The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Also worth noting is what I haven't yet found a graph to show.

 

The red line there stays horizontal.

 

The Blue line continues to plummet.

 

The employment/population ratio dropped from 54% to 42% by 1933. Most of that drop happened in 1931 and 1932. In this case, it dropped fromm 63% to 58.5% and has stayed at 58.5% since it stabilized.

 

A similar magnitude drop in employment/population ratio would put it at ~50% right now. That would be an extra 25 million unemployed, give or take.

 

They are mirror images of each other.

 

The interesting thing is that the modern curve is in a nice downward turn, whereas the depression one was picking up at this time.

[Balta1701]

They are mirror images of each other.

 

The interesting thing is that the modern curve is in a nice downward turn, whereas the depression one was picking up at this time.

The modern curve is the most non-concave-downward thing I've ever seen. It's flat since the stimulus. Utterly utterly flat.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

The modern curve is the most non-concave-downward thing I've ever seen. It's flat since the stimulus. Utterly utterly flat.

 

 

Um, those graphs don't agree with each other.

[Balta1701]

Um, those graphs don't agree with each other.

Yes they do. It's really hard to get all the data on the same scale and taking everything to the modern without making the graph myself, which is incredibly tedious. Take a look at the scale on the previous graph...the big decrease 14-24 months after the employment peak is the downturn pre-stimulus, which shows up as the end of 2008/early 2009 plummet in the 2nd (FRED) graph.

[StrangeSox]

Um, those graphs don't agree with each other.

 

Balta's first graph, the one with the red and blue lines, ends 20 months after Peak Employment 2007, or November 2009.

[StrangeSox]

The modern curve is the most non-concave-downward thing I've ever seen. It's flat since the stimulus. Utterly utterly flat.

 

 

Just looking at the graph with a ruler, it looks like you can draw an ever-so-slightly downward trend line from 2010-present.

[southsider2k5]

Yes they do. It's really hard to get all the data on the same scale and taking everything to the modern without making the graph myself, which is incredibly tedious. Take a look at the scale on the previous graph...the big decrease 14-24 months after the employment peak is the downturn pre-stimulus, which shows up as the end of 2008/early 2009 plummet in the 2nd (FRED) graph.

 

The end of the first graph is showing a pretty impressive downturn at today. The other one doesn't, as a matter of a fact it shows and up turn..

[Balta1701]

The end of the first graph is showing a pretty impressive downturn at today. The other one doesn't, as a matter of a fact it shows and up turn..

The first graph comes no where near to "Today". It gets through mid-2009.

 

The debate was whether the stimulus measures by the Governmetn and the Fed kept the Great Contraction from happening. That graph shows it. The 2 lines continue to spread with time.

[southsider2k5]

The first graph comes no where near to "Today". It gets through mid-2009.

 

The debate was whether the stimulus measures by the Governmetn and the Fed kept the Great Contraction from happening. That graph shows it. The 2 lines continue to spread with time.

 

So out of curiosity are all of those including all of the "revisions" that have been done to the numbers? Do they both reflect the same definitions of "unemployment" or are they doing like you did in your first post and comparing completely different definitions of the same word to make a point that might not be true?

[Balta1701]

So out of curiosity are all of those including all of the "revisions" that have been done to the numbers? Do they both reflect the same definitions of "unemployment" or are they doing like you did in your first post and comparing completely different definitions of the same word to make a point that might not be true?

I had to go to that graph to get "civilian employment to population ratio", and the civilian employment revisions are much smaller than the revisions to GDP have been. That's why I had to find a graph that doesn't go to the modern, because you wouldn't accept the increase in unemployment %age from 5 to 25% in the depression as being larger than the increase from 5 to 9% in this recession. So yes, both of those graphs are showing the same number, just with different horizontal and vertical scales.

 

The FRED graph shows the numbers as they are now. If there are revisions made in the future, they will not be shown, due to the inability of the St. Louis Fed to predict the future.

[southsider2k5]

I had to go to that graph to get "civilian employment to population ratio", and the civilian employment revisions are much smaller than the revisions to GDP have been. That's why I had to find a graph that doesn't go to the modern, because you wouldn't accept the increase in unemployment %age from 5 to 25% in the depression as being larger than the increase from 5 to 9% in this recession. So yes, both of those graphs are showing the same number, just with different horizontal and vertical scales.

 

The FRED graph shows the numbers as they are now. If there are revisions made in the future, they will not be shown, due to the inability of the St. Louis Fed to predict the future.

