It’s the summer of recovery from the summer of recovery. Forward!
****
update: 2 charts, the first from Enrak:
…and the second from Glenn Reynolds
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Those charts are rayciss. And I’m pretty sure the modified employment curve describes one of the names of Allah, and should be erased along with its author at once.
Subjects, it’s self-evident tht this is the fault of G.W. Bush. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
I was a little surprised to see this, but I double-checked.
President Obama – 42 months in: -1.2 percentage point change in Total Nonfarm Private Employment/Total Noninstitutionalized Population
Presiden Bush – 42 months in: -3.0 percentage point change in Total Nonfarm Private Employment/Total Noninstitutionalized Population
If GW can get reelected with those numbers, I start to worry…
What am I missing?
“What am I missing?”
At a guess and only a guess, I’d check the numbers detailing the people ‘leaving the workforce’, as well as the numbers of so-called
‘under-employed’, though I don’t think either of these categories will exhaust the differences.
Those two shouldn’t matter in this calculation. The denominator isn’t workforce, it’s just total noninstitutionalized population.
Bush leads in the overall rate 49.2% vs. 45.7%.
But even as a percent change (rather than percentage point) Bush loses: -5.7% to -3.4%
911?
911?
I suppose. I was kind of hoping for a knock it out of the park, no explanations needed, no trickery metric.
But what’re ya gonna do?
Well, it did decimate the airline industry and rocked the stock market for a good bit.
Any way to attach a chart to a comment?
Insty posted this chart comparing change in US employment [not differentiated by non-farm private or otherwise, but total employment I suppose] over a number of recessions. Bush at 42 months from the recession’s inception (not from the beginning of his term) shows at somewhat less than -1.0, or approx -0.7 or so. Obama by contrast shows at approx. -4.9 at the same point relative to the recession’s inception.
Yeap, I saw that chart. I redid it as the start of the presidency rather than the start of the recession. I guess that is more fair to each, as Obama’s started prior to his inauguration and Bush’s started after.
Given that Bush signed the stimulus that Obama wanted, I’m not sure how it’s unfair to start the clock at inception, rather than inauguration. Is there anything Obama would have done differently had he taken office a year earlier?
It’s only fair if you believe monthly layoffs peaked in November, 2008 merely by coincidence.
Unemployment, June 2003 — 6.3% (of total labor force); Nov. 2003 — 5.8%.
Unemployment, June 2012 — 8.2% (of total labor force; Nov. 2012 — x (better, or worse than 8.2%?)
.
Further to Squid’s point, didn’t Obama vote for TARP?
The Democrats started the economic destruction in 2007. Drawing the line at the Presidential election doesn’t tell a very accurate story.
Mind you, Obama was more than *on board* with that process, he was part of it on both sides of the White House fence.
Jeff probably still wears his “Recovery Summer Tour 2010” t-shirt, but in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way.
If you’re still around Enrak, would you mind sourcing your chart?
Kinda looks like baseline budgeting, only in reverse.
Clearly all Obama has to due is start locking people up until the trendline moves favorably.
Here’s a laugh outloud lookback (2003) leftist attack on Bush’s 1st term unemployment numbers, at a time when unemployment benefits were good for 6 months (24 weeks). They’re up to 99 weeks now, aren’t they?
And then there’s the regular old comparison of unemployment rates. Bush was re-elected when unemployment was under 6% (headlines regarding “jobless recovery” notwithstanding). Jugears McDowngrade has presided over an economy where unemployment stubbornly refuses to drop below 8%, and that’s after they’ve cooked the numbers to take the long-term unemployed, the perpetual grad students, and the involuntary early retirement numbers out of the equation.
In 2004, most of us thought our jobs were fairly secure, and many more saw the appreciation in their home value as the next best thing to a second income*. In 2012, unemployment is at least 35% higher, and many more businesses are hanging on for dear life, and their workers know it. That sort of uncertainty and insecurity rarely benefits the incumbent, which is why the Chicago Machine is working so feverishly to spin and distract.
They’re going to keep hammering away with the War on Women, the War on Gays, the War on Youth, the War on Minorities, and the War on Poor Eric Holder, in a desperate attempt to distract from the War on Jobs they’ve executed so enthusiastically since 2006.
* Hindsight may tell us that such beliefs were foolish, but that’s how things looked at the time.
Chart is from BLS.
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 52.1% 52.1% 52.2% 52.3% 52.2% 52.2% 52.3% 52.2% 52.3% 52.2% 52.3% 52.2%
2001 52.2% 52.1% 52.1% 51.8% 51.8% 51.6% 51.5% 51.3% 51.1% 50.9% 50.7% 50.6%
2002 50.4% 50.3% 50.3% 50.2% 50.1% 50.1% 50.0% 49.9% 49.8% 49.8% 49.8% 49.6%
2003 49.4% 49.3% 49.2% 49.1% 49.0% 49.0% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9% 48.9%
2004 49.0% 49.0% 49.1% 49.1% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2% 49.2% 49.3% 49.2% 49.2%
2005 49.2% 49.3% 49.3% 49.4% 49.4% 49.5% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6% 49.7%
2006 49.8% 49.8% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.8% 49.9% 49.9%
2007 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.9% 49.8% 49.8% 49.7% 49.7% 49.6% 49.6% 49.6%
2008 49.7% 49.6% 49.5% 49.4% 49.3% 49.1% 49.0% 48.8% 48.5% 48.3% 47.9% 47.6%
2009 47.3% 46.9% 46.6% 46.2% 46.0% 45.8% 45.6% 45.5% 45.4% 45.2% 45.2% 45.1%
2010 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.1% 45.2% 45.2% 45.2% 45.2% 45.2%
2011 45.3% 45.4% 45.5% 45.6% 45.6% 45.6% 45.6% 45.6% 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% 45.8%
2012 45.6% 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% 45.7% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
They’re up to 99 weeks now, aren’t they?
I believe they’re scaled back to 79 weeks in most cases now, on account of how swimmingly the economic recovery is going.
I chose this as my metric to avoid having to explain the labor force to people.
I’m still not sure how to work recessions into this. I want to look at how each president affected the economy (I understand that there is only so much they can do, or at least there USED to be) during a time frame they actually could effect change. (Note the “Grace Period” in my chart.)
I have the raw data, suggestions appreciated.
Enrak, you’d also need to add some way to demonstrate the effect of congressional majorities. Bush had clear-cut GOP congressional majorities in both houses only 2003-07. From 20 Jan 2001 until Jim Jeffords jumped, the Senate Repulicans had agreed to a power-sharing arrangement with the Democrats despite Cheney’s tiebreaking vote.
– “Jim….I’m a physicist, not an economist.”
– Specific data points are shown for the “published” unemplyment rates by date, but there seems to be no corelation with the values on the left ordinate for the two curves. What are the curves supposed to represent?
– Aside from that, the stimulous happened. Other than speculating, how can you plot anything concrete about what would have been without it.
Got a new chart with % Republican lines showing the changes for Obama and Bush in their respective mid-terms. Still have no idea how to get it online. :D
BBH – My chart is not unemployment. It is total employment/total population. Idea is to allow for no monkeying.
As far as stimulus, I don’t give a fig about it for the purposes of this analysis. I’m trying to capture how the true labor picture looked under the two administrations. I understand that there is only so much a President can do to improve the employment picture. I’m starting to figure out that there is a LOT a President can do to worsen the employment picture. I’m still not sure if this graphic is worthwhile.
But I’m hoping we can get it to say something!
“Damnit Jim, I’m an economist not a political studies major.”
– I’m down with that. I suspected as muxh, but the values on the left don’t seem to scale as one might expect. I understand what you’re going for, but seeing a curve labled “without stimulous” would be neccessarily based on common sense. i.e., had the money been spent on real jobs support and infrastructure rather than used to train people to stay home and not riot….ect.
– Obviously the ‘trend’ of the ratio you’re trying to represent makes sense, I was trying to put a metric to them.
If you don’t want people to monkey with the numbers, don’t monkey with the numbers. Give the actual numbers instead of the ratios.
Ernst – I think you are assuming motives not in evidence.
When I say “idea is to allow for no monkeying” I meant the labor force.
