White House: Biden's 'Summer of Recovery' Meant Construction, Not Jobs

[PeshakJang]

Yeah, I don't know. The economy is bad right now, but relative to what? The job situation is static this year, but we shed millions last year. Opinions of economists seem to vary. I'll note that the majority do not think we are facing a double dip recession, even after the last three months which weren't as good as the 6 months before them. But then, a large minority (30-40%) think we are facing double dip. Until I know which way we are truly headed, I'm not going to take a definite position.

The opinions on whether or not we will double dip vary from week to week almost, based on what reports come out saying what. A few weeks ago, I would wager that a majority of market participants thought we were in the middle of a double-dip already, or headed into one. This week, it's probably not the case. If a bad report comes out next week, people will start talking about it again.

I see two possible paths:

2009 huge job losses ---> 2010 static jobs transitional year ---> 2011 big job gains

OR

2009 huge job losses ---> 2010 static jobs transitional year ---> DOUBLE DIP huge jobs losses again and GDP shrinkage

- wolf

What about...?

2009 huge job losses ---> 2010 static jobs transitional year ---> 2011 static jobs ---> 2012 static jobs ---> ad nauseum

The problem is, the administration came into this with a cart full of promises, and then realized they don't have a mule. They make bold claims about what results will be, then once they see different results, they want to change their claims to fit them.

If they had come into this saying, "It's going to take a long time, it's going to suck for a few years, but if we do X, Y, and Z, we'll be OK eventually.", I think a lot more people would go along with it. Instead, we are told, "We need to do X, right now, or else.", followed by, "X didn't work, we need to do Y right now, or else!", followed by, "Y was really intended to do X, so we were right... now we need to do Z right now, or else!"

Get my point?

 

[woolfe9999]

The opinions on whether or not we will double dip vary from week to week almost, based on what reports come out saying what. A few weeks ago, I would wager that a majority of market participants thought we were in the middle of a double-dip already, or headed into one. This week, it's probably not the case. If a bad report comes out next week, people will start talking about it again.



What about...?

2009 huge job losses ---> 2010 static jobs transitional year ---> 2011 static jobs ---> 2012 static jobs ---> ad nauseum

The problem is, the administration came into this with a cart full of promises, and then realized they don't have a mule. They make bold claims about what results will be, then once they see different results, they want to change their claims to fit them.

If they had come into this saying, "It's going to take a long time, it's going to suck for a few years, but if we do X, Y, and Z, we'll be OK eventually.", I think a lot more people would go along with it. Instead, we are told, "We need to do X, right now, or else.", followed by, "X didn't work, we need to do Y right now, or else!", followed by, "Y was really intended to do X, so we were right... now we need to do Z right now, or else!"

Get my point?

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree about the facts here. I have listened to many Obama speeches and comments from others in the administration, and I constantly here the disclaimers about "a long recovery," "it may not be straight linear," "there will be setbacks," "we have a long way to go" etc. I don't think I'm hallucinating those comments.

- wolf

 

[PeshakJang]

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree about the facts here. I have listened to many Obama speeches and comments from others in the administration, and I constantly here the disclaimers about "a long recovery," "it may not be straight linear," "there will be setbacks," "we have a long way to go" etc. I don't think I'm hallucinating those comments.

- wolf

The problem is, those disclaimers only come out after we see negative results from massive programs. Prior to all this, we were told that we needed to act right now or we'd face certain disaster... we were told that programs would have an immediate impact, that we would save America, etc., and then afterwards is when he trots out the, "Well it took 10 years of the Republicans getting us into this, it's going to take a long time to get out of this."

Basically things can keep getting worse, and they can keep saying, "it would have been even worse", then when it takes a long time, "it would have been even longer", all the while telling us we don't have time to wait, we need to spend now.

 

[PeshakJang]

Here's a good tidbit from the past:

Obama believes that there is no such thing as a “jobless recovery.” When millions of Americans aren’t working, neither are the Bush Administration’s economic policies. As US Senator, Obama will champion policies that get our economy moving and people working instead of short-sighted tax-cuts for the rich that have failed to spark a recovery. Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004

 

[Fern]

Yeah, I don't know. The economy is bad right now, but relative to what? The job situation is static this year, but we shed millions last year. Opinions of economists seem to vary. I'll note that the majority do not think we are facing a double dip recession, even after the last three months which weren't as good as the 6 months before them. But then, a large minority (30-40&#37 think we are facing double dip. Until I know which way we are truly headed, I'm not going to take a definite position.

I see two possible paths:

2009 huge job losses ---> 2010 static jobs transitional year ---> 2011 big job gains

OR

2009 huge job losses ---> 2010 static jobs transitional year ---> DOUBLE DIP huge jobs losses again and GDP shrinkage

- wolf

Your only choices for 2011 are big improvement or double dip? The two opposite ends of the spectrum?

I think it equally possible that 2011 could just be more of the same - weak recovery with some set backs, some quarters better than others etc.

However, and I'll start with Biden's quote below:

(From Biden) 'As a result, the Recovery Act is responsible for somewhere between 2.3 million and 2.8 million jobs that were either saved or created,' he said. 'So, folks, the act is working.'

While I don't think anybody could ever verify the numbers quoted, I do think the stimulous saved jobs, not really created but did save.

I think it didn't do much more than save state & local government jobs. I've already discussed several times how the 'infrastructure' jobs that were '"shovel ready" were mostly just a budget switcheroo for the states' budgets.

But presently my concern is about what will happen when Uncle Sam can no longer ship truckloads of cash to the states. Will we see substantial layoffs at the state/local gov level? That's what I'm afraid of. And of course if that happens it will have a negative ripple effect through out the economy.

At this point, the states prospects for revenue is extremely bleak.

In the private sector, unless something catastrophic happens, you eventually get to the point where layoffs pretty much come to a stop. You can only cut so many, the private sector only employs a finite number of people. The private sector (large companies anyway) is now quite 'lean & mean'. And large companies have moved themselves into pretty good financial position by cutting costs and banking $'s.

Small business could, however, be another area of great concern. They can only hold on for so long waiting for an upturn. For some it's been too long. I continue to see businesses close.

(If you're a S corp, a regular corp, or even a partnership, the last return you file upon closing the business is marked "Final". There is actually a box on the front of the tax return you can check for this. I have been looking for data on this, but have not found any yet. The IRS knows how many "Final Returns" they receive each year. I'd really like to see this statistic.)

We still have a decent chunk of the stim money to spend, so I'd be inclined to predict more of the same for the next year, but the states' and small businesses' problems concern me because I think they could lead to a double dip. But I see nothing on the horizon to indicate a big recovery in the next year.

As regards the main theme of this thread - Biden's remarks etc - no matter the spin the plain fact is that he stimulus has not worked as hoped. We're just not seeing the job growth everyone hoped for. Whether that growth was supposed to come from the stim itself, or the stim was just a temp crutch for the public sector (states) while waiting for the private sector to create the growth, it simply hasn't happened.

Fern

 

[IGBT]

and raise tax on mom and pop business so more layoffs can occur.

 

[woolfe9999]

Your only choices for 2011 are big improvement or double dip? The two opposite ends of the spectrum?

I think it equally possible that 2011 could just be more of the same - weak recovery with some set backs, some quarters better than others etc.

However, and I'll start with Biden's quote below:



While I don't think anybody could ever verify the numbers quoted, I do think the stimulous saved jobs, not really created but did save.

I think it didn't do much more than save state & local government jobs. I've already discussed several times how the 'infrastructure' jobs that were '"shovel ready" were mostly just a budget switcheroo for the states' budgets.

But presently my concern is about what will happen when Uncle Sam can no longer ship truckloads of cash to the states. Will we see substantial layoffs at the state/local gov level? That's what I'm afraid of. And of course if that happens it will have a negative ripple effect through out the economy.

At this point, the states prospects for revenue is extremely bleak.

In the private sector, unless something catastrophic happens, you eventually get to the point where layoffs pretty much come to a stop. You can only cut so many, the private sector only employs a finite number of people. The private sector (large companies anyway) is now quite 'lean & mean'. And large companies have moved themselves into pretty good financial position by cutting costs and banking $'s.

Small business could, however, be another area of great concern. They can only hold on for so long waiting for an upturn. For some it's been too long. I continue to see businesses close.

(If you're a S corp, a regular corp, or even a partnership, the last return you file upon closing the business is marked "Final". There is actually a box on the front of the tax return you can check for this. I have been looking for data on this, but have not found any yet. The IRS knows how many "Final Returns" they receive each year. I'd really like to see this statistic.)

We still have a decent chunk of the stim money to spend, so I'd be inclined to predict more of the same for the next year, but the states' and small businesses' problems concern me because I think they could lead to a double dip. But I see nothing on the horizon to indicate a big recovery in the next year.

As regards the main theme of this thread - Biden's remarks etc - no matter the spin the plain fact is that he stimulus has not worked as hoped. We're just not seeing the job growth everyone hoped for. Whether that growth was supposed to come from the stim itself, or the stim was just a temp crutch for the public sector (states) while waiting for the private sector to create the growth, it simply hasn't happened.

Fern

I shouldn't have framed it as double dip versus massive recovery. Those are the two polar scenarios is what I meant. What I DO think is that if we don't double dip, next year will more than likely be a better year for jobs than this year was. The fact is, it is well known that companies are hoarding cash. It's a matter of time before that translates into hiring, that is IF we aren't headed for more GDP decline, in which case it won't.

As for federal and state jobs, didn't they just pass another mini stimulus for that? IIRC, there was a bill to transfer another 30 billion or so to the states?

- wolf

 

[Fern]

-snip-
As for federal and state jobs, didn't they just pass another mini stimulus for that? IIRC, there was a bill to transfer another 30 billion or so to the states?

- wolf

I think so, but I thought that was mostly for extending unemployment benefits.

The states are getting absolutely hammered on both rising unemployment and Medicaid costs. I saw some stats very recently and it was ugly.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

I think so, but I thought that was mostly for extending unemployment benefits.

The states are getting absolutely hammered on both rising unemployment and Medicaid costs. I saw some stats very recently and it was ugly.

Fern

The private sector is going to have to pick up hiring, which in turn will boost the state (and federal) tax base. Long run, that is the only way to salvage the situation. A stimulus is only a bridge, not a road. The only question is whether this bridge was long enough.

- wolf

 

[PeshakJang]

The private sector is going to have to pick up hiring, which in turn will boost the state (and federal) tax base. Long run, that is the only way to salvage the situation. A stimulus is only a bridge, not a road. The only question is whether this bridge was long enough.

- wolf

And meanwhile, the government is standing in the way by creating massive, unbridled uncertainty as to what the future holds in terms of taxes, regulations, and economic policy.

They more the government tries to do, the less they help.

 

[Budmantom]

Back-tracking is the hallmark of all politicians. Why it's news I don't exactly understand.

Still defending Obama?