Unemployment Under Biden

In the words of Donald Trump "Elections have consequences">. Joe Biden was elected on November 6th and as I predicted the day Pennsylvania was declared for him, he took office on January 20, 2021.

Just as with Trump, not everyone will agree with Biden's actions.Like Trump, he is doing what he said he would do and voters elected him. Like Trump, his perceived success will rise and fall with those actions. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

But did voters elect Biden because of what he said he would do, or did they elect him because he wasn't Trump? Trump was elected to do what he said he would do. My guess is, at least 7 million people that voted for Biden, didn't have a clue what he was proposing, they just didn't want Trumps personality any longer and I actually sympathize with them but policy trumps personality with me.

We did both with HWBush and a Democrat Congress and Clinton and a Democrat Congress followed by a Republican Congress.

Bush and Clinton were able to raise taxes and then Clinton and that fucking Newt before he was a partisan asshole cut spending.

The problem we have now is nobody will raise taxes and cut spending. It is a political death wish.

HWBush did what was right for the country at his own peril. Carter did too....with those high interest rates by the Fed!

Just think what 10% plus intrest would do to this country? Originally Posted by WTF

There's only one way out. Start financing the government with longer maturity debt, say 10+ years, then inflate the hell out of the currency. You go to Zimbabwean or Venezuelan or Weimar Germany inflation rates and we'll have this problem licked in a a couple of years

Clinton and a Republican Congress wisely dropped the capital gains tax rate. Biden wants to jack it up, to over 2X the level where Clinton had it. And you know what? He's not going to raise any additional money by doing that, because when he starts taxing long term capital gains at 43.4%, nobody's going to sell anything. So nobody will pay the tax. Instead of people selling the buggy whip companies and investing in automobiles, all their money will stay in buggy whips. Making everyone poorer and decreasing government revenues is not a good strategy for reducing the deficit.

[QUOTE=Tiny;1062339511]
I'm not going to give Obama massive credit for bringing the unemployment rate down to 4.7% eight years after a recession./QUOTE]

Eight years, but the unemployment rate was a whooping 10% when Obama came into office in Jan 2009. So many jobs were lost due the Wall street meltdown of 2008 they had to extent unemployment benefits to a year from six months in 2009 and 2010. Trump only moved the rate from 4.7 to 3.6%. Labor economists consider 3% unemployment full employment.

Eight years, but the unemployment rate was a whooping 10% when Obama came into office in Jan 2009. So many jobs were lost due the Wall street meltdown of 2008 they had to extent unemployment benefits to a year from six months in 2009 and 2010. Trump only moved the rate from 4.7 to 3.6%. Labor economists consider 3% unemployment full employment. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Trump didn't move the unemployment rate from 4.7% to 3.6%. Obama didn't move the unemployment rate from 10% to 4.7%. Respectfully adav8s28, the Fed, Congress, the business cycle, and other factors are as important as or more important than the leadership of the president. As I said in previous posts, I do believe however Ryan and a Republican Congress helped set the stage in 2017/2018 for the huge improvement in median household income and lower unemployment in 2019.

Hypothetically, if one man could make a difference in the unemployment rate, going from 4.7% to 3.6% would be a much bigger accomplishment than going from 10% during a recession to 4.7% eight years later. The 3.6% is the lowest it's been in 50 years. One runner improves his time in the 100 meter dash from 15 seconds to 10.5 seconds. The second improves his time from 10.5 seconds to 9.5 seconds. Which is the bigger accomplishment?

The first full day of Biden as dictator, the hard work people on djia companies got beet up and fat lazy tech NASDAQ stock exchange did very well, so I guess hard working american going to have a ruff time bed con artist bumbs.

Trump didn't move the unemployment rate from 4.7% to 3.6%. Obama didn't move the unemployment rate from 10% to 4.7%. Respectfully adav8s28, the Fed, Congress, the business cycle, and other factors are as important as or more important than the leadership of the president. Originally Posted by Tiny

The banks were in such bad shape in fourth quarter 2008 that Hank Paulson who worked for Bush43 met with 10 banks in Oct 2008 and demanded that they take 700 million dollars even if they didn't want it. The Wall street meltdown of 2008 was so bad the banking system almost collapsed. In this case the President, Obama did make a difference. He bailed out the Banks and bailed out GM & Chysler by giving 1000 troubled assets 625 billion plus dollars thru TARP (Troubled asset relief plan). The banks were not in position to make loans to small businesses or any business for that matter, until Obama bailed them out. You had guys like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul who were against the bailouts. When banks make loans to businesses, they can hire people which brings down the unemployment rate. So, I would have to disagree with you that a president can't make a difference directly on the unemployment rate. If Obama had chosen not to do the bailouts with TARP, people would have been unemployed a lot longer. By bailing out GM and Chysler assembly line workers got to stay on the job and not go on unemployment.

https://store.hbr.org/product/the-fi...in-2008/219037

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...ogram-tarp.asp

Here were the unemployment numbers at the end of 2019, before the onset of Covid:

Overall: 3.6%
Black Americans: 5.5%
Hispanic Americans: 4.3%

These were the lowest numbers in 50 years, since 1969!

I don't see Biden coming anywhere close to these numbers during the next four years, or the next eight years, if he's able to implement his platform. Why?

1. He has proposed a $15/hour minimum wage. He wants to apply this to everyone, including restaurant and bar workers who receive tips, many of whom do quite well, much better than $15/hour. Estimates are this will cost 700,000 jobs, just among those who work for tips. I suspect it will cost millions of jobs in total. Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with a minimum wage. But it should be set at the local or state level. What works in New York City doesn't work in McAllen, Texas. And for that matter it should vary with economic conditions. My community could have easily supported a $15 minimum wage a year ago. Right now, given what's happened as a result of Covid, $15 would put a lot of employees out of work and a lot of business owners out of business.

2. He says he will shut down oil and gas drilling on federal leases, and in the longer term will put policies into effect to achieve "0" net carbon emissions. This would effectively shutter the oil and gas industry in the USA in the long term. Look for hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in the short term, and if future administrations and Congresses continue these policies, millions of jobs lost.

3. Biden will use the bully pulpit and probably get more people to use masks and social distance, which I believe will actually help preserve jobs. However, he'll also be promoting lockdowns more than Trump. I expect the net effect will be lost jobs.

4. Biden wants to increase the federal corporate tax rate to 27% or 28%. While a step backward, this by itself isn't extremely onerous. However, add in an average 5% tax at the state level, and the U.S. again will have one of the higher corporate income tax rates in the world. This will stifle employment as the government takes more money out of the private sector and shifts it to government to be used for who knows what. Higher tax rates on unincorporated businesses will also hurt.

5. According to Larry Summers, economic advisor to Democratic Presidents, when you add Biden's stimulus proposals to what we've already spent, we're covering 3X the output gap, being the GDP we lost from Covid. A lot of this money will end up in programs that will incentivize some people to avoid work. Not most people, but some.

6. Biden will ramp up regulation on business. This will cost jobs.

When unemployment fails to come down like it should, who will Democrats blame? You can look for hints from what happened during the Obama administration, and who they assigned the blame to then. Originally Posted by Tiny

According to economists at Moody's Analytics if Biden's 1.9 Trillion dollar rescue plan is passed by congress the unemployment rate can would be lowered to pre-pandemic levels by Sep 2022. If there is no extra stimulus it would take until fourth quarter 2023 to regain the 10 million lost jobs.

https://www.yahoo.com/money/biden-re...181903486.html

According to economists at Moody's Analytics if Biden's 1.9 Trillion dollar rescue plan is passed by congress the unemployment rate can would be lowered to pre-pandemic levels by Sep 2022. If there is no extra stimulus it would take until fourth quarter 2023 to regain the 10 million lost jobs.

https://www.yahoo.com/money/biden-re...181903486.html Originally Posted by adav8s28

Larry Summers would disagree. If you can remember let’s look back at this in 2022 or 2023.

The banks were in such bad shape in fourth quarter 2008 that Hank Paulson who worked for Bush43 met with 10 banks in Oct 2008 and demanded that they take 700 million dollars even if they didn't want it. The Wall street meltdown of 2008 was so bad the banking system almost collapsed. In this case the President, Obama did make a difference. He bailed out the Banks and bailed out GM & Chysler by giving 1000 troubled assets 625 billion plus dollars thru TARP (Troubled asset relief plan). The banks were not in position to make loans to small businesses or any business for that matter, until Obama bailed them out. You had guys like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul who were against the bailouts. When banks make loans to businesses, they can hire people which brings down the unemployment rate. So, I would have to disagree with you that a president can't make a difference directly on the unemployment rate. If Obama had chosen not to do the bailouts with TARP, people would have been unemployed a lot longer. By bailing out GM and Chysler assembly line workers got to stay on the job and not go on unemployment.

https://store.hbr.org/product/the-fi...in-2008/219037 Originally Posted by adav8s28

Obama was a community organizer. He relied on Geithner, his Treasury Secretary. Geithner and Obama didn’t do things any differently than Paulson and Bush.

Ron Paul, who I otherwise respect, has some strange ideas about economics and is a bit player.

I believe Romney’s criticisms were directed against bailouts of auto companies. Contrast to many Democrats who argued against bailing out the banks. Well, Romney may have been right. American companies go through Chapter 11 Bankruptcies and emerge healthier, with much of their debt extinguished. Basically the shareholders get wiped out and the creditors trade their debt for shares and end up controlling the companies. GM and Ford might have emerged from Chapter 11 in much better shape than they did, ready to take on Toyota and Volkswagen. Instead they’re second bit players.

Obama was a community organizer. He relied on Geithner, his Treasury Secretary. Geithner and Obama didn’t do things any differently than Paulson and Bush.

Ron Paul, who I otherwise respect, has some strange ideas about economics and is a bit player.
Originally Posted by Tiny

Obama was a community organizer before he went to law school at Harvard, not after. Paulson and Bush43 had nothing to due with TARP they were both long gone before the TARP funds were allocated starting in Feb 2009. Obama did rely on Geitner. The point is Obama could have said no to the bailouts. If he had done that the unemployment rate would have stayed at 10% a lot longer considering what condition the banks were in at the time. Making the decision to bail out the banks and the other troubled assets brought down the unemployment rate. In this case you have an example of where a president's decision can affect the unemployment rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t...ogram-tarp.asp

We did both with HWBush and a Democrat Congress and Clinton and a Democrat Congress followed by a Republican Congress.

Bush and Clinton were able to raise taxes and then Clinton and that fucking Newt before he was a partisan asshole cut spending.

The problem we have now is nobody will raise taxes and cut spending. It is a political death wish.

HWBush did what was right for the country at his own peril. Carter did too....with those high interest rates by the Fed!

Just think what 10% plus intrest would do to this country? Originally Posted by WTF

Probably a lot. Unfortunately most Americans have such a crappy Credit rating they couldn't qualify for a loan. Face it dude Trump gave it his best shot but America is failing and has been for a very long time. The Politicians know it because they caused it. They say the big reset is coming. I am sure that would benefit them more than the citizens of this Country.

Larry Summers would disagree. If you can remember let’s look back at this in 2022 or 2023. Originally Posted by Tiny

Okay.

Larry Summers would disagree. If you can remember let’s look back at this in 2022 or 2023. Originally Posted by Tiny

That is not true....Summers argued for a more targeted direct payments. He in fact argued for more stimulus.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-are-a-mistake

As my recent paper with Jason Furman argues, I am all for a far more expansive approach to fiscal policy. But that does not mean indiscriminate support for universal giveaways at a time when household income losses are being fully replaced and checking account balances (at least as of October) were above pre-Covid levels.

There is no good economic argument for the $2,000 checks, a policy that was not even on the table until the president’s random pronouncement last week. The Democrats seizing this opportunity to pit the president and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell against each other is fair and good politics — but if it leads to actual implementation, it is bad economics. Trump should instead immediately sign the bipartisan relief package that took months to negotiate and avoid a cutoff of unemployment insurance that will plunge millions of the most vulnerable Americans into poverty.




.

Poor Tiny. Just doesn’t wanna admit Obama and Biden took and approved the necessary actions that pulled us out of recession and built a damned good economy. No one says the president is the great economic mind but at the end of the day he has to decide to do X vs Y. The economy was slowly growing for 7 straight years after being on a terrible downspriral and. A possible complete collapse. Did Obama come to the conclusions without help, of course not. But he had the good sense to take advise from people wiser and smarter than him on the subject and made a decision that resulted in a 6% drop in unemployment. If he had a 3rd term or if Clinton was elected it’s very likely the same unemployment numbers Trump got would have been reached. The fact that you can’t acknowledge that just shows how jaded your view is.

"Elections have consequences" the economy is f**ked now