New Twist on Obama Unemployment Prediction

[WhoWee]

Unemployment stayed the same 9.1%, no increase from July.

They said the job growth was skewed by a voluntary strike of 45,000 Verizon workers that have since returned to work, but did not show up in August figures due to the lag in reporting.

Apparently all 45,000 of the striking workers were not eligible for unemployment claims.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44361206

"Some 45,000 Verizon workers went on strike Aug. 7 and returned after an agreement to return to work was reached Aug. 22.

In a state like New York, for example, the workers could have collected if the impasse went longer then seven weeks.

The Verizon strike may have temporarily inflated the jobless claims numbers the government puts out each Thursday, with estimates that about 12,500 Verizon workers submitted claims.

But the second reason they likely won’t do much for the official unemployment count is because of the way the government calculates unemployed.

The strikers probably were paid as the strike began, meaning that their impact on the payrolls count will be muted, according to Joseph LaVorgna, chief US economist at Deutsche Bank."

 

[BobG]

Now we have the 2010 elections to observe. If 2010 means anything at all, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa are gone for Obama 2012. That's 270 blue, 249 red. Ohio now has two Republican Senators from 2010 and 4 House seats went red. If employment is an issue on people's minds there, they might well remember not just that employment fell from 10 to 9%, but that also http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...&idim=state:ST390000&ifdim=state&hl=en&dl=en"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010

In 2008 Democrats gained 21 seats. Unemployment immediately before the 2008 election was 6.6 and it peaked at 10.1 a year later. In 2010 Democrats lost 62 seats in the House.

In 1980 Republicans gained 34 seats. Unemployment immediately before the 1980 election was 7.5 and it peaked at at 10.8 2 years later. In 1982 Republicans lost 26 seats in the House.

In the early 80's high unemployment was a direct cause of government policies (or the Federal Reserve, which gives the same perception to voters). Unemployment rates were a direct consequence of high interest rates designed to fight inflation. The media would highlight Nancy Reagan purchasing new china for the White House while the government was putting people out of work (including firing striking air traffic controllers).

Now, it's hard to define the primary cause for unemployment. In fact, higher rates may be systemic. Instead of the government causing unemployment, it appears unable to have much effect on unemployment at all.

Some similarities in the two situations. Unemployment problems aren't a guarantee of the incumbent getting kicked out next election in spite of bad mid-term elections.

Some key differences, as well. Republicans only lost 26 seats in an election that took place at the peak of high unemployment that was perceived as being the direct fault of government. Reagan was a very effective President.

We'll see if Obama gets his message across to the states he really needs to hear it.

http://www.congressol.com/party-strength-house.html
111th Congress (including previous strength and next strength)
Unemployment rates (have to enter your own start/end years) (Edit: because of how they format the tables for retrieved data, this link doesn't actually go to the table. You manually have to navigate to the unemployment tables)

 

[mheslep]

Uhh...last I checked, Sherrod Brown is a Democrat. Just thought I'd point that out.

Yes, thanks. Too late to edit.

 

[mheslep]

In 2008 Democrats gained 21 seats. Unemployment immediately before the 2008 election was 6.6 and it peaked at 10.1 a year later. In 2010 Democrats lost 62 seats in the House.

In 1980 Republicans gained 34 seats. Unemployment immediately before the 1980 election was 7.5

Yes, and with an inflation rate around 15%. Remember the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)"

and it peaked at at 10.8 2 years later. In 1982 Republicans lost 26 seats in the House.

In the early 80's high unemployment was a direct cause of government policies (or the Federal Reserve, which gives the same perception to voters). Unemployment rates were a direct consequence of high interest rates designed to fight inflation. The media would highlight Nancy Reagan purchasing new china for the White House while the government was putting people out of work (including firing striking air traffic controllers).

Agreed.

Now, it's hard to define the primary cause for unemployment. In fact, higher rates may be systemic. Instead of the government causing unemployment, it appears unable to have much effect on unemployment at all.

I agree, given the current policy path: heavy deficit spending and asking investors to buy $1.6 trillion a year in treasuries, forcing health care costs up, and aggressively pursuing vast collections of regulations (Dodd-Frank, EPA action, etc)

 

[WhoWee]

Romney himself has made this claim and I'm still wondering what secret knowledge he's supposed to have that isn't available to others, including the folks who designed and implemented the Massachusetts reforms and are involved in implementing the ACA (like Jonathan Gruber, a key architect and evaluator of both laws, or Jon Kingsdale, who ran the Connector). Of course, it's not as if the ACA is a carbon copy of the Massachusetts law, beyond the coverage pieces being thematically similar. It borrows pieces from several states that had tried various reforms (e.g. the SHOP exchanges for small businesses are lifted from Utah, the Basic Health option is a hat tip to Washington).

In fact, the biggest complaint against the Massachusetts law is that it didn't contain much of any cost controls (payment or delivery system reforms). The ACA, on the other hand, has lots of these sorts of things, which is why it was a significantly longer piece of legislation than the Massachusetts law. Is Romney the right person to implement those?

To borrow/adopt a line from Nancy Pelosi regarding healthcare reform legislation - we'll have to elect Romney first - then we'll see how he can fix it.