Originally Posted by patteeu
Let's take BRC's first graph for example. Is it an unbiased fact to show that data set in isolation or should the context of a larger span of time be shown? The time span selected focuses on Obama's term, which makes sense, but if you look at the months preceding Obama's inauguration (for lack of a better chart I'll use one that projects an unlikely future as well)...
... we see that Obama's term started fairly deep in an employment trough. If anything, it should be easier to create jobs when so much labor is available than it would have been to create jobs at peak employment.
You're joking. You're telling us that it should be easier to create jobs when the economy is tanking. That's what you're saying?
That's patently absurd. When the recovery gets into gear, then yes, jobs will be added quickly. Many factors have kept the recovery in check, however, including troubles in Europe not of Obama's (or any other American's) making, continued off-shoring of jobs, anemic demand, continuing softness in the housing market and across the economy due to the truly devastating impact of the collapse of the housing bubble, and (according to some economists anyway), the Republican refusal to pass another stimulus package, leaving the economy limping along.
Changes in corporate culture are also involved here. In addition to uncertainty due to ongoing high unemployment and relatively soft demand, companies are squeezing more and more out of current workers without giving them significant raises, taking advantage of the high unemployment situation. Despite growing profits, they refuse to hire, which is leaving unemployment stubbornly high.