Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Wow this graph really says it all.
The Labor Force Participation Rate shows what percentage of people are working, looking for a job and not looking for a job. It is a better yardstick to measure the workforce in America than is the usually cited "unemployment rate" which doesn't count people who are so frustrated they stopped looking for a job.
The graph shows a huge upswing in labor participation through the Reagan years. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush kept the numbers up in Reagan territory. Since Obama has taken over, he has wiped out the entirety of the Reagan gains.
Hat tip to www.ZeroHedge.com for the graph.
They also have an excellent piece on why the unemployment rate right now is really 11.6%, not the 8.1% the administration is claiming. Read it here.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Well those jobs might just be disappearing, rather than being filled by new workers. Think of manufacturing. Modern plants need less workers. Many of the old workers can't be let go because of contractual obligations, but the jobs will go away through attrition.
Apr '11
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Mark Belling Fan
Tommy De Seno
Great question MBF. Wouldn't the draw down of savings generate spending and boost the economy? · 12 minutes ago
I only have two semesters of Econ under my belt, so I can't answer that with certainty. My understanding is that production and savings are what grow an economy over long term periods. Spending down savings in order to consume is probably good for GDP numbers in the short term, until the stored wealth is spent. · 7 minutes ago
Wont the consumption of good's mean that the money now goes into the pockets of new people who will again put it back into savings? So old investments are just replaced by new ones. The money doesn't evaporate it changes hands. Money that is not eventually spent is wasted, no?
May '10
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
I have to call foul here. Obama can be blamed surely for not reversing the decline, but the most precipitous fall-off was surely brought about by circumstances that predated his inauguration. Technically these may have been in 2009 but those are not "his" to own. The argument is too easily dismissed when it does not acknowledge the shock that took place under Bush's watch. Obama was given a two chamber majority for a reason after all. What he failed to do with that is on him, but let's be intellectually honest here.
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
I've added a few comments in a separate post, as I did not think it would fit here.
Apr '11
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Valiuth
Well those jobs might just be disappearing, rather than being filled by new workers. Think of manufacturing. Modern plants need less workers. Many of the old workers can't be let go because of contractual obligations, but the jobs will go away through attrition. · 9 minutes ago
Exactly, under the left, and to a lesser degree moderate Republicans, we have had a truly contracting economy. Putting more focus on what the government can do for you. When we had an expanding economy the same people told us that we had to reduce our growth, curtail our use of resources to save the planet. They never really explained what a smaller economy meant for all of us, especially "the poor."
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Bush's fault. I think I've heard that sort of "intellectual honesty" enough over the past 4 years.
Apr '11
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Maybe our economy just needs to learn to take its beating like a man.
Sep '10
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Valiuth
Mark Belling Fan
I only have two semesters of Econ under my belt, so I can't answer that with certainty. My understanding is that production and savings are what grow an economy over long term periods. Spending down savings in order to consume is probably good for GDP numbers in the short term, until the stored wealth is spent. · 7 minutes ago
Wont the consumption of good's mean that the money now goes into the pockets of new people who will again put it back into savings? So old investments are just replaced by new ones. The money doesn't evaporate it changes hands. Money that is not eventually spent is wasted, no? · 24 minutes ago
The money doesn't evaporate, but the consumed product does. There has to be other workers in the labor force to replace the consumed product.
I simply can't imagine conceptually how it could be good for an economy that a significant portion of the population would shift from "producing and consuming" to simply "consuming".
Feb '12
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
I'd say Obama and his party bear the blame, since they acted to foil any reform of Fannie and Freddie and residential lending requirements. They also favored government intervention in the market in general rather than letting free market competition reduce risks.
I also blame Greenspan and the Fed, but Greenspan was appointed and re-appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents.
To a lesser extent, I blame the credit ratings agencies and the banks, in that order. (Of course, the vast majority of those employees vote Democrat, at least in NYC.)
