Obama's solution to the failing economy:

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Hire more government workers!

Obama said late Friday it is "absolutely clear" that the U.S. economy is "not doing fine." He also said there has been some "good momentum" in the private sector but Congress needs to act to help boost jobs in the public sector.

In addition to his comments about the private sector during a morning White House press conference, he said the weaknesses in the U.S. economy have to do with state and local government.

"If Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments,” the president said.

If that's his strategy for this election, because this election will be about the economy and nothing else, then there is hope for Romney after all.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
That's actually a great idea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with his solution.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
So....we have reduced receipts exacerbating our budget problems, along with straight out overspending. The solution? Spend more on public workers.

I fully expect Obama to win the 2012 election, but, I cannot imagine how this helps him. Is he that worried about getting his base fired up he needs to resort to this??? I made a joke of it in another thread, but now I'm beginning to think he's actually serious.

One has to wonder how many states that got bailed out before by Fed bucks are coming back and saying, We didn't do our jobs and balance our budgets, we need mo dollas, mo dollas!!!

Just when one thinks they've heard it all, something new comes out....yeesh...
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,801
91
91
That's actually a great idea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with his solution.

Me neither. IMO the government should just give everyone a job that pays $100k a year, that way we will have 0% unemployment and no poverty or inequality.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
That's actually a great idea, I see absolutely nothing wrong with his solution.


This. There is a significant demand problem in the middle class. The fastest way you can increase consumer demand is to give people jobs.

The problem inherent in austerity is that the shock to consumer demand means that people buy less, which means that companies reduce production, meaning that they lay off people, which means consumer demand falls even further, and the cycle continues.

If you want to break that cycle in the short-to-medium term, you have to borrow a lot of money (or use reserves) to jolt demand. Since people are paying us (when you adjust for inflation) to take their money, we might as well do some stimulus.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
If public sector employment had gone up during Obama's presidency at the rate it did during Bush's, overall unemployment would be substantially lower than it is now.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
image.png


Just Saying. Private sector jobs are even with Jan 2009, but we're 600,000 in the hole in the public sector.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
There should be a whole lot of openings in the public sector in Wisconsin because I heard here that people are leaving the state in droves.
 
Jan 7, 2012
107
0
0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2911929...te-passes-billion-stimulus-bill/#.T9J7ddU1K3t

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...mise-deals-a-blow-to-cash-strapped-states.php

"It is so difficult talking with a body that is controlled by three people," said Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, a lead House negotiator. "You have no idea."

The Republican moderates also want the final bill to retain a $70 billion Senate plan to "patch" the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, for one year. The provision would make sure 24 million families won't get socked with unexpected tax bills more than a year from now during the 2010 filing season.

Washington has a way of blurring the human impact of a major policy debate -- such as the one going on right now over the stimulus -- by using vague and dense terminology to describe certain programs. Take, for instance, this talk of "state stabilization funds" that were cut back by $40 billion this weekend in the deal cut by Senate centrists.

The Republican moderates F'd the stimulus just as they planned. Go back and re-read the stimulus debate. The Republicans were prepared to filibuster everything even after Obama's mandate. After re-reading the debates on the stimulus and health care bill, Obama truly does deserve another term. The only question is if he would have been better off letting the Republicans fillibuster EVERYTHING to show how bad the economy would have really been with their stupid brain dead policies
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
"As much as we hear politicians, pundits, tea-party patriots and the Congressional Budget Office obsessing about government debt, it was excessive private debt — not public debt — that caused the 2008 financial meltdown. And it was private debt — some of it since transferred to the public — that lies behind the current European debt crisis. (Greece is unique in having a public sector that ran up spending while its private sector is rather conservative.)

As the political rhetoric about the federal deficit has heated up, we’ve lost sight of the progress that’s been made in bringing total debt back under control. The U.S. is actually doing much better than you’d think if you just listened to the conventional fears about how we’re rushing headlong into a debt Armageddon.

In fact, since the recession ended in June 2009, total U.S. debt has risen at the slowest pace since they began keeping records in the early 1950s. While Washington has taken on a lot of debt since then, the private sector has paid off, written off or dumped on the government almost as much.

