Job Losses

While the horses keep raising, the economy keeps stumbling as we here of 63,000 job losses in February. Those numbers tend to get revised, but of course thanks to population growth even small positive numbers amount to a weakening labor market. Jared Bernstein says "I haven’t seen a job report this recessionary since the last recession." The Times article notes that the revisions accompanying the report aren't good either "The government also revised down its estimate for January to a loss of 22,000 jobs — the first decline in four years — and cut in half its estimate for job growth in December."

It's not 100 percent logical, but I get the sense that the worsening economic situation is going to cause people to focus more attention on the fact that "if we lavish an unlimited quantity of resources on Iraq for an indefinite period of time there's some chance that things will improve there" isn't really a policy idea that holds up to cost-benefit analysis. It's all fun and games for a certain establishment set, but I think the average American would rather see the government expend resources on improving his or her life than on trying to save the reputations of the people who got us into this war.

Comments

I don't think the "average American" (if I may be permitted to generalize about that mythical entity) sees Iraq as something that his tax dollars are being spent on.

If "average Americans"are opposed to the Iraq war, it's because of the loss of American life rather than the vast financial cost.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 10:03 AM

"America cannot afford John McCain as President"

I think it fits on a bumper sticker.

Posted by Ephus | March 7, 2008 10:04 AM

direct from your NYT link above:

/quote
Fewer Americans looked for work in February, a sign of increasing discouragement among the nation’s work force. The drop-off sent the unemployment rate down to 4.8 percent last month from 4.9 percent in January.
/endquote

Look for the spin about low employment rates... the government statistics on labor and inflation (including GDP) are simply fraudulent and have been getting worse since the early 90s -- they don't measure what they claim to measure.

Posted by mike c | March 7, 2008 10:06 AM

While the horses keep raising...

Oh, for god's sake.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 7, 2008 10:12 AM

Yes, and I give a lot of thought to racing my children.

Posted by Johnny Appleseed | March 7, 2008 10:14 AM

For a minute there I thought the Atlantic had assigned Matt a proofreader, because he had a run of fairly long, complex posts with few or no typos, but I'm glad to see my fears were unfounded.

Posted by live | March 7, 2008 10:20 AM

So the economic downturn will cause Americans to focus on... Matt's Idée Fixe.

Should we expect that the Patriot's openning game, voter fraud at American idol, and wild fluctuations of the price of tea in China will also bring America's focus to this (admittedly, very important) issue?

There's a kernel of truth in the post. Among the many, many problems with the Iraq war, it costs too damn much.

The framing device is still a complete non sequitur.

Posted by heedless | March 7, 2008 10:31 AM

the Patriot's openning game, voter fraud at American idol, and wild fluctuations of the price of tea in China will also bring America's focus to this (admittedly, very important) issue?

In fairness to Matt, none of the three events you cited constitutes a large fraction of the U.S. Federal budget, the way the Iraq war does.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 10:52 AM

I remember listening to rightwing radio a few months ago where they were touting the employment gains as proof of Bush being good for the economy.

We DID set a record for the longest period of uniterupted job growth through December 2007. If you just look at that fact then you can spin it to make Bush look good.

Unfortunately, being just a little objective would force you to see that the TOTAl job growth during that time was fairly weak and a few of those months produced very few jobs. (I think that one of the months actually added 4,000 jobs.)

It wasn't long ago that the economic statistics were OK. We had fairly good GDP growth in the 3rd quarter.

Now, it is impossible not to pay attention to the slow economy, rising inflation, weak dollar, record oil, and weak stock market.

Then you add the PANIC at the Federal Reserve where they will cut rates by more than 50bps and it is likely that the economy will be the number 1 issue until November.

Posted by neil wilson | March 7, 2008 11:19 AM

While the horses keep raising, the economy keeps stumbling

Normally Matt's typos don't bother me much because it's clear what he's trying to say. What is the intent here? Is this a reference to the democratic primary "horse" race? Was "houses" meant in place of "horses"? If so, more verbiage appears to be missing.

