Friday, December 27, 2013

(Related update 2): Remind me again about that great Obama economic recovery?

Related update 2:  American Enterprise Institute economist James Pethokoukis recently posted this graph which does as good a job as any article in describing the damage the Bush-Obama Great Recession has done to the labor market (as always, click to enlarge):


There's a bit of analysis accompanying the diagram at Pethokoukis's post, here.

Related update: When the Washington Post runs an article discussing how bad the recent jobs report is, you know the report must be really bad!  The article, however, is pretty good, explaining the five really bad aspects of the job report.  Here's the first:
1) Revisions. In truth, the most important parts of any jobs report are the revisions to the past two jobs reports. That’s because the initial estimate of how many jobs we added or lost in any given month is typically off by about 100,000 jobs. That’s how you get situations like August 2011, when the jobs report said we created no jobs but we later learned we’d created more than 100,000.
Revisions are where we get that better information. They’re the most accurate part of the unemployment numbers. And in this latest jobs report, they’re a huge disappointment: “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +188,000 to +172,000, and the change for July was revised from +162,000 to +104,000.” That means we added 74,000 fewer jobs than we thought in June and July.
Original Post:  Economists measure the health of an economy in many different ways.  One important criteria is the current status of household income -- if households have more money over time then, all things equal, the economy is doing well.  Of course the reverse is true also.  So, using this metric, how has the typical American household done since the Obama "recovery" started in June of 2009? Since it's labeled "recovery", you'd think household incomes must be recovering and are better now than in June of 2009, right? Wrong. Of course.  From an article a couple of days ago at Investor's Business Daily:
According to a report released this week by Sentier Research, the inflation-adjusted median household income remains $2,380 below where it stood when the Obama "recovery" officially started in June 2009 — a drop of 4.4%.
Sentier's monthly data, derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, show that incomes fell more in the year after the recovery started than it did during the recession itself. And household incomes have basically flat-lined ever since.
And is always the case when the government involves itself in the economy, it's the poor and most in need who suffer the greatest:
The picture gets even grimmer the deeper you dive into the data. The most vulnerable groups — blacks, Hispanics, female-headed families and the young — have fared far worse under Obama than everyone else.
Black households' median income has plunged 11% since the "recovery" started. Hispanic households are off 4.5%. For single moms, median household income dropped 7.5%. For those households with three or more children, it fell even more — 9.2%.
There's a lot more good (er, bad, really) economic info in the article....check it out!