Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999. Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis. More of our kids are graduating than ever before; more of our people are insured than ever before; we are as free from the grip of foreign oil as we've been in almost 30 years.
 |
| Via BEA |
In George Bush’s first six years GDP rose 16%, but median incomes fell 2%. Under Mr Obama it has been even worse: GDP is up 8% and median income is down 4%, according to the Census Bureau and Sentier Research, a private outfit. Between 2001 and 2007 the median household’s real net worth rose 19%, to $135,400. The collapse of the housing bubble sent it plunging. By 2013 it was $81,200, less than in 1989. In previous recoveries the labour-force-participation rate rose even as unemployment fell; this time, it has fallen. Many of the jobless end up drawing disability benefits and never return to work, another reason labour-force participation has fallen.But there is some evidence that the economic recovery has been uneven, in particular, the shale oil/gas boom, largely in spite of vs. because of Obama's policies, despite Obama's implicit implication that increased energy security is the result of his policies. Even with some recently announced adjustments, largely off the East Coast, Obama continues to oppose developing off the blue Northeast and West Coast and many promising Alaskan areas due to environmentalist lobbying. Oil production on federal lands has modestly increased, mostly due to higher-cost oil recovery at higher prices, permits and leases are sharply down from the Bush Administration, in part due to Obama's BP oil spill drilling moratorium, but an aggressive EPA has increased the regulatory burden, even on private and/or state-owned lands, which account for most of the shale output putting America in the lead of oil producing nations. However, the recent price drop of crude, roughly half, is already starting to affect American production with several high-profile oil industry companies lowering capital investments and some smaller companies laying off crews and/or filing for bankruptcy. (Some Austrian economists argue that some of cheap money policy led to malinvestments in the shale oil economy.)
Now perhaps people don't recall the energy-based recessions of the early 80's, but I do, living in Houston and looking for work. And take a look at this chart of state GDP's (see most recent link):
Many of the high-growth blue states like Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, are part of the shale oil renaissance story. But here's another chart I recently republished from the Carpe Diem blog:
And let's point out a few facts familiar to blog readers; even as job losses have been regained since the 2007 recession (never mind we need 100-200,000 jobs gained per month just to accommodate new entrants to the labor force), many of the job gains are lower-wage and/or part-time:
But job losses and gains have been skewed. Higher-wage industries — like accounting and legal work — shed 3.6 million positions during the recession and have added only 2.6 million positions during the recovery. But lower-wage industries lost two million jobs, then added 3.8 million.
About 48 percent of employed U.S. college graduates are in jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests requires less than a four-year college education. Eleven percent of employed college graduates are in occupations requiring more than a high-school diploma but less than a bachelor’s, and 37 percent are in occupations requiring no more than a high-school diploma. In 1970, fewer than one percent of taxi drivers and two percent of firefighters had college degrees, while now more than 15 percent do in both jobs. About five million college graduates are in jobs the BLS says require less than a high-school education. Past and projected future growth in college enrollments and the number of graduates exceeds the actual or projected growth in high-skilled jobs, explaining the development of the underemployment problem and its probable worsening in future years.Finally, in terms of health insurance, the numbers are premature given the limited tenure of ObamaCare, payment delinquent policyholders and Obama's lawless deferment of the employer mandate, but it appears most gains have to do with increased eligibility of Medicaid in states accepting the expansion. We've seen contradictory results from different government surveys, and up to 75% of exchange enrollees were previously insured. Not to mention over half the doctors in the largest metropolitan areas don't accept new Medicaid patients and there are some studies (e.g., Oregon) disputing Medicaid patients have better health outcomes. A final note: remember the kaleidoscope accounting where Dems claimed ObamaCare would "reduce" the deficit? An analysis based on CBO adjustments shows "even using the overly optimistic CBO baseline scenario, we now know that Obamacare will increase the deficit over the next decade by $131 billion rather than reduce it by $109 billion."
Let me point out that over half the casualties in the Afghanistan war have occurred under Obama's more limited watch, and whereas the combat mission has ended, some 11,000 Americans are staying behind for training and other missions, and the war is hardly over: some 5000 Afghan soldiers have died in combat over the past year. And let us note that Obama makes a misleading distinction of combat troops: for example, just recently Obama has joined the fight against ISIS in Iraq and elsewhere with bombing missions and sent at least 1800 advisers and trainers. Obama isn't discussing his aggressive expansion of drone attacks over a number of states, ongoing issues in Syria and elsewhere.
Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over. Six years ago, nearly 180,000 American troops served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, fewer than 15,000 remain.