Posted by Bragan | March 7, 2008 11:27 AM

James Gary, If "average Americans"are opposed to the Iraq war, it's because of the loss of American life rather than the vast financial cost.

It's both. The loss of life is hard to get past but we've been hearing about it from day 1 and it's not new news. The economy is really starting to sting people and they're paying more attention to that than they are war deaths. We avg. folk are familiar with the war in iraq and are personally feeling the economic downturn, seems the candidates would do the logical thing and tie those two together.

Posted by tom.a | March 7, 2008 11:27 AM

"Horses keep raising"?

To quote Killface, "I think I'm missing a key reference here.?

Posted by nitpicker | March 7, 2008 11:32 AM

"Horses keep raising"?

To quote Killface, "I think I'm missing a key reference here.?

Posted by nitpicker | March 7, 2008 11:32 AM

I don't know what you said here; I couldn't get past the mental image of thoroughbreds gathered around a card table, engaged in a fast moving high stakes poker game.

Posted by mrgumby2y | March 7, 2008 11:40 AM

I'm with tom. a

My opposition to the war is not just the loss of life in general (I lament both the American and Iraqi lives lost), but also that the economic cost of the war is ruining lives too. I don't think it's just my liberal bleeding heart that makes me think about all the good this money could be doing rather than what it's doing now.

Posted by annie | March 7, 2008 11:44 AM

Normally Matt's typos don't bother me much because it's clear what he's trying to say. What is the intent here? Is this a reference to the democratic primary "horse" race? Was "houses" meant in place of "horses"?

I believe Matt's evoking the time-honored metaphor of "animals playing poker" here--juxtaposing it with a description of the economy as "stumbling" to suggest that the "horses" (that is to say, individuals indentified with the horse in the Asian zodiac) are pursuing ever-higher stakes, while the economy has maybe had a few too many drinks and should remember to swallow a few activated-charcoal tablets before retiring.

However, the relevance of this metaphor to taxpayers and the Iraq war eludes me.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 11:45 AM

Normally Matt's typos don't bother me much because it's clear what he's trying to say. What is the intent here? Is this a reference to the democratic primary "horse" race? Was "houses" meant in place of "horses"?

I believe Matt's evoking the time-honored metaphor of "animals playing poker" here--juxtaposing it with a description of the economy as "stumbling" to suggest that the "horses" (that is to say, individuals indentified with the horse in the Asian zodiac) are pursuing ever-higher stakes, while the economy has maybe had a few too many drinks and should remember to swallow a few activated-charcoal tablets before retiring.

However, the relevance of this metaphor to taxpayers and the Iraq war eludes me.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 11:48 AM

Hmf. I was first with the poker comment, and the damn server took five full minutes to update. And then double-posted me to boot.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 11:51 AM

Actually, I think this is an excellent anti-war strategy. Money is a very good proxy for the failure of the project. It should be hammered by Obama at every opportunity. A nice time line starting from when the American people were promised, by the Bushies, that the war would cost 10 billion dollars tops (cue George C. Scott saying, I'm not saying we won't get our hair cut!) to the two hundred billion dollars per year cost - I think that is something Americans will be responding to big time by November. McCain is proposing to spend, over his period in office, a total of about 800 billion dollars on Iraq. To think that this sum won't resonate is crazy. It strongly ties together foreign and domestic policy, and makes Obama's soft power policy - for instance, talking to Iran - seem a lot more advantageous. Speed up Iran's entrance into the global system, bring more oil on line, bring oil back down from its Bush era price - I think that is gonna be a winning message.

Posted by roger | March 7, 2008 11:57 AM

Yes, if the money we have wasted on the Iraq debacle had been spent elsewhere (trying to create jobs for those displaced by NAFTA, alternative fuel research, aid for the poor, etc.) then we, as a country, would be much better off. Sadly, the truth is that these ghouls never would have spent money on those causes in the first place. If we didn't experience 9/11, invade Afghanistan, invade Iraq, etc., then an identical amount of money (if not more) would have just been given back to the rich via tax cuts. Then again, without 9/11, Dumbya would have been a one-term wonder.

Posted by Eric | March 7, 2008 12:05 PM

"We DID set a record for the longest period of uniterupted job growth through December 2007. If you just look at that fact then you can spin it to make Bush look good.

I wonder how much of that job growth was McJobs with relatively low wages and limited benefits?

Posted by CParis | March 7, 2008 12:14 PM

Actually, I think this is an excellent anti-war strategy...

For the "Iraq is expensive" meme to gain wide acceptance would require a public figure to contest the premise that war is unquestionably honorable and noble, and that money spent on war is unquestionably money well spent.

I don't think either HRC or Obama has the necessary brass to dispute that axiom of "average American" logic.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 12:23 PM

Actually, I think this is an excellent anti-war strategy...

For the "Iraq is expensive" meme to gain wide acceptance would require a public figure to contest the premise that war is unquestionably honorable and noble, and that money spent on war is unquestionably money well spent.

I don't think either HRC or Obama has the necessary brass to dispute that axiom of "average American" logic.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 12:29 PM

Actually, I think this is an excellent anti-war strategy...

For the "Iraq is expensive" meme to gain wide acceptance would require a public figure to contest the premise that war is unquestionably honorable and noble, and that money spent on war is unquestionably money well spent.

I don't think either HRC or Obama has the necessary brass to dispute that axiom of "average American" logic.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 12:33 PM

Could "horses raising" actually be a really obscure musical reference?

Posted by Pesto | March 7, 2008 12:34 PM

James Gary, I think, on the contrary, that contesting the money spent is actually a way of coddling the patriotic instincts of Americans who supported the war by giving them an exit. It is quite easy to combine this with some face saving gesture, such as, the war that we orginally fought was the war we won - against Saddam Hussein. The war we are fighting now has no exit, and no point - and is in addition an expensive mess. I really can't see McCain gaining points by promising to spend 800 billion more dollars on Iraq. Except among the brain dead Bush deadenders. He can only promise not to spend that much - which, of course, would then put us into a discussion of what happens to American soldiers if they are put in danger by a government that underfunds them to boot. Money is the key that picks this lock.

Posted by roger | March 7, 2008 12:49 PM

Actually, I think this is an excellent anti-war strategy...

For the "Iraq is expensive" meme to gain wide acceptance would require a public figure to contest the premise that war is unquestionably honorable and noble, and that money spent on war is unquestionably money well spent.

I don't think either HRC or Obama has the necessary brass to dispute that axiom of "average American" logic.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 12:55 PM

Note to Atlantic webmaster: the reason my comment appeared four times is that the first three times, I got a "server not responding" message.

I must admit, in retrospect my comment doesn't seem so profound as to be worth trying to post four separate times over the course of a half-hour.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 1:00 PM

James: I've gotten the "server not responding" message here too. What I do then is open a new tab and look at the bottom of the thread in that to see if the comment posted (generally it has) before trying again.

Posted by helpy | March 7, 2008 2:26 PM

Make sure you have Krugman muzzled before you attempt to start a meme with the economically illiterate idea that spending money on fighting a war is somehow bad for the economy. Has it been bad for the highly-paid blue collar workers who make The Cheetahs? Has it been bad for car dealers in military communities handing over the keys to brand-new pick-up trucks and sports cars to soldiers in exchange for some of their five-figure tax-free reenlistment bonuses? Has it been bad for the local retailers unloading pallets of flat-screen TVs to the same soldiers? Of course not.

If you want to opt for the budget-busting meme instead, remember that we are spending about $150 billion per year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the vast majority of which is spent here in the U.S.), and that works out to about 5% of the federal budget. A lot, to be sure, but about a sixth of what we spend on entitlements every year now, and probably an eighth of what we'll spend on entitlements and transfer payments if either Democrat is elected.

Posted by Fred | March 7, 2008 4:47 PM

...the economically illiterate idea that spending money on fighting a war is somehow bad for the economy. Has it been bad for the highly-paid blue collar workers who make The Cheetahs?...

Yes. In fact, if the Federal government spends $150B a year on any domestically produced goods and services, war-related or not, there will be a "positive" effect on the economy. Or they could simply skip the war and pay out the money directly in the form of tax rebates, which would also stimulate the economy, without the moral and political consequences of a poorly-planned war.

The rebuttal to your point, Fred, is that if one wishes to stimulate the economy, an unnecessary war is not the best way to do so--either in terms of efficient use of money or the long-term benefits thereby derived.

Posted by James Gary | March 7, 2008 6:35 PM

Fred comes up with the winningest ideas! So far, he's come up with the blacks are dumb, women are dumb too, and men deserve Defense department welfare platform, which is certain going to knock the socks off of the general population! Wow, I can't wait until the GOP hauls this one out. What a brilliant defense for spending 800 billion more dollars over the next four years in Iraq - all those super Dodge tough trucks at Fort Hood, boys! We just gots to have more of that. It will certain i-rock n roll the Bush cadre of warmongers who, mostly, have their beaks open to slop up the federal sauce. The majority of the country might not, however, think spending money on a bunch of poxy chiselers is the best use of the tax dollar.

Posted by roger | March 7, 2008 7:17 PM

James Gary,

The salient point is that Matt is willing to make an economic argument he knows isn't true to support his Idée Fixe (to borrow heedless's phrase).

Roger,

I never said that blacks or women were "dumb". I have, at relevant times, noted the facts of their IQ distributions (i.e., that women are about as smart as men, on average, but men's IQ distribution has "fatter tails"; and the average black IQ is about one standard deviation lower than that of the average white IQ, with both distributions being normal). As for Defense Department "welfare", I think most folks would consider money earned in a combat zone something other than "welfare", but if you want to roll with that characterization, be my guest. I do think that the cumulative effect of the tax-free combat pay and five-figure reenlistment bonuses accruing to servicemen will have some interesting economic, sociological, and political implications down the road.

Posted by Fred | March 7, 2008 10:20 PM

Fred, you think the 200 billion that goes to the Iraq war is going to servicemen? Making the military installation boom towns, eh? The delusion here is beyond the beyond. As anybody knows who has been keeping up with the military that has been effectively kidnapped to serve in the Bush vanity war, the effect has been divorced households, bankruptcies, and medical bills radically underpaid by the V.A. - but it has been great for Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, and the thousand and one greedy bastards sucking down america's borrowed money like bloody vampires - Cheney's brood.

As for the IQ distributions, that's a joke. It is a racist and sexist joke, too.

We will see if the Dems have the balls to make the obvious play for the common sense vote - making McCain swallow the cost of his lunatic warmongering promises to stay in Iraq as long as it takes, a hundred years if necessary. He can try to bundle the vanity war with the bungled war in Afghanistan, he can try to pretend, to the laughs of anybody who has ever been around a military town, that those places are just getting rich on satisfied re-upped soldiers, or he can do what I think he is going to do, and go down with the Bush ship, bringing in the era of the 60 Democratic Senate congress. And I guess then, to the vast disappointment of the soldiers, they will vote that the army can't be infinitely rotated through combat zones they shouldn't be in in Iraq. It will make them cry, no doubt.

Posted by roger | March 8, 2008 1:25 AM

For those who end up posting multiple times, here is my standard advice:

Once you hit the "Post" button, your post goes up to the site in milliseconds.

Watch your browser status bar. In Firefox, wait until it switches from something like "waiting for matthewygelesias.com" to "transmitting data from matthewyglesias.com".

When that happens, your post is on the site and will appear. Go do whatever else you want - you don't need to wait the five minutes for the page to refresh to show you your post. You can switch to another thread at that point without waiting for the page refresh.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 8, 2008 3:15 AM