Bush Job Creation Promises Failing to Deliver

[Sava]

Promises, Promises
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Despite a string of dismal employment reports, the administration insists that its economic program, which has relied entirely on tax cuts focused on the affluent, will produce big job gains any day now. Should we believe these promises?

Each February, the Economic Report of the President forecasts nonfarm payroll employment — generally considered the best measure of job growth — for the next several years. The black line in the chart above (inspired by a joint report from the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) shows the actual performance of employment, both before and after its peak in March 2001. The gray lines show the forecasts in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 reports. Notice that the February 2004 forecast, which, as in previous years, is based on data only through the preceding October, is already 900,000 jobs too high.

Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/opinion/09KRUG.html

here's the graph:


that graph sure illustrates how absurd the administration's job creation predictions are...

George Bush is trying to run on his "leadership" after 9-11... the right wing attack dogs are trying to paint Kerry as a "flip-flopper"... but once again IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPIDS!

Bush says he's not going to make the same mistakes as his father did in losing a re-election bid. Dubya's going to make all new ones.

Hopefully, this should put to rest the retarded supply-side arguments for tax-cuts. If not, supply-siders need to seek professional help.

[MrBaggins]

I completely agree with the premise. The republican party hasn't been able to magically conjure jobs... but then I don't believe that presidents have much to do with positive influences on the economy, only lost potential.

The only times where government has a truly direct and significant hand in job creation is either (a) not messing up a vibrant economy, or (b) massive programs of public works, like FDR or Hitler... and those are extreme and can't be often repeated.

The president doesn't come up with policies... he chooses between options that are presented to him by the various departments of government. Many of these choices are "no-brainer" decisions, that are effectively structured so that only one good choice could be made.

If you want an example of a truly independent policy, look at the invasion of Iraq. It was quite obviously on an innevitable thing that the president wanted to do, from the get go, due to some form of revenge that shrub had in mind (due to what saddam did to daddy, perhaps?) and that really wasn't thought through that well, and turned out to be, globally speaking, a pretty average to bad idea.

Call me personally pragmatic, but I could think of a lot better uses for several billion dollars a day, than liberating ungrateful people, who I'll never have anything to personally do with.

For the most part the presidents job is to be the public face of the presidency. He is the figurehead and his ability to get a message across is vital.

This president, however, isn't a very good public speaker. He's certainly not able to improvise speeches to any degree, which makes me consider that he probably has very little input in the public speeches that he does make.

Like or lothe him personally, Clinton is the epitome of what a president should look and sound like, particularly in global politics. Bush is an embarasment in comparison. Kerry? well he doesn't look particularly presidential... he looks gaunt, but he can speak competently, and improvises well, which I consider one of the most important attributes of the office that he's running for.

[Ming]

While I too chuckle at the admins "projections"... there is an uptick in job creation... If it continues to climb, I'm sure the Bushies will be pointing at that.

[Sava]

The only times where government has a truly direct and significant hand in job creation is either (a) not messing up a vibrant economy, or (b) massive programs of public works, like FDR or Hitler... and those are extreme and can't be often repeated.

I think that "demand-side" economics might be able to create jobs... i.e. empowering the consumer classes by providing things like low cost health care, better and lower cost education, and regulating industries that deregulation has damaged (telecommunications and energy). If consumers have more disposable income, they can spend more, thus fueling the economy and job growth. Even if that doesn't work, at least people will have health care and other costs alleviated. Progressive taxation

[Sava]

Ming: the economy created only 21,000 jobs last month... and the numbers for January were revised to a lower number. Is that your idea of "uptick"?

[chequita guevara]

It ain't much, but I'll bet it means a lot to those 21,000 families.

I think rising gas costs may put the cabash on any hopes of a sustained recovery this year. Depends on how long they rise and stay up.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
Ming: the economy created only 21,000 jobs last month... and the numbers for January were revised to a lower number. Is that your idea of "uptick"?

I agree that the numbers suck, but according to your graph, and other stories I've read recently, the number is improving (which shouldn't be too hard considering how bad they were)

So yeah... and Uptick is correct

[Sava]

Unfortunately, 21,000 jobs isn't even enough to keep up with the number of new workers coming of age. BTW, unemployment held steady (at 5..6% I believe...) but that's only because about 400,000 people stopped looking for work. Another factor (besides gas prices) that may hurt job growth is the increased productivity we are seeing. Increased productivity means we can do more with less (workers). While productivity gains may be good for costs, it means less jobs.

[MrBaggins]

I'm leaning towards the thinking that protectionism is the way to go, right now... and I'm hearing a lot of echoed sentiments in my acquaintances.

Essentially, jobs lost overseas due to US labor costs have a very, very negative effect in many ways...

The country is losing revenue streams from payroll tax, income tax, sales tax and so on... not to mention a general decline in standard of living when middle class people are forced into lower paying jobs.

This situation has come about, I perceive, from the increased importance of the stock indices. More people are investing, and watching the markets, and those people have votes and thus influence the corporate direction, which encourages profit seeking in whatever way possible. A simple way to increase profits is to outsource labor to cheaper markets.

Its short-sighted and counter productive.

What would I do? I'd impose tarrifs on foreign employment, based on comparitive cost-of-living and working standards, so that there was no tarrif, for say Western European employment, but it cost money to employ people from India, say.

[Sava]

I'm leaning towards the thinking that protectionism is the way to go, right now... and I'm hearing a lot of echoed sentiments in my acquaintances.

I think going to the protectionism extreme will be counter-productive. Kerry has some good ideas; like tax credits and other incentives to employ Americans. I'd like to see NAFTA and the China agreement renegotiated. Trade is good, but there needs to be a balance.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Sava
I think going to the protectionism extreme will be counter-productive. Kerry has some good ideas; like tax credits and other incentives to employ Americans. I'd like to see NAFTA and the China agreement renegotiated. Trade is good, but there needs to be a balance.

True.. but we have a problem with the profits-at-any-cost corporate mentalities now... and the downside effects to those, outweigh the benefits of free trade with unequal economies... such as India. With free trade in such instances, more wealth is lost to them than gained by us, especially when outsourcing is considered.

Trade is optimal when you're trading with roughly equal partners, like western europe and japan, for instance.

[Sava]

Trade is optimal when you're trading with roughly equal partners, like western europe and japan, for instance.

I agree... which is why I think we need to have an intelligent and detailed trade policy. I want to see more free-trade with partners who have higher standards (that means getting rid of corporate subsidies and welfare)... and I want to see renegotiated agreements that ensure our trade comes with the conditions with respect to labor and environmental standards. Trade is good, but it should work to improve the world, not just the pocketbooks of elites in this country.

[MrBaggins]

I think we've reached a concensus, sava. I agree.

[Sava]

[MrBaggins]

Its not a statement of love, Sava

/me inches aways from Sava