 

"Civilian employment" in 1929 meant something different than it does now. If they are using the data from those respective eras, you are comparing two different things. That is why we call it 9% unemployment today and 20% during the depression.

[Balta1701]

"Civilian employment" in 1929 meant something different than it does now. If they are using the data from those respective eras, you are comparing two different things. That is why we call it 9% unemployment today and 20% during the depression.

No, no, no.

 

This is a much simpler number.

 

This is total number of available jobs divided by working aged population. Both graphs.

 

There is no resetting here for the people that have dropped out of the labor force for whatever reason, they count as total population.

[southsider2k5]

No, no, no.

 

This is a much simpler number.

 

This is total number of available jobs divided by working aged population. Both graphs.

 

There is no resetting here for the people that have dropped out of the labor force for whatever reason, they count as total population.

 

The definition of a "job" isn't the same now as then either.

[Balta1701]

The definition of a "job" isn't the same now as then either.

So pretty much you have no real data to present but you're going to insist that the stimulus had no effect and employment has continually gotten worse since 2008 and things are clearly worse than the Great Depression because of Obama, and it's impossible to prove you wrong with data because none of the actual data that's out there counts.

 

If you'll excuse me, I need to go wait in the bread line.

[southsider2k5]

So pretty much you have no real data to present but you're going to insist that the stimulus had no effect and employment has continually gotten worse since 2008 and things are clearly worse than the Great Depression because of Obama, and it's impossible to prove you wrong with data because none of the actual data that's out there counts.

 

If you'll excuse me, I need to go wait in the bread line.

 

The problem is that your data isn't going to be "real" unless all of the definitions are universal. I'm not sure how ignoring the changes in statistics since 1930 makes the information you have worthy of being the be all, end all for comparison's sake. Then again this started by you comparing unemployment rates from the two eras, so that should have been my first clue to let you keep letting the blogs tell you what to think.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

The problem is that your data isn't going to be "real" unless all of the definitions are universal. I'm not sure how ignoring the changes in statistics since 1930 makes the information you have worthy of being the be all, end all for comparison's sake. Then again this started by you comparing unemployment rates from the two eras, so that should have been my first clue to let you keep letting the blogs tell you what to think.

"The best data I can present, with noted caveats" >>>>> "2k5's totally unsupported contentions that things are worse now than in 1931 and the stimulus did nothing". Then again this started when you insisted without evidence that things are worse now after a 1% drop in GDP than after a 15 percentage point drop in GDP over a period of 2 years, so that should have been my first clue keep letting you make stuff up.

[southsider2k5]

"The best data I can present, with noted caveats" >>>>> "2k5's totally unsupported contentions that things are worse now than in 1931 and the stimulus did nothing". Then again this started when you insisted without evidence that things are worse now after a 1% drop in GDP than after a 15 percentage point drop in GDP over a period of 2 years, so that should have been my first clue keep letting you make stuff up.

 

Wait, you were just saying a near 10% drop the other day. Is this more of those "revised" figures?

[Jenksismyhero]

Sorry if posted somewhere else, but this made me laugh a little.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/1...years-of-shame/

 

He got his page views, so I guess mission accomplished?

[StrangeSox]

that's incredibly tame compared to what greenwald's been writing for years.

[EvilMonkey]

More talking points.. Name the exact regulations that have put into place since the economy took a dive.. that is a burden.

 

.

Here is one for ya. 500 jobs, poof! Gone.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/12/epa-regu...nates-500-jobs/

 

EPA regulation forces closure of Texas energy facilities, eliminates 500 jobs

 

Texas energy company Luminant announced on Monday new burdensome Environmental Protection Agency regulations are forcing it to close several facilities, which will result in about 500 job losses.

 

The company will be idling — stopping the usage of — two energy generating units. It will also cease extracting lignite from three different Texas mines.

 

The EPA regulation Luminant cites as too burdensome is the new Cross-State Air Pollution rule, which requires Texas power generators to make “dramatic reductions” in emissions beginning on January 1, 2012.

 

“We have hundreds of employees who have spent their entire professional careers at Luminant and its predecessor companies,” Luminant CEO David Campbell said in a statement. “At every step of this process, we have tried to minimize these impacts, and it truly saddens me that we are being compelled to take the actions we’ve announced today. We have filed suit to try to avoid these consequences.”

 

The company said it has been trying to meet the new standards, but won’t be able to do so without closing down several facilities and eliminating 500 jobs.

 

“As always, Luminant is committed to complying fully with EPA regulations,” Campbell said. “We have spent the last two months identifying all possible options to meet the requirements of this new rule, and we are launching a significant investment program to reduce emissions across our facilities.”

 

“However, meeting this unrealistic deadline also forces us to take steps that will idle facilities and result in the loss of jobs,” Campbell adds.

[Jenksismyhero]

that's incredibly tame compared to what greenwald's been writing for years.

 

It's one thing to say that kind of stuff in, oh I dunno, May or some other random time. But on 9/11? On the tenth anniversary? "As we remember this day, just remember that people used this tragedy to their advantage." Pot meet kettle.

[Balta1701]

Wait, you were just saying a near 10% drop the other day. Is this more of those "revised" figures?

Somehow, I'm not surprised at this point that the concept of the BLS publishing "annualized" GDP numbers is a major scandal. Or at least something I'm covering up.

 

I don't know how to make this clearer.

 

1930 ~8% drop in GDP over the full year

1931 ~6% drop in GDP over the full year

1932 ~10% drop in GDP over the full year

 

By the time FDR took office, GDP had decreased by over 25%. Add error bars if you want since the data is old, but they're no more than 1-2%.

 

In 2008, the Economy collapsed. It began collapsing at a ~5 % annual rate in Q3 of 2008 and at an 8.9% annualized rate in Q4 of 2008.

 

Over the full period from the peak in December 2007 to the bottom in March 2009, GDP declined by 5%.

 

You'll notice a couple things here. First, the 5% GDP drop is much less than the 25% GDP drop. However, the pace from Q4 of 2008 was, on an annualized basis, worse than the economic performance of 1930.

 

However, unlike 1930, the government did something. TARP happened. The auto bailouts happened. Citigroup and BofA received special bailouts. The Federal Reserve pumped out several trillion in cash to prevent the money supply from declining. And there was a significant stimulus package passed.

 

Because of all these things, instead of that -8.9% rate for 1 quarter repeating itself, the collapse stopped cold. The total GDP drop stopped at 5%, rather than continuing to march on. The economy instead resumed slow but nonzero growth, and at present, GDP sits just about 1% under the 2007 peak.

 

Here is one of your exact quotes.

We are on the exact same path right now. I know you won't ever see it that way, well unless it was the GOPs fault, but they are remarkably similar, your comparision of unemployment levels actually would strengthen that because back then they didn't make all of the specialized adjustments for people who can't seek unemployment, the underemployed etc. Effective unemployment right now isn't too far from 20% in reality.

The idea that we are on the exact same path right now is incorrect by an order of magnitude. We are currently 1% below peak GDP. In 1931, the U.S. was about 13% below peak GDP and collapsing fast, and would be 25% below within a little more than a year.. The U.S. has grown slowly, but non-zero since the financial industry imploded. The U.S. in 1931 was imploding by the day.

 

You've danced around the issue by trying to say that unemployment statistics are counted differently, so I switched to employment to population. You then said jobs aren't really jobs in the same way. Fine, you're right...but that also undermines any claim that unemployment now is close to 20% (what do you think underemployment, which is counted in U6, was doing during the depression? Counting that would double the Depression's unemployment rate).

 

Pick your statistic. You can't tell me that unemployment is close to 20% right now by using the U6 number which counts underemployment and then laugh off the unemployment estimates from the Depression which don't include underemployment in their count.

 

The idea that we're on the 1931 path and that the stimulus failed is laughable. We were on the 1929 path at the end of 2008, but then we did something, and we diverted to a very different path.

[Balta1701]

Here is one for ya. 500 jobs, poof! Gone.

Will Texas use less electricity because of these closures? Or will those jobs perhaps be picked up through increased production at other facilities, due to the constant demand for electricity?

[StrangeSox]

the stimulus succeeded in preventing a complete collapse but failed to break the cycle, so both sides can claim whatever they want.

[Balta1701]

To look at it another way, here is a graph I just made of the GDP numbers from the BLS.

 

The Blue line is the actual GDP. Where as of this quarter, we are slightly below the 2007 peak. Not great, but not a complete collapse.

 

The Red line is if we did what we did in 1930-1932. Nothing. If we just allowed the collapse to continue. The end of the red line is a GDP drop of ~22% from peak, about the same as where the country was in 1932 relative to the 1929 peak. That is an enormous difference. To honestly say that we're in the same position the country was in back in 1932 would mean that the economy had shrunk to the size it was during the middle of the Clinton Administration.