Private Employment
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 110210 110304 110641 110860 110739 110952 111137 111168 111395 111375 111585 111677
2001 111631 111623 111556 111227 111146 110910 110737 110549 110282 109918 109572 109365
2002 109214 109055 108990 108894 108814 108826 108731 108675 108663 108771 108757 108587
2003 108644 108487 108288 108254 108273 108234 108232 108264 108425 108568 108605 108713
2004 108883 108915 109214 109437 109747 109841 109882 109984 110136 110463 110490 110623
2005 110718 110949 111094 111440 111583 111844 112124 112311 112395 112491 112795 112935
2006 113250 113535 113793 113958 113965 114045 114203 114348 114434 114439 114628 114794
2007 115023 115080 115252 115298 115419 115480 115476 115403 115423 115484 115559 115606
2008 115647 115511 115399 115184 114968 114737 114478 114184 113759 113279 112482 111824
2009 110985 110260 109473 108671 108359 107933 107637 107418 107234 107002 106960 106840
2010 106800 106773 106914 107107 107191 107283 107375 107503 107618 107814 107948 108088
2011 108207 108464 108725 108989 109097 109199 109374 109426 109642 109781 109959 110193
2012 110470 110724 110871 110956 111061 111145
Total Noninstitutionalized Population:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 211410 211576 211772 212018 212242 212466 212677 212916 213163 213405 213540 213736
2001 213888 214110 214305 214525 214732 214950 215180 215420 215665 215903 216117 216315
2002 216506 216663 216823 217006 217198 217407 217630 217866 218107 218340 218548 218741
2003 219897 220114 220317 220540 220768 221014 221252 221507 221779 222039 222279 222509
2004 222161 222357 222550 222757 222967 223196 223422 223677 223941 224192 224422 224640
2005 224837 225041 225236 225441 225670 225911 226153 226421 226693 226959 227204 227425
2006 227553 227763 227975 228199 228428 228671 228912 229167 229420 229675 229905 230108
2007 230650 230834 231034 231253 231480 231713 231958 232211 232461 232715 232939 233156
2008 232616 232809 232995 233198 233405 233627 233864 234107 234360 234612 234828 235035
2009 234739 234913 235086 235271 235452 235655 235870 236087 236322 236550 236743 236924
2010 236832 236998 237159 237329 237499 237690 237890 238099 238322 238530 238715 238889
2011 238704 238851 239000 239146 239313 239489 239671 239871 240071 240269 240441 240584
2012 242269 242435 242604 242784 242966 243155
I’m pretty sure I can’t change how the labor force is calculated by the BLS.
Yeesh…
Twitpics Enrak.
I took a look at some of the spending numbers recently and I wonder if Bush and Pelosi didn’t cut a deal – she didn’t stop the Surge, and he let her spend whatever she wanted, which after 12 years in the minority was a long list. The stimulus was just the largest piece of the incredible run-up in spending that started once the Dems took the House, already controlling the Senate.
I’m not assuming anything about you’re motives (yet) Enrak.
But I am skeptical that your comparison tells us anything meaningful.
Ernst – if you were paying attention, you’d see that I am as well.
Don’t even worry about my motives. I gave you the data and the source and I have been very open about my methodology.
I’m open to comments, suggestions, and criticism.
I have my metric plotted against spending as a % of GDP (from OMB).
Here’s the (well-known) problem: Bush 43 is not a good benchmark against Obama.
– Enrak. I do not know how familiar you are with the nature of the ‘Goldstein Panzer rat PW community’, but you’d be hard put to find a broader educated, open minded, and fair blogging crew.
– As far as your chart I can see immense potential in laying out a clear picture of the effects of a radical change in ideologies on the fundemental nature of the workforce in terms of both percentage and trends.
Comments? All righty then: I think you’re trying to quantify something that doesn’t lend itself to quantitative analysis. I think I understand the thrust of your initial argument: that overall employment during the 2004 campaign had suffered a greater fall than overall employment here in the 2012 campaign. That’s as may be, but the explanation of causes and effects doesn’t follow the numbers you’re pulling.