I have no objection to laying the blame at the feet of Obama and his party.
What is the argument that this was Bush's fault? That he didn't try hard enough to beat down the Democrats when they objected to his reforms of Fannie and Freddie?
Sep '10
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Tommy De Seno
Bush's fault. I think I've heard that sort of "intellectual honesty" enough over the past 4 years. · 44 minutes ago
Tommy: with respect, I think Trace isn't saying it's Bush's fault, but that the graph you posted shows a very steep drop just before Obama's inauguration. This doesn't exculpate Obama, but Trace's point--I think--is that we should not extend his blame beyond what the data shows.
Incidentally, could you give a link to the graph? Your first link is just to the Zero Hedge main page.
May '10
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Leporello
What is the argument that this was Bush's fault?
To the extent that any of this can be laid on a president and his policies, the decline is owned by Bush, the stagnation by Obama. Democrats favored Fannie and Freddie but reforming them was hardly a top priority of the administration. No one in power was doing anything to stop the flow of cheap money. And it was an 11th hour amendment by Lindsay Graham that deregulated the creation of the derivatives that got the mess started in the first place. And BTW -- the ratings agencies are no more to blame than the lazy buyers who should have known better.
The real discussion is the one King has initiated above, what does the chart really mean and then how can we fix it -- and the Obama solution is all wrong. But the simple argument that Obama undid Reagan is partisan nonsense that does nothing to advance the cause for conservatism in a credible way. The chart only reminds people of the incredibly tough hand Obama was dealt.
The better comparison is between Reagan's corrective policies that worked and Obama's that have not.
Oct '10
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Tommy De Seno
You are right I made a mistake in rushing to get it up. LFPR includes folks who have given up looking in the unemployed numbers where the UR does not.
I fixed it in the text. Thanks for the edit! · 3 hours ago
Thanks, Tommy! Now I'm armed and can go whack my Libs.
Oct '10
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Tommy De Seno
Bush's fault. I think I've heard that sort of "intellectual honesty" enough over the past 4 years. · 2 hours ago
Of the "circumstances that predated his inauguration," which ones did he, as US Senator, oppose?
I find it hard to exculpate a man who inherits his own bequest.
Edited on May 4, 2012 at 8:43pmRe: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
@Trace Urdan: Are you up for discussing whether Keynesian forays into the private market has the effect of depressing employment numbers or is accusatons of "dishonesty" and "nonsense" intellectually stimulating enough for you?
Edited on May 7, 2012 at 8:32pmMay '10
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Tommy De Seno: @Trace Urdan: Are you up for discussing whether Keynesian forays into the private market has the effect of depressing employment numbers or is accusatons of "dishonesty" and "nonsense" intellecutally stimulating enough for you? · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
Tommy we are not in disagreement on any point of substance, merely style. The chart is an interesting one and worth discussing. I'm merely calling you out on the AM-radio-red-meat-bumper-sticker stuff; I think you and this site are better than that. In fact the analysis offered by King in the subsequent post proves that there is more going on than Reagan good, Obama bad. As I said multiple times above, the President's response likely made the situation worse, but it's not all on his head. And I don't think any point is served by trying to assert that the blame is solely his. In fact I think making that assertion only harms the credibility of the conservative case for what to do next.
Feb '12
Re: Four Years of Obama Undoes Eight Years of Reagan
Trace Urdan
Leporello
What is the argument that this was Bush's fault?
... Democrats favored Fannie and Freddie but reforming them was hardly a top priority of the administration...
So we agree, then. As I said, the argument that it's Bush's fault is that he didn't try hard enough to overcome Democratic opposition to reform. In other words, the main problem was Democratic intransigence and demagoguery. Secondarily, the Republicans didn't show enough spine in fighting the Democrats.
It was then-Sen. Obama and his party who brought this problem on us. Bush doesn't own it.
No Republican anywhere should be willing to nod his head when Obama's minions say yet again, "Obama inherited a terrible mess."