Is there anything more embarrassing than the Obama prognostications?
Check out this graph. Note where unemployment "is" and where team Obama and their Obamanomics predicted it would be.
Great. Here is the post from the folks at "Innocent Bystanders" that goes deeper into what this Obamanomics chart really means.
They had a follow up post that is careful to mention that the medium job losses are a mirage and that one should not be sitting around waiting for that employment phone to ring any time soon.
In that post "Atlas Groans" they note something pretty interesting with an accompanying chart. They show that in June of 2008 there were 54 people in the private sector working to support a total of 100 people.
However, that number has now dropped to 50 and the trend is continuing downwards.
Exit question for the liberal/progressives who are addicted to this blog: What do you think the ratio should be? 40/100? 30/100? 10/100?
Yip Yip
Posts
10 comments:
0/100
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the figures:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
It looks to me like there are a total of 131+ million in the non-farm labor force, and 22+ million of those people work in government. By my calculations, that makes 484 private-sector workers for every 100 public sector. Am I just misunderstanding this?
And that doesn't even count farm workers, who work in the private sector.
RR I made a mistake with regard to interpreting the second graph.
It should have read (has since been changed in the post) 50 private sector workers supporting 100 people.
Coyote. You might want to re-read the Atlas Groans post, this time for comprehension, as you might say.
The ratio discussed is not private sector/public sector employees. It's private sector employees/civilian population.
You're welcome for setting you straight.
Al
Al,
You might want to read my comment just above yours for comprehension.
Amazing how moonbats such as yourself just can't see past your bat-colored glasses.
Gosh you people are easy.
yip yip
Coyote,
As for your closing question, I think it's too simplistic. There really is no such thing as an ideal number. Do you think there is one?
There are some jobs that belong in the private sector, some that belong in the public sector, and some that can work either way. Some jobs are counted in the private sector, but really are paid with public dollars, like highway and defense contractors.
I realize that it's gospel truth on the right that "government doesn't produce anything", but, come on, does it really matter to the economy if Joe works for a private power company or a P.U.D.? Okay, it probably does, because the P.U.D. will probably provide electricity for a cheaper, more efficient rate, so that's probably a greater net gain for the economy.
Hmm... I'm not sure what the optimal rate should be. Thankfully, I'm not an economist.
I can see where the 50 to 55 ratio is a good one. How that can be maintained as the boomers retire, I don't know.
Do you now for a fact that Obama's prognostications are more embarrassing that any President's in the past? Seems to me that you'll find an economist that gets it right - it's just never the same one.
Ted,
Do you have any historical figures on this? What was it in the 50s? Since the percentage of women in the work force was much smaller then, I suspect that the ration was significantly smaller.
R Hall: "Do you now for a fact that Obama's prognostications are more embarrassing that any President's in the past?"
So you think that after preaching "historic" (worst recession since the 1930s etc.) doom and gloom, presenting the stimulus as the answer, pushing a 1000+ page bill through Congress in a few days, finding that it didn't work as promised, and then having your own figures suggest that your $787 billion stimulus worked less well than doing absolutely nothing, is not embarassing? Really?
Wow. Weren't you talking about anonybots or something earlier. "Obama says things will work and they will. It is not different from other presidents except when he succeeds. Beep."
Ted,
Do you know what this ratio has been historically?
Post a Comment