This is not what leadership looks like

[Gaspar]

First, it was tongue in cheek. Supposed to be funny. But in all seriousness, what did Obama propose or do that created any of those jobs?

Perhaps the rising hope that a second term will not happen is encouraging to businesses??

[nathanm]

The planet where at the same time 368,000 dropping out of the labor force completely is an issue.  

Around half of those are retirees. erfalf asked about Obama's record. Obama's record is turning economic freefall into modest employment growth. Nobody said the job was finished. Perhaps if Congress would pass the American Jobs Act, we might get some of those folks back to work.

But in all seriousness, what did Obama propose or do that created any of those jobs?

How about the stimulus, around half of which was tax cuts, in addition to the other half that gave money to states to keep state employees at work and directly employed millions of people building infrastructure projects? How about somewhere around 20 tax cuts for small businesses? I could list more, but I doubt it would convince you anyway.

[erfalf]

Around half of those are retirees. erfalf asked about Obama's record. Obama's record is turning economic freefall into modest employment growth. Nobody said the job was finished. Perhaps if Congress would pass the American Jobs Act, we might get some of those folks back to work.

How about the stimulus, around half of which was tax cuts, in addition to the other half that gave money to states to keep state employees at work and directly employed millions of people building infrastructure projects? How about somewhere around 20 tax cuts for small businesses? I could list more, but I doubt it would convince you anyway.

Because I realize that on this planet, if we are to keep on the same trajectory we are headed, we will have an unemployment rate below 6.0% but less peolpe working than were in the 60's. Forward!!!

[nathanm]

Because I realize that on this planet, if we are to keep on the same trajectory we are headed, we will have an unemployment rate below 6.0% but less peolpe working than were in the 60's. Forward!!!

You seem to be pleased with your apparent display of wit, but failed to actually read my post. As I stated before, and he stated in his speech last night, Obama does not claim to be satisfied with the current state of the economy. That's why there is legislation pending before Congress to further address the issue. Unfortunately, the Republicans have refused to act. Go figure.

Sadly, one cannot just wish the country's problems away and have them solved in an instant.

Also, you seem to have difficulty with arithmetic. We are adding jobs. It would be mathematically impossible to have fewer people employed than in the 60s without a reversal of that trend.

[erfalf]

You seem to be pleased with your apparent display of wit, but failed to actually read my post. As I stated before, and he stated in his speech last night, Obama does not claim to be satisfied with the current state of the economy. That's why there is legislation pending before Congress to further address the issue. Unfortunately, the Republicans have refused to act. Go figure.

Sadly, one cannot just wish the country's problems away and have them solved in an instant.

Also, you seem to have difficulty with arithmetic. We are adding jobs. It would be mathematically impossible to have fewer people employed than in the 60s without a reversal of that trend.

Yes it is perfectly possible, the natural expansion of the population makes it so.

[nathanm]

Yes it is perfectly possible, the natural expansion of the population makes it so.

No matter what the total population, 133 million is still 133 million and 60 million is still 60 million. Absent a decline in the number of employed, it is indeed impossible for employment to drop below the level that it was in the 60s.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not really, because in real terms gold hasn't been worth $35 an ounce in the lives of the parents and probably the grandparents of anyone on this forum. Gold is a commodity and has been for eons, the international supply of which is and has been controlled to a large extent by such friendly places as the Republic of South Africa and the Soviet Union/Russia. In a global economy (don't Republicans support that?) pegging the value of a currency to any commodity in production, however scarce, is futile. That is why not a single legitimate economist, liberal or conservative, advocates a return to the gold standard.

Over the past thirty-five years beginning with Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as Fed Chair, monetarism (connecting money supply to the quantity of good and services being produced) has been amazingly successful in controlling inflation in spite of the volatility of energy prices. Note that because the American Dollar is the monetary lingua franca of much of the world, it is a serious challenge to even estimate the money supply. This considered, the Fed has done a tremendous job of holding down inflation, though at the expense of domestic economic growth.

Gold was $34.95 in 1967.
http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf

Your comment is pretty much spot on - no legitimate authority.  Then why are the Republicans advocating it?  (Answer is left as an exercise in thought processes.)

Fed policies go much further back and you are right, they have been amazingly successful at controlling inflation.  Economic growth on the other hand has been huge in the last 35 years.  It is truly amazing that with the growth we have seen, there HASN'T been pernicious, persistent hyper-inflation.  Just look around you and see what wasn't there in 1977....it is astounding...

[heironymouspasparagus]

He lacked the balls to do it.  Talks a good game though.

And according to most economists and even former President Clinton it would have been bad timing in terms of a recovery.  But what do they know?  I'm sure your engineering degree makes you a better expert on economic issues.

That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at - he needed to grow a pair.  Or 4 of a kind...

Bad timing yes, but better than not at all.  The proper timing would have been in about 2003 or 2004 - the approximate relative time all other recoveries get that bump.  But Bush was the one in charge of that, now, wasn't he?  And we know what his game was.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Perhaps the rising hope that a second term will not happen is encouraging to businesses??

For 2 1/2 years?  You know better.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Because I realize that on this planet, if we are to keep on the same trajectory we are headed, we will have an unemployment rate below 6.0% but less peolpe working than were in the 60's. Forward!!!

Wow!  You really can't even count, can you?

Business school was the right choice.

[Red Arrow]

No matter what the total population, 133 million is still 133 million and 60 million is still 60 million. Absent a decline in the number of employed, it is indeed impossible for employment to drop below the level that it was in the 60s.

Baby boomers (me) are at or near retirement age, if they can afford it.

[nathanm]

Baby boomers (me) are at or near retirement age, if they can afford it.

Indeed, around 150,000 folks a month retired with SS benefits last year. It doesn't change the ridiculousness of erfalf's mathematically impossible assertion, though. It would indeed be possible for there to be 6% unemployment with fewer employed than in the 60s if the labor participation rate were low enough. Unfortunately for his argument, he specified that this was possible "on the same trajectory we are going," which is not actually true. The current trajectory is a monthly increase in the number of employed. Fewer than most anyone would like, to be sure, but still an increase.

To illustrate the outlandishness of the claim, it would take over seven and a half years of job losses like what we saw at the peak of the financial crisis to get us back to the number of employed persons we had in the middle 60s.

[Red Arrow]

Indeed, around 150,000 folks a month retired with SS benefits last year.

I still have a few years to go to get full SS benefits.  I could survive if I retire earlier but would have to sell some of my toys.  I have no intention of sitting around in my rocking chair (yes, I have one that I bought while in college the first time) waiting to die.

[nathanm]

I could survive if I retire earlier but would have to sell some of my toys.  I have no intention of sitting around in my rocking chair (yes, I have one that I bought while in college the first time) waiting to die.

No sense in retiring early if you're not going to take it easy anyway. Besides, who wants to get rid of expensive toys/hobbies?

[Red Arrow]

No sense in retiring early if you're not going to take it easy anyway. Besides, who wants to get rid of expensive toys/hobbies?

My dad got retired at age 58.  He did OK but not as good as he was promised when he started with the company he worked for in 1947.  Retirement is a change of careers.  Dad was just as busy after retirement as he was before but he was doing the things he wanted rather than his employer.  I mostly enjoy what I do so it isn't punishment to continue working but if I were to win the lottery big time I would have a difficult time working past my present project.  I wouldn't want to leave my co-workers and friends in the lurch.