Suddenly, sequestration became a really big deal.
Just 88K new jobs were created in March.
That’s well below the 190K that analysts had expected.
It’s also well below the “whisper” number of 150K
The unemployment rate fell to 7.6%, amid a drop in Labor Force Participation.
“Plummet” is more like it, LFP is down to 63.3%, its worst level since ’79.Ā Even worse, there’s the argument that March’s bad numbers will look tame compared to April’s as the sequestration mess really begins to kick in.Ā March’s miss may actually be a result of the payroll tax cut expiring (although consumer spending was up slightly in March.)
The point is expect more austerity bombing to create more fugly jobs numbers for a while.Ā Hopefully there will be some more upward revisions, but as is, yeah, we’re boned.
Alex S.
I’m not an expert (yet…), but I expected worse. However, I would not have guessed a drop in the labor participation rate because newly unemployed people are still looking for jobs.
PeakVT
Some graphs from Calculated Risk.
RobertDSC-iPhone 4
Blast the domestic terrorism of the GOP. All the time until the next election. Stop talking about the deficit & the debt.
Todd
Still waiting for the magical job creators to wand up bunches of jobs now that they’ve got the austerity that they say brings “certainty” to the economy.
SFAW
“Did you take two leeches, as we prescribed, and you’re claiming it didn’t work? And you say you’re feeling lethargic? Listen you lazy bastard, I’m upping the dosage to four leeches, maybe THAT will bring you around.
“And if it doesn’t work, it’s your own fault, because you 47 percenters are lazy and want free shit from the commies running the government.
“And quit your damn whining! You moochers make me sick. Now, sod off, I have tee time in 25 minutes.”
rikyrah
this is the ECONOMIC TREASON THAT THE GOP WANTED.
it’s who they are.
SFAW
@RobertDSC-iPhone 4:
Because treason doesn’t have to be confined to military secrets.
I’d like to see all those bastards appear before a new, rational version of HUAC. Maybe that will convince them to move to Dumbfuckistan, stat.
ETA: I gotta learn to type faster than rikyrah.
dan
But if you cut spending, the economy will improve. I know this because they keep saying it.
SFAW
@dan:
Spending and TAXES ON RICH PEOPLE. Haven’t you been paying attention?
Original Lee
Soon the service industries will be impacted, as the ripple effect of the furloughs spreads. After several weeks of suspense, we now know we have won the daily double: Original Spouse is being furloughed one day a week, for a net impact of a 20% pay cut. This week’s paycheck is the last one before the furloughs kick in, so we’re going to our favorite restaurant, the one we usually eat at 2-3 times a month, for probably the last time for a while. I sure hope they’re still in business the next time we can afford to go.
Svensker
The only thing I’d say about this is that Canadian jobs sank like a stone as well and it’s too early for their economy to be impacted by sequestration in the U.S. As well, in our little business, our European sales were way down last month. I think it may be more than the U.S. Congress.
gene108
The austerity will continue until you vote us (Republicans) into control of the Senate and into the White House. Duh.
It’s your fault for not giving us (Republicans) complete control of the government. And being less than fawning for our brilliant ideas like the Iraq War.
We await your apology and expect your vote in the next election or else.
Linda Featheringill
Oh pfooey. I’m sorry to hear about this. I was enjoying the slow but steady improvement in the economy. Damn.
And 20% reduction in income is significant. Ouch.
The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik
Just remember that because it’s not working, that means you’re not doing it hard enough. MORE austerity, MORE belt-tightening! MORE SLASHED SPENDING AND CUTTING OFF THOSE GODDAMN WELFARE QUEEN LIBBY LEECHES!!!
Another case of bad policies failing upward to the point that they’re the only policies allowed to be considered to begin with.
Zifnab25
@gene108:
At which point we privatize education, voucherize Medicare, and hand the Social Security trust over to Wall Street. And then BOOM! Economic miracle! Just like the Bush Era, all over again!
What was the term for the economic boom of the Bush Era? Jobless Recovery? I think that’s it.
liberal
Thank God Obama has our back by proposing cuts to Social Security. Also, eleventy-dimensional chess!!
Falmouth
My wife was furloughed for three days until the Govt found the money to fund her office again. They did cut their expected funds by twenty percent so now her office gets to lay people off. Other contactors are getting nailed as well and the Govt employees haven’t been furloughed yet. Just wait until all this hits at the same time. Meanwhile over at some of the Stock market websites such as Marketwatch and CNBC, the geniuses that comment there claim it is all the Dems idea as the Sequestration was their idea and their fault. Needless to say I don’t bother saying anything there.
