Economic Recovery

What did they expect the curve to look like? There are no new jobs plotted on this graph. The curve might as well represent the fact that there are no more jobs left to be lost.

Now if I could get a palm tree graph and a Bud light lime graph I'd be blogging LARGE!!

One's first impression is that what the Obama adminstration has done is to offset and compensate for what the Bush adminstration did.

That is not true. All it shows is that the jobs lost per month have decreased and gone back to near 0 jobs lost per month.

First, in order to actually get back to even stagnation of the work force, you need to create about 200,000 jobs per month.

Second, if you add up 200,000 per month, plus the monthly loss figures for the months shown in the graph, you get the total number of underemployment in the work force. Therefore, in the coming months, you need lots more than 200,000 jobs per month added in order to rehire all those people.

You really need at least 500,000 jobs per month added in order to say that the economy is really starting to recover.

Where it says "Jobs Lost", the negative numbers should be on the top of the scale, and the positive numbers should be on the lower part.

workers, like you said, we need to generate around 200,000 jobs per month. Even if we are able to somehow double that, to 400,000, it would take well over three years to get back to where we were. My employer is pushing capital projects out to the 2017-2018 window; that's how pessimistic our economist is regarding a sustainable recovery. He is actually forecasting a double-dip recession; a "W" if you will. How appropriate. Since 70% of our GDP is based on consumption, I don't expect to be seeing 400,000 jobs created monthly anytime soon.

You wouldn't even be happy with what you just said he needs to do. The reality is, you'd never be happy with anything Obama does.

it's just the reality of the current job market. The level of jobs destruction is overwhelming, and even an economy based on manufacturing would be challenged to replace those jobs while creating jobs for new workers too. The fact that 70% of our GDP is based on consumption compounds a bad situation, and makes jobs creation much more difficult. Obama had nothing to do with basing our GDP on consumption; that was a fork in the road political leadership took over 25 years ago.

for the Senate in 2012?

Seems to be the keys to the kingdom.

A Dem would get flayed alive in the M$M for nekkid pickchers..

and you have to add up all those pretty columns and make positive columns to replace them

As it was for George W. Bush to stand on an aircraft carrier with a Mission Accomplished Banner.

:wtf: and the way it's laid out, it won't be a recovery until it starts heading uphill, eg job #s are increasing, not losses decreasing.

That graph an't worth sh*t. But a paycheck, on the other hand, would be worth something. And I'd rather have the paycheck.

All the Obama stimulus crap was just more trickle down voodoo economics re-packaged just a little differently. The administration still fails to address the fundamental underlying economic issues. They are not willing to take the steps necessary to create a truly productive economy. They just want to patch up the old one based on wealth creation and consumption.

Color me unimpressed.

recommended