As a share of the economy, debt has plunged as a consequence of rapid deleveraging by families, banks, nonfinancial businesses, and state and local governments. The ratio of total debt to gross domestic product has fallen from 3.73 times GDP to 3.36 times.

In the 11 quarters since the recession officially ended, total domestic debt has risen by just $702 billion, or 1.4%. By contrast, in the 11 quarters before the recession began, in those bubble years of 2005, 2006 and 2007, total debt increased by $10.7 trillion, or 28%.

And it wasn’t just the U.S., other advanced economies were adding on to their debt loads as well, with most of the debt taken out by the private sector.

Debt was growing at an unsustainable pace, but it was fueling the U.S. and global economies.

Economists who have studied the impact of indebtedness have found that low levels of debt are essential to growth, but that high levels of total outstanding debt can hurt an economy. Beyond a tipping point, adding on more debt will reduce growth over the long run, even if it inflates a bubble in the short run.

“At low levels, debt is good. It is a source of economic growth and stability,” concluded Stephen Cecchetti, M.S. Mohanty and Fabrizio Zampolli, economists for the Bank of International Settlements, in a paper presented at the Federal Reserve’s Jackson Hole conference last August. “Beyond a certain point, debt becomes dangerous and excessive,” and can lead to increased volatility, financial fragility and slower growth. It can even bring down the real economy with it, as we have seen. Read the BIS paper, “The Real Effects of Debt.”

Cecchetti and his co-authors found that growth can be impaired once nonfinancial corporate debt hits about 90% of GDP, or when household debts hit 85% of GDP, or when public debts hit about 85%.

In the U.S., household debt has now fallen to 84% of GDP from a peak of 98%. Nonfinancial corporate debt has fallen to 77% from a peak of 83%. Financial sector debt has plunged from 123% of GDP to 89%. Public debt* has risen to 89% from 56%.

The deleveraging process in the private sector still has a ways to run, not based on some economists’ rule of thumb, but based on what real people are actually doing. Banks and households are still slashing their debt, while nonfinancial companies are beginning to borrow again, but only a little, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve’s flow of funds report. Take a look at the flow of funds.

According to a study by McKinsey published earlier this year, U.S. households may have two more years of deleveraging left before their debts are sustainable again.

If McKinsey is right, the U.S. economy may have to endure a couple more years of slow growth."


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-debt-load-falling-fastest-040045522.html


* Some of this is blunting the impact of the Great Bush Depression (http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2008/12/deflation-has-become-inevitable.html) into just The Great Recession for the 99.99% (see page 30 here: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/95616173?access_key=key-c47v8djek10b7231s3y, along with, as much as it is hated by everyone including me, TARP and QE1)
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,007
55,444
136
Public employment under Ronald Reagan vs. Obama:
030312krugman3-blog480.jpg


Damn you Reagan, you communist! Public jobs aren't the answer!!!!
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Pension reform for public employees is one of the ways states can help themselves without needing more debt-funded handouts.

Cities in California where over 20% of revenue is going to pay for over-generous pensions won't be fixed by a short-time band-aid of more stimulus money, especially if they waste it on buying things they don't really need.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,847
10,161
136
Pension reform for public employees is one of the ways states can help themselves without needing more debt-funded handouts.

Cities in California where over 20% of revenue is going to pay for over-generous pensions won't be fixed by a short-time band-aid of more stimulus money, especially if they waste it on buying things they don't really need.

We can always print more money.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This. There is a significant demand problem in the middle class. The fastest way you can increase consumer demand is to give people jobs.

The problem inherent in austerity is that the shock to consumer demand means that people buy less, which means that companies reduce production, meaning that they lay off people, which means consumer demand falls even further, and the cycle continues.

If you want to break that cycle in the short-to-medium term, you have to borrow a lot of money (or use reserves) to jolt demand. Since people are paying us (when you adjust for inflation) to take their money, we might as well do some stimulus.
By that metric we've be doing stimulus for the last sixty-odd years at an ever-increasing rate. I'm sure we've all noticed the steady improvement.