Cassidy
@liberal: You guys are like a badly scratched record.
I still thinkt he cuts should have been targeted to red districts. I would have blatant about the shit too.
“Well, since we can’t come to an agreement and our colleagues across the aisle won’t budge, we’ll be shutting down the [blank] plant in Bumfuck, Al. today. Tommorrow, we’ll be saving money in Missouri, South Carolina, etc.”
GregB
@Svensker:
I’m crowd sourcing a Soylent Green recipe book. Please invest now.
cvstoner
Man shoots self in foot, wonders why it is suddenly hard to walk.
The vapid stupidity of a certain segment of our “elected” leadership is breathtaking, indeed.
SFAW
@Cassidy:
Well, I would have agreed with your assessment – before Obama proposed his “compromise with Rethugs” SS cuts.
It would have been nice if he had told the Rethugs to pound sand, instead of making the Rethugs’ case for them.
The “only Nixon could go to China” meme that sometimes gets applied would only work if there were some REAL benefit to cutting SS, rather than appeasing the confidence fairies, bond vigilantes, Teasbaggers, and various other anti-American groups.
Cygil
@liberal: Thank God Obama has our back by proposing cuts to Social Security. Also, eleventy-dimensional chess!!
The problem is, Obama should have been out there the whole time, calling out Boehner and promising dire consequences for the games he was playing with the debt ceiling. “Boehner keeps shifting the goalposts — it is clear that what he wants is to plunge the country back into recession and blame it on me.” As it is, Obama owns this mess now, by not advocating hard enough against it. And the SS cuts, again, which now appear a done deal, he will own. Indeed, he doubtless believes his cut is good policy.
Obama is the narcissistic schmoozer/relator type. I’ve always said it. He’s great when he’s calculated he still needs you, but when he doesn’t, he’ll sell you out in an instant. I sincerely believe he has no real core principles, which is why he’s so bad and passionless at advocating for Democratic policy objectives.
cleek
@SFAW:
the benefit is to bolster SS’s long-term solvency.
cleek
@Cygil:
like this, and this, and this ?
LittlePig
@GregB: named, of course, “To Serve Man”.
Zifnab25
@Cassidy: This. I mean, at the end of the day, it’s the reasonable response. Republicans will flip the fuck out, but what else is new? Half the population will cry “That’s not fair!” and very serious David Brooks will point out that this sets a terrible precedent (as though Bush wasn’t explicitly targeting military bases in blue states during his administration, or favoring red states with fat government contracts).
At the very least, you have the opportunity to point and laugh at the GOP folks screaming about all the pork they aren’t going to have.
c u n d gulag
Conservative POV:
Our little plan to tank the economy again is working!
BWA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, if only we could get some of those pesky terrorists to attack the US again!
But, sadly, we no longer have Osama on speed-dial, since he’s crab food.
DAMN THAT OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zifnab25
@SFAW:
Chained CPI is a relatively minor change to Social Security that Obama is dangling out as a bargaining chit. I honestly wouldn’t object to it if I thought he was able to get more from the GOP than he was giving. If, for instance, Obama can refund Head Start and get NIH grant money flowing again and restore Pell Grants and do all the other important stuff the feds are used to – and maybe squeeze a millionaire’s tax bracket in there or something – it would be a trade well made.
Chained CPI lets Obama deflect the claim that he isn’t offering anything, and puts bait out for the Peterson Foundation conserva-Dems and moderate Republicans who hate all entitlements and are looking for an excuse to make cuts. It’s a way of winning votes. I’m not going to get pissy at Obama for making proposals. I’m going to get pissy if the end deal isn’t worth the price.
AxelFoley
I was gonna say that I was waiting for T&H to blame Obama, but I see liberal (and old troll) and Cygil (a new troll) beat him to it.
Cygil
@cleek: Predictable. I watched all the major speeches during the debt ceiling and sequester debates. He did nothing like what I’m referring to. Obama loves to compare himself to Lincoln. Well, here’s Lincoln in the famous Cooper Union speech, Feb 27, 1860:
But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!” To be sure, what the robber demanded of me – my money – was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
Mutatis mutandis, that is exactly the frame Obama should have adopted with Boehner and the debt ceiling showdown. But he was too busy talking about “compromise” and “working across the aisle”.
Tone in DC
First, Obama is wrong to mess with Social Security cost of living adjustments. End of story on that point.
That said, your comment is impressive. Not only is Obama a sellout, he’s a sociopath.
You say you don’t see him advocating for Dem policy objectives. As another commenter showed with links, it seems you’re not paying attention.
