The "Beveridge Curve" predicts unemployment to recover by 2014.

[Direckshun]

I've never heard of the Beveridge Curve before, but here:



You can read about it more here, by Timothy Taylor.

Taylor writes that the Curve offers several insights to the current scenario:

• Job openings are increasing, but the unemployment rate is not.
• There are threey key reasons for this: "a mismatch between the skills of unemployed workers and the available jobs; incentives from extended unemployment insurance that have slowed the incentive to take available jobs; and heightened uncertainty over the future course of the economy and economic policy"
• These three factors have a historical tendency of correcting themselves over time.
• By early 2014, the curve will have righted itself, and unemployment will drop like a rock.

Well, here's hoping.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

What are you attempting to show with this graph?

The chart deflates Iowanian's claim that the Obama administration is responsible for gas prices exploding.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FD

The Beveridge curve shows a fairly stable empirical relationship between job openings and unemployment. There is nothing political about it, and there is really no theory behind it either, it just shows over time a stable relationship in the data between two macroeconomic aggregates. The other you might be interested in is "Okun's Law" which shows a 2:1 relationship between GDP growth rates and changes in employment.

Both the Beveridge curve and Okun's Law have held up fairly well in this recession, suggesting that they are A) good predictors and that B) there is nothing particularly unusual about hiring/firing in this recession and recovery, as some have argued.

Good post.

I agree it's not political, but it's economic and thought that it might be of interest in DC.

But the conservatives in DC only have one thing on their mind.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The chart deflates Iowanian's claim that the Obama administration is responsible for gas prices exploding.

I guess I missed that claim. The numbers he posted are mostly accurate, although gasoline is now at $3.70, not $3.80

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

I guess I missed that claim.

You don't say.

Originally Posted by Donger

The numbers he posted are mostly accurate, although gasoline is now at $3.70, not $3.80

The chart shows that particular price climb in motion long before Obama came into office.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FD

The Beveridge curve shows a fairly stable empirical relationship between job openings and unemployment. There is nothing political about it, and there is really no theory behind it either, it just shows over time a stable relationship in the data between two macroeconomic aggregates. The other you might be interested in is "Okun's Law" which shows a 2:1 relationship between GDP growth rates and changes in employment.

Both the Beveridge curve and Okun's Law have held up fairly well in this recession, suggesting that they are A) good predictors and that B) there is nothing particularly unusual about hiring/firing in this recession and recovery, as some have argued.

Here's the flaw though, the macroeconomic aggregate model itself. There really is no such thing in reality. This is why Keynesian economics is socialistic. Same with GDP which is a phony and flawed statistic., 40% of which is is govt spending. Microeconomics is more valid and represents markets more. Markets are fragmented and even regional. Markets always have the last say, not some central economic steering macro model from some national govt.

Krugman has refered to “Okun’s Law” too. This really isn't a “law” at all, but just another proposition based upon government-created aggregates.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The stimulus underperformed, but it was created to prevent a collapse into a depression, as well as rebound unemployment and the economy in general. It was big enough to accomplish the first priority, but about half the size needed to accomplish the other two.

He doesn't deserve any credit at all for saving us from a second depression. He did nothing gutsy, nor innovative, nor even particularly effective. He did transfer wealth from his political opponents into the pockets of his political supporters though, so there's that.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You don't say.

Yeah, because he didn't claim that.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The chart shows that particular price climb in motion long before Obama came into office.

The chart is either wrong or you aren't reading it correctly. Gasoline reached a low of $1.59 in December 2008. At Obama's inauguration, it was $1.83. I then took off in March.

That being said, Obama has as much influence over the pricing as did any previous POTUS, which is very little.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

He doesn't deserve any credit at all for saving us from a second depression. He did nothing gutsy, nor innovative, nor even particularly effective.

You might need to brush up on your logic, because the second sentence is a non sequitor re: your first sentence, and means nothing.

If he campaigned on needing a stimulus, made it his first priority in office, and played a role in pushing it through Congress, he deserves credit.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yeah, because he didn't claim that.



The chart is either wrong or you aren't reading it correctly. Gasoline reached a low of $1.59 in December 2008. At Obama's inauguration, it was $1.83. I then took off in March.

That being said, Obama has as much influence over the pricing as did any previous POTUS, which is very little.

Unless he's threatening war in an oil producing area or blocking the drilling of new sources. That can affect prices.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You might need to brush up on your logic, because the second sentence is a non sequitor re: your first sentence, and means nothing.

If he campaigned on needing a stimulus, made it his first priority in office, and played a role in pushing it through Congress, he deserves credit.

He deserves the same credit that I do for staying in my lane on the street and avoiding the head on collision that might have happened if I had taken an action that no reasonable driver would have taken like swerving into oncoming traffic. IOW, no real credit at all.

[JonesCrusher]

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yeah, because he didn't claim that.

He absolutely did. He's not saying what he's saying for no reason. It's a logically implied assertion.

Originally Posted by Donger

The chart is either wrong or you aren't reading it correctly. Gasoline reached a low of $1.59 in December 2008. At Obama's inauguration, it was $1.83. I then took off in March.

Exactly, a low.

The price explosion occurred on the tail of the Bush administration. It fell during election season, then promptly rose back up afterwards.

Originally Posted by Donger

That being said, Obama has as much influence over the pricing as did any previous POTUS, which is very little.

I mostly agree.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Donger

I guess I missed that claim. The numbers he posted are mostly accurate, although gasoline is now at $3.70, not $3.80

Not where I live

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

He deserves the same credit that I do for staying in my lane on the street and avoiding the head on collision that might have happened if I had taken an action that no reasonable driver would have taken like swerving into oncoming traffic. IOW, no real credit at all.

Yes, you've said that.

The fact remains that he campaigned on needing a stimulus, made it his first priority in office, and played a role in pushing it through Congress. He deserves credit.

Introduce something new to the conversation because I'm getting bored.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

He absolutely did. He's not saying what he's saying for no reason. It's a logically implied assertion.

No, you are presuming that. He could have just been stating factual numbers without any implication.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Exactly, a low.

The price explosion occurred on the tail of the Bush administration. It feel during election season, then promptly rose back up afterwards.

It began falling because of a worldwide recession. The fact that happened during the election is correlation. It's also a fact that it began to climb at a much more rapid pace after Obama's inauguration.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I mostly agree.

Please explain.