I see a lot of people here saying "Jobless Recovery".

[berni_mccoy]

It's disturbing that there are people here who would attack the administration using this language. The fact is, the economy was hemorrhaging jobs prior to the stimulus. If the stimulus hadn't been put in place, the unemployment figures would easily be double if not triple what they are now, and those numbers would still be increasing. The stimulus package has indeed created jobs and saved us from imminent disaster. This is by no means a jobless recovery. It's a recovery that has created jobs while at the same time turning around many difficult-to-manage economic factors. Nearly every economist agrees on this. It's understandable for those who are still unemployed to be angry. But to rail on the Obama administration for it is simply cutting your nose off. But keep on railing on Obama. He's a miracle worker and should have gotten everyone their job back.

[mmonk]

1. We need more work related stimulus.

But most of Congress favors Reaganomics which only produces "jobless" recoveries which is just another way of saying Wall Street is doing better.

[berni_mccoy]

2. So money going to towns to rebuild roads, develop land or infrastructure is not work-related?

Because that's where the vast majority of the money is going.

[mmonk]

5. I said we need more of that. Obama needs to ignore for the time being

those suddenly worried about deficits who weren't bothered before. The job stimulus will take care of tax receipt problems in the long run. We have been negating some of the benefits of that money on the state level by cutting services.

[Statistical]

13. Recheck your numbers. Do you often state your beliefs as facts?

The "vast" majority of the money is not going to infrastructure projects.
Hell "half" of the money isn't going to infrastructure projects.
Look up how little is actually going to infrastructure and you will realize why the stimulus was a joke.

Our "stimulus" plan = mostly spending as usual for pet projects + large amounts of tax breaks + small amount of required benefits (like extended unemployment) + very small amount for infrastructure.

On edit:

For those who would likely not look it up.
Less than $50B about 6% of stimulus is going to infrastructure

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/mar/13/fewer-stimulus-dollars-go-to-infrastructure/

So riddle me this, how is 6% the "vast majority"?

[berni_mccoy]

31. Here you go

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Pages/home.aspx

[Statistical]

32. Really? That is total stimulus spending. Apples to Oranges.

Not portion devoted to infrastructure.

Come on man.

It is clearly documented that less than $50B of the "stimulus" is going to infrastructure spending.
I could take the entire federal budget and break it down by state and contract doesn't mean that is "stimulus".

There is little difference between general every year govt spending and the so called "stimulus".

Some of the stimulus was actually targeted and stimulative (unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects, clean energy grants, etc) however that is a minority of it. The majority was simply untargeted spending with a fancy name. Americans would flip out with a 50% increase in federal spending however spending + "stimulus" so how made it ok.

However this is all a side note.

You stated the "vast majority" of stimulus money went to infrastructure. That is a complete flasehood unless you somehow consider 6% a "vast majority".

[berni_mccoy]

35. I didn't just say infrastructure. I listed a few items, but meant that most of the

money is going to local uses. It's not being spent in large chunks on one or two baskets, but being distributed in a way the favors job creation.

[Statistical]

36. No its not.

The Obama administration estimates the stimulus plan has created 600,000 jobs. That is at a cost of $1.2 million per job.

You can sell it all you want but the "stimulus" has been an utter failure because IT ISN'T STIMULATIVE. Many economists predicted that BEFORE it was ever signed.

China stimulus plan results in 4.2 million jobs. Their economies is growing at 5% this year, and unemployment is <5%. That is a stimulus plan. Nearly 40% was building/upgrading infrastructure. At the end not only will have they have a growing economy but they got hundreds of billions worth of roads, bridges, utility, and telecom links built.

The US spent $787 billion got virtually no jobs and virtually no infrastructure out of it.

You can polish a turd all you want but it still is a turd. If Bush had passed the exact same stimulus you know (if you look at it honestly) you would be attacking it. Someone because Obama passed a turd it is now a shining gem.

[berni_mccoy]

37. You can't put a cost on jobs until the money has been spent and the final job count comes in.

First off, not all has be awarded, and much of it has not been expended and certainly the job creation isn't over yet.

But, go ahead, call it whatever derogatory word you will. That's what most do around here anyway.

[Statistical]

38. Keep shining that turd maybe someday you can make it gleam.

The (so called) "stimulus" plan had to little stimulus to do any real good. We just shotgunned a lot of money at a problem without a plan. Try comparing number of economists who backs the US stimulus plan to number who favor China stimulus approach.

China did what we needed to do. We just loaded a bunch of cash into a cannon and blasted it across the country (with healthy sprinking on pork barrel and pet projects).

Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62082.html

For Many Economists, Stimulus Falls Flat
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4759532.shtml

About half of it has been expended and it is a failure.

650,000 GROSS jobs. Note that excludes jobs lost as the result of stimulus plan. Using gross numbers is sad. Net jobs is what matters and net jobs are even less than the pathetic 600,000 jobs the stimulus plan created.

[Selatius]

16. That's a statement I don't take seriously. Only a small portion went to infrastructure.

You could probably find more tax break dollars spent on various corporate business interests in that package than dollars devoted to actual infrastructure maintenance/upgrade. It's a buck-shot solution that requires far more aimed accuracy.

[ProleNoMore]

3. Jobless Recovery - Refers To Job Creation Necessary To Cover The Jobs Lost

Plus new entrants to the job market.

Just like the recovery from the last recession in early 2000, this recovery has not created sufficient new jobs to both replace the jobs lost and create new jobs that cover jobs for those that are entering the job market for the first time - thinks college students for example.

So, the stimulus package has stemmed the hemorrhage of jobs but has not created sufficient numbers of new jobs as defined above.

[Roland99]

17. Exactly! The *average* number of new jobs each month needs to be about 150,000-175,000 on the + side

And that's just to keep equilibrium with the increasing size of the labor force. Although, I haven't checked on the LFPR lately so it might be a few thousand less per month that's needed right now.

So when we're losing 500,000 jobs per month or more then is certainly is a jobless recovery!

[Statistical]

23. Don't worry help is on the way.

Once Baby boomers start dying in mass (will peak in about 2030) even flat job growth will quickly exhaust labor pool.

Something to look forward to. Once Baby Boomers retire it will radically change equilibrium between jobs & labor. If they are too poor/stubborn/unable to retire when they die that shift will happen.

[ProleNoMore]

24. Some Of Us Will Be In The Grave By Then

eom

[Statistical]

28. Well it was kinda tongue in cheek.

It would be (is?) kinda sad if a superpowers only "solution" is to wait for people to die for labor situation to improve. :(

[ProleNoMore]

29. Oh - No Offense - The Age Range At DU Is Quite High

30 years to a thirty year old person means something quite different than 30 years to a sixty year old person.

[Roland99]

27. That's about the time I become eligible for Medicare. I hope I have lots of grandkids!

;-)

[sendero]

4. There is no such thing...

... as a "jobless recovery". It is the ultimate oxymoron in an economy that is dominated by consumer spending.

That said, Obama nor anyone else can really create the number of jobs it will take to get back to some semblance of normalcy.

I don't fault Obama's stimulus spending, I fault his handling of the banks. There were options other than bailing out the malefactors, the absolute worst thing that could have been done.

And, a year later, no meaningful reform and none on the horizon. This same crap will happen again. It is unbelievable.

[hobbit709]

6. Once again, trickle down doesn't work

If the money had been pumped into the economy at a lower level than to the banksters, they would have gotten some of it as it trickled up. But give it to the big boys and no one else ever sees it in their hands.

Putting the money into repairing and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure would do the country more long term good than giving it to Goldman, etc.

[Orsino]

7. Those who are still unemployed are not just "angry."

They are in physical and emotional danger in a society that equates wages with self-worth, and an economy with such a thin safety net.

If it helps, think of the phrase "jobless recovery" as a complaint against the system, and its political-economic operatives who carefully define the terms of the debate to exclude working (or would-be working) Americans. Wall Street is eager to declare business-as-usual, deliberately ignoring the poor suckers on the front lines of their class war.

[ixion]

8. there is no such thing as a jobless recovery

either you're recovering, which includes job creation, or you're not.

I have consistently maintained this opinion, no matter who was in the WH.

[Statistical]

9. Double maybe triple unemployment (20%-30%)? Really? Nobody thinks that not even Obama.

The stimulus was mostly wasted money. It helped some, but any large spending helped some. Hiring people to literally burn money to produce electricity for low income families would help but likely it wouldn't be the most efficient method.

By the administrations own someone sunny-side math the stimulus created or saved about 600,000 thousand jobs hardly double or tripling the unemployment rate. Another way to look at it is each of those 600,000 jobs costs $1.2 million dollars. Hell you could have taken the stimulus money randomly given 2 million unemployed people $350,000 and created more stimulus than the stimulus did.

The truth is China stimulus was real stimulus or "stimulus" was more like funding pet projects over next 4 years combined with some tax breaks, and a small amount of real stimulus.

Basically the stimulus was regular govt spending but with a cooler name.

