America and post-employment.

[Quackers]

No jobs were made under Reagan?

 

[Integral]

@Karalysia: BLS disagrees. Nonfarm payroll employment grew by ~16 million from 1981Jan to 1989Jan. But something tells me that data won't be enough to convince you.

 

[JerichoHill]

Your friend has drunk too much doomsday kool-aid.

@Integral -No, hard facts will not sway the argument, but kudos for doing such. Such efforts are worthwhile in the long run

 

[Cutlass]

IIRC. Reagan made 20 million jobs in his 8 years and Clinton 22 million. Thats good

The question is whether or not any jobs were the result of policies of Reagan, not whether they were coincident in time. Since Reagan took office during a bad recession, and that recession ended, through no policies or efforts of his, then jobs did increase on his watch. But they did not increase either do to his policies or in numbers that were particularly noteworthy.

 

[Quackers]

The question is whether or not any jobs were the result of policies of Reagan, not whether they were coincident in time. Since Reagan took office during a bad recession, and that recession ended, through no policies or efforts of his, then jobs did increase on his watch. But they did not increase either do to his policies or in numbers that were particularly noteworthy.

What the?

This is either 100% genius or 100% rubbish. I suspect it is the latter.

 

[bombshoo]

The United States really aught to pass some tax breaks for manual labor intensive jobs. This crap where they are using their money buy new equipment is not helping anything.

Of course I am not for this forever, that would simply lead to technological stagnation. For the time being though I think we need this.

 

[Cutlass]

What the?

This is either 100% genius or 100% rubbish. I suspect it is the latter.

It's the same thing as in the Cold War argument. You have to look at what people did and the effect of what people did, not just give them all the credit when something happens on their watch. Reagan did not "create jobs" in that he did not go out and directly employ people. Most of the economy simply goes on its merry way without much regard to the government at all. Economic conditions during the Reagan years were fairly good because the inflation of the 70s was brought under control. Carter and Volker get the credit for that, not Reagan. Once there was no reason for the economy to be bad, it went back to normal. From bad to normal means adding jobs. But what can you point to that Reagan did that made the economy any better than normal? Job growth as a whole? Not particularly impressive. Investment? Unimpressive.

Any government, and any leader, is at least in part riding trends that they had no hand in creating. In fact, few leaders make large changes in the trends they inherit. So if you want to hero-worship someone like Reagan, you have to find things that he actually did which resulted in the outcome you think he deserves credit for.

And in Reagan's case, there simply isn't much of positive outcome that you can point to and say that that is a result of a policy that he was responsible for creating. (Lot's of negatives, though. )

 

[Little Raven]

Your friend has drunk too much doomsday kool-aid.

Possibly. He is currently unemployed himself, and that has a way of coloring one's outlook.

But massive cuts in the public sector are most certainly coming, unless Washington passes some kind of second bailout of states and local governments. Here in Texas, we're doing a 5% cut across the board right now, which is expected to cost tens of thousands of jobs across the state. Analysts predict we'll have to cut 15% more next year to balance the budget. And Texas is in relatively good shape.

So unless private industry really cranks up the hiring soon, the jobs picture is almost certainly going to get worse.

 

[Quackers]

It's the same thing as in the Cold War argument. You have to look at what people did and the effect of what people did, not just give them all the credit when something happens on their watch. Reagan did not "create jobs" in that he did not go out and directly employ people. Most of the economy simply goes on its merry way without much regard to the government at all. Economic conditions during the Reagan years were fairly good because the inflation of the 70s was brought under control. Carter and Volker get the credit for that, not Reagan. Once there was no reason for the economy to be bad, it went back to normal. From bad to normal means adding jobs. But what can you point to that Reagan did that made the economy any better than normal? Job growth as a whole? Not particularly impressive. Investment? Unimpressive.

Any government, and any leader, is at least in part riding trends that they had no hand in creating. In fact, few leaders make large changes in the trends they inherit. So if you want to hero-worship someone like Reagan, you have to find things that he actually did which resulted in the outcome you think he deserves credit for.

