This Is Obama’s Economy

Barack Obama

The United States is experiencing job growth, to be sure.  But look at the kinds of jobs being created:

(Reuters) – U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-paid.

Executives at several staffing firms told Reuters that the law, which requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide healthcare coverage or incur penalties, was a frequently cited factor in requests for part-time workers. A decision to delay the mandate until 2015 has not made much of a difference in hiring decisions, they added.

“Us and other people are hiring part-time because we don’t know what the costs are going to be to hire full-time,” said Steven Raz, founder of Cornerstone Search Group, a staffing firm in Parsippany, New Jersey. “We are being cautious.”

Raz said his company started seeing a rise in part-time positions in late 2012 and the trend gathered steam early this year. He estimates his firm has seen an increase of between 10 percent and 15 percent compared with last year.

Other staffing firms have also noted a shift.

“They have put some of the full-time positions on hold and are hiring part-time employees so they won’t have to pay out the benefits,” said Client Staffing Solutions’ Darin Hovendick. “There is so much uncertainty. It’s really tough to design a budget when you don’t know the final cost involved.”

Watch the word from the Left as they mention “anecdotal”

18 responses to “This Is Obama’s Economy

  1. Actually job creation is about what it was during the Bush years before the huge recession hit – a recession that we’re still recovering from. The Bush years also saw a major shift to part time hires over full time, even at full employment. Seeing that increase with high unemployment is expected – it would be doing that if Romney was President, if there were no Obamacare, or whatever. The economy is complex and what we’re experiencing is a rebalancing of three decades of poor policy. It’s not Obama (or Bush’s) or any one person’s economy. This is a co-production by Democrats and Republicans that took a long time to bring to this point, and it will take a long time (and many compromises and tough decisions) to fix it. Time for both parties to stop pointing fingers and just get to work.

    • Actually job creation is about what it was during the Bush years before the huge recession hit – a recession that we’re still recovering from. The Bush years also saw a major shift to part time hires over full time, even at full employment.

      Hmmm, I’ll check the numbers.

  2. It’s actually four decades of poor policy. Real wages for men stopped increasing in 1973 when sound money was abandoned and “New Keynsianism” (universal credit expansion and debt servitude) was fully realized.

  3. Does anyone state the plain truth anymore? When George W. Bush was President, every wrong thing was his fault, every single wrong thing. Now we lump all bad things together to get a composite of blame on past administrations and particularly on the last one.

    This indeed is Obama’s economy. If things were going well would you guys give any credit to anyone but Barak Obama? Truth?

    Here is truth. I know companies who are cutting their employees hours back to get below the Obama-Care mandates. UPS also just announced it is cutting 15,000 spouses from their health care coverage in part because of Obama-Care.

    No George W. Bush had nothing to do with this.

    Liberal philosophy, hog the credit, share the blame. If only poor George W. Bush would have had the Obama press machine. He would have gone down as a combination of George Washington and Abe Lincoln.

  4. This indeed is Obama’s economy. If things were going well would you guys give any credit to anyone but Barak Obama? Truth?

    Undeniably so, as evidence by the fact that the Cathedral still gives solitary credit for the economic expansion of the 90’s to Bill Clinton despite the fact that it was his government that brought the whole thing crashing down by going after Microsoft.

    • the Cathedral still gives solitary credit for the economic expansion of the 90′s to Bill Clinton

      Let’s not forget the lucky advantage of the internet boom, telco deregulation, relative peace and the benefit of Newt and his House.

  5. I have consistently said that George W. Bush was a decent President his second term, and that he can’t be blamed for the economic downturn either. Yes, partisans on the left do what partisans on the right do, and simply blame whoever is in power if it’s the other guy. I don’t play that game, I really want to get as close to the truth as possible.

    Also, for comparison of job growth under both, check out this graph: http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/liberal-total-private-jobs-worldview-january-2013-data.jpg

  6. Scott,

    I disagree with you as to the relevance of the job growth figures to the question of whether President Obama’s policies are successful. The unemployment rate is what is relevant. Full time verses part time employment is relevant. Job growth rates coming off of different base levels do not an accurate picture make.

    Labor participation rates matter because they mask the real unemployment rate which is really higher than reported. Last March the rate was 63.3%, the worst since President Jimmy Carter. In July it was 63.4%. Pretty bad for this late in a recovery cycle. President Bush averaged 66.2%.

