Unemployment: Years of pain ahead
In newly released minutes from a Federal Reserve meeting in early November, Fed members paint an extremely gloomy picture of the next few years.
For President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, the economy could prove to be a “political horror show” for years to come, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. In newly released minutes from a Federal Reserve meeting in early November, Fed members paint an extremely gloomy picture of the next few years, predicting that unemployment—now at 10.2 percent—will stay between 8.2 percent and 8.6 percent through 2012. Big companies, the Fed members said, aren’t hiring for fear of another downturn, while small businesses, the traditional engine of job growth after a recession, can’t get loans to expand. The outlook is so bleak that Fed economists project it will be “five or six years” before we see the return of sustained economic growth and a normal job market. That means that when voters go to the polls to elect a new Congress in 2010, and perhaps even in the presidential election year of 2012, “the politics of rage” may be in full force.
Obama had better act now, said Paul Krugman in The New York Times. There are “six times as many Americans seeking work as there are job openings,” and the average time spent looking for work—more than six months—is the longest since the 1930s. It’s simply wrong to let this kind of widespread pain prevail for years, while waiting for the private sector to rouse itself. Obama, therefore, should launch the modern equivalent of Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration. At the cost of $40 billion a year, such a program could hire about a million people to do public-works projects. Their wages would be low, but at least they’d have a paycheck.
Throwing public money at the economy doesn’t work, said Jim Geraghty in National Review Online. Look at Obama’s $787 billion stimulus program: “We’ve lost 3 million more jobs since it passed.” Unfortunately, Obama has “no Plan B” beyond meaningless gestures like this week’s White House “jobs summit” and an upcoming “listening tour.” He’d better come up with a Plan B soon, said Eamon Javers in Politico.com. Whether it’s fair or not, presidential popularity is directly related to the state of the economy and the employment rate. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were re-elected because recessions ended and employment rose at just the right time. George H.W. Bush lost because they didn’t. “That stark reality may explain why the White House is suddenly so eager to find some new job-creating ideas.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com