US only Creates 69,000 New Jobs, Unemployment Rate rises to 8.2%

Quote from Deusxmachina : ? You just said Reagan did it. Just like "decades of wrong-headed conservative economic policy" created the recession in the 90s, I guess. Oh wait, Dems love the 90s. It's a good thing no well-known and long-standing bank rules were changed on Clinton's watch with a bipartisan Congress, either....

Reagan opened our country to an unlimited flood of goods from Asia sold at below-cost prices. Japan's attempt to destroy America in WWII failed, so instead they sought to use economic warfare against us by eviscerating our manufacturing base. The term "American factory" is now all but consigned to history books, but the Japanese forgot one thing--China can do the same thing to both the US and Japan because it has an army of slave labor.

We used to have trade barriers to protect our industries against slave labor, government subsidized industries, the dumping of goods, etc... Reagan tore those defenses down. We got a lot of cheap Asian goods, and an economy built on mopping floors, cooking fries, buying and selling Asian goods, and building houses to be sold and resold in a giant ponzi scheme.

The latter was Bush, but the huge structural issue of us not having a real economy--that is, and economy built on making stuff to sell to other nations--was caused by Reagan.

DEAR AMERICA: You Should Be Mad As Hell About This [CHARTS]

Quote : Let's start with the obvious: Unemployment. Three years after the financial crisis, the unemployment rate is still at one of the highest levels since the Great Depression. http://www.businessinsider.com/de...012-6?op=1

This will be Obama's legacy

Quote from darkfrog : This will be Obama's legacy

Sad but true.

Quote from homers : Especially since the real number is closer to 20% (if the gov't calculated the unemployment rate the same today as it did during the great depression). Massive (millions) have fallen off since "they stopped looking" and the under employed is still huge.

RP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2NnpZVLVcI

RT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlmxdkFRbYo

Schiff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME_w2n2-9Y0

Quote from darkfrog : This will be Obama's legacy

Ummmmm....you do realize that the chart you're pointing to shows employment levels in months after peak employment. Now, look at the date on the red line, which reflects the Bush Recession. What is the date on that line?

Why, it's 2007...2 years before President Obama was elected.

Hmmmmm....Now, look at the trendline. We see a precipitous decline from 0-24 months after peak employment. Remember, peak employment is 2007, so we see a precipitous decline from 2007-2009. Who was in the White House then?

Hmmmmm....Now, look at when the trendline begins to stabilize and slowly increase, showing job gains. That begins in the spring of 2009...right about when...hmm....who was the President in the Spring of 2009?

ROFL!

That was fun!

Quote from gunnerusa : Hmmmmm....Now, look at the trendline. We see a precipitous decline from 0-24 months after peak employment. Remember, peak employment is 2007, so we see a precipitous decline from 2007-2009. Who was in the White House then? Hmmmmm....Now, look at when the trendline begins to stabilize and slowly increase, showing job gains. That begins in the spring of 2009...right about when...hmm....who was the President in the Spring of 2009?

Who controlled Congress during those times?

Quote from gunnerusa : Ummmmm....you do realize that the chart you're pointing to shows employment levels in months after peak employment. Now, look at the date on the red line, which reflects the Bush Recession. What is the date on that line? Why, it's 2007...2 years before President Obama was elected. Hmmmmm....Now, look at the trendline. We see a precipitous decline from 0-24 months after peak employment. Remember, peak employment is 2007, so we see a precipitous decline from 2007-2009. Who was in the White House then? Hmmmmm....Now, look at when the trendline begins to stabilize and slowly increase, showing job gains. That begins in the spring of 2009...right about when...hmm....who was the President in the Spring of 2009? ROFL! That was fun!

The graph is highlighting and comparing the time it take for economic recovery. If you really are happy with the line merely stabilizing and SLOOOOWLY increasing with very little gains, then go ahead and vote for the guy keeping the line from shooting back up.

Quote from darkfrog : The graph is highlighting and comparing the time it take for economic recovery. If you really are happy with the line merely stabilizing and SLOOOOWLY increasing with very little gains, then go ahead and vote for the guy keeping the line from shooting back up.

The slope of the current line is almost the same as than from 2001 and not dramatically different from 1990 nor 1980.

But it seems your chart analysis fails to account for the magnitude of the jobs lost, most of which occurred under Bush.

One might logically consider that job losses a factor of 2 or 3 greater would indicate deeper systemic problems from which it would be more difficult to recover.

So a deriving a conclusion on policy effectiveness from a superficial comparison of curve slopes is simplistic at best and dishonest at worst.

Quote from 124nic8 : So a deriving a conclusion on policy effectiveness from a superficial comparison of curve slopes is simplistic at best and dishonest at worst.

Pretending this graph is the only thing I'm basing my conclusions on is simplistic at best and dishonest at worst.

Quote from darkfrog : Pretending this graph is the only thing I'm basing my conclusions on is simplistic at best and dishonest at worst.

Good thing I didn't invoke that pretension then....but that's the sole reasoning you've provided here.

And you've not denied that graph does not distinguish the results of Obama's policies from the results of the recent others, so it does not corroborate your argument in the least.

Nor have you disputed that Obama's actually doing better than other recent examples when considering the depth of the problems illustrated by that graph.

Quote from darkfrog : The graph is highlighting and comparing the time it take for economic recovery. If you really are happy with the line merely stabilizing and SLOOOOWLY increasing with very little gains, then go ahead and vote for the guy keeping the line from shooting back up.

And how is this guy keeping the line from shooting back up?

new month same story..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/bus...story.html

Quote : U.S. added 80,000 jobs in June as economy struggles The economy continued its sluggish performance in June as employers added just 80,000 jobs and the nation’s unemployment rate remained at 8.2 percent, the government reported Friday. The number of people officially labeled unemployed held steady at 12.7 million, and the number of people who have been out of work for more than six months remained at 5.4 million, accounting for nearly 42 percent of the overall unemployed. A broader measure of unemployment, known as the U6 rate, edged up to 14.9% from 14.8% in May. The category includes discouraged jobseekers and those forced to work part time because they cannot find full-time positions.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm/

Quote : U6 unemployment: March 14.5% April 14.5% May 14.8% June 14.9%

That's worse than last month.. not the same..