JONATHAN COHN NOVEMBER 4, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest post by Matt O'Brien]
If it doesn't feel like a recovery to you, there's more good reason for that today. The October jobs report added to a long line of underwhelming employment numbers since the economic recovery ostensibly began in June of 2009. The headline number of 80,000 jobs added was, at best, barely enough to keep up with population growth. At this pace, unemployment will come down to less painful levels approximately never.
That said, the news wasn't all bad. Private sector job growth has been fairly resilient. Private payrolls added 104,000 jobs in October, but, as Gary Burtless, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me, "some of the best news comes from what happened to private employment in the past with the upward revisions." Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 102,000 more jobs were created during August and September than was previously estimated. That bump almost entirely explains the decline in the headline unemployment rate from 9.1 to 9.0 percent during October.
There was even—perhaps—some good news with the long-term unemployment picture. Both the median and mean duration of unemployment declined, and the share of the jobless who have been out of work 27 weeks or longer ticked down from 44.6 percent to 42.4 percent. Of course, it's not clear if these represent meaningful changes, or just statistical noise.
And for all the talk about "big government," public sector payrolls continued to shrink in October. Cuts at the state and local level added up to 24,000 lost jobs. This is unfortunate, Burtless told me, as "there's no reason why government payrolls should reverse since the federal government isn't likely to help state and local governments like it did in 2009." The so-called "conservative recovery" will keep rolling on.
But it's not much of a consolation. On the heels of fears about a possible double-dip recession, this latest jobs report seems, as Burtless told me, like "moderately good news"—a case of the soft bigotry of low expectations if there ever was one. The reality, as Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told me, is that this was just another in a "long series of job reports that are not good enough," as "job creation is still way below the 200,000-300,000 number that characterizes a robust recovery that brings down unemployment." A double-dip may not be in the cards, but, apparently, neither is much of a recovery.
Matt O'Brien is an intern at The New Republic.
10 comments
Where's your recovery? Well, since we're implementing Republican policies (cut State spending, cut Federal aid to states, renew the Bush tax-cuts, cut stimulus spending, cut 56 billion dollars out of EXISTING spending, and hold America hostage over even voting to authorize the debt-increase for moneys ALREADY OBLIGATED) -- I think you have your answer. Obama is like a man walking into a strong opposing Republican wind. These are NOT Obama's policies, these are the best "compromise" policies he can get out of the Republicans who threaten disaster. If you REALLY wanted a recovery, you shouldn't have voted for all those Koch-Brothers Fox-News Tea-Partiers in 2010, now should you? And if you REALLY want a recovery, you should be pointing all this out and voting Democratic as fast as your legs will carry you. But I don't really see that happening yet.
- AllanL5
November 4, 2011 at 12:35pm
Allan5, what you said. This sure doesn't feel like a recovery, around here we're instituting pretty severe austerity measures. There's less coming for far more effort. Health is suffering, etc. Republicans, you are not my favorite people right now.
- Sophia
November 4, 2011 at 1:22pm
When I saw "Where's My Recovery?" I assumed the topic would be about how the House of Representatives rescued us from almost losing our national motto "In G*d We Trust (because G*d only knows why we had to pass that stupid legislation).
- Nusholtz
November 4, 2011 at 4:57pm
Well, we should be gratified that The House of Representatives can indeed vote and pass legislation in times of extreme need, as in the case of almost losing our national motto. One is reassured!
- Sophia
November 4, 2011 at 5:33pm
As opined for over a year, BHO's compromises with, and enabling of, Republicans and their economic Hooverian policies are starting to kick in as predicted for some time by leading economists who understand Keynes. Positive GNP for next year?? Positive job growth?? Place yo' bets on zero at best-- most likely negative. Especially if US and EU austerity economics and the confidence fairy don't save the day. Best bet for the EU and world economic and political scene: a more rapid collapse in the EU (next month?) than the US-- which in turn speeds up the US collapse to next Spring rather than next Fall... and China won't save the day. In fact, a Chinese collapsing economy may well lead to extreme social unrest in a totalitarian state with bombs. The good news is such a scenario makes a minor problem out of Pakistan, its unrest, and its bombs that some combination of India and China will most likely solve for us. A Democratic Progressive win and application of Democratic Keynesian policies (rather than the Repub version) has now passed with no challenge to BHO from a Progressive. In fact, if the economy IS the most important factor in the 2012 election (a good bet), by advocating and/or supporting weak or inappropriate policies, BHO has shot himself somewhere higher up than his foot. But don't despair. The good news is that going forward past November of 2012, a Republican really is likely to be a better choice than BHO-- because the absence of BHO, the Repubs will rediscover Keynes-- and vote to spend the money. To aid their Big Bizness supporters--- but some of that will trickle down the the masses that do or do not read tnr.
- drofnats1
November 5, 2011 at 8:19am
"but some of that will trickle down the the masses that do or do not read tnr"
No it won't. That was the purpose of the new, reduced capital gains taxes.
And don't be surprised if the Republicans don't rediscover Keynes after they take over. Many long serving congresscritters lost their seat in 2010 because they weren't conservative enough. I wouldn't expect more than a barrage of tax cuts, and even that might not come until after they've elminated all those nasty, socialistic programs and welfare being sucked up by the parasites.
- GSpinks
November 5, 2011 at 3:44pm
GSpinks. Since a Repub is likely to be elected in 2012, we'll all get a chance to see whose right. Care to bet? Repubs will rediscover Keynes because it is a way to reward big Business--- and most Repubs will do so, and be joined by Dems if it means spending on something. Tea Baggers won't win that one because they'll get Dem votes and most Repubs will support a Repub Prez-- albeit Perry would mpore likely get more back bench support than Romney. Keynesian economics is amoral.. Gov't spending on infrastructure or jobs has a better multiplier (and more middle class benefits) than Gov't spending on military adventures or drilling dry wells--- but the latter spending is better than no spending in a liquidity trap. And Repubs will definytely find ways to spend.
- drofnats1
November 5, 2011 at 5:46pm
All-I-am-is-clueless-5 Reality check. Liberals lost decisively in the 2010 election due to the ineffectiveness of Democratic economic policies. Can you remember back that far? And DC was controlled by the moonbats during that time. But I do support your desire to have the Democrats run on a 'more Gov spending to create jobs' platform. Lets get rid of Keynes once and for all. Gov doesn't create sustainable private sector jobs -- never has. And spending 100K to create a 50K temp job is insane -- at least for the non-public sector parasites. Finally, while I know that facts play no role in the minds of moonbats, but the economy has been getting better since 2010 elections.
- mr_rationale
November 6, 2011 at 8:37pm
Well, really, there's two quesitons here. 1. Why didn't we get a Great Depression 2.0? Because in Obama's first two years, he WAS able to implement some Keynesian stimulus. 2. Why do we STILL have an over 9% unemployment rate 3 years later? Because Republicans were able to cripple the initial Keynesian stimulus, and how bad the situation was was underestimated (which allowed the Republicans etc.), and in December 2010 the Republicans held America hostage to get the Bush tax-cuts renewed, etc. Bottom line: Obama's efforts prevented Depression 2.0. But Republican intransigence has maintained the latest Recession. If the Republicans had their way, we'd have cut 100 billion from the Federal Budget and triggered Recession 2.0. But otherwise we're living with Republican policies.
- AllanL5
November 7, 2011 at 10:01am
If you want to know what will happen if Republicans regain control of the white house, you have to look no further than Paul Ryan's budget. With a Republican president, there'll be too much pressure for a Democrat controlled Senate to do anything but as they're told. That assumes Republicans don't regain control of the senate. If they do, it'll be a tea party orgy, like the Republican orgy of 2001, that got us to where we are now. The only thing vaguely Keynesian will be the reduced taxes on the job creators.
Rat-less, you do realize government employees have the same effect on their surrounding economies as you private sector parasites: buying houses, cars, groceries, clothing, dining out? That's a lot of private sector jobs. This does not change because their salaries are paid by the tax payers.
- GSpinks
November 7, 2011 at 1:04pm