How should progressives respond to the latest reported drop in the official unemployment rate?
The sudden decline in joblessness from 8.5% to 8.3% -- after a similar decline a month earlier -- has caught many observers off guard. But as most economic experts admit, the reality behind the latest jobless decline is nowhere near as rosy as it seems.
That's because the official jobless rate -- based largely on monthly filings for unemployment insurance -- doesn't record how many Americans are working part-time, have simply given up looking for work -- the "chronically" unemployed, some without work for two years or more -- and those compelled to work in jobs that don't pay them enough to live on -- the so-called "sub-employed."
If we combine these groups, the de facto or effective unemployment rate could be as high as 16% or even 22% -- and it may well be getting worse.
Experts say the economy is producing jobs, but apparently not fast enough to replace the ones being lost. There's also the issue of just what kind of new jobs are being created. According to Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics in Toronto, many of the jobs people are taking don't match the pay, hours, or benefits of the 8.75 million positions that have vanished in the recession.
"In the last recovery we were adding management jobs at this point, and this time it's disappointing," Ashworth told Business Week last year. "The very best jobs? We're still losing those."
Conventional wisdom holds that if the jobless rate falls below 8%, Obama's probably a shoo-in to win a second term in November. Two past incumbents, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, also faced a challenge from the opposition party after economic conditions turned sour, but they quickly rebounded and won landslide re-elections when the jobless rate started trending downward.
In fact, unemployment skyrocketed to 11% during Reagan's first term, which was higher than the peak of 10% reached under Obama in 2010. But the 1981-1983 recession wasn't so deep as the current one, and once it ended, after a typical two-year trough, the US economy took off.
Now, with so much structural unemployment lurking behind the job numbers, and GDP growth still so anemic (despite some promising signs), no one's ready to predict when a "real" recovery may occur.
Which means that even a further drop in unemployment below 8% is no guarantee that Main Street voters won't abandon the president come November. In fact, polls show that independent voters in hard hit swing states in Florida and the Midwest are increasingly open to Republican arguments on the economy, leaving Obama's re-election in jeopardy.
And Wall Street, which helped bankroll the president's election in 2008, is already shifting its support from Obama to Mitt Romney, who promises them more lavish support and obeisance.
That leaves progressives in the uncomfortable position of having to play "make believe": defending Obama's jobs record -- 23 straight months of job creation, and nearly 4 million new jobs -- knowing full well that the reality behind these numbers remains as troubling as ever.
Peak Private Sector Employment - Jan 2008 - 111,647,000
At Feb 2009 (first Obama Month) - 110,260,000
At Jan 2012 (current month) - 110,436,000
Hmmm, so we've up 176k private sector jobs but still down 3,662,000 lost during the Bush administration.
Now it's about cleaning up after the past administration.
Additional perspective:
Feb 2001 - 111,623,000
Jan 2004 - 108,883,000
Bush lost 2.74 million jobs in the first 36 months of his first term as well.
And we're now 1.187 million down from when Clinton left the White House.
Since all the jobs now added back came in this administration and since the Republicans had years of tax cuts and less regulation from 2001, where is the explanation for why we have over 1 million less private sector jobs today than we had when Bill Clinton was in office 12 years ago.
Spin that one Republicans!
Also, private sector employment is not total employment.
In general, though, it's hard to break things up strictly by partisan administration. Our politics depends on us doing that - but reality doesn't.
Feb 2001 - 1,873,600
Feb 2009 - 2,068,500 - increase 194,900
Jan 2012 - 2,210,400 - increase 141,900
Max Government 2,321,000 - Nov 1991 - George HW Bush.
Now about the loss of private sector jobs since 2001. What explains that? or the 2.74 million jobs lost in Bush's first 36 months as President, let alone the economic collapse.
Using Reconciliation maneuvers in Congress Bush got the tax cuts we were promised would lead to jobs.
But that didn't work, did it? We are now below water from 12 years ago, although Obama is above for private sector jobs from Feb 2009 - his first month in office.
From 2001 to 2009 there were no spectacular gains in employment as foretold by the massive deficit creating tax cuts that left our federal revenue at the lowest level in 60 years as measured by GDP, and has created record deficits.
We didn't get much to show for all that. Again what can explain the spin of less taxes, less regulation = more jobs. The facts don't add up now or in the past.
The problem I see for Obama is that GDP growth forecast will be very weak for the rest of this year - and indeed, for years to come.
We're at a turning point, economically, politically and dare I say, spiritually. Can the American public adjust to a different era?
The GOP is promising a return to American greatness - and that's often proven compelling.
Obama may well win on sheer "liability" - his numbers are very high there, and those numbers count.
I wouldn't underestimate, though, what the GOP will look like once they have a candidate, and the full weight of the party behind him. It will be formidable.
I don't think the current polling tells us much.
The GOP is gaining adherents, in terms of party ID. The Democrats are not as popular as Obama still is.
OR.... you could point out that there are still a lot of people without jobs, and that we need to re-elect Obama to build on the progress that has already been made during his first term.
You don't have to play "make-believe," but you don't have to wallow in misery, either.
But feel free to spin my comments any way you want. Whatever gives you a smug sense of superiority—I know how important that is for progressives.