Cygil
@AxelFoley: I don’t respond to troll accusation trollers.
Omnes Omnibus
@AxelFoley: Disagreement and/or firebaggery does not make someone a troll. Trolling is a way of interacting; it has nothing really to do with the content of the post/comment. I think labeling someone as a troll simply because one disagrees with them does a disservice to the exchange of ideas and views that, I think, causes people to come here.
/hall monitor
Cygil
@Tone in DC: You say you donāt see him advocating for Dem policy objectives. As another commenter showed with links, it seems youāre not paying attention.
I don’t see him advocating hard enough for Dem policy objectives. Do try not to strawman me. I am not going to respond any more, but, once again, I am impressed by the groupthink mentality of the liberal hivemind to dismiss me as a troll by strawmanning me.
gene108
@Falmouth:
It was the Democrats idea.
The Republican idea was to not raise the debt ceiling in July 2011 and thereby causing an even worse economic outcome.
But since that didn’t come to pass, you can’t objectively blame Republicans for the Democrats coming up with sequestration as a means to avoid an even worse outcome from a debt ceiling crisis the Republicans manufactured in the first place.
Clearly the Democrats screwed up by proposing some solution for the government to continue to function.
Also, too if Democrats proposed no solution to the July 2011 debt ceiling crisis and we defaulted on the debt it would still be the Democrats fault for not being willing to compromise with Republicans and cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, as well as eventually eliminating those programs as we know it.
Cassidy
I’M MOVING THE GOALPOSTS! MY WORDS ARE NOT MEANT TO BE QUOTED OR INTENDED AS FACTUAL STATEMENTS! LALALALALALALALA! I’M PUTTING MY FINGERS IN MY EARS NOW! ALL OBAMA’S FAULT!LALALALALALALALALALA!
ETA: IAM FAMILIAR WITH ALL INTERNET TRADITIONS!
Tone in DC
“I donāt see him advocating hard enough for Dem policy objectives.”
He’s put it out there. On the White House web site, and on the airwaves.
Many US Americans and non-Iraqis and such as, apparently would rather watch “NCIS” and play PS3 games than pay attention to such weighty matters. Which says a lot more about the electorate than it does Obama.
gene108
@Cygil:
Cooper Union was Lincoln schmoozing to get the Presidential nomination.
Once in office, the South seceded.
That Cooper Union speech/bully pulpit really did the trick in keeping the Union together.(/sarcasm)
SFAW
@cleek:
That’s great and all that stuff, but it would carry more weight (for me, at least) if the SSA weren’t spending a ton of their “thesis” focusing on the 2008-2011 numbers – as if those are supposed to be indicative of how the economy will be over the next 30 years – rather than providing number based on something other than worst-case-scenarios. (And, sorry, but I’m not going to go to the SSA page to read their whole assessment – a combination of laziness and I gots work to do.)
And, frankly, if their apparent economic assumptions – i.e. that the economy will only be marginally better when it’s fully recovered, and thus the non-interest income will be underperforming – then we will have much bigger problems than whether we should/shouldn’t cut SS benefits.
So, I guess what I’m saying is: these cuts are not necessary at this stage, might become necessary at some point down the road, but the President should focus on implementing actual creation of well-paying jobs, and revival of our industrial economy.
And, before some genius flames me for that last paragraph: yes, I know that will be extremely difficult, even if there were a non-treasonous Rethug Congress. But the effort has to be made, and focusing on the deficit is not really part of the reality-based equation. Plenty of time to focus on the deficit (or the debt, depending on which day of the week it is, and which of those two will yield more Rethug screeching) after the country reaches something approaching full employment.
Tone in DC
@Cassidy:
That’s loud enough to be heard in Danville, dude.
beergoggles
Obama has the ultimate bargaining chip – closing down every single federal agency in states that elected these treasonous bastards. The fact that he’s offering SS cuts has me a bit uneasy but I understand that its possibly just posturing to show how unreasonable the Reps are. Should chained cpi cuts actually pass, I won’t ever again vote for a single democrat in congress that voted to pass it. We all have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
liberal
@cleek:
LOL.
As public policy, you might have a point. But the Republicans and the “Centrists!” at the editorial boards of major newspapers (and silly stupid people like Va’s Warner) aren’t operating in good faith, so…
Omnes Omnibus
@liberal:
That is the big dilemma of our time. How does one try to govern when a major chunk of the powers that be are actively opposed to a functioning government? Maybe it’s just me, but I am inclined to cut quite a bit of slack for anyone who I think is honestly trying to work through this mess.
cleek
@SFAW:
ok. but i’m going to assume that the people who run the SSA know a lot more about SS’s financial situation than internet commenters.
