About that “Recovery”

The United States has officially been in “Recovery” since the third quarter of 2009 per BEA Statistics.

Employment has not been so blessed, as BLS figures show.

 

Recovery? Just 16 States Have Gained Jobs Under Obama

By John Merline | IBD

Just 16 states have seen job growth since President Obama took office, according to state employment data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The remaining states have lost a combined 1.4 million jobs since January 2009.

Even 34 months after the recession officially ended in June 2009, there are still 11 states that have fewer people working now than at the start of the recovery.

Meanwhile, 20 states have unemployment rates at or above 8%, including nine with unemployment at 9% or higher, according to the BLS.

 

The winners and losers come as no great surprise.  In first place for job growth, Texas with a net gain of 132,400 jobs (1/4 of all jobs added).  In last place, California with a net loss of 284,800 jobs since the “Recovery” was called.

One must wonder why the LSM is not calling this a “Jobless Recovery.”

Last Weekend's Caption Contest™ Winners
Funny Stuff - Jersey Style
  • herddog505

    Why is NY doing so well, I wonder?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      It is the odd blue state out.  With the sole exception of New York the net jobs winners are Red States and the net jobs losers are Blue States.

      • herddog505

        But why?  Why is NY an exception?  What are they doing different from CA or IL or NJ or even WI?

        • Vagabond661

          They are leaving LA and moving to New York City?

          • jim_m

             I’m wondering if that is not an artifact of NYC recovering from 9/11 and not correlating to the business environment of the state.

            Also a lot of the onerous laws in NY can be simply avoided by moving to NJ or Connecticut and commuting back to the city.  The same is not possible in Illinois or Cali.

  • jim_m

    One must wonder why the LSM is not calling this a “Jobless Recovery.”

    When a Republican is in the White House, the focus is on enabling the economy to create jobs.  With obama in the White House the focus is on the government controlling people’s income.  We have more people on unemployment and food stamps than ever before and the media declares this a triumph.  We have little else but class warfare rhetoric declaring how we need to redistribute the assets of the wealthy to everyone else.

    The reason we don’t hear about jobs is that jobs are not the focus of the recovery plan.  Redistribution of wealth (called fairness) is the focus and the admin is doing ok in its pursuit of that goal.

  • Commander_Chico

    Lack of job recovery is not a bug, it’s a feature.  

    Keep hiring down, make productivity per worker go up, keep wages flat, what’s not to like?

    • herddog505

      Assuming you are correct, it’s interesting that this is the apparent goal with a dem in the White House; when Bush was in, he had much lower unemployment for almost all of his term.

      • Commander_Chico

        This is a constant ongoing goal of the oligarchy, which both “major” parties are in thrall to.  Recessions are an opportunity to lay off workers and then lag in hiring them back when demand increases.  The margin between firing and hiring is more profit.

        • herddog505

          Oligarchy, schmoligarchy.  IF this oligarch existed and, more importantly, IF it is as powerful as you claim:

          (A) Our unemployment rate would ALWAYS be at recession levels (nothing keeps the peons in line like knowing that there are a hundred other people who would kill for their jobs);

          (B) Politicians would never enact policies that keep unemployment down;

          (C) The dems, at least, would have nothing to do with unions, minimum wage increases, and other things that (in principle) help the worker;

          (D) There would be little or no unemployment insurance, welfare, or anything else to cushion the effects of unemployment so that the peons would be even more desperate to keep their jobs even at starvation wages.

          I think that you confuse a business’ natural desire to keep payroll as low as possible with some nefarious, malicious scheme on the part of the owners to screw people over.  Just because a business owner (naturally) doesn’t want to pay a worker more than his work is worth doesn’t mean that he’s scheming and plotting to use the power of government to make him into a veritable slave.

          • jim_m

             Chico blames everything on this mysterious “oligarchy”.

            By blaming things on his very own Emmanuel Goldstien he can deflect criticism of his lord obama and bash conservative economic ideas without the necessity of blaming Bush and looking like even more of a fool.

          • herddog505

            On a related note:

            The rise of anti-Semitism is a sign of widespread social and cultural failure. It is a leading indicator of a loss of faith in liberal values and of a diminished capacity to understand the modern world and to thrive in it. Societies that tolerate anti-Semitism take a fateful step toward the loss of both freedom and prosperity. People who think “the Jews” run the banks lose the ability to understand, much less to operate financial systems. People who think “the Jews” dominate business through hidden structures can’t build or long maintain a successful modern economy. People who think “the Jews” dominate politics lose their ability to interpret political events, to diagnose social evils and to organize effectively for positive change. People who think “the Jews” run the media and control the news lose the ability to grasp what is happening around them. And people who think “the Jews” control America’s Middle Eastern policy lose the ability to understand, much less to influence, American policy in this vital part of the world.*

            I suggest that one can substitute “oligarchy” or “the rich” or just about any other group of “them” for “Jews” and make the same point.

            ARE there nefarious groups who try to control this and that?  Certainly: unions try to control workers in the interests of “collective bargaining”, corporations try to control the market in the interests of their profits, etc.  The problem with naming something as hazy as “the rich” or “the Jews” or “the oligarchy” is, as the article says, that it obscures what is really happening and seems to place events further out of our control and even understanding.

            For example, when gas prices go up, it’s not “Big Oil” cooking the books or capriciously raising prices.  Certainly, oil companies want to make a profit.  However, to simply toss up our hands and lament that “Big Oil” is at it again means that there’s no consideration of what else might be going on, such as growing middle classes in India and Red China, a weakening dollar, unrest in the Middle East, etc.

            ===

            (*) http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/05/13/the-bbc-and-the-jews/

            via AosHQ

            http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329433.php

          • jim_m

             I suggest that one can substitute “oligarchy” or “the rich” or just
            about any other group of “them” for “Jews” and make the same point.

            Right again!  The point is to identify an enemy.  The “oligarchy” has the benefit of being so nebulous that you can add anyone you see fit to throw into the group when the need arises to make them an enemy of the people.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

          Commandante,

          I’d rather make a profit than what is going on now.  Sales for my wife’s business are down significantly.  If people do not have jobs, they don’t buy jewelry.  The Obama (and shared by every leftist politician) policy of requiring employers to pay for their “goals” (health care, unemployment insurance, etc.) makes hiring people more expensive.  If leftists want to be honest (I doubt it), then they should tax everyone for their “goals” – not make it a part of the employment process.

    • Jwb10001

      Assuming most business like to sell things it’s probably not in anyone’s best interest to have high unemployment, Of course if your entire world view revolves around coporate conspiricy…………

      • herddog505

        Very true.  Assuming that even the most greedy businessman has at least some spark of rationality, he must realize that a marketplace comprised solely of a bare minimum of workers barely scraping by and a huge class of utterly impoverished people is not exactly the best environment for him: “Who CAN buy my products?”

        For politicians and government bureaucrats, on the other hand, such an environment is high cotton (see: Greece).

    • GarandFan

       Then you’re saying that those in power are okay with reduced tax revenues because of all those unemployed people?

  • NoeValleyJim

    States that contribute to the federal coffers are losing jobs to states that suck from the federal coffer. What a surprise.

    • McGehee

      States that operate on the dysfunctional blue model are losing jobs to states that don’t. That you don’t get it? Not a surprise.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AXDLBHGWBWIDXWT2LH62AO7I4M Real American

    Most estimates are that unemployment would be a ful percentage point lower if the far right radicals didn’t insist on cutting money for government. News flash people. Cut money for teachers, teachers end up out of work. Cut money to pay firemen firemen get laid off. It’s not exactly rocket science. 

    • McGehee

      Real stupid. The government is simply too expensive. You can’t fund jobs for teachers and firemen when so many people in the private sector are out of work because the government is demonizing them and making it too expensive for them to hire people.

      What you need to understand is that regardless of the value of the service government provides, it needs a healthy private sector far more than the private sector needs a bloated and excessive government.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AXDLBHGWBWIDXWT2LH62AO7I4M Real American

    I’m sorry Mcnuggets, but thinking is not your strong suit. leave it to the adults. Cutting public sector jobs doesn’t help unemployment it hurts. Not only do you end up doing things like laying off teachers (causing the unemployment rate to go up), then teachers don’t go to your privately owned mcstupid  restaurant and buy the steak you sell. because they are laid off and have no money. That hurts your income and forces you to lay your idiot brother Daryl and your other brother Daryl. 

    Now your idiot brothers Daryl can’t contribute to the economy it’s a downward spiral otherwise known as a deflationary spiral. we see it in Europe. Now go rope some cattle or something. If you are going to get into an economic argument a rudimentary understanding would go a long way. 

    • McGehee

      Mcnuggets. Clever.

      Too bad nothing else in your comment is.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AXDLBHGWBWIDXWT2LH62AO7I4M Real American

    btw,  you do realize that private sector job growth has been pretty good. it is the public sector job loss that you republicans cause that is driving up the unemployment rate. 

    • McGehee

      It’s only been “pretty good” if you ignore the massive reduction in job force participation over which Obama has presided.

      Sorry, Unreal — you can’t put all of that into government job losses. Not on this planet at least.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AXDLBHGWBWIDXWT2LH62AO7I4M Real American

    No. it is even good with that measured (which btw Reagan started the process of not counting those who stopped participating.) We have had strong private secotor growth for the last two years. That has been offset by loss of government jobs. the unemplyment rate should be 7.1%. 

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE