Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts

Monday, November 21, 2016

Bush Crashed America, Obama Brought It Back: How Could the Dems Lose?

In the wake of Trump’s electoral victory, commentators of all political persuasions are castigating the Democratic Party for ignoring the concerns of rural voters, the flyover states, and working-class Americans in general. 

The irony is that it was the Democratic administration of Barak Obama that relieved the gravest concerns of these constituencies, who lost jobs and homes in the wake of the 2007-2008 Bush Financial Crisis, and regained them under the Obama Recovery. 

If concerns remained, it was only because the Democratic Party and the campaign of Hillary Clinton failed to deliver this winning economic message.  Left to the mercies of a lying demagogue, it is no wonder that ordinary Americans believe they are worse off because of “liberal” Democratic policies.

The George W. Bush Crash was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.  Because of deregulation and lax oversight by the Republican administration, investment houses lied about the riskiness of their securities, covertly traded unrated securities in the shadow banking system, and accumulated debt without regard to risk.  Risky mortgages were pushed on ordinary consumers, who piled on more debt, and risky securities were represented as gilt-edge to unknowing consumers and managers of public finances.  Then the crisis hit:

·        At the height of the crisis, in September 2008, there was a bank run on money market funds that threatened to collapse the entire US financial system.
·        Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen asked Congress for a $700 billion bailout for the Wall Street banks.
·        By the time the markets had stabilized, US unemployment doubled to 10.1%, and median household wealth fell by 35%. 
·        Housing prices dropped 20% from their 2006 peak.
·        People lost their homes when they could no longer pay their mortgages.

If Americans have economic concerns today, there is the cause.  If Americans’ financial well-being has stagnated, it is because they have been catching up from the Bush Crash. 

The story is a simple one:  Republicans deregulated the financial system, Wall Street bankers made money, and ordinary Americans lost their jobs and their homes.  To add insult to injury, Wall Street was bailed out while the ordinary taxpayer paid the bill.

The report of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission says that the crisis was avoidable” and that it was caused by these failures of Bush-era oversight:

·         Widespread failures in financial regulation
·         Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance
·         Too many financial firms acting recklessly
·         Excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street
·         Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis
·         Systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels

It has taken until now – eight years – for the economy to recover from the Bush Crash of 2008.  And how did we come back?  It was the Democratic administration of President Barak Obama that brought us back from the brink, and held things together while the banks were nursed back to health and employment recovered.  It was the greatest economic comeback since the end of the Great Depression.

Did we hear about this from Hillary?  Did she position the Democrats as the champions of ordinary Americans?  Did she take a clue from Bernie’s broader appeal?

Whatever the outcome in the Electoral College this time, remember that a majority of voters chose a more enlightened and democratic way.  At the next election, a progressive Democratic message will give voters a clear choice.  

But you need to make sure that Americans hear the message, care about it, and vote for it.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Chinese Survey of Laborers Returned to Rural Villages

The Spinning Wheel, by Wang Juzheng, Northern Song Dynasty (960–1127)


The Chinese government has presented some revealing statistics concerning the impact of the global economic slowdown on unemployment among migratory workers. Because the Chinese news source is in Chinese (and my Chinese language studies haven't progressed that far), I'll summarize from Victor Shih's posting on RGE Monitor yesterday. Dr. Shih is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University.

His post, Unemployment in China...Oh Boy, comments on a press conference by Chen Xiwen, the vice head of the office of the important Central Finance and Economic Leading Group. Chen's presentation concerned a Ministry of Agriculture survey which drew samples from 150 villages located in 15 provinces which exported more rural labor. The survey concerned the 38.5% of laborers who returned home before the lunar new year.

Chen's presentation interpreted the survey findings as saying that, of the urban workers who had returned to their villages for the holiday:
  • 60.4% still had jobs in the cities, and they will return to their jobs after the holiday.

  • 39.6% had lost their jobs or not found a job.
Chen applied these findings to the population of 130 million rural laborers working elsewhere. He estimated that 15.3% or 20 million have lost their jobs or have not found a job. According to the survey methodology, these 20 million are only the most recent "pulse" of unemployment occurring just before the lunar new year.

Based purely on official government statistics, Dr. Shih estimates in his RGE Monitor post that total unemployment is around 36.8 million, consisting of 20 million rural migrants, 15 million urban unemployed, and 1.8 million recent college graduates. The numbers were not converted to percentage terms, as is usual for US unemployment statistics.

I do not understand Dr. Shih's mathematics. If 20 million is the number of migrant workers who have recently lost their jobs, what about those who had lost their jobs earlier and were still unemployed? It looks as if his estimate follows the usual Chinese government practice of counting rural individuals living at home as employed, because they can be employed in agriculture, even if their contribution is marginal.

Whatever the unemployment numbers now, we will have to keep watch as they develop over the next few months. As average income declines, much about Chinese domestic stimulus programs, foreign exchange, and other policy matters may depend on those numbers.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Depression Level Unemployment

Mish Shedlock has a thoughtful posting about trends in unemployment and their likely effects on the deflationary trajectory of the economy. In Prepare For Depression Level Unemployment Mish estimates:
Given that job losses are accelerating and that unemployment is a lagging indicator (unemployment is expected to rise for some number of months after the economy bottoms), it is not unreasonable to be talking about 10% unemployment sometime in 2010, with 8.5% to 9% or higher extremely likely.

8.5% or higher unemployment is enormously deflationary with the current backdrop of consumer debt and huge numbers of people underwater on their homes.

Unemployment was much higher during the Great Depression, but these are sobering estimates nonetheless.

Source:
"Prepare For Depression Leel Unemployment"
Mish's Global EconomicTrend Analysis
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/12/prepare-for-depression-level.html