The quick-and-dirty argument is that job losses under Bush stemmed from the popping of a credit bubble and a major terrorist attack. Unemployment rose from artificially low levels to around six percent, which our fair and objective media diligently informed us was a “jobless recovery” akin to the end of the world.
Obama started from a pretty miserable baseline, and has done nothing to improve on it. Given the time he has had to address the problem, the tools he’s been given to address the problem, and the cooperative Congress he had for the first two years of his term, he has no excuse for his miserable performance.
You can say that Bush saw more job losses in his first term, but that doesn’t change the fact that even at its worst, the “jobless recovery” was better than the “Recovery Summer(s)” by every indicator. If the thesis is that Bush survived an economy with unemployment at the “unacceptable” level of 6%, it does not follow that Obama can survive an economy where unemployment has remained above 8% for his entire term in office. Especially when people’s experience in their real lives tells them that real unemployment is so much higher.
For every kid stuck living in him mom’s basement after getting his degree, you have at least two generations of unhappy voters. Comparisons to Bush’s first term just can’t capture that.
another jobs “report”
A tiny amendment buried in the federal transportation bill to be signed today by President Barack Obama will put operators of roll-your-own cigarette operations in Las Vegas and nationwide out of business at midnight. Robert Weissen, with his brothers and other partners, own nine Sin City Cigarette Factory locations in Southern Nevada, including six in Las Vegas, and one in Hawaii. He said when the bill is signed their only choice is to turn off their 20 RYO Filling Station machines and lay off more than 40 employees… The machines are used by customers who buy loose tobacco and paper tubes from the shop and then turn out a carton of finished cigarettes in as little as 10 minutes, often varying the blend to suit their taste. Savings are substantial – at $23 per carton, half the cost of a name-brand smoke – in part because loose tobacco is taxed at a lower rate…
But a few paragraphs added to the transportation bill changed the definition of a cigarette manufacturer to cover thousands of roll-your-own operations nationwide. The move, backed by major tobacco companies, is aimed at boosting tax revenues. Faced with regulation costs that could run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, RYO machine owners nationwide are shutting down more than 1,000 of the $36,000 machines.
“I feel it’s kind of shaky,’’ Wiessen said. “The man who pushed for this bill is Sen. (Max) Baucus from Montana, and he received donations from Altria, a parent company of Philip Morris
link
The RYO guys just need to move their machines to the Rez. The half-white man has no authoriteh there.
– I’ve said it here before that in all fairness the fit hit the Shan just as Obama took over. In some sense you could say we did the worst thing we could have to the Progressives by letting the Left win.
– But, as Squid said, Obama’s lack of leadership and preoccupation with demoggogery and race-baiting, ect, a total disaster in terms of economic policy, can never be erased. Clearly he took a bad situation and made the absolute worst of it.
Hi Mr. Enrak your chart it does not speak to me really. I think this is maybe the chart what you’re after – I saw it at the “zerohedge”
as you can see the Bush presidency led to a much more robust recovery, especially for people who wanted to work
food stamp on the other hand has failed failed failed to hasten the rate at which people flow out of unemployment
I contest that. Democrats took responsibility after 2007, but the economic destruction started around 2005, and the republican base, unhappy with their reps acting like Dems, stayed home for the 2006 election.
Not a deal, extortion. I think congress, R and D, told Bush if he wanted funding for his war, better hide the veto pen.
Call me crazy but I think the chart initially linked in this post is pretty good unless we’d rather change the subject.
giving baracky a warm ohio welcome
Believe it or not, I’ve been around since 2002. And i completely agree BBH about the Panzer Rat crew, which is why I was taken aback by Ernst’s comments. Even Thor got more respect when he first started to post. :)
Happy- you are back on unemployment which gets us back to the labor force.
Bh – I like that chart, but all I hear from reasonable Dems is Obama inherited blah blah blah. That’s why I use inauguration as my zeromonth.
I have more raw data and what i am trying to look at is how things have gone in the period our preznidents start to effect the economy, if they do. I think Bush is a bad comparison.
The Pethokoukis one?
Well, first, the ratio of employment to total population is not normalized for demo changes so that’s a basic problem. I’d be looking at +/- workforce participation if I was going to model this. BLS here.
Further, as 5% has long been considered de facto full employment looking at percent increases around that amount is likely to result in noise. It’d be a bit like charting future interest rate increases from our current levels without acknowledging historical averages.
Finally, you’re gonna have to address the differences in how they’re factoring the available labor force in one way or another because it is a relevant factor even if you don’t want to explain it to someone. It’s simply necessary.
Yes, Jimmy P’s, sdferr.
– Being a phyzeesist, and all, I have a trained-in obsession for spotting patterns in everything, even where none exist sometimes.
– One such pattern in that chart feets put up is a clear 10 year cycle, which you might squint and fudge to 11 years between peaks.
– Sunspot activity, or maybe the points in time when Madonna or Cher were reinventing themselves.
That one uses unemployment again.
TBH that one is. Great. I’m surprised my doesn’t make Obama look worse.
Unexpectedly…
(Unadj) Labor Force Participation Rate 1948-2012
There are two big factors in this which are the increasing participation of women and the baby boom. This is participation rate of those 16 and older. The earliest boomers turned 16 in 1962 and graduated high school in 1964. You can see an initial effect of a large number of 16-17 year olds being added to the figures while mostly not being employed because they are still in school in the slip of the number in 1962-65 then it starts up rising until the baby boom starts getting into the range of retirement.
Here is the main page to select what you want figures you want to look at and then after there is a page to select the formats.
Do the longer term prospects of economic growth look favorable today? Or even the short term prospects? Is inhibitory regulation greater today than a few years ago? Is such inhibitory regulation going to grow at the rate it has been growing the last three years, or at a higher rate, should Obama remain in office? Are vast sums of the public capital daily wasted on ridiculous economic proposals mostly resulting in the enrichment of the friends and contributors to Obama and to date providing no economic return to the well being of the United States? Are viable, proven industries — such as crude oil production and distribution — thwarted at the very moment they are ready to accelerate their production and contribution to the commonweal?
Does Obama, or do the Democrats in general, look to be stepping up to the profound challenges already facing all the entitlement programs, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid? Is there a brand new entitlement program known as ObamaCare on the march, promising without definition to add further to the vast shortfall of government revenue, while simultaneously impoverishing many formerly productive health care workers and diminishing the care Americans actually receive?
Are a number of States (Ca., Il.,) and the narrow interests which control them bounding toward a long fall off a short plank due to fiscal malfeasance, yet expect those States which have conducted themselves with serious forward looking fiscal prudence to bail them out?
Is US defense in process of being hollowed out, as it had been under Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton? Worse?
Yes.
Well, Barack Obama will carry on:
NPR/PBS
Amtrak
A bankrupt Postal Service
Union subsidies
These — and more like them — Barry will create in spades.
Women 16 and older, participation rate, 1948 to 2012.
What Squid said.
“Hey, good news everyone…..We’re going to have president Obana over for “breakfast.”
So the people planted to fake fainting at the Obama rallies weren’t proof of love enough? Sheesh.
Sefer – that is what I am trying to get at. The normal view of the pres has been they really don’t affect the Econ all that much. I think that has changed bc of the huge exec branch created by years of passing bills. The govt ratchet as it were. I think an activist pres such as our Dear Leader can now create impact via the means y’all mentioned above. I thought this metric would be a good way to capture without worrying about how to define the lab force.
I don’t know how the lab force adjusts for demo change any more does my denom bh.
Big deal, BBH. Did he return to raise her from the dead?
Also, the sob-sister in the crowd at I-forget-where in Ohio with the dead sister who couldn’t afford health insurance is all over Twitter as Obama’s best fan. Another plant and a lame attempt at ripping off the famous picture of Bush comforting the little girl whose mom was killed on 9/11.
These guys are the worst.
Well, just for a start, it doesn’t include kids. (To be honest, I thought it handled retirement as well but I think I was mistaken.)
Does yours? You aren’t linking your inputs.
I’d say more importantly you have to address the fundamental issue of the historical averages.
To talk about Bush’s poor jobs performance is to lack context.
– Heh…..you’re a hard hard woman Leigh :)
– I notice the puppy dog press is starting to float the obligatory “Mah sister, husband, daughter, landscapper, _________(fill in the blank), would still be alive if only we’d have had Obamacare” agitprop non-story stories.
…would still be alive if only we’d have had Obamacare” agitprop non-story stories.
Heh. I’ve noticed that too. I was telling my husband last night that the staging of these little get-togethers looks like a set on the old Hee Haw show. Bumbles needs to do is come out with a rope for a belt, hitch up his mom jeans and stick a straw in the corner of his mouth while Buck and Roy pick and grin behind him. What a poser. I’d be insulted to hell and back that the president thinks my town is chock full of rubes from old movies about the Depression. He’s probably shocked they all wear shoes.
– Its going to be interesting to see how ~O~ deals with the Ohio PI that has the goods on his stolen dead guys SS number. She definately has the goods, and she’s thrown the ball to the SS admin, and they have no choice but to follow up and make a determination. Theres no way they can sweep this one under the political rug like they did with the BC scam.
I hope Judicial Watch isn’t involved. Those guys are the kiss of death when it comes to making any charges stick.
someome should ask david “the red” axeldude about baracky’s ss #
Anyone know an easy way to add html on an Android phone?
– Its a documented fact, the number hes been using since ’86 when he was 15 belongs to a guy who died in Conn. in ’77. Even if he could somehow skate on that fact, you have to be physically present to get an SS card issued. Obama could not have been there that year. So how does a dead guys SS number get re-issued to an absent 15 year old. Good luck with that.
– Shes one smart cookie. Aside from handing a super hot potato to the SS admin, she got herself legally on the ballot as a write-in candidate, and is suing to have Obama’s name removed from the ballot based on the proven stolen ss #.
– They may figure some way out of it, but its just what he needs right now. Heh.
Is there something to all of that SS business? I’ve always figured it’d bubble up if there was something there without any attention on my part.
This is a documented fact?
Pablo might know, bh. I don’t think he’s here right now, though.
you have to be physically present to get an SS card issued.
yea i started pounding the baracky and his cronies hard on that point right now. alas in the real gop/rino world.
Is there something to all of that SS business?
There seems to be. I didn’t read anything about it, but I did see a headline in one of my RSS feeds the other day.
bh, my 6:08 is where his numbers come from I’d guess but you have to check off what ones you want, the year range, and then get to select how it’s formatted. I linked to graphs as they are easy to link and read at a glance. I just wish they went back farther in years.
Thanks, geoff.
Daniels, who has vetted thousands of Social Security Numbers for numerous other clients, has done her homework. In her filing, she thoroughly documents her contention “that Barack Obama has repeatedly, consistently, and with intent misrepresented himself by using a fraudulently obtained Social Security Number.”
To acquire appropriate standing in court, Daniels has gone to the trouble of establishing herself as a valid write-in candidate for president. Before she is through, this 70-something mother of seven, who has been a licensed Ohio PI since 1995, may cause Obama more trouble than the Romney campaign.
Daniels started her investigation in August 2009. Given her profession, she has been able to access a variety of proprietary databases. What she learned without much trouble is that Obama has been using a Social Security Number with the prefix “042? since 1986.
As she discovered, the “042? number is reserved for the exclusive use of individuals who register in Connecticut. When she ran 10 sequential numbers before and after Obama’s, all returned with the documentation “issued 1977-1979 in CT.”
When Daniels ran the numbers immediately flanking Obama’s, she came to the firm conviction that Obama’s number was issued in March 1977 in Connecticut.
By all accounts, as Daniels thoroughly documents, Obama was then a 15-year-old living in Hawaii. There is no record of him even visiting Connecticut in or near this time frame.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-social-security-number-challenged/
– Well, not sure exactly how shes wording her challenge. The article only mentioned her claim was he was ineligible to be on the ballot because of the false ss# by both Ohio and US Constititions.
– Don’t know, but the court gave her standing so its still in process.
SS story.
newrouter beat me.
If Obama can declare the US Senate is not in session, he won’t have much trouble declaring his social security number is valid.
i think pablo had here the other day
he won’t have much trouble declaring his social security number is valid.
true. but identity theft does cause problems with low info voters. really the potus is stealing ss #s like illegal aliens.
Okay, yeah, it’s apples to apples.
– And its not just the Court case. Filing a complaint with the SS admin, they have to respond with documentated proff one way or the other. He really is painted into a corner. Of course they can straight up lie for him I suppose.
Oh, talking about the employment dealio from before the SS dealio.
Okay, if I fail on the link I’m not fixing it. I’d say this is the least deceptive view you’re gonna get on the matter.
If you gotta explain labor participation then maybe you just gotta explain labor participation.
Of course they can straight up lie for him I suppose.
yea there be lots of trying to get the “choom” guy to ct in “77 speaking of
TALKING HEADS ’77
does “labor participation” include dead mexicans on the border?
(It’d be nice to have a vertical line showing methodology changes and a dotted line showing a phantom version of later points using earlier methods but, ehhh, it is what it is.)
– Wonder what the same thing would look like with gov workers in place of private bh.
– Or again, if you lumped all wotkers together.
it is what it is.
it sucks
is there any info on the percentage of all gov’t workers vs private employment?
Here’s the full set from bh’s link. One thing I notice is that the seasonal variation has lessened markedly.
– Either way Geoff, the median best fit line is approx -4% for the 12 year period.
– The other thing I notice is the BFML for Bush’s two terms is approx. -1.38%. For Obama’s first term the approx. BFML is -2.64%, or almost twice the rate of decline.
This might interest you, nr.
Graph of government workers in thousands from 2002-2012.
Graph of private sector workers in thousands, 2002-2012.
Not exactly what you want nr.
Another graph from the Political Math site Pablo linked: “Job Gains” by presidency.
Not exactly what you want nr.
just the fed workers probably don’t dip
especially at irs these days
What are bls-a vs bls-b?
Geoffb – the data goes back farther, just have to use tables not graphs.
It’s a well known fact that I’m a quarrelsome citizen.
What I don’t like about the chart is that it’s analogous to the Nutting argument that Obama’s done a fantabulous job of holding spending down, if you ignore the fact that the Democrat’s blew the baseline through the stratosphere, during the “grace” period, as sdferr alluded to earlier.
Try this
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
The explaination for those are at the site bh gave Enrak.
– In other news….Even the true believers are getting restless: (From HuffPO)
Headline: THE YOUNG AND THE JOBLESS
Subtitles:
Old Americans Find Work As The Young Struggle To Find Their Footing… TOUGH TIMES ALL OVER: Unemployment Unchanged… Only 80K Jobs Added… WHERE’S THE FED?… ‘Call Your Congressional Rep And Scream At Em’
– “….Paging David Axelrod….Mr. Axelrod please pick up the white courtesy phone….”
mr enrak’s topic is an interesting to intellectually discuss. too bad the “intellectuals” led us to this point.
“radical” reshaping of the role of the fed gov’t is what is called for at this time. all else is skittles and ice tea.
‘Call Your Congressional Rep And Scream At Em’
The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.
Eight million out of work. Inflation running at 18 percent in the first quarter of 1980. Black unemployment at about 14 percent, higher than any single year since the government began keeping separate statistics. Four straight major deficits run up by Carter and his friends in Congress. The highest interest rates since the Civil War–reaching at times close to 20 percent–lately down to more than 11 percent but now going up again–productivity falling for six straight quarters among the most productive people in history.
Through his inflation he has raised taxes on the American people by 30 percent–while their real income has risen only 20 percent. He promised he would not increase taxes for the low and middle-income people–the workers of America. Then he imposed on American families the largest single tax increase in history.
His answer to all of this misery? He tries to tell us that we are “only” in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions—words–relieve our suffering.
Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.
I have new data. Will try again manyana. Nite all.
I should have mentioned this in real time but my mind also found a correlation with the Nutting fiscal argument.
– Romney and his crew should just keep asking the voters that same question from now til election day…..“Ask yourself….Am I better off today than I was 4 years ago?”
Acht, nr! Don’t remind me of the dark years of Carter’s stewardship. I bought my first house at 18% interest then.
I have new data. Will try again manyana. Nite all.
yea but your whole deal is pointless as to the direction that this country needs to take. gwb was baracky lite.
