The Obama Legacy

[HuskerNation1]

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the labor force participation rate (lfpr) decrease as more people find jobs? I guess I may be hung up on what active participation in the labor market means.

 

It means you have a job or are looking for a job.

 

 

 

One huge factor here is the aging of baby boomers. Around the age of 65-75, people drop out of this. The rate of drop outs has increased a lot recently because there are a lot more people at retirement age now than there were before the baby boomers reached that stage.

 

 

^Birth rate chart. The labor force participation rate is going to keep getting lower for some time. There's a chart at the following link which shows labor force participation for ages 25-54:

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060

 

 

I've posted this link before, but the data shows that the labor force participation rate among those at retirement age has actually gone up since the early 2000s, and the drop is among those in the non-retirement age. This certainly isn't a complete black and white situation, but the reality of underemployment and those not finding single good paying jobs continues to be a challenge.

[HuskerNation1]

Also, you keep mentioning the national deficit, like it's supposed to be some big scary number and that we should cower in fear of it's immensity. But I don't think the deficit means much when it's isolated; in other words, we need to have something to compare the national debt to. How about GDP? I was reading somewhere that the US national deficit as a percent of GDP in 2009 was nearly 10%: we owed a lot and weren't producing as much and that was a huge jump from just over 3% in 2008.

 

So, what led to that spike? The bank bailouts, and why did the banks need bailing out?

 

Since 2009 the national debt as a % of GDP has fallen, currently sitting at 2.4% as of 2015.

 

Well in 2009 our GDP was down because of the recession, but if you looked at the link I provided earlier, the % of debt relative to GDP is going to be at a 50-year high in the coming years after Obama leaves office.

[84HuskerLaw]

Some number I just read from Bureau of Labor Stats (Government): Since Obama claimed the 'recession was over" about a year and half into his first term, the number of good paying jobs (over $50,000 basically)(average working hours 40.30) has gone down in the country by 2.8 million. The number of new jobs added is about 3.4 million and the average of those is about $22,000) (average working hours per week 24). The 'new jobs' added by the economy under Obama have been essentially part time jobs in the leisure and food service industry (restaurants workers such as waits and kitchen and custodial and in the hotel industry for cleaning and etc.). These few jobs we haveadded are low wage, unskilled and a majority of those taken by new workers (first time entrants and those who are otherwise retired or receiving assistance, etc. such as seniors on social security). These jobs are NOT living wage and self supporting positions and do not produce enough earnings for the worker to support him or herself and any dependents. In many cases they do not lift the worker out of the federally defined poverty rates.

 

The latest job report, for example, showed something like 283,000 jobs in June but that followed May's dismal 50,000 or so. Of the 283,000, 59,000 were the 'rehires' of striking Verizon workers who simply went back to work. These are not by any reasonable standard 'new jobs' created. More of the Democrat's political spin on ugly facts and a perfect example of when they changed their lingo to "new jobs added OR SAVED" LOL Manufacturing jobs are overall down. Energy sector has been at best intermittent.

 

Further, it is funny how the liberals decry the so called 'income inequality' or the great disparity of incomes between the high income earners and the rest of the society. These are the "1%" of the population that are living beyond the American dream really. They are very wealthy and have done incredibly well under Obama mostly because of the dramatic rise of the publicly traded stocks. The DOW being up substantially despite the otherwise crappy economic woes the 99% are enduring. The primary reasons for the rise of stocks is the near Zero percent interest rates on savings of any kind. Money receiving little or nothing for interest naturally has migrated into the stock market in search of some kind of returns. This new money has of course driven up the markets and each time the market has faltered due in large part, in my opinion, to the natural forces of the marketplace coming through by a recognition of the great problems in the economy and that in an economic sense, stock prices are way over valued. The Price to Earnings ratios are way too high from the norms considering the declines in corporate earnings over the past couple years for example. Additionally, I am convinced the FED has been manipulating the stock markets with interventions frequently when drops, 'corrections' etc have been appearing. The FED has no business investing borrowed tax dollars or printed ones for that matter in the private equities markets.

 

We need sane, rational, common sense economic policies with dramatic reductions in federal spending, big income tax rate cuts in both individual and corporate sectors, and repeal of tens of thousands of pages of stupid regulations. We have none of the above.

 

Yes, the federal DEBT has nearly doubled under Obama in just 8 years and he leaves the next President with a complete fiscal disaster and huge deficits annually projected into the trillions and trillions. When Obama became President America was introduced to the term "trillion" in budget terms and most people rarely if ever had heard the term. The average deficit annually of Obama will end up being over a trillion! The number is approaching 19.5 trillion in debt today and most certainly will end up over 20 trillion. 10 trillion over 8 years is well above 1 trillion per year. The worst Bush deficit was barely half that and that was AFTER 911 which was the biggest single shock to the National economy and confidence and psyche of any event since Pearl Harbor perhaps. Don't pretend that Obama has done anything positive for the economy. He has shaken the world's confidence in America as a world leading super power at the minimum and in fact to indicate Obama's lack of leadership he had absolutely zero influence over even the selection of the site of the Olympics as was even laughingly shut out of the room when the world leaders discussed the topic (only months after having been given the Nobel prize for doing nothing but being elected).

 

Sorry about the typos but just having to quick write this stuff makes me quite angry that we as a nation have had to live with all this crap.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

Also, you keep mentioning the national deficit, like it's supposed to be some big scary number and that we should cower in fear of it's immensity. But I don't think the deficit means much when it's isolated; in other words, we need to have something to compare the national debt to. How about GDP? I was reading somewhere that the US national deficit as a percent of GDP in 2009 was nearly 10%: we owed a lot and weren't producing as much and that was a huge jump from just over 3% in 2008.

 

So, what led to that spike? The bank bailouts, and why did the banks need bailing out?

 

Since 2009 the national debt as a % of GDP has fallen, currently sitting at 2.4% as of 2015.

 

Well in 2009 our GDP was down because of the recession, but if you looked at the link I provided earlier, the % of debt relative to GDP is going to be at a 50-year high in the coming years after Obama leaves office.

 

 

Projected.

[cm husker]

Obama, like Bush, always felt well intentioned, even if I didn't agree with an approach.

 

The two candidates today don't strike me as well intentioned. They strike me as pure opportunists.

[AFhusker]

Obama, like Bush, always felt well intentioned, even if I didn't agree with an approach.

 

The two candidates today don't strike me as well intentioned. They strike me as pure opportunists.

We finally agree on something.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the labor force participation rate (lfpr) decrease as more people find jobs? I guess I may be hung up on what active participation in the labor market means.

It means you have a job or are looking for a job.

 

 

 

One huge factor here is the aging of baby boomers. Around the age of 65-75, people drop out of this. The rate of drop outs has increased a lot recently because there are a lot more people at retirement age now than there were before the baby boomers reached that stage.

 

 

^Birth rate chart. The labor force participation rate is going to keep getting lower for some time. There's a chart at the following link which shows labor force participation for ages 25-54:

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060

I've posted this link before, but the data shows that the labor force participation rate among those at retirement age has actually gone up since the early 2000s, and the drop is among those in the non-retirement age. This certainly isn't a complete black and white situation, but the reality of underemployment and those not finding single good paying jobs continues to be a challenge.

It's gone up but not enough to make up for how many are retiring at this time. If you look at the bottom link I posted, it excludes people at retirement ages.

[knapplc]

The Obama economy.

 

 

 

[cm husker]

Knapp, the president, none of them, have almost any impact on the value of the stock market, and to the degree that they do, it's a lagging indicator, so we might not know obamas until 5 to 10 years from now.

[TGHusker]

After last week - Race relationships might be a part of Obama's legacy. Their are multiple reasons why the flames of racial fires have been fanned so one cannot peg this on the president singularly. But how he handles it going forward could become a part of his legacy.

[zoogs]

One of those reasons is the disproportionate incarceration and suffering of black people at the hands of police, something that has been amplified by past policy and which had always been met with a national shrug.

 

Another is stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the discontent. Somehow, in this year and in this country, what could generously be described as putting on blinders has mass appeal. It's exemplified in the message of Donald "I'm not racist, you're the one that's racist" Trump.

 

This is one are where, IMO, Obama has an unambiguously good message. It's just plain hard for people who've never had to walk in others' shoes to empathize -- especially when there's been pretty effective, well-honed counterprogramming over the years.

[Moiraine]

One of those reasons is the disproportionate incarceration and suffering of black people at the hands of police, something that has been amplified by past policy and which had always been met with a national shrug.

 

Another is stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the discontent. Somehow, in this year and in this country, what could generously be described as putting on blinders has mass appeal. It's exemplified in the message of Donald "I'm not racist, you're the one that's racist" Trump.

 

This is one are where, IMO, Obama has an unambiguously good message. It's just plain hard for people who've never had to walk in others' shoes to empathize -- especially when there's been pretty effective, well-honed counterprogramming over the years.

 

Well said. The empathy part is something I've thought about a lot. People are so quick to write off what other people have gone through/go through and not even attempt to put themselves in their shoes.

[TGHusker]

Moiraine and Zoogs - both very good thoughts. I, as a white person, cannot imagine being AA and being approached by a person of authority or by a policeman without some concern based on the current mood. One of the most impactful books I read in high school so many years ago was "Black Like Me". A reporter from the north use pigmentation pills & dyes to cause him to look like a "Negro" from the south. He then traveled in Miss, Alabama etc and reported how he was treated. I thought of that book when I saw the girlfriend of the man killed in Minneapolis talk about the ordeal. Filming her boy friend dying. It is horrific and I grieve over that and the Baton Rouge incident as well. This summer has the feeling of 1967 or 1968 again - riots due to injustices not being addressed. I hope it doesn't go as bad as 67/68 but you both are right, these issues have to be dealt with. And Obama can turn this into a good thing. Perhaps, being AA himself & understanding the issue better based on experience, he was the 1st in a long time to address the injustices (at least give voice to ) that have been boiling under the surface.

[cm husker]

One of those reasons is the disproportionate incarceration and suffering of black people at the hands of police, something that has been amplified by past policy and which had always been met with a national shrug.

 

Another is stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the discontent. Somehow, in this year and in this country, what could generously be described as putting on blinders has mass appeal. It's exemplified in the message of Donald "I'm not racist, you're the one that's racist" Trump.

 

This is one are where, IMO, Obama has an unambiguously good message. It's just plain hard for people who've never had to walk in others' shoes to empathize -- especially when there's been pretty effective, well-honed counterprogramming over the years.

 

I have only had time to scan most of this thread, and I agree with much in your posts.

 

One thing I think is important to point out, and I don't think it contradicts your sentiments, is that often aggressive prosecutions and enhanced sentencing have been demanded by local community leaders as much as outside forces (e.g., it's not suburban folks wanting minorities cracked down on; it's minorities within communities that push for the crackdown). I'd like to research it some more, but I'm almost certain that was the case for the infamous crack sentencing guidelines (versus cocaine) during the 80s, as a result of black leadership seeing their communities ravaged by the drug wars and crack epidemic specifically.

 

Unfortunately, they didn't understand the long term consequences of that crackdown and missed the best strategy, which would have been legalization (or somehow forcing suburban consumers to buy drugs in their own communities, but that's for another thread).

 

I say this with the caveat that I haven't done a lot of recent reading/vetting on that info, but I'm almost certain if you look at congressional records during the 80s, they will back up the notion that local black leaders wanted enhanced punishments in hopes of curbing the damage. That may, to some degree, skew the results of profiling analysis and race comparisons.

 

To me, it's a really interesting study on how the best of intentions can have an awful effect.

 

That's all not to diminish the fact that minorities, and particularly blacks, have a legitimate feeling of persecution due to long standing policies, whether those policies were partly a result of black leadership or not (and this leaves aside the outright racist laws, such as segregation, that were in place into the 1970s).

 

EDIT: based on a scan, here's an NPR story suppporting my recollection; I haven't looked at congressional minutes yet:

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/16/212620886/the-shift-in-black-views-of-the-war-on-drugs

[cm husker]

Probably for another thread, but not sure where to put it:

 

My biggest concern about using these death cases, on both sides, is that it obfuscates the real day to day issues that minorities and police each face. Instead of talking about the legit concerns on both sides, we getting a pissing match over whether a specific act was or wasn't justified, often based on imperfect or even outright false information. Then, when things play out one way or the other, the "winning side" claims total victory and dismisses the other's concerns out of hand.

 

To mean, the deaths are a tragedy, but so are (SWAG here) the 5,000,000 hours a year of people's time, both police and wrongly accused, that are wasted by bad policing protocols such as profiling.

 

It's kind of like the "making a murder" netflix show. People want to argue over Steve Avery's innocence (I think he's guilty, ftr), but the real interesting part of that doc is how it demonstrates that if you don't have money and/or wherewithal in the criminal justice system, you're screwed. I think that should have been the focus rather than the notion that this specific guy was innocent.