Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Obama's "Recovery"

We keep hearing it from Obama and his band of liberals, that we're in a great economic "recovery" after Bush destroyed the economy.  Obama, of course, is blameless in that.

In fact, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research the recession ended in June 2009.

Below are the BLS Employment - Population Ratio and Labor Force Participation Rate graphs from 2008-2012.* The employment to population ratio is on the top participation rate is on the bottom. Does this look like a recovery to you?  Would any rational adult consider this a recovery if they objectively looked at the numbers?  No.  It looks to me like the patient has flatlined.  So much for Keynesian "stimulus" eh?

Even if you consider the "jobs created" claims of Obama, the numbers there still aren't anywhere near enough to keep up with basic population growth.  Four more years of this will only add to a growing class of uneducated, unemployed young people living off of the government.  We've seen how well that's worked out for Europe.

Like Alan said, idle and stupid is not a good combination, as they tend to vote for whomever promises them the most "free" stuff.  I.E. Liberals.  Such a system simply cannot sustain itself.

In June 2009, when the recession supposedly ended, the participation rate was 65.7.  It has been significantly below that ever since and currently sits at 63.5, the lowest it has been since Obama took office in January 2009. There is no "recovery."

Keep in mind that a drop in the participation rate represents people dropping out of the workforce all together.  The official unemployment rate actually drops when the participation rate drops, which makes sense since the labor force shrinks.   To put it another way, the falling participation rate keeps the true measure of unemployment artificially low.

This quote from Peter Coy of Businessweek sums that up perfectly,

 It doesn't take that much intelligence to figure out that a falling unemployment rate due to fewer people working is not a positive.  The liberal media and the Democrats will tout a falling unemployment rate as "recovery" when the raw data shows nothing of the sort. 

It's the functional equivalent of claiming that Delaware's cancer rate is falling.......after everyone in the state with terminal cancer gets round up and thrown off a bridge.

*Graphs come from the bureau of labor statistics.  Google "bureau of labor statistics" and either of the two terms I discussed above and you can recreate the graphs you see here.


Alan said...

The only reason we're not "officially" in a recession is because the government borrowed like crazy and government spending is a component of GDP. Pull out that extra $trillion a year and we've never recovered.

Mike W. said...

Bingo Alan, From an old Reason article.

"Since government spending is increasing, and since such spending is a component of GDP, they assumed GDP would grow whether or not the spending produced real growth in the economy."