Prof. Robert S. McElvaine of Millsaps College wrote an NYT article about employment data over the past 64 years:

"Has Obama Made the Job Situation Worse?"

[URL]http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-job-situation-worse/?src=me&ref=general[/URL]

[quote]“Without a doubt President Obama inherited a difficult situation. Here’s the problem. He made it worse,” Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential candidate, has been saying in his stump speech.

Ryan’s statement consists of two parts; the first is gross understatement, the second gross misstatement. It is the misstatement that is the essence of the case Republicans are putting before American voters: That President Obama has made the economy worse. Getting voters to believe that assertion is probably the Republicans’ only hope of winning the election.

In the latest poll (a Wall Street Journal and NBC News survey released on Tuesday), respondents favor President Obama over Gov. Romney — generally by wide margins — in almost every category other than improving the economy. On “caring about average people,” for example, Obama is favored by an extraordinary margin to 52 percent to 30 percent.

So the argument that President Obama has made the economy worse is not only central to the Republicans’ case, it’s pretty much all they have. But the facts do not support their claims.

. . .

Look at the 64-year period from the start of Harry Truman’s presidency to the end of that of George W. Bush (1945-2009).

During the 28 years of Democratic administrations in that period, 57.5 million new jobs were created, an average of 2.05 million per year.

During the 36 years of Republican administrations in that period, 36.2 million new jobs were created, an average of 1.0 million per year.

The bottom line is that over the 64 years leading up to the inauguration of President Obama, jobs were created more than twice as fast under Democrats as they were under Republicans.

. . .

In the eighteen months from the beginning of 2008 through the middle of 2009, a period fully shaped by the Bush economic program to which Republicans now want to return, (but before the Obama stimulus had a chance to take effect), approximately 7.5 million jobs were lost.

Over the most recent 18 months of the Obama administration, approximately 2.8 million jobs have been added.

That means that the average monthly job loss during the “difficult situation” before Obama’s policies took effect was 417,000. Over the last year-and-a-half, the average monthly job gain has been 155,000.

If Rep. Ryan and Gov. Romney see that as making a bad situation worse, it should tell us something about their “vision.”[/quote]Care to banish this one to another thread, Ernst? It's got some of the key ingredients -- data contradicting a frequent slam of Obama.

Or is that only if I repeat a couple of sentences from the quoted article? I'll be happy to do so and add the "Got that?".

[QUOTE=cheesehead;310037]Care to banish this one to another thread, Ernst? It's got some of the key ingredients -- data contradicting a frequent slam of Obama.[/QUOTE]
Not a slam by me, as I don't need the GOP to provide me with "ready talking points". You appear to have me confused with a partisan propagandist, since you continually demonstrate that that is the only way in which you are capable of framing the debate. (And you so like to accuse others of erecting "straw men".) To be clear, I'm in the "he didn't do anything to make it better in sustainable-economic-growth terms" camp. Is that too nuanced or too non-hyperpartisan for your taste?

Anyhoo, this latest article you cite pretty much does the same thing TBP's Invictus does in the post [url=http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=308860&postcount=464]garo linked to on 21. August[/url]: Pick the depths of the 2009 recession as the "starting point", and tout total jobs created since then to produce an impressive-sounding number, without noting how many jobs would be required merely to keep up with population growth over the same time period. The BLS' own chart of employment/population ratio which I linked to in the aforementioned discussion addresses that question nicely.

"He made it worse" is a stretch, but based on the wildly easy comparison offered by using early-to-mid-2009 as a starting point, to conclude "the stimulus worked" is equally ridiculous. By the standard of historical recession recoveries , there has been no jobs recovery to speak of. And none of the articles talking up the anemic "jobs creation" which has occurred discuss the median *quality* of the new-created jobs versus the ones lost in 2008-2009. "Why is that?", one wonders.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;309882]

[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/poor-in-india-starve-as-politicians-steal-14-5-billion-of-food.html"]Poor in India Starve as Politicians Steal $14.5 Billion of Food[/URL]

That last piece embodies the reason India is not going to become a global economic superpower any time soon: Very little of that newfound wealth has accrued to the bottom 90%, who are at the same time being robbed blind by a corrupt political class. Countries with that level of institutionalized corruption and wealth disparity have not fared well in the annals of economic history, at least not without a global-scale colonial looting operation to allow the kleptocrats to keep their own unwashed hordes semi-pacified.
[/QUOTE]

Pretty grim reading. Decades of dysfunctional institutions and political systems have resulted in this outcome. If you get a chance read Shrilal Shukl's Raag Darbari. I believe it was translated into English by Mark Tully's ex. Though written 45 years ago, the social commentary in the book remains relevant as ever.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;310070] [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=308860&postcount=464"]garo linked to on 21. August[/URL][/QUOTE]

I like that you still write your dates deutschen Art (Weise? Stil?).

[QUOTE=ewmayer;310070]Not a slam by me[/QUOTE]I never said it was.

[quote]You appear to have me confused with a partisan propagandist, since you continually demonstrate that that is the only way in which you are capable of framing the debate.[/quote]Folks,

Notice that both this article and the earlier one I linked/quoted about "reckless spending spree" (that got banished) were _factual_ refutations of false partisan propaganda.

Apparently, Ernst can't tell the difference between promoting partisan propaganda and refuting such propaganda with facts.

[quote](And you so like to accuse others of erecting "straw men".)[/quote]If you don't like facing that accusation, stop erecting.

[quote]Anyhoo, this latest article you cite pretty much does the same thing TBP's Invictus does in the post [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=308860&postcount=464"]garo linked to on 21. August[/URL]: Pick the depths of the 2009 recession as the "starting point",[/quote]Folks,

Ernst either didn't read, or failed to comprehend, McElvaine's article.

McElvaine's article ([URL]http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-job-situation-worse/?src=me&ref=general[/URL]) [U]does NOT pick the depths of the 2009 recession as a starting point[/U]. Anyone who actually reads the article can plainly see that McElvaine's first chart starts with the Truman administration, and his second chart starts at [B]January of 2008[/B].

[quote]and tout total jobs created since then to produce an impressive-sounding number,[/quote]Folks,

Ernst is referring to _one_ of the numbers McElvaine mentions. But why doesn't Ernst mention that McElvaine ALSO presentsl other job numbers?

[quote=McElvaine]Look at the 64-year period from the start of Harry Truman’s presidency to the end of that of George W. Bush (1945-2009).

During the 28 years of Democratic administrations in that period, 57.5 million new jobs were created, an average of 2.05 million per year.

During the 36 years of Republican administrations in that period, 36.2 million new jobs were created, an average of 1.0 million per year.

. . .

In the eighteen months from the beginning of 2008 through the middle of 2009, a period fully shaped by the Bush economic program to which Republicans now want to return, (but before the Obama stimulus had a chance to take effect), approximately 7.5 million jobs were lost.[/quote](Here, McElvaine mentions the one number to which Ernst draws attention, but it's only one in the midst of several other jobs numbers.)
[quote=McElvaine]Over the most recent 18 months of the Obama administration, approximately 2.8 million jobs have been added.[/quote]But even after that, McElvaine presents other numbers that Ernst doesn't draw attention to.)
[quote=McElvaine]That means that the average monthly job loss during the “difficult situation” before Obama’s policies took effect was 417,000. Over the last year-and-a-half, the average monthly job gain has been 155,000.[/quote]Why does Ernst want to give you the ([U]false[/U]) impression that McElvaine "touts" only one number, instead of saying what McElvaine actually does, which is to discuss many numbers?

Could it be that Ernst is so locked in to this false idea that I am promoting a hyperpartisan article that he is blind to anything that contradicts that impression?

[quote=ewmayer]without noting how many jobs would be required merely to keep up with population growth over the same time period.[/quote]Folks,

That is Ernst's deployment of one of the standard straw men, "non-universal scope", where the critic pretends that something is wrong with the article just because it doesn't mention something it doesn't mention.

- -

Ernst,

That number (jobs required to keep up with population growth) is readily available from multiple other articles and does not have to be included in McElvaine's article order for it to make sense to the reader.

BTW, why don't you mention that the losses before mid-2009 also aren't contrasted with population growth? Why would that be a consideration only for one administration but not the other -- that is, if you were pretending to be objective.

[quote]The BLS' own chart of employment/population ratio which I linked to in the aforementioned discussion addresses that question nicely.[/quote]... [U]and, thus, it doesn't have to be repeated in every NYT article about jobs, because it's readily available to anyone who needs to use the population growth numbers!

[/U][quote]"He made it worse" is a stretch, but based on the wildly easy comparison offered by using early-to-mid-2009 as a starting point,[/quote](Ernst repeats his mistake)
[quote]to conclude "the stimulus worked" is equally ridiculous.[/quote]The chart clearly shows that the job loss/gain numbers improved when the stimulus took hold. But Ernst is determined not to admit that, apparently.

[quote]By the standard of historical recession recoveries[/quote]Most economists admit that this recession is worse that any other since the Great Depression. Therefore, using "the standard of historical recession recoveries" is inappropriate for a recession which is outside the bounds of all those historical recessions -- unless one is trying by all means to portray the Obama administration's performance as negatively as possible without regard to fairness.

[quote]And none of the articles talking up the anemic "jobs creation" which has occurred discuss the median *quality* of the new-created jobs versus the ones lost in 2008-2009.[/quote]Actually, I've seen articles that do discuss that. Perhaps I use sources not intended for perma-bears like you.

(Now watch Ernst complain about the length of that post, as a way of suggesting that I shouldn't point out so many of his errors.)

Ah, an opportunity! I'll add to this little sub-thread so that these posts can be banished to another cheesehead-has-gone-off-the-deep-end thread.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;310078]
Apparently, Ernst can't tell the difference between promoting partisan propaganda and refuting such propaganda with facts.[/QUOTE]

I think you have that backwards. I think [I]cherry-picked[/I] facts are no different than political propaganda. Both are designed to present a false impression of reality.

The cherry-picking in the blog you referenced are too numerous to mention them all. Just one example, the author states that Obama has created 2.8 million jobs during the last 18 months carefully ignoring the first 2 full years of his presidency as adding that data would weaken his arguments considerably.

Here is a chart from a Washington Post article. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/Screen%20shot%202012-08-02%20at%2010.45.36%20AM.png?uuid=wDXfbNyyEeGOQ0o8Q3VQSg[/url]
It is fact based, but paints a rather different picture.

Since it is fact based and shows Obama has done a dismal job in creating jobs, does it paint an accurate picture of reality? Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.

Edit: For Ernst - the full article link: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Prime95;310097]Since it is fact based and shows Obama has done a dismal job in creating jobs, does it paint an accurate picture of reality? Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.[/QUOTE]

Since we're talking about "facts" here, let's consider this.

Jr. knew he wasn't going to be re-elected. He had already served two terms. One arguably stolen (thanks bro'). One because he was a "war president".

Thus, wouldn't it make sense for him to make the situation as difficult as possible for his successor?

"Let them eat cake."

[QUOTE=Prime95;310097]I think you have that backwards. I think [I]cherry-picked[/I] facts are no different than political propaganda. Both are designed to present a false impression of reality.[/QUOTE]What false impression of reality does the McElvaine article present?

[quote]The cherry-picking in the blog you referenced are too numerous to mention them all.[/quote]That's a really handy excuse for not telling us what you mean.

[quote]Just one example, the author states that Obama has created 2.8 million jobs during the last 18 months carefully ignoring the first 2 full years of his presidency as adding that data would weaken his arguments considerably.[/quote]Wow. Just wow.

Your can't present even one example without making the same error Ernst repeatedly did! Perhaps you missed my comment above:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;310078]
McElvaine's article ([URL]http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-job-situation-worse/?src=me&ref=general[/URL]) [U]does NOT pick the depths of the 2009 recession as a starting point[/U]. Anyone who actually reads the article can plainly see that McElvaine's first chart starts with the Truman administration, and his second chart starts at [B]January of 2008[/B].[/QUOTE]McElvaine does NOT carefully ignore the first two years of the Obama presidency.

Did you fail to read the article carefully? Is that why you make a false accusation about McElvaine?

Well, now we see what an awful job you do when you present a single WRONG example after claiming that you see cherry-picking "too numerous to mention them all." One would think that you would have at least picked a VALID example to support your claim!

[quote]Here is a chart from a Washington Post article. [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/Screen%20shot%202012-08-02%20at%2010.45.36%20AM.png?uuid=wDXfbNyyEeGOQ0o8Q3VQSg"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/Screen%20shot%202012-08-02%20at%2010.45.36%20AM.png?uuid=wDXfbNyyEeGOQ0o8Q3VQSg[/URL]
It is fact based, but paints a rather different picture.[/quote]I'm disappointed that right after complaining about "cherry-picking", you present a graph that is so blatantly cherry-picked.

You need to revise your idea of what constitutes a convincing counterexample.

[quote]Since it is fact based and shows Obama has done a dismal job in creating jobs, does it paint an accurate picture of reality?[/quote]It presents only one single fact, whereas McElvaine's article presented many more.

Is it accurate? I don't know, without cross-checking the numbers therein.

[quote]Edit: For Ernst - the full article link: [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html[/URL][/quote]Gee, George, the article at least presents caveats along with its graph. Why didn't you include any of those caveats when you asked me whether the graph paints an accurate picture?

Showing that Obama has the worst job-creating record of any post-WW2 president doesn't mean much when it's in the context of dealing with a recession that's the worst post-WW2 recession.

In contrast to the previous case where I posted an article refuting a false assertion about Obama, this time no one has yet accused me of hyperpartisanship or "spinning", nor has anyone falsely attributed McElvaine's statements directly to me.

That's good.

- -

Ernst and George,

Thank you for attributing McElvaine's statements to McElvaine rather than to me, and for attributing bias to the article rather than to me.

[QUOTE=chalsall;310109]Since we're talking about "facts" here, let's consider this.

Jr. knew he wasn't going to be re-elected. He had already served two terms. One arguably stolen (thanks bro'). One because he was a "war president".

Thus, wouldn't it make sense for him to make the situation as difficult as possible for his successor?"[/QUOTE]

Doubtful, because leaving a huge mess reflects more on him and his legacy than it does on his successor. Hoover/Roosevelt is an example of this.

--------------------------------

[QUOTE=cheesehead;310078]McElvaine's article ([URL]http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/has-obama-made-the-job-situation-worse/?src=me&ref=general[/URL]) [U]does NOT pick the depths of the 2009 recession as a starting point[/U]. Anyone who actually reads the article can plainly see that McElvaine's first chart starts with the Truman administration, and his second chart starts at [B]January of 2008[/B].[/QUOTE]
From the article:
[QUOTE][u]In the eighteen months from the beginning of 2008 through the middle of 2009, a period fully shaped by the Bush economic program to which Republicans now want to return, (but before the Obama stimulus had a chance to take effect)[/u], approximately 7.5 million jobs were lost.

Over the most recent 18 months of the Obama administration, approximately 2.8 million jobs have been added.[/quote]
It's very clear that McElvaine dates the start of the "Obama recovery" to mid 2009. [i][Edit: Or perhaps end of 2009; or maybe mid-2010, depending on which makes the numbers look best. See George's commentary on that below.][/i] You are apparently the only one around here who reads the above words and fails to see that.
And your getting into a frenzy about Truman - wtf? Forget to take your meds again?

Richard, I realize it must be incredibly frustrating to "know 100% that you are right", and yet to fail repeatedly to convince others of the "indubitable correctness" of your conclusions. I cannot say whether all the bizarre "discussion tactics" you like to employ when you encounter contrary views, such as excessive quoting, attempting to woo the audience via your trite "Folks, ..." phrases, then throwing around wild accusations of "slander" for literally months after one your patented hissy fits are so off-putting to others as to materially weaken the impact of your "facts". But they surely cannot help your cause.

As to this (officially long-behind-us) recession being the deepest since the 1930s, sure that is factor, but not necessarily in the way you propose. There is an old phrase along the lines of "the farther the fall, the bigger the bounce" which refers to the simple dynamic of economic mean-reversion. There is also an ongoing debate about whether government policies which attempt to "cushion the blow" by propping up failed institutions and attempting to stimulate another levering-up are effective or whether they are possibly counterproductive, and how the nature of the downturn (business-cycle vs balance-sheet) affects that dynamic. So if you want to trot out the Great Depression as an analog of the current downturn, I will point out that there was another very severe downturn in 1920-21. Government policies during the two were markedly different, as were outcomes.