Radio commentary, September 5, 2009

[No, it’s not time travel. The commentary I read on WBAI on Thursday, September 3, came out before the August employment report. I added an analysis of that for the KPFA version, included here, to be broadcast on the morning of September 5.]

If you watch MSNBC, which I do most nights (before switching to Fox, because it’s so much more energetic and perversely entertaining), you’ll hear that the Republicans are unfairly demonizing a president with a fundamentally popular agenda. Uh, not exactly. Obama’s slide in the polls is actually one for the record books.

He started with a pretty high standing. Since Eisenhower, the average first-term president enjoyed a 58% approval rating in the Gallup poll. Obama’s was 8 points higher than average, 66%. George W. Bush was also at 66% as his term started. Those are among the highest figures for first-term presidents in modern history. Eisenhower was at 74%, and LBJ at 71%. But Reagan and Bush Sr were both at 51%, 7 points below average, and 15 points below where Obama started.

In the latest Gallup poll, Obama’s approval rating is down to 54%, a decline of 12 points. The average for first-term presidents is a gain of 5 points. Losses of Obama’s magnitude but him in company I’m guessing he’d rather not be in: George W had taken a 10-point hit just before Semptember 11—though his approval rating soared after that unfortunate day. Jimmy Carter took a 12-point hit in his first nine months in office. But Nixon, Kennedy, and Reagan all gained 7 to 9 points. Bill Clinton offers a more cheering precedent for Obama—though he started with an approval rating 11 points below Obama’s, he fell by almost as much during his first nine months in office, and left office as one of the most popular presidents in the history of polling.

So what’s this all mean? Though Obama’s lost a few points among Democrats, especially moderate and conservative ones, most of his erosion comes from Republicans and Independents—despite all his efforts to woo them. This suggests a few things. One is that it makes little political sense to try to win over people who are disposed to hate you. And two is that liberals are a bunch of credulous suckers. At some point, they will join those to their right in jumping ship—maybe as soon as next week, once Obama ditches the public option in his health care reform scheme. And then, maybe, politics could get more interesting.

Speaking of health care reforms, we’ve heard a lot from the Sarah Palin/Betsy McCaughey right about how ObamaCare would create death panels who’d pull the plug on grandma. Though there’s a lot to hate about the health care reform schemes, the death panel thing is a complete invention of the loony right, which either can’t tell true from false, or is happy just to make stuff up if it suits their purposes.

The other day, the California Nurses Association, a vigorous supporter of a single-payer, Canadian style system, put out an interesting study of actually existing death panels: the practices of private insurers. They found that more than one in every five requests for medical claims filed by insured patients are rejected by California’s largest private insurers. They looked at seven years of data, 31 million claims, and found that 21% were rejected, despite being for procedures ordered by licensed physicians. Some companies rejected 30–40% of claims submitted. These weren’t frivolous rejections. People died because of them. But since they’re done by private insurers, and not some phantasmic public body, Sarah and Betsy aren’t fulminating about them.

And now, a special update for the KPFA and podcast audiences. Friday morning brought the release of the August U.S. employment report. It was a mixed bag. The unemployment rate took a surprisingly strong leap, but the rate of job loss continued to slow.

Before proceeding, a technical note. The monthly employment statistics come from two separate surveys, one of employers, also known as the establishment or payroll survey, and another of households. The sample size on the establishment survey is huge—around 300,000 employers. The household sample is much smaller, 60,000 households, but that’s still 50 times as large as a typical opinion poll. Both provide pretty good estimates done in a very timely manner, but they’re not perfect—and given the smaller size of its sample, the household survey is noisier (meaning it bounces around some from month to month).

The establishment survey reported a loss of 216,000 jobs in August, a number that would normally look terrible, but is actually the smallest loss in a year. The private sector lost 198,000 jobs, also the smallest number in a year, and well below the -477,000 average for the previous six months. Construction lost 65,000—but this time, residential building wasn’t in the lead. Losses in residential construction are slowing, suggesting that while housing—an important leading indicator for the broad economy—isn’t yet turning around, the bleeding has largely been stanched. And more than a third of industrial sectors actually added jobs in August, the most in nearly a year. Normally, a third would be a terrible number, but we’ve been down so long that terrible is starting to look up to me.

Some wit or other labeled this a “mancession,” because so many more men than women have been losing jobs. (The term has really caught on: Google turns up 49,500 hits on the word.) One sign of this is that the share of women workers in the establishment survey was 49.9% in July (the sex breakdown is available only with a month’s delay). Given the recent trend, it’s likely that it hit 50.0% in August – or, if not exactly, it will in September. When the recession began, not quite 49% of workers in the payroll survey were women. Of course, this is a long-term trend – when the Bureau of Labor Statistics first started the gender breakdown in 1964, just 32% of workers were women – but it looked for a while, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that the female share of the workforce had plateaued. But the recent disemployment of men has changed that, to the point where the workforce is almost perfectly divided between men and women (though, of course, women are more likely than men to work part-time, and to earn considerably less money: some things haven’t changed).

But the household survey was rather discouraging. The share of the unjailed adult population working fell 0.2 point to 59.2%, its lowest level since early 1984. It’s down more than 5 points since its peak in 2000. In other words, when you adjust for population growth, almost all the employment gains of the 1980s and 1990s have been reversed.