That’s the dark allure of aggregates, nr. I fall victim to this as much as anyone.
For a certain sort of male brain aggregates really are something like playing sodoku or a crossword puzzle. Yet, in reality it does always come down to individuals, their desires and the dis/incentives they find.
That basic Hayekian viewpoint isn’t hard because massive distributed computing (that’s the local knowledge corollary to macro) isn’t cool and fun to think about, it’s hard because it doesn’t lend itself to knowing and arch comments in conversation.
I have a really good cigar, a bourbon that I rather like, a new book to investigte, and the temperature outside is in the mid-70s for the first time in over a week, so I think I’ll bid all of you a pleasant weekend.
Except those of you whom I don’t (and you know who you are).
It’s also no fun because it doesn’t give the best and the brightest the respect that they believe is their due.
A is about number of employed/unemployed, is mostly not seasonably adjusted and is the “Household survey”.
B is more about pay and payroll, it is derived from industry surveys and is seasonably adjusted.
“Yet, in reality it does always come down to individuals, their desires and the dis/incentives they find.”
Barry has by far the easier time of it (so long as no one is allowed to question him in detail) as he simply repeats over and over again “We’ve tried that path and it ends in failure”.
Well NO, ‘we’ haven’t ‘tried that path’ in over a century and a half really. But who’s counting? Certainly not the general media complex.
best and the brightest the respect that they believe is their due.
hi ezra klein waving and the dude at tnr. they’re fabulous dc guys.
– Ok Ernst. Go enjoy your cigar, bourbon, good book, and the pleasent cool evening.
– But if our fearless leader doesn’t weather the storm of the next 4 months and gets his semi-white ass kicked, you can blame all of us for our incesant ‘speaking truthiness to idiots’…… or something.
Here’s an annotated version of the Pethokoukis civilian-employment ratio chart. For the chartiness. (combo of for the children, for the fairness, for the tart)
Couldn’t get the BLS graphs Pablo linked above to load. Perhaps this is one?
OT:
The good Independent-Democrat.
This, the famous ‘Obama’s Deficit’ chart, issued by the CBO in 2009. Of course the ‘actual’ needs updating to 2012, and the ‘projected’ similarly shifted. Anyone seen an updated version?
Allen West should be considered a future US President. We can only hope the Republic’s still around for him when he’s ready.
serr8d @ 11:40, Amen!
Okay. This metric is terrible.
I looked at all the presidents since Carter. The trendlines in order of slope:
1. Clinton
2. Carter (!)
3. Reagan
4. Obama
5. G.W. Bush
6. G.H.W. Bush
I concur with everyone else that this is a useless metric. Back to the drawing board.
Enrak, the drill bit must be driven, yet not every hole we punch in the ground will yield a gusher. Still, we punch our holes that the gusher will be found.
Enerak, I kind of skimmed through the thread, so forgive me if you addressed this:
A potential problem with your numbers is (if I read it right) that you’re taking total noninstitutionalized population as your denominator. This should not be! You need to take the noninstitutionalized population between 18 and 65. Otherwise you’re counting children and the retired, which will artificially skew the numbers (especially with the boomers aging).
What’s more, I’d argue that you can’t count the military for a similar than why reason you can’t count the institutionalized: the military is always employed, just as the institutionalized are always unemployed. To count either artificially skews the numbers.
In both my critiques, above, what we really care about is the labor rate of the people we’d expect to be working. I’m not at all alarmed if Nana, little Tommy, or Jimmy the Shank are out of a job.
I berate myself for the poor grammar in the first sentence of the third graph, above.
Enrak, thor also sucked up pretty much all the patience and tolerance, not to mention benefit of the doubt, that a lot of the commentariat (including me) and even the site owner had to offer. You’re getting the benefit of the backlash….
Why the BLS uses all persons 16 or older and in another all persons 20 or older is a mystery to me. The sample should be as Seth outlined above. 18 to 65 and no military or institutionalized.
Also though they do breakout government and private sector employees it would be better to break the government sector down farther into federal, state, and local. Pay for each of those would be nice to see too.
Their main obsession seems to be race and sex in their data workups.