Unemployment Surge
I've been hearing a lot about unemployment, but it takes a chart to show just how bad it's been:
Despite all the policy differences between Clinton and George W. Bush, their lowest unemployment numbers were fairly similar: 3.8% under Clinton and 4.3% under Bush (unemployment had a bump right after September 11th, 2001).
Barack Obama, the candidate of Change, has certainly affected the employment numbers.
One explanation is that George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes that stayed economically hidden until the very last moment, right before the elections. Another explanation is that businesses saw Obama ahead in the polls and feared his socialist tax policies would affect their customer bases and increase their taxes and laid off their employees in anticipation.
The latter explanation makes more sense to me: Obama has been seizing failing companies like a European leader and the stable unemployment numbers begin to look like Europe's unemployment numbers:
The black line is Europe, and the blue line is the United States. (source)
Barack Obama wants to "change the foundation" of the US economy to make it more like the European Union. In other words, he wants a lot of people to be out of work.
You can look at the low Dow Jones index and say, "Well that just affects a lot of business people..." But the unemployment numbers show who is actually failing to find a job. That number has rocketed after the election.
Despite all the policy differences between Clinton and George W. Bush, their lowest unemployment numbers were fairly similar: 3.8% under Clinton and 4.3% under Bush (unemployment had a bump right after September 11th, 2001).
Barack Obama, the candidate of Change, has certainly affected the employment numbers.
One explanation is that George W. Bush made a lot of mistakes that stayed economically hidden until the very last moment, right before the elections. Another explanation is that businesses saw Obama ahead in the polls and feared his socialist tax policies would affect their customer bases and increase their taxes and laid off their employees in anticipation.
The latter explanation makes more sense to me: Obama has been seizing failing companies like a European leader and the stable unemployment numbers begin to look like Europe's unemployment numbers:
The black line is Europe, and the blue line is the United States. (source)
Barack Obama wants to "change the foundation" of the US economy to make it more like the European Union. In other words, he wants a lot of people to be out of work.
You can look at the low Dow Jones index and say, "Well that just affects a lot of business people..." But the unemployment numbers show who is actually failing to find a job. That number has rocketed after the election.
posted by Matthew Canonicus at
10:59 PM
4 Comments:
The rise in unemployment is quite simply due to the financial crises. Many in the financial industry were laid off, small businesses that couldn't survive without easy credit went under, and as consumption fell from the recession large companies weren't able to sustain high levels of employment due to low profitability. This is why the unemployment rate started increasing before the election, as it was when the financial crises came to head. Fiscal policy (those instituted by Government) have a significant lag effect on figures such as unemployment, hence you won't be able to derive any influence the Government might have had until later.
Also, it's incredibly stupid for any business manager to say "uh oh, the socialist is being elected, I better start laying off people."
Hmm. If it were just do to the economy, I'm surprised the spike didn't happen when Lehman Brothers or one of those big firms went down. The spike was right at the election.
As for the stupidity of what a business manager may or may not say, I think you might have a different opinion if you were entrusted with running a business.
Hey Matt,
Keep in mind unemployment is a lag variable. The cause for changes in unemployment may occur well into the past, the effects aren't usually felt straight away. Lehman brothers didn't lead to massive layoffs the following day, it just illuminated the massive problems in the financial sector, and what ramifications that would have on loaning to other companies.
I just don't think any business manager would sit down and say that. Many people don't pay much attention to politics, and when they do only a very small amount would be conservative enough to worry about such a thing (i'm not saying that as an insult, very few people would share my extreme political beliefs as well). Furthermore, business usually has careful optimism relating to new Governments. They don't start laying off until their bottom line is affected. Pre-emptive lay-offs are quite rare (to my knowledge).
Business owners pay a good deal of attention to politics, Timothy. Every change they make we have to work around. Subtrofuge socialism, or whatever Obama is doing (to me it looks more like facsism without the guns and racism people associate with it)has not been and is not good for America. Most of us don't want to be part of a collective! They sent thousands of young men from my generation to die struggling against it. Now I'm supposed to love it because the neo-progs have an agenda to fulfill? Not me! I'll keep my liberties thank you and a big one is the freedom to decided how to spend one's own money.
Matt,
I'm answering this backwards, sorry. I agree 100% that Mr. O has slowed down the economy not only with his spending, seizing companies, breaking of contracts between parties, firing private execs, class warfare, printing money, and political paybacks called stimulus but also by blaming Americans while traveling abroad, sucking up to our enemies, insulting our alies, changing lanquage to attempt and wipe out the war on terror, labeling conservatives and vets as extremists, scandalizing the CIA, freeing Gitmo, and on and on. (I truly think he has a need to always be the focus of our attention) It is all pretty weird and very unAmerican and makes a terrible atmosphere for growing an economy.
One point not touched on is that small businesses are the ones not being able to borrow money. Many are forming circles through which they loan and borrow from one another. No one seems to care even if small business feeds the majority of people in this country. My theory is that small beusinesses are to time consuming to sieze and control, better to let them die...
Post a Comment
<< Home