The National Revulsion Online is
at it again. The economy is "Red Hot," and anyone who disagrees with this assessment is guilty of "living in a bubble," or so says one Victor Davis Hanson.
the economy is red-hot, not mired in joblessness or relegating millions to poverty. Unemployment is low, so are interest rates. Growth is high, as is consumer spending and confidence.
Below I will deconstruct this line of reasoning.
First,
the article does not cite one statistic to prove its assertions. Vic simply says things are so. Therefore, they must be so. If it's in NRO online, it must be true. This is how the RWNM works. They have a set of publications that supposedly form the intellectual grounding of the conservative movement. The NRO is in this group. These publications are often wrong, but that doesn't stop the likes of Hannity, Rush and a host of other mouthpieces from saying things that are factually wrong.
Vic...I'm going to introduce to a few novel ideas here. One is called statistics. You see Vic, economics is a science that measures certain things. Secondly, most people cite their sources. This is a novel idea to the RWNM. However, if you say something is so, then it adds to your credibility if you tell the reader where you get the information from.
not mired in joblessness
OK...Once again, let's look at job creation figures for Bush's entire term. I make this time distinction because the Bush economic team and their cheerleaders have started an interesting trend: they choose to start their analysis from the lowest statistical point to make the numbers look better. Usually, they cite some point in 2003, claiming this is when Bush's policies took effect. However, Bush was inaugurated in January 2001, not 2003.
First of all Vic, here is a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you click on the detailed economic statistics at the top of the page, you can get a wealth of data -- as in facts -- to back up your assertions. I know - those pesky little facts are getting in the way of your cheerleading, but some people actually like facts.
According to the BLS, the total employment level in January 2001 was 137,771,000 and 142,594,000 in November 2005 for a net gain of 4.8 million jobs. Over 59 months (Bush's total term, not just the term that looks good), that is 81,000/jobs month. The economy has to create 150,000/month to deal with natural attrition (people changing jobs, people entering the workforce, firms going under etc...)(BTW: Republicans have started attacking this number. Considering it is often cited in Bloomberg news economic reports (an organization started and run by a Republican), CBS.Marketwatch reports and is derived from Research from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, I suggest you take your complaints to that bastion of liberalism, a regional office of the US Central Bank). So, job creation is not keeping up with natural economic attrition and population growth.
But, how do I explain the low unemployment number? Simple. Here is how the BLS defines an unemployed person:
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.
Take special notice of the last sentence. Someone has to look for work in the preceding 4 weeks. So, if they didn't look for work, they're not unemployed.
Enter a different employment statistic: the labor participation rate, which measures the percentage of people from the available workforce who are working. That number has dropped from 67.2% to 66.1% from January 2001 to November 2005. The Boston Federal Reserve noticed this trend as well and studied it. They broke the workforce down into male and female employees, then broke those categories down into different age groups. Their conclusion? The only age group to increase its labor participation rate in the last 5 years was the over 55 group. Every other group's labor participation rate has dropped. In other words, people are dropping out of the labor force, Vic. Maybe it's because they can't find jobs.
Aren't statistics fun, Vic? There are so many near things you can do with them. Let's move on to your other lies.
relegating millions to poverty
This is a pure, 100%, USDA inspected, LIE. YES VIC, I AM CALLING YOU A BALD-FACED LIAR. LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE KIND OF LIAR. ISN'T THERE A COMMANDMENT ABOUT THIS, OH ONE WHO PROBABLY CLAIMS CHRISTIAN MORAL SUPERIORITY?
Again, I will use these things called statistics, Vic. Why don't we go to the Census Bureau's Website? If you click on figure 6 in the previously posted link, you will notice the poverty rate has increased each and every year in the last four years, Vic. So, the Bush economy is relegating millions more to poverty Vic. Maybe it's because median income is stagnant for the last 4 years.
Any maybe that has something to do with anemic job creation, Vic.
Growth is high, as is consumer spending
Yes, Vic, growth is high. Of course, I'm the kind of guy who asks such silly questions as "where is the growth coming from?"
DEBT.Tons of debt, Vic. You see, Vic, non-supervisory wages are stagnant after inflation for the duration of this expansion. Don't agree with that, Vic? Maybe this quote from Alan Greenspan (that bed-wetting liberal) will set you straight (Notice it took a Democrat to elicit this answer, Vic?)
We have another set of data which essentially endeavors to pick up production workers as distinct from supervisory workers, and that is about 80 percent of the workforce. So we separate the wages and salaries into production workers and into supervisory workers, essentially, the 20 percent, or the skilled management professional.
What we find is the production workers' average hourly earnings are rising very modestly; but because of the distribution of skilled worker supply and demand, we are finding that the increase implicitly in supervisory workers' average hourly earnings is going up very much more rapidly.
So we are getting a bivariate income distribution. And as I have said many times in the past: For a democratic society, this is not healthful, to say the least; and as I have indicated on numerous occasions, I believe this is an education problem, that requires us to get the balance of skills coming out of our schools to match the skills that our physical facilities require.
So there is a reconciliation, and the reconciliation is that we are getting some really divergent trends.
Obviously,
Alan Greenspan hates America.
When wages are stagnant and consumer spending increases, then the new money comes from debt. Take a look at the growth in consumer debt as chronicled in the Flow of Funds Report. (More of those damn statistics, Vic. Consumer debt has increased at an alarming rate since......Bush came into office. Now, total consumer debt is 87% of US GDP? Notice a pattern here, Vic? Low wages, debt financed consumer expansion?
So, Vic - facts demonstrate that job growth is anemic. Facts demonstrate that poverty is increasing. Facts demonstrate the wage growth is stagnant after inflation and as a result Facts demonstrate the American consumer is going into hoc at a record rate.
Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't look as healthy as you say it is.