Rising a mere .4% from last month as the economy shed more jobs than expected:
Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994 .
The jobless rate rose from 9.8 percent in September…One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: the number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, a record. They comprise 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.
The stimulus doesn’t appear to be, er, stimulating as the White House predicted, huh? They’ll continue the “created or saved” shell game, which basically amounts to saying hey, look at this shiny object over here, but their credibility is increasingly shaky.
If you thought red-state Democrats were worried before, well…
#1 by jeff on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
Does anyone remember Obama saying if the stimulus bill was passed it would keep unemployment below 8 % ? Joe Wilson was right Obama is a liar.
#2 by Megan on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
How many people are actually surprised by this?
#3 by Anon on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
Only cave dwellers and those living under rocks, probably. I can’t get over the saved jobs narrative, and neither can the Sacramento paper: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2309303.html
The second link in the post is the most illustrative of exactly how wrong they were on the stimulus.
#4 by jeff on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
Megan im not surprised at all the stimulus bill was a short sighted plan. It has nothing in it to create any long term jobs. Before taking office the only thing that Obama had ever run was his mouth and now it is really showing.Megan and Anon you have the very best blog keep up the good work.
#5 by zen on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
Just curious…what do you suppose would be the condition of the economy and unemployment had the government not assisted? Many economists believe that we’d be far worse off. I’m just curious what the alternative solution even was.
#6 by jeff on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
It would be the same. What has the stimulus done to create any long term jobs ? Only 14% of the stimulus has been spent so how would anything be any different ?
#7 by Anon on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
I don’t know. Yeah, many economists do believe things would’ve been worse without it…but were these the same economists which the White House based their stimulus predictions on, the same ones that said unemployment would top off at 9% without their plan? If I remember correctly, most people at the time were on board with the idea of some sort of stimulus, there was just vast disagreement on its makeup, price tag, and how it would be targeted.
In February, at a news conference I think, Obama said the success or failure of his stimulus rested on stopping the loss of jobs and reversing unemployment. I think people will start holding him to that.
#8 by zen on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
I think it’s pretty certain that inaction would have deepened and extended the crisis.
Some economists that supported the stimulus thought thought it should have been even larger. So perhaps it’s fair to say that unemployment would have been capped at 8 or even 9 percent had a full intended plan been enacted. As well it’s an important point to ponder what has a handicapped stimulus been unable to produce.
Aside from the politics of it all a statistical fact is that employment lags behind other indicators of a recovering economy. This is apparent with the improved GDP picture, that on it’s face appears to contradict the jobs numbers.
Also of note is that the majority of TARP funds are in the form of Tax benefits—$288 Billion. So, I still don’t understand what the alternative “plan” was/is. To not do anything? Undeniably people expect results, as we damn well should. But to argue against the stimulus outright, and in principle contradicts a plan that was weighted heaviest in tax relief also.
#9 by Anon on November 6th, 2009
| Quote
Oh, I remember the arguments for a larger stimulus. But the White House predictions were based on a $775 Billion stimulus: http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf. I think the final stimulus measure was $787 Billion. So if the WH made those job estimates relying on the predicted effects of a much larger stimulus then the one they pushed for, Obama needs to fire a few of his advisors. And close to a trillion might be handicapped to Krugman types, but it isn’t to me.
I realize too that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But, even the WH at times has seemed confused on what the stimulus was designed to do, and its effects: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stimulus-facts31-2009oct31,0,72545.story. That reeks of throwing something against the wall and hoping it sticks, nothing more. And the improved GDP picture is great, but a big chunk of that was cash for clunkers.
Where does TARP come into play in reference to the Stimulus? I don’t remember too many arguing outright against a stimulus. There was vehement disagreement, though, on how it should be structured and where the monies should be directed. It was loaded with pork, too…$650 million for digital TV coupons, if I’m not mistaken? If Obama is able to claim that the stimulus created (or the highly dubious saved) 3 million jobs, then that amounts to over $200,000 per job. What kind of value is that, especially when the cost doesn’t include servicing the interest on it?
I’m not suggesting I have the answers, because I don’t. I can link you to conservative think tanks which argue no stimulus, or a much smaller, more targeted one, would’ve been better, but then of course you can always do the same with those arguing Keynesian theories and proposing much larger stimulus packages. All I know is what was passed, what the White House promised, and what we’re seeing now. The fact they have to resort to the rather dubious “saved” jobs meme tells me they’re not as confident as they should be about it. I think GDP is supposed to remain stagnant, at best, for some time, which means the private economy won’t be creating the jobs to sustain a recovery.
#10 by Deb SF on November 7th, 2009
| Quote
In this part of the 2nd to the last paragraph:
“Where does TARP come into play in reference to the Stimulus? I don’t remember too many arguing outright against a stimulus. There was vehement disagreement, though, on how it should be structured and where the monies should be directed.”
Does the it in the last sentence refer to TARP or the stimulus?
#11 by Anon on November 7th, 2009
| Quote
The stimulus. There was a lot of disagreement about TARP and whether it was a good idea…I think it failed on its first House vote, even after McCain’s supposedly selfless but incredibly stupid move to suspend his campaign to work on it, but enough GOP arms were twisted the 2nd go around that it went through.
Amongst the Right, anyway, I don’t recall a lot of people saying the gov’t should do nothing vis a vis stimulus. That wasn’t the main argument. It had more to do with how the stimulus should be structured, what it should target (i.e. encouraging investment by lowering capital gains), and how much it should cost. In many ways, the same thing we’re seeing in regards to healthcare reform.
#12 by Deb SF on November 7th, 2009
| Quote
Thanks for the clarification.