@liberal:
i don’t care what pundits think about this stuff. keeping SS solvent is more important to me than ideological battles.
Falmouth
@gene108: You agree that the alternatives would be worse but fail to acknowledge that the Repubs have embraced it as a wonderful idea when they also said how terrible it would be. Those blaming the Dems for it occurring are just blind to the whole process. Who would you balme if your pay was being cut or your job lost, the Dems or the Repubs ?
bourbaki
@cleek:
This is from the report you linked:
So basically inflation was way up which decreased peoples real wages, so the correct response to this is to lower peoples real benefits. Of course this is all not an issue until 2033.
so what any of this has to do with current budgets is beyond me.
SFAW
@cleek:
No doubt, because ad hominem always proves the point.
But to answer you less elliptically: the numbers, as presented, do not seem consistent. For example: $49B deficit in 2010, $45 deficit in 2011 (as a small recovery was taking place, one might think), but the average non-interest income deficit in 2012-2018 will be $66, thereafter “rising steeply” as the recovery is “complete”?
That implies that the deficit will come close to doubling at some point between now and 2018, yet the “recovery” will (in theory) continue through that point.
As the saying goes: anyone can do the calculations, but it’s formulating the underlying assumptions which requires real skill.
Ideological battles for their own sake are pointless/useless. But if they’re used as a means to get to a much better outcome, then sometimes they should be fought, without much regard to the scare du jour.
The Moar You Know
Taxes went up on the rich, jobs went away and the economy tanked.
Oh, I know it’s bullshit and you know it’s bullshit, but the GOP are pissing their pants with glee, because starting today they’ll make this argument and the vast majority of the citizenry will believe it.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Omnes Omnibus:
This.
Since we are comparing Obama unfavorably with Lincoln, let us be honest about the problem we have which is that the GOP today is doing what the leaders of the CSA would have been well advised to do in 1861, namely: to stay in the Union and sabotage Lincoln’s administration from within the govt. Secession didn’t make Lincoln’s job easy, but it did make his problems solvable via more direct means than would have been the case otherwise.
gene108
@Falmouth:
I’d like to think myself plugged in enough to know why sequestration happened in the first place. I’d blame Republicans.
What’s at issue is Republicans churning out a very simple statement in Jan/Feb that “sequestration was Obama’s idea” and at some point it will stick with a lot of low-info – though not necessarily conservative voters – who will only hear that phrase repeated over and over again in the media.
There’s really a no one situation here for Democrats, as far as I can see.
The economy does better and incumbent Republican office holders face a more mellow electorate, while if the economy does worse they can blame Obama’s “big government” policies for the problem.
Unless there’s something so catastrophic that GOP can’t polish, like the Iraq War in 2006, there’s not much scope for Democrats to push back.
Part of the problem is many Congressional Democrats are just as married at the hip to business interests as Republicans, so toppling the existing order of oligarchs will take down a few Democrats as well.
Mr Stagger Lee
@Original Lee: They already are, I joined about another 5 people in my company in hitting the bricks, we were already slowing down, but the sequester crashed an anchor through the decks.
SFAW
@Mr Stagger Lee:
If you haven’t already been able to do so, best of luck with getting off the bricks, so to speak.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Omnes Omnibus: Christ, at least you’re not the ombudsman. Though your point is a good one. I’m just crabby because it’s such a hard slog trying to get Medicaid expansion kept in the Ohio budget.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Omnes Omnibus: It’s not just you.
StringOnAStick
Listening to NPR discuss the jobs report this morning: I kept yelling “sequester!” at the radio, but even when directly asked, the econ reporter said, “oh, it’s not having any effect yet”. Bullshit. How many businesses with government contracts/funding sources immediately went into RIF mode as soon as the sequester hit the fan? Given today’s data, I’d say quite a few, and we’re just getting started.
Lurking Canadian
This just in: Apparently contractionary fiscal policy is contractionary. Economists pronounce themselves baffled at this entirely unpredictable e result.
All if them except Krugman, who is tired of trying to explain things.
FormerSwingVoter
I like that the link specifically says that this had little to do with sequestration, and how little it’s impacting anything anyone says on this thread.
…Oh, settle down. It’s still the Republicans’ fault. It’s just that the expiration of the middle class payroll tax cut is having a bigger impact than the sequester so far. The collapse in hiring from sequestration comes in a couple months. This one was already baked into the cake either way.