[KharmaTrain]

10. All Pain Is Personal...

Seeing the market rise or reading of the billions spent to bail out the economy means nothing to someone whose without a job or has lost one in the past year. It's not something they can see/feel and contempt festers toward those who they perceive as getting special treatment.

It's been pointed out before that our banks were on the edge of total collapse that would have driven millions more out of work and made any chance of a recovery longer and more painful. It's shameful that the same people who created the messes were expected to clean it up or that real financial reform is going so slowly. However, for those with investment funds and retirement accounts, they're seeing some of the TARP money coming back into private hands that has stabilized the economy...for now...and is creating some base for future economic investment and growth. It's money that will go into building small busineses or funding new technology and the jobs that go with it. There's still a long way to go...as credit still remains tight and there are still some companies teetering on the edge that will fall over (especially if there's a bad fourth quarter).

As you note, there were also millions of state and local jobs that were spared through the stimulus...again invisible as these weren't new jobs. There still needs to be more assistance on this front as the revenues these entities lost through a combination of booooshie's disastrous tax cuts to the rich, plummeting real estates taxes and retail taxes have turned state budgets into disasters...and the reason a second stimulus will surely be needed next year.

Cheers...

[theHandpuppet]

11. How many of the under or unemployed are now "working" in a war economy....

... to support our seemingly endless conflicts and occupations, both in a military and civilian capacity? How do these wars and the military-industrial complex serve to bolster a false economy? How would a real end to the wars and Iraq and Afghanistan affect the rolls of the unemployed and uninsured?

Yes, you might say I have a lot of questions. And I question an economic recovery that substitues union manufacturing jobs for flipping burgers or working multiple jobs to make the rent, and numbers that don't reflect the difference. The stimulus package doesn't address these long-term problems but it sure hasn't kept the parasites from Wall St. from feeding at the public trough.

I don't expect these issues will be solved overnight but I sure as hell would like to hear a long-term plan that makes sense.

[rucky]

12. It's not an attack, it's a fact.

As of now, we do not have a net gain in employment. The stimulus projects are great, and they do help for short-term employment. But there are unemployed people here and elsewhere who want to see a clear plan to put sustainable job creation front-and-center. Again, not an attack, but now that the Dow and GDP are up, it's time to focus on small business, offshoring/insourcing, and emerging technologies.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Peter Drucker explained how economic growth and employment levels have been 'disengaged' since 70s.

It's been said about other recoveries as well. It's not unique to this case.

[Zen Democrat]

15. Yes, we had a "Jobless Bull Market" for many years.

People were downsized out of decent paying jobs going to Asia and Latin American. There was growing unemployment resulting in widespread underemployment, with college grads working the night shift at convenience stores. Wages have been stagnant for twenty years.

Wall Street loved it all. The announcement of a new round of layoffs in American industry would send the Dow soaring.

It's been quite obvious for a while that what's good for Wall Street is bad for America. For so long we were told that we were all benefiting from Wall Street with our 401-K's. Yeah, how did that work out for millions of us? The 401-K idea was launched as a tax dodge, not a national savings program for "little people." It's the rank and file small investor who is the first to get burned and be forced to cash it in at a loss, and the big investor who picks up those bargains.

Oh yes, "it's another tequila sunrise. This old world still looks the same. Another frame."

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. I agree!

The fact is that in our "globalized" economy, Wall Street is not only disconnected from American employment, it rewards companies that take jobs overseas.

[OHdem10]

18. Just a moment please. I have never railed against Obama.

I have explained the Jobless Recovery in relation to Globalization
and Trade Policy. If I have said anything I may have said the
Democrats are making serious mistakes by permitting the extraordinary
job losses to be completely attributed to the Financial Institutions
Meltdown. I believe they are making a mistake by repeating the
age old "Jobs are a lagging indicator". This is a truism that
is part of a normal recession.

IN 2006, that is 2006 Sen. Shumer held a Banking Committee Hearing.
If you are a C-Span junkie you may have seen it. It was shown
the one time as it happened. NOT ONE JOURNALIST reported on this
on the evening news that day. No one has ever brought this story
to MSM and TV NEWS.

The Witnesses for the Hearing were: Larry Sommers, Bob Rubin,
Alan Blinder and a Professor from University of Chicago. THE
TOPIC: State of America.

These witnesses admitted that Trade Policy had failed. Rather
than admit failure, they explained Trade Policies had not worked
out as they had intended. As a result we were facing 40,000,000
Forty Million Job Dislocations and some very hard times financially
in this country. These same people appeared on Charlie Rose
in the months that followed explaining the dislocations would
move through all levels of jobs including professionals. Add to
this technology displacements and job wise we are in a disaster.

This all occurred long before Obama even seriously considered
a Presidential Run. No way can he be blamed.

However, by permitting the job losses be counted as a result
of banking disaster, he assumes responsiblity.

He is between a rock and a hard place. Does he still want to
press Free Market Trade Polity and hemmorrhage more jobs?
We shall see if on anything he is willing to stand up to
Wall Street or continue GOP Economic Free Market Trade Policy.

I support Obama . He has the hardest job in the world. When
I voted for him, I voted for the Middle Class not Wall Street.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

20. I'm not convinced that using the words "Jobless Recovery" equals an attack

If you're referring specifically to people making attack posts on the administration and using the "Jobless Recovery" as justification / leverage, yeah, OK.

If you're making a blanket statement saying that every time someone uses the words "Jobless Recovery" they are attacking teh administration, you're making a big and unfounded assumption.

"The stimulus package has indeed created jobs and saved us from imminent disaster."...if that's the reality in your immediate environment, I'm happy for you. Here, in Silicon Valley, in my circle of friends, associates and clients, I deal with people seven days a week who are suffering.

"But keep on railing on Obama. He's a miracle worker and should have gotten everyone their job back."...

...well, that's crap and you know it, and I think the average intelligent adult on DU understands the fact that President Obama is dealing with Bush's hand-off, whether it's the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the economy or health care, and he will be doing so for quite some time.

I know there are people here who expect him to be a miracle worker.

But taking account of the world around me doesn't mean I'm attacking President Obama, just like I have no intention of high-fiving you, President Obama, or anyone else over the effects of the "stimulus" in my back yard.

People are entitled to an opinion. Sometimes you'll share that opinion. Sometimes you won't. Such is life.

[customerserviceguy]

21. I have been hearing people saying they're getting back to work

in my job as customerserviceguy. I work for a utility company, and I've been noticing people making plans with us to pay back bills on a six month payment schedule.

Obviously, the folks who aren't getting jobs aren't calling, but I sure didn't hear what I'm hearing six months ago.

[madrchsod]

22. we`ve been losing real jobs since the mid 70`s and it has`t stopped

job loss will continue until our trade policies are changed. the chances of that are 0.

"shovel ready jobs" do not employ enough people to make a dent in the rebuilding of our employment base. obama did`t listen to the people who elected him. he listened to the people who created the disaster.

[butterfly77]

25. They are pretending not to know...

and the trolls and freepers are stoking the fires. A lot of people who have finally lost a job now see amd feel what many minorities have been feeling for years and they can't take it so now they are trying to blame the president.

Some have never really paid attention to politics so they are following the Rightwing talking points. This bullshit about we are spending too much money is so hypocritical because if you ask some of these same people they would love to spend OUR MONEY for 20 more years to bomb and kill and they are the so called people who love life.

[dhpgetsit]

26. Not disputing that unemployment could have been worse.

But if the stimulus had been applied from the botton up, I think there would be more bang for the buck in terms of jobs for the working class.

Wall street was bailed out, but here in OR, unemployment is still near 12% officially, and probably double that when you count people whose benefits have run out or are underemployed. A jobless recovery is not much help here. And we aren't blaming this administration for the trade policies of past administrations. But those failed policies are still in place today.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. First, your premise is a strawman and I will not go there. Next, there is no "recovery" until ......

..... jobs return.

We need to stop defining things in terms of the investor class and start defining things in terms of the people class.

None of that attacks Obama.

You forgot your pom poms

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Words where numbers belong are a red flag

So "easily would be double if not triple" and calling the 12% or 20+% who are without a job 'angry' is just so dismissive and crass. Especially when you yourself can not even cite a figure, because the fact is we are still hemorrhaging jobs.
To state the facts is not to rail against Obama. In fact, if he were not so adverse to speaking strong truths, he could be putting the blame where it really belongs, daily. With Bush and Cheney. But Obama wants to 'look forward' while the people have nothing to look forward to.
Doing editorial spin work on the objectives of others is not very humane when speaking about those who are without work. Those whiners! How dare they be 'angry'? Your framing fails the decency test, the fact test, and the smell test.

[Statistical]

34. Yeah the OP doesn't even realize how silly that looks.

Official unemployment: 10%
Unofficial unemployment: 16%

So triple that would be
Official unemployment: 30%
Unofficial unemployment: 48%

Come on it is hilariously insane to think stimulus saved or created 20 million+ jobs.
Even the administrations ultra optimistic projection puts number of jobs saved or created at 600K.