And in Reagan's case, there simply isn't much of positive outcome that you can point to and say that that is a result of a policy that he was responsible for creating. (Lot's of negatives, though. )

I'm sorry Cutlass but it seems, at least in your world, Reagan did nothing at all as President. That the economic recovery was wholely down to Carter (oh wait he's a democrat - has that got anything to do with it?) - the Soviet Union would of fallen in 1991 anyway and that America wouldn't of regained its confidance. I give credit where it is due - reagan made many jobs so did Clinton I'm not bogged down in partisan quibbling. I'm looking at it historically and not as a partisan thing (note: i'm british it doesn't really effect me that much whoever you vote for).

So I say lift those idealogical scales from your eyes and breath those beautiful lungs and clear those cobwebs of liberal blogs and Fox-new watching infuriation from your trachea and see the world for what it is.

 

[JerichoHill]

Possibly. He is currently unemployed himself, and that has a way of coloring one's outlook.

But massive cuts in the public sector are most certainly coming, unless Washington passes some kind of second bailout of states and local governments. Here in Texas, we're doing a 5% cut across the board right now, which is expected to cost tens of thousands of jobs across the state. Analysts predict we'll have to cut 15% more next year to balance the budget. And Texas is in relatively good shape.

So unless private industry really cranks up the hiring soon, the jobs picture is almost certainly going to get worse.

Your error (and your friend's) is assuming the age distribution of the US is uniform. It isn't. A lot more folks are going to be hitting the retirement age zone than those who are going to be starting off in the job market (think of a wave cresting).

 

[Little Raven]

Your error (and your friend's) is assuming the age distribution of the US is uniform. It isn't. A lot more folks are going to be hitting the retirement age zone than those who are going to be starting off in the job market (think of a wave cresting).

I'm well aware of that. But the Boomers aren't going to be retiring in force in the next few years. Too many of them suffered serious blows to their retirement funds in the latest crash. They'll still retire, of course, but not for a while.

Meanwhile, big jobs cuts on the state and local levels are going to hit in the next two years. States and cities can't print money, and many have laws which require balanced budgets. It's already started, and it isn't going to stop until regional governments have gotten out from under the tide of red ink they're currently facing.

Which doesn't mean we're facing doom and gloom. It just means things are likely to get worse before they get better.

 

[crabapple]

When the fossil fuel starts to get more expensive, more and more peoples manual labor will be needed when machines get to expensive to operate, then employment will rise

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm well aware of that. But the Boomers aren't going to be retiring in force in the next few years. Too many of them suffered serious blows to their retirement funds in the latest crash. They'll still retire, of course, but not for a while.

Meanwhile, big jobs cuts on the state and local levels are going to hit in the next two years. States and cities can't print money, and many have laws which require balanced budgets. It's already started, and it isn't going to stop until regional governments have gotten out from under the tide of red ink they're currently facing.

Which doesn't mean we're facing doom and gloom. It just means things are likely to get worse before they get better.

Umm, I don't know whether that is true or not, but I do know that 50% of the federal workforce is pretty close to if not already eligible to retire.

Let's see. Boomers born say 1950. Yup, 2010, they're sixty. Average retirement age is 62 in the US.

So the average worker can be expected to be retiring in a few years. See, statistics are your friend

 

[lovett]

It's the same thing as in the Cold War argument. You have to look at what people did and the effect of what people did, not just give them all the credit when something happens on their watch. Reagan did not "create jobs" in that he did not go out and directly employ people. Most of the economy simply goes on its merry way without much regard to the government at all. Economic conditions during the Reagan years were fairly good because the inflation of the 70s was brought under control. Carter and Volker get the credit for that, not Reagan. Once there was no reason for the economy to be bad, it went back to normal. From bad to normal means adding jobs. But what can you point to that Reagan did that made the economy any better than normal? Job growth as a whole? Not particularly impressive. Investment? Unimpressive.

People really need to say this more. Seriously.

 

[Arwon]

The question is whether or not any jobs were the result of policies of Reagan, not whether they were coincident in time. Since Reagan took office during a bad recession, and that recession ended, through no policies or efforts of his, then jobs did increase on his watch. But they did not increase either do to his policies or in numbers that were particularly noteworthy.

He probably expanded employment in the military...

 

[Arwon]

The United States really aught to pass some tax breaks for manual labor intensive jobs. This crap where they are using their money buy new equipment is not helping anything.

Of course I am not for this forever, that would simply lead to technological stagnation. For the time being though I think we need this.

It's probably helping the designers, builders, marketers, transporters, retailers and maintainers of the new equipment.

 

[Little Raven]

So the average worker can be expected to be retiring in a few years. See, statistics are your friend

I'm not disputing that...though many Boomers are now planning on working longer than they originally anticipated. But they'll still retire eventually, that much is certain.

But the public sector bloodbath is coming in the next 20 months.

I realize you work for the Feds, and they can print money, but cities and states do not have that luxury. The Feds employ ~2,8 million people, and those jobs are presumably perfectly safe. But states and local governments employ ~15 million people, and lots of those jobs are most certainly not safe. In fact, huge numbers of them are going to have to be cut in order to stave off mass bankruptcies in the public sector. Illinois, California, Arizona, and New Jersey are facing budget crises that are breathtaking in scope, and even here in Texas, where things are relatively good, we're staring a $15 billion shortfall in the face. That's going to hurt, and hurt big. And governments farther down the food chain aren't doing any better. There isn't going to be any way to turn the balance sheets black without laying off a lot of people. It's already starting, and there's a long, long way to go.

Does this mean a future of perpetual darkness? No. But a Boomer retirement is not going to transport us into happy land any time soon, either.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm sorry Cutlass but it seems, at least in your world, Reagan did nothing at all as President. That the economic recovery was wholely down to Carter (oh wait he's a democrat - has that got anything to do with it?) - the Soviet Union would of fallen in 1991 anyway and that America wouldn't of regained its confidance. I give credit where it is due - reagan made many jobs so did Clinton I'm not bogged down in partisan quibbling. I'm looking at it historically and not as a partisan thing (note: i'm british it doesn't really effect me that much whoever you vote for).

So I say lift those idealogical scales from your eyes and breath those beautiful lungs and clear those cobwebs of liberal blogs and Fox-new watching infuriation from your trachea and see the world for what it is.

I don't read any blogs. I was an adult while Reagan was in office, and I paid attention to the news. Anyone who did the same would have an equal opinion of Reagan.

 

[otago]

I'm not disputing that...though many Boomers are now planning on working longer than they originally anticipated. But they'll still retire eventually, that much is certain.

But the public sector bloodbath is coming in the next 20 months.

I realize you work for the Feds, and they can print money, but cities and states do not have that luxury. The Feds employ ~2,8 million people, and those jobs are presumably perfectly safe. But states and local governments employ ~15 million people, and lots of those jobs are most certainly not safe. In fact, huge numbers of them are going to have to be cut in order to stave off mass bankruptcies in the public sector. Illinois, California, Arizona, and New Jersey are facing budget crises that are breathtaking in scope, and even here in Texas, where things are relatively good, we're staring a $15 billion shortfall in the face. That's going to hurt, and hurt big. And governments farther down the food chain aren't doing any better. There isn't going to be any way to turn the balance sheets black without laying off a lot of people. It's already starting, and there's a long, long way to go.

Does this mean a future of perpetual darkness? No. But a Boomer retirement is not going to transport us into happy land any time soon, either.

Sorry but I do not get it, Texas is a conservative state and conservatives say they prefer to have small government, so will this not do what they want ?

Or is it a case of conservatives saying their government jobs should be safe at any cost ?

 

[Little Raven]

Sorry but I do not get it, Texas is a conservative state and conservatives say they prefer to have small government, so will this not do what they want ?

Texas is a conservative state and I'm quite certain the voters of Texas will demand spending cuts in lieu of tax increases. And most Texans won't be bothered by layoffs in the public sector, though the ones being laid off probably won't be thrilled about it. But there will be layoffs...most likely a lot of layoffs. And since Texas is not going to be alone in having to make that choice, it's likely that this will ripple through the economy as a whole.