The unemployment rate rose 0.3 point to 9.7%, a surprise given the behavior of other indicators, like the weekly jobless claims numbers that I often cite here. The broader U-6 rate, which includes those working part-time because that’s all they could find and discouraged workers, who’ve given up the job search as hopeless, rose 0.5 point to 16.8%. In line with the recession’s continuing pattern, most of the rise in unemployment came from permanent job losers (as opposed to those on temporary layoff, or those quitting voluntarily, or those just entering or re-entering the workforce). Over the last year, the number of unemployed is up 5.4 million; 4.4 million of those are permanent job losers.

Although there were some encouraging signs in the report, they’re mostly of the less bad rather than the actively good variety. Forward-looking components like temp and retail employment suggest we’re in for more of the same (that is, more less bad but not yet good) for some time to come, even if GDP growth turns up in the next quarter or two.

And the longer-term picture remains horrible. Total job losses in the recession are now almost 7 million, or 5.0% of  total employment. (That’s the worst percentage loss of any recession since the post-World War II demobilization.) According to an IMF study, job losses in recessions caused by financial crises average 6.3%, suggesting that we’ve got another 1.7 million jobs to lose. Since we’re about 80% of the way to the average, the best you could say is that the edge of the woods is coming into view.

20 Comments on “Radio commentary, September 5, 2009

  1. Just a note: saying “liberals are a bunch of credulous suckers” is not a good way to convince liberals to become socialists. Most likely, they will say “fuck you, ultraleftist asshole” and stop listening to you and/or reading your blog. Just sayin’.

  2. Aside from the fact that “just sayin'” is kinda tired, I don’t really care. They are credulous suckers, and they’re not going to change their ways no matter how sweetly I say it.

  3. oops. . .meant Doug!

    And by the way. . .when is your next book out?


  4. Where are the liberals up in arms over Obama’s health care sellout? Where are the liberals up in arms over escalation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and fake-withdrawal in Iraq?

    Ultraleftist assholes of the world, unite!

  5. Well that’s great, Doug. You don’t care about winning people over to your point of view; you just care about being right all the time.

    No wonder the U.S. radical left is so small.

  6. Plenty of liberals are “up in arms” over everything that’s wrong with the Obama presidency. Don’t you watch Countdown or the Rachel Maddow Show? Don’t you read Paul Krugman or Glenn Greenwald? There’s plenty of left-liberal discontent with Obama. But socialists aren’t going to win them over by calling liberals “credulous suckers.”

  7. Hey WDS check out the “Liberal Defence of Murder” by Richard Seymour of “Lenin’s Tomb” blog fame to find out why “winning” liberals over is generally a complete waste of time as “they” being advocates of lesser evilism are a big part of the problem.

    At least where conservative/right wingers stand is usually pretty easy to figure out.

  8. I should also add that Richard’s main point of course is that some Liberals are advocates/perpetrators of “evil” full stop; having often moved from the left, to mainstream liberalism, to apologists of Empire and on, ad nauseam.

  9. I’m not talking about liberal politicians. I’m talking about the portion of the population that identifies as “liberal.” The overwhelming majority of these people opposed almost everything the Bush administration did. If it’s impossible to win over these people, then it’s impossible to build a socialist movement in the U.S., and we should all just give up.

  10. White Dwarf Star: are there any credulous liberal suckers? If there are, then you’ve got to accept that that’s the situation you’re working with in the first place. For example, when arguing with people who might hold racist views, it might be rhetorically smart to avoid explicitly pointing that out, but you have to be aware of it.

  11. @White Dwarf Star:

    I’m with you, 100%. As a newcomer to this blog (self-described liberal/proressive but interested in learning more about a more leftist/radical p.ov.) I have found it to be pretty off-putting. The tone reminds me of the libertarian/tea-bagger stuff. I’d have hope for better. (Although one reader gave me some excellent links to info about single-payer health care).

  12. The problem with liberals is that they share the right’s core beliefs/delusions-American Exceptionalism,a form of mental illness called by Freud “the Narcissism of the Cultural Elite”.
    “Hey if we put our differences aside,as Americans we can find common ground” Yeah,the ground below which lies the graves of Indians and slaves.
    Liberals are as firmly in the denial of the true nature of this “Shining City on a Hill” as are any devotee of Limbaugh.

  13. Paul — making grand sweeping statements about all liberals does not help the socialist cause.

    One more time — liberal disappointment with Obama provides an opening to the socialist left. We have a serious recruitment opportunity here. That opening will close really damn quick if we spend our time sneering at liberals for not being as enlightened as we wise superior radicals.

  14. IMO the Communist condescension is misdirected. Most “liberals” in the rank and file of the Dems and for that matter most of the non-teabagging Republican voters would have trouble getting their panties in a knot if they arose tomorrow with single-payer health care, a more progressive tax structure and increased social spending on, e.g., Head Start, etc.

    Even the liberal Capitalist apologists like Reich and Stiglitz are to the left of the liberals in Congress.

    And that is the huge “but” that’s taking up all the space on this row of bus seats. It’s amazing that they’re routinely able to convince their base they stand for something else, but that’s how the it works.

  15. White Dwarf Star:
    you miss the point-no matter how much the evidence mounts,Liberals will always in the last instance betray radical allies-ask all those victims of the Palmer raids and Mcarthyism,the Black Panthers, the Communist Organizers of the CIO,etc.The liberal aspires to fascism light,not justice.These creeps will gladly kick the oven door shut and flick the switch with nary a regret.Read Mayers They Thought They Were Free and maybe Reich’s Mass Pyschology of Fascism.

  16. Pingback: And Back To Health Care (part 1) « The Explosive Generation

  17. Pingback: part 2 « The Explosive Generation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: