Few people would argue that the economy has "fully recovered" from the free fall we saw in late 2008. Unemployment remains at 9.6%, and while this number will likely dip over the next two months as seasonal holiday jobs put some people momentarily back to work, the reality is some full time jobs simply aren't ever coming back.
It's not totally fair to dump the blame for all of this on a president who inherited an unemployment rate of 7.6%, but it's also hard to defend his record on job creation. Yes, much of what President Obama did legislatively stopped the bleeding and prevented these unemployment numbers from being far worse. But little of that matters when people are hurting, as is evidenced by the "shellacking" the Democrats took in November's midterm elections.
A recent Federal Reserve forecast on the unemployment rate doesn't make it seem like things will get dramatically better anytime soon:
The Federal Reserve issued a dour new economic outlook ... predicting that the unemployment rate, currently at 9.6%, will fall to only 9% by 2011 and 8% by late 2012. That's bad news for everyone, but especially for President Obama; Daily Intel notes that incumbents lost in four of the past five presidential elections in which unemployment was at more than 6%.The odd thing about these jobless numbers is how out of sync they are with the numbers on Wall Street. The Dow's been well over 11,000 for several weeks now. The GDP rose at a much better than expected 2.5% annual rate this summer. Incomes and consumer spending rose while the number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell to a two-year low last month. And wouldn't you know it, some of the very same corporate fat cats who caused 2008's collapse are getting ready to enjoy some very nice Christmas bonuses. But will that mean more jobs? Take note:
Recession or no, US corporate profits hit an all-time high of $1.66 trillion in the last quarter, reports the New York Times. It's the highest figure since the government began tracking the stat more than 60 years ago, though it trails the record set in the third quarter of 2006 when adjusted for inflation, notes the Washington Post. Either way, all this profit means companies will be busting to hire people, right? Not so much.
One of the reasons profits are up is because companies have increased productivity, following the old "do more with less" mantra, explains the Times. In addition, many US companies are doing brisk business in India and China, where demand is booming in certain sectors. Booming corporate profits add to overall growth, but that remains at a mere 2.5%-"not fast enough to reduce significantly the unemployment rate or to prevent a slide into deflation," says one economist. (Newser)
If you read between the lines here, it seems like lots of corporations trimmed their payrolls when things were bad, but are now intent on simply asking existing employees to do double-time so they can rake in record profits without having to expand their headcounts. I suppose this is smart business. Current employees are asked to do more than ever, knowing they can't just quit and go find a job elsewhere. Shareholders are happy. Everyone (sorta) wins. Well, except for the people sitting on sidelines, applying for jobs they've got no mathematical chance of getting. Not when there are five unemployed workers per every available job. Good luck with that.
Call me nuts, but this sorta seems like a lose-lose situation for the President. He can pass all sorts of tax incentives for new hires, but if corporations are intent on simply doing more with less, there's no way the unemployment numbers are going to significantly change for the better anytime soon. And if the president can't get the unemployment rate down below 8% as predicted, Obama might end up as a one-term president.
Question:
What, if anything, can the Obama Administration do to encourage these companies to convert their record profits into new hires?
Jay Anderson is a freelance writer from Washington, DC, whose work has been featured in the Washington Post and on NPR. When he's not busy talking smack here, he runs the award-winning blog AverageBro.com. Follow him via Twitter @AverageBro.


Comments: (39)
Add a comment
By: Alexis Stodghill on 12/01/2010 3:38PM
Can you name with links to impartial sources the acts of incompetence and corruption of the president?
Wikileaks and the recent press surrounding it has published nothing that related to Obama's presidency.
I am shocked that you don't know that the recent leaks were about the international diplomatic community. Most of the leaks were just opinions and ideas of people in international diplomacy laid bare.
Nothing about Obama or our government per se, and nothing about the executive branch.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: djkut on 12/01/2010 4:16PM
@ Alex your are so right about Wikileaks. The only reason Obama may be a one term president is because of his Race point blank !
I dont agree with everything Obama has done but these White folks not all but majority of them will vote against thier best intrest than to see a Black man try to get America back on track. They are too scared he is only going to do for Black Americans.
Hell you still have people asking for a birth certificate and think he is Muslim !
Report This
By: Justice on 12/01/2010 6:42PM
@Alexis Stodghill
Obama corruption:
Bribery of senate candidates (a felony):
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/jun/obama-tried-bribing-another-senate-candidate
Obama fraud regarding birth details, social security number, and selective service card:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/
Report This
By: Alexis Stodghill on 12/02/2010 2:13PM
"Justice" -- are you serious about these links? These are both obviously subjective conservative blogs. An objective source would be:
1) The Wall Street Journal
2) The Economist
3) The New York Times
4) The Washington Post
5) The LA Times
etc.
Also, please stop with the birth certificate thing. This automatically makes you look crazy. As you clearly have access to Google, you can find any number of stories proving that Obama is actually a US citizen. I have seen a picture of his birth certificate with the raised seal through the magic power of the Internet.
Did you that Sen. McCain was not even born in the U.S.? How about that! In fact, both presidential candidates ironically had births that could have been seen as a means of being disqualified, except that Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother. I wonder why the conservatives didn't seek to disqualify McCain who is not even a natural born U.S. citizen by actually documented fact?
I am really concerned that you read these blogs that are intent on spreading misinformation. I think opinion is great, but conservative blogs have been proven recently (Shirley Sherrod anyone) to be sources of horribly distorted facts intended to stir anger against Obama at all costs. These sites will create a false world view in the mind of voters that is dangerous. This is far from just having an opinion.
Report This
By: Justice on 12/02/2010 5:28PM
@Alexis Stodghill
You definitely HAVE NOT seen a picture of Obama's ORIGINAL LONG FORM birth certificate with delivering doctor signature and witness signatures. All you have seen is a laser printed SHORT FORM which Hawaii provides to anyone in Hawaii who asks for it. The short form only proves that the parents asked for a declaration of birth from Hawaii. That proves he was born and maybe when, not where.
Surely you are not so ignorant that you don't know the difference between long and short form birth certificates?
Obama has spent over a million in legal fees simply to keep from producing a long form birth certificate, something I must produce even to just get a passport let alone be qualified to be president.
Report This
By: rlmccoy2 on 12/02/2010 10:55PM
Alexis,
I must say that none of these fake people really know anything as to what is considered to be a natural born ciziten. For if they could read the US consititution sect 2 they would see what it takes.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
There if they really were educated then they would actually do their reseacher but since they do know how to use their mind thus I will provide the website for them to see:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Report This
By: Alexis Stodghill on 12/03/2010 11:02AM
"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"
HELLO!
So even for "birthers," by your own definitions (if they are correct, you usually have to triple check what conservatives say these days), President Obama would be eligible anyway.
Did you even read this? Or are you trying to suggest that his own mother was also not a natural born citizen who has lived there most of her life when she met Obama's father in college?
This is exactly why people like you kill me. I admit that I did not know ALL of the information you posted. I brought up the McCain complication, because he has complications, just like Obama.
BUT you just proved that BOTH their complications allowed them to run for president, given even the lies the birthers are trying to tell about the presidents birth.
So even by your own admission, with Obama's father being an alien and his mother a full citizen, even IF he was not born in America (which he was) he could run.
You are making this too easy!
Report This
By: Justice on 12/03/2010 5:42PM
@Alexis Stodghill
You didn't address that Obama has never released his ORIGINAL LONG FORM birth certificate (all you've seen is a short form printed by laser printer in 2008).
Also, the previous poster proved NOTHING. He is ignorant of the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". A natural born citizen requires BOTH parents to have been US citizens, as well as birth of the subject in the US. The latter is in doubt and the former is defintitely not the case for Obama.
Report This
By: xavier parker on 1/05/2011 6:51PM
I said it before its the bate and switch move. They complain about taxes and cost of healthcare, so they downsize. Ok now your making more money the corporate board is going to say well less staff+more money= succesful business plan. So with our hyper capitalistic society why would they hire more staff? Ppl can't quit so it seems as if its working, they don't give lucrative raises, the cheap salaries and personnel steady and output up so profits go up. Its the UnAmerican American way. If u can make 1 billion and reinvest another 1 billion America will bull ish u don't invest anything and u make 2 billion
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: ckeys on 12/01/2010 4:29PM
Its all apart of a script. This roll is played by a well trained actor. The problem is the camera is still rolling. Ps: Watch the out takes !
Reply to this Comment | Report This