The unemployment rate has increased to 9 percent, but employers added 244,000 jobs in April. This job growth was higher than expected, but barely enough to tread water in today’s economy. If these numbers were in month two or three of the recovery, I would be excited. In fact, normally, we should be ecstatic. But we aren’t anywhere close to normal in this economy. And that’s the scary part. We are nearly two years into the so-called recovery from the Great Recession (which “officially” ended in June 2009 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research). And, as I pointed out in National Review Online earlier, this Great Recession really isn’t so Great. It’s similar in scope to what we experienced in the early 1980s. So, the positive employment numbers now showing up 22 months after the recovery started is pretty. . . well . . . scary. Moreover, the economy’s inconsistency since the trough is hardly encouraging. Indeed, it appears we are two years into a “lost decade.”
— Samuel R. Staley is Robert W. Galvin fellow and director of urban & land use policy at the Reason Foundation.
Always remember: Jobs don't create growth. Growth creates jobs. If job growth is anemic, it means our recovery has been sub par. And likely due for another recession.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it correct as noted on Drudge that 1/4 of those new jobs are the McDonald's ones? I'm not sure how the timing of the two things works.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Staley's fears are justified. It shouldn't be too long before we start hearing the term "Bush's Lost Decade". After all, we all know that Bush is responsible for the mess that we are in. Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Sen. Obama et al tried to reduce spending but Bush wouldn't let them. They also tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, but we all know Bush protected Fannie and Freddie and their management teams. And we all know that President Obama has heroically put forth a vision to solve our budget woes.
PS...Yes, Bush was profligate, but when it comes to spending, he's a piker compared to the Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hate to break this to you, but we are 11 years into our lost decade.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTook 29 minutes, sawdin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet with the program. We aren’t two years into a lost decade we are in the middle of “Recovery Summer 2: This Time the Job Growth is Real”!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you Mickey Dee's! 50000 jobs flipen patties!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChange (in your pocket) you can believe in.
The (falling) dollar menu.
"yes we can" hold the pickles!
Would you like fries with your hope & change?
This is at least my second lost decade, maybe my third depending on criteria. There ought to be a law against multiple lost decades in one person's life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope that calling this a lost decade doesn't turn out to be optimistic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomeone needs to piece together all the audio-video from Jan and Feb 2009 when Obama and his supporters insisted we just had to have a stimulus to create shovel ready jobs or else the economy would implode...and the juxtapose that with stats and images of an economy that has not improved despite $800 billion spent*.
* Or at least partially spent. Would also be great to know how much of that ARRA money has NOT been spent and how much Obama will dole out to select swing states over the next year or so to try and purchase his second term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcDonald's jobs are important opportunities; they provide entry-level workers with chance show up on time, learn to be proactive and busy, see what taxes do to an already meager paycheck, &c.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2000 - 2010 was mostly a net wash for me. In 1998 my income started going up as my career started hitting its stride. But if you look at my 401(k), it is pretty sobering. Sure, the 401(k) grew in value, but only proportionate to what I was saving. I made nearly nothing in interest due to the 2000 and 2008 stock market crashes.
I'm sure many timed the market correctly, pulling money out before the market tanked, but I just put my money in index funds like many other people did.
Today, my 401(k) is finally worth more than what I put into it. I'm not complaining, since I have many years ahead of me. But these big bubbles in the stock market have been a huge problem for many people closer to retirement.
As Hayak said, stop the bubbles (due to the fed monkeying with interest rates) and the growth will take care of itself. Now he was the 'real mccoy' (captcha!). Instead, we have had Pols trying to do everything they could to goose the economy, which has had real costs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnly 1 lost decade? What a relief!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOvert - please don't assume we all understand the technical terms you use. What exactly are "401(k)" and "money"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore like 11 years into America's lost decade. The unemployment rate was 3.9% in early 2000, the U.S. dollar was strong, the government was running budget surpluses, and the Federal Funds rate was 6.5%. A true bull market ended at that time. Since then, the economy, stock market, employment, commodities, housing, etc have been propped up by a low Federal Funds rate (as lost as 1% in the Bush era, and between 0 and 0.25 % in the Obama era), an enormous expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and excessive government spending. The dollar is worthless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we are going to attribute the lost decade to someone, I think you can absolve both President Bush and President Obama. This is without a doubt Greenspan's lost decade, and I expect before we are through, it will turn out to be Greenspan's lost quarter century.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you have to blame the last three Presidents. Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Under Clinton, there was a MASSIVE dot-com bubble. You can see where the bubble took off, compared to standard market valuation. And at the same time the Fed was pumping enormous amounts of money into the system. We are still living the after-effects of those decisions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEric Oakes wrote:
"McDonald's jobs are important opportunities; they provide entry-level workers with chance show up on time, learn to be proactive and busy, see what taxes do to an already meager paycheck, &c."
Someone working full time at Mickey D does not pay any taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOvert,
Had you invested consistently over the past 10 years, dollar cost averaging and reinvesting interest/dividens, you'd have made an OK return. Not great, but decent. Even with bubbles and bursts, the long term investor still does OK. People get killed when they chase trends. And when small investors do that they lose, bull or bear market.
Personally speaking 2000-2010 was fantastic for me. In 2010 my income was (and is) about 300% higher than 2000. My investments have done pretty well over all. I didn't chase anything, I allocated a little in growth stocks, a little in mature stocks, a little in govt bonds, a little in corporate bonds, a little in metals, a little in real estate, a little in good old fashioned boring CDs even. Some did great, some I got killed on. But through diversification and dollar cost averaging I came out on the other end looking pretty good. And while everyone was panicking in late 2008 and early 2009, I just stayed the course. And the stuff I bought every 2 weeks in 2008/2009 is now in some cases worth 100% more than my cost. And what I bought in 2000/2001 is worth more or less what I paid for, on average. But add in 10 years of dividends reinvested and the tremendous gains since 2008/2009, and it adds up to a decent overall decade of investment.
Part of the issue I think is people thought 1997-2000 became the normal where every year 25% return was to be expected. That was an anomaly. We're now back to the traditional 5, 6, 7% annual returns and people think something's wrong. Nothing wrong, just back to basics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey pay payroll and local taxes. And if they are kids who are dependents of their parents, they may pay income taxes too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse