after all that you would be thanking progressives for saving you from your own bad ideas. Instead we have an attempt to redefine words to fit ideology because you can't admit the Evil Proggies were right all along.

I'm always amused when conservatives try to criticize public policies and inadvertently disclose the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.
The only real austerity seriously proposed in recent years has been the sequestration cuts, actually proposed by Obama and accepted by the Republicans. Since Obama proposed them, they actually passed, went into effect, and the economy continued to improve - indeed, began improving at an increasing pace since the sequestration cuts, even approaching a traditional recovery - I fail to see how Obama protected us from Republican austerity. The Republicans did try to get the budget back to sane levels after the mutually agreed on stimulus, but the Democrats heroically defeated that by refusing to pass a budget while continuing to spend at stimulus levels. Perhaps you're defining austerity as refusing to not continue stimulus spending forever - that once government has spent a record amount of money on what everyone agrees is a stimulus package, it must forever continue to spend even more? If so, that's a matter between you and your therapist. Um, therapists.

I'll grant you that the size and spending of the government is irrelevant as far as the definition of austerity goes, but it's certainly not irrelevant when discussing results. If a government is spending 99% of GDP and cuts back to 98%, and the economy fails to take off, clearly the problem is not austerity. The more of GDP that government consumes, the less is available for the private sector.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
It's not my fault you don't know the definition of austerity. It is pretty funny that you claim Obama wasn't protecting us from republican austerity in one breath and then immediately follow it by talking about how the republicans were trying to reduce spending... also known as austerity.

You're either too stupid to realize that you're contradicting yourself or you're so pathologically dishonest that you're just hoping you can lie your way out of this one and hope nobody notices.

Maybe you might want to check out available therapists, considering that?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It's not my fault you don't know the definition of austerity. It is pretty funny that you claim Obama wasn't protecting us from republican austerity in one breath and then immediately follow it by talking about how the republicans were trying to reduce spending... also known as austerity.

You're either too stupid to realize that you're contradicting yourself or you're so pathologically dishonest that you're just hoping you can lie your way out of this one and hope nobody notices.

Maybe you might want to check out available therapists, considering that?
You're assuming that any stimulus immediately becomes the new baseline; I am not. If I buy a new car and re-roof my house this year, I am not necessarily practicing austerity if I do not then buy a new car and re-roof my house every year. Smart people understand this. Honest people admit it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
You're assuming that any stimulus immediately becomes the new baseline; I am not. If I buy a new car and re-roof my house this year, I am not necessarily practicing austerity if I do not then buy a new car and re-roof my house every year. Smart people understand this. Honest people admit it.

Haha, I guess it's number one then.

The stimulus wasn't contained in normal budgets and therefore couldn't be perpetuated by continuing resolutions. It also formed no part of the budget baseline. (Not to mention that not passing a budget doesn't mean anything as the budgets are non-binding)

Look. You yet again said something dumb about austerity to reinforce your delusional view of the world. You're factually wrong. Honest people admit it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
You're assuming that any stimulus immediately becomes the new baseline; I am not. If I buy a new car and re-roof my house this year, I am not necessarily practicing austerity if I do not then buy a new car and re-roof my house every year. Smart people understand this. Honest people admit it.

Also, there's no assumption of any baseline. Austerity measures are those that change deficits as compared to currently enacted law.

What republicans wanted to do was austerity by dictionary definition. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's simply reality.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Haha, I guess it's number one then.

The stimulus wasn't contained in normal budgets and therefore couldn't be perpetuated by continuing resolutions. It also formed no part of the budget baseline. (Not to mention that not passing a budget doesn't mean anything as the budgets are non-binding)

Look. You yet again said something dumb about austerity to reinforce your delusional view of the world. You're factually wrong. Honest people admit it.
Look at spending levels by year. After the Democrats had Congress and the White House, they spent as much as the budget plus the stimulus. Not by continuing resolutions, by spending bills (not subject to filibuster) but without passing a budget. My point is that restoring spending back to previously budgeted levels wouldn't have been austerity, it would have been spending at normal levels without the emergency stimulus.

Since Obama has singlehandedly fixed the economy, by your world view we should be ready for some austerity now, right? Spend in bad times, cut back in good times, right?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Look at spending levels by year. After the Democrats had Congress and the White House, they spent as much as the budget plus the stimulus. Not by continuing resolutions, by spending bills (not subject to filibuster) but without passing a budget. My point is that restoring spending back to previously budgeted levels wouldn't have been austerity, it would have been spending at normal levels without the emergency stimulus.

Since Obama has singlehandedly fixed the economy, by your world view we should be ready for some austerity now, right? Spend in bad times, cut back in good times, right?

1.All of the government is funded only by spending bills every year and has been since the founding of the country. The budgets are not binding, political documents.

2.Restoring spending back to previously budgeted levels would be the dictionary definition of austerity. Like literally the dictionary definition.

3.I know people don't want to think that what conservatives were advocating was austerity, considering its disastrous track record, but that's exactly what they were doing. I know, it sucks that the Proggies were right, but that's life.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Just so we're all agreed on the definition of austerity:
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=austerity-measure
Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/austerity.asp
DEFINITION OF 'AUSTERITY'
A state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. Austerity measures generally refer to the measures taken by governments to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their growing budget deficits.

It's worth pointing out that both you and Obama have spent the past few years arguing for austerity by the Financial Times' definition, in the form of tax increases. But I understand that's a technicality as either of you would have happily spent much more than that brought in.

We have two basic disagreements here. First, you maintain that not spending at stimulus levels in perpetuity would be austerity; I contend that a stimulus by definition is a one-time shot and therefore not spending as much as your regular spending plus the stimulus is not an austerity measure in and of itself. Second, you maintain that the European nations merely made bad decisions to spend less; I contend they were forced into austerity measures because they went into the financial crisis irresponsibly spending and thus were looking at either austerity or default. To wit:

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'AUSTERITY'
Austerity measures are generally unpopular because they tend to lower the quantity and quality of services and benefits provided by the government. Beginning in 2009, several nations were forced to embark on unprecedented austerity measures. These measures were necessitated by budget deficits that soared to record levels because of actions these countries took to stimulate their economies following the massive credit crisis and global recession of 2008.

Neither of us have a ghost of a chance convincing the other of anything and it's ancillary to the topic so I'll give you the last foamy giggle.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Okay so it looks as if you at least looked up the definition of austerity. Now we can both agree that the republicans were attempting to enact austerity. You are desperately twisting and thing yourself on knots in order to avoid the obvious.

Did republicans seek to enact measures that would reduce the budget deficit relative to current policy? Yes/no? The answer is obviously yes. End of story. Honest people can admit when they are wrong.

As for your analysis of Europe, you don't know what you're taking about. Looking at Spain should immediately tell you that your theory is wrong.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
It comes when the U.S. starts experiencing inflation.

Wait, so now isn't the time to cut back on the deficit? This is my shocked face. :wub:

Wait, no... that was the I knew your answer all along face. I guess you can't say the economy has recovered if stimulus is still the only thing stopping the whole house of cards from crashing down.

You think that's going to change some day, and inflation will signal when we can cut spending? I'm just trying to fully understand your reasoning here. Far as I know you'll never accept reductions.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Wait, so now isn't the time to cut back on the deficit? This is my shocked face. :wub:

Wait, no... that was the I knew your answer all along face. I guess you can't say the economy has recovered if stimulus is still the only thing stopping the whole house of cards from crashing down.

You think that's going to change some day, and inflation will signal when we can cut spending? I'm just trying to fully understand your reasoning here. Far as I know you'll never accept reductions.

I can't figure out why you would be asking this. As I have been saying for literally years now, you cut back when inflation happens, which should coincide with full employment. Then you raise interest rates, but slowly to use monetary policy to offset contractionary fiscal policy.

This has always been the plan. From literally day 1. Making reductions in fiscal policy with very low inflation and still elevated umemployment and with interest rates at 0 is insane. Yet this is precisely what conservatives have pushed for.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I can't figure out why you would be asking this. As I have been saying for literally years now, you cut back when inflation happens, which should coincide with full employment. Then you raise interest rates, but slowly to use monetary policy to offset contractionary fiscal policy.

This has always been the plan. From literally day 1. Making reductions in fiscal policy with very low inflation and still elevated umemployment and with interest rates at 0 is insane. Yet this is precisely what conservatives have pushed for.
For someone who obviously considers himself to be the smartest person imaginable, you certainly see a lot of things you can't figure out.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Look at spending levels by year. After the Democrats had Congress and the White House, they spent as much as the budget plus the stimulus. Not by continuing resolutions, by spending bills (not subject to filibuster) but without passing a budget. My point is that restoring spending back to previously budgeted levels wouldn't have been austerity, it would have been spending at normal levels without the emergency stimulus.

Since Obama has singlehandedly fixed the economy, by your world view we should be ready for some austerity now, right? Spend in bad times, cut back in good times, right?

Oh I remember the arguments back then, may have even been from eskimospy as well, that the spending levels of the last Bush year and first few Obama years were necessary due to the weakened economy. Now that the worst is behind us and we have seen that the sequestration was not as catastrophic as a lot of economists predicted it would be, lets get spending under control.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
True, but senseamp would see a less than .01% gain as a halleluiah to Obama.

3 Million jobs in 2014. 3 Million.
As far as wage growth, if more entry level jobs are created, average wage may go down, but it's still a good thing compared to those jobs not being created. Eventually the way to get higher wages is to reduce unemployment (supply), and it's happening.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
3 Million jobs in 2014. 3 Million.
As far as wage growth, if more entry level jobs are created, average wage may go down, but it's still a good thing compared to those jobs not being created. Eventually the way to get higher wages is to reduce unemployment (supply), and it's happening.

US Population.

2010 309,300,000
2012 313,900,000
2013 316,100,000
2014 320,000,000

And it looks like that is just enough to keep up with population growth.