Scheiderguy is correct; if your theory is correct, the best thing to do is to take every unemployed person and give them a government job paying $100,000 per year. It doesn't matter what they do, or if they do anything at all, because we're stimulating demand. And of course, people who earn less than $100,000 per year in the private sector would certainly quit those jobs to get those good, secure $100,000 per year government jobs, so the system would be sustainable - AND those people with poorly paying private sector jobs would now have well-paying government jobs. We would have excellent growth not only in employment, but also in GDP. And of course, those government jobs are secure and more lucrative than the vast majority of private sector jobs, so since we've eliminated the threat of being fired or laid off and we've eliminated the need to change jobs, we've also eliminated the boom-bust cycle. In fact, things would only get better and better as more and more people got the secure, well-paying government jobs to which they are entitled.

There is nothing you can say to refute that scenario without refuting the whole of progressive economic dogma.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Why bother have a private sector that comprises the working class?

Relocate the inner cities out to the fields and pay them the 100K.
Manual labor works; it may also reduce the growth rate
Now how many will run back to the city for the 10K that they get?
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,648
2,925
136
My state has ~1500 permanent, full-time state jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We also have ~1000 seasonal, full-time jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We have 21,708 state jobs, total. We're running an 11% vacancy rate right now.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Why bother have a private sector that comprises the working class?

Relocate the inner cities out to the fields and pay them the 100K.
Manual labor works; it may also reduce the growth rate
Now how many will run back to the city for the 10K that they get?
Probably most. But the proggie mantra is that supply (wealth creation) doesn't matter, only demand (wealth consumption) matters. Therefore it doesn't matter if they do anything for their $100K as long as that money creates demand.


My state has ~1500 permanent, full-time state jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We also have ~1000 seasonal, full-time jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We have 21,708 state jobs, total. We're running an 11% vacancy rate right now.
Amazing that with all the federal college programs and all the retraining programs we can't seem to produce the workers that even government needs. Perhaps we should be giving grants and loans to those wanting to train for those positions rather than just handing out money to study psychology or pornographic films or minority and women's studies because that's what interests you.
 
Last edited:

DrewSG3

Senior member
Feb 7, 2005
366
48
91
My state has ~1500 permanent, full-time state jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We also have ~1000 seasonal, full-time jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We have 21,708 state jobs, total. We're running an 11% vacancy rate right now.

Interesting, what area is that?
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,286
2,381
136
My state has ~1500 permanent, full-time state jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We also have ~1000 seasonal, full-time jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We have 21,708 state jobs, total. We're running an 11% vacancy rate right now.


Probably because of this:

The skills gap myth: Survey reveals why companies can&#8217;t find "good people"
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2250022
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
My state has ~1500 permanent, full-time state jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We also have ~1000 seasonal, full-time jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We have 21,708 state jobs, total. We're running an 11% vacancy rate right now.

How many of those positions have either below market rates of pay or unrealistic position requirements.

A job that starts at $40k and maxes out in 20 years at $70k based on step raises is not going to get a $55k person to come in at $45. Gov rules that say a person can not advance more than 2 grades at a time which prevents a $55k start. Benefits and security do not add up to 20% loss
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
By that metric we've be doing stimulus for the last sixty-odd years at an ever-increasing rate. I'm sure we've all noticed the steady improvement.

Scheiderguy is correct; if your theory is correct, the best thing to do is to take every unemployed person and give them a government job paying $100,000 per year. It doesn't matter what they do, or if they do anything at all, because we're stimulating demand. And of course, people who earn less than $100,000 per year in the private sector would certainly quit those jobs to get those good, secure $100,000 per year government jobs, so the system would be sustainable - AND those people with poorly paying private sector jobs would now have well-paying government jobs. We would have excellent growth not only in employment, but also in GDP. And of course, those government jobs are secure and more lucrative than the vast majority of private sector jobs, so since we've eliminated the threat of being fired or laid off and we've eliminated the need to change jobs, we've also eliminated the boom-bust cycle. In fact, things would only get better and better as more and more people got the secure, well-paying government jobs to which they are entitled.

There is nothing you can say to refute that scenario without refuting the whole of progressive economic dogma.

I know on most days straw man arguments run rampant here, but its particularly bad today.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
My state has ~1500 permanent, full-time state jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We also have ~1000 seasonal, full-time jobs unfilled because we can't find qualified people. We have 21,708 state jobs, total. We're running an 11% vacancy rate right now.
How in the world is the state even functioning with all those unfilled positions? <sarcasm>