    I give you full credit for not blaming Bush for all things bad, and yes President Obama inherited a crisis, but after this long in office, come on.

  7. Obama’s policies are very much unimplemented, thanks to the House not going along with it. The House wouldn’t compromise on the sequester, and that may have harmed the economy, as well as the craziness around the debt ceiling. I can find plenty of reasons to blame the GOP House for conditions and argue that “if Obama had been able to really do what he wanted, then things would be much better.” You can find plenty of reasons to blame Obama, and say “if the House got its way completely, things would be better.” But what we have in our division of power system is policy shaped by both parties, with both pointing the finger. And both share the blame.

    • Obama’s policies are very much unimplemented, thanks to the House not going along with it.

      As it relates to jobs, Obama had the White House, the House and the Senate when he passed his “Part-time job growth” bill.

      • And we pulled ourselves out of the depths of the recession very quickly. Since then, however, he’s been stymied.

        • And we pulled ourselves out of the depths of the recession very quickly.

          I have seen no serious opinion that Obama has been responsible for the end of the recession.

          • Of course not – that’s my point. The economy is not under the control of Obama or anyone. It’s the result of natural economic cycles, the world recession, and of course the conflicts between the GOP and Obama that prevent a pragmatic problem solving approach. Obama can’t be blamed with the slow growth any more than he can be credited with ending the recession. And if the economy starts to grow more quickly in the coming months (which seems likely) – will it still be Obama’s economy?

          • Obama can certainly be saddled with responsibility for Obamacare, a contracting factor in the labor force. Honestly, there’s not much Obama would do, if unconstrained, that would actually help the economy. Having him do nothing is out best solution.

          • Honestly, there’s not much Obama would do, if unconstrained, that would actually help the economy. Having him do nothing is out best solution.

            One of my two complaints against Obama when he was running in 08 was that he was, and remains so, woefully under qualified to serve as President. The man has led no significant organization in his entire life. He brings no skills in management or organization that would suggest he has the ability to even schedule a staff meeting much less set goals, assign action items and measure/track progress while making split second decisions on the fly.

            He is simply out of his element leading men.

            Now that he is President, however, that is my favorite trait of his. He is so overwhelmed that he is unable to push his agenda.

  8. I think the US should have looked at other countries more closely in designing national health care. It’s cheaper and more effective in many other places, our health care system is a catastrophe – before and after Obamacare. Obamacare is an improvement, but there is still too much domination by big pharma and insurance companies that want huge profits. We spend almost twice what others do in terms of percentage of GDP, and yet leave tens of millions uninsured. Obamacare will help that, but we should be ashamed of a health care system that a conservative Catholic German friend of mine called “barbaric.”

  9. Psychology is important to economics. Since I believe Barak Obama is 100 % responsible for the fact that young adults cannot start families by becoming financially independent of their parents, let me make my case.

    First off the Liberal supporters of Barak Obama’s policies absolutely refuse to admit that those policies have any cost. Obama snapped his fingers and said children can now be on their parents health care plans until 26. Well shazam, now those children do not have to feel shame about not leaving Mommy and Daddy’s basement. No jobs, so what. And if Daddy’s company drops Mommy and Daddy’s health care because somebody has to pay for Junior’s free health care. No wait, might as well lay off Daddy because thanks to Obama-Care he is now too expensive to employ at a profit. Hire Daddy back part time.

    Psychology. President Obama has run up the deficit, so what? A big rich country like America can probably print money for a very long time. People make decisions on spending, saving and investing. How can any sane person make good financial decisions in a country that is massively debasing it’s currency? And for what? So that the party in power can buy more political power.

    Under the psychology Obama has created, you are a sucker to go the traditional route. Just knock up your girlfriend. Let the government pay for the ” it “. Why should you be bothered marrying the girl and raising that little diaper cake? Much simpler to let the rich pay for your kids. Life can be really good. Collect your food stamps and hang at the beech picking up more chicks.

    • Obama hasn’t run up the deficit like Reagan. Reagan was the real borrow and spend President. Psychologically, you really have to blame Reagan (debt increased from 30% of GDP to over 60%) for all this. Reagan was the borrow and spend king. Obama is Reagan Light.

Leave a Reply to Thales Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *