Economists, according to all the media reports on 9/5/14, expected payroll growth in August of an additional 225,000 following July’s upwardly revised 2120,000. Instead they got 1 42,000. They got a record number of people, 92,269,000 a record number of Americans who do not have a job. Now many of them are retired, but aside from people in institutions, aside from people in the Armed Forces, aside from people incarcerated, aside from all those people, 92,269,000 Americans do not have jobs.
It is the highest non-participation rate in the labor force in 36 years or to put it another way another way, since Jimmy Carter was President. Nonetheless, the unemployment rate has bounced down again to 6.1%. If you believe that number, I have some ocean front property in Yuma for you to invest in. Here we are in the midst of this “recovery “ with people continuing to say that the economy is recovering. In fact the whole focus of the 142,000 new jobs was on how unexpected it was since we obviously are in a recovery.
Now for the bad news, the above was the news. There was a net loss of full-time jobs. The jobs they are counting are part-time and full-time together. If you look at the underlying numbers there was a net loss of full-time jobs most being replaced by part-time jobs. Can you spell ObamaCare? Understand what’s happening in this economy in terms of job creation, the more the president talks about job creation the more his actions are destroying jobs.
You know how the Democrats complain about the top 1%. Did you know that most of the top 1% are Democrats. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Imelt and the list goes on an on. The Washington Times (one of the most liberal newspapers in the country) had this as their headline “Federal Reserve: Under Obama only the richest 10% saw incomes rise”. This is report by the Federal Reserve, covering the years 2010 to 2013, which correlated Mr. Obama constantly campaigned against income inequality, and included his 2012 rival Romney as a tool of the Wall Street plutocrats.
While the president was getting reelected, talking about income inequality, fair pay for women, the 1% and all the rest of that, his policies were making the top 10% richer and the rest of this not so much. Here’s the numbers, the 2010- 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances found that even though real Gross Domestic Product grew by an average of 2.1% per year, civilian unemployment fell from 9.9% to 7.5%. Unemployment was down but only families “at the very top of the income distribution saw widespread income gains.” The Federal Reserve survey found that a family in the middle income bracket, the 40th to the 90th percentiles, saw “very little change in average real incomes and still have not recovered losses from 2010 and 2007.”
The middle class is still not back to where they were in 2007. You can blame the recession on Bush, as many still do, give him 100% credit for it. But we are 6 1/2 years into your administration and you ran not on a foreign policy platform (which with the mess we are in now shows) but you ran on an economic platform. We should have had some kind of a recovery. In 6 1/2 years, we should be doing better than we were before the recession, because that has been the pattern of every other recession since World War II. The pattern is between 6 and 18 months you are doing better than you were before the recession. Barack Obama now holds the record of 6 1/2 years later the middle class is not doing good.
Those at the bottom of the income distribution have seen “substantial declines in average real incomes.” The more people go on welfare the less well off they are. For every American, regardless of where you are in this continuum, for every American except at the top, they are not doing very well.
Let’s go to the Romney level. The top 3% climbed from 44.8% in 2001 and rose to 48.8% in 2007. In 2013 it was 54.4%. During Obama’s time it has climbed more than it did in the Bush years. And the bottom 90%, they fell from 33.2% in 2007 to 24.7 in 2013. If the policies of this administration and the effect they had on the economy matched the rhetoric shouldn’t those numbers be the opposite. To put it another way, how is it he is so good at making speeches that resonate with people, but the actual performance is 180° different.