Record Corporate Profits and Unemployment

Here is a common little trope.

Record profits.  Never mind that these records are always going to be broken because there are always many more people spending money in each generation and more money to spend.  Never mind that there's always more money.  In the future, when a million dollars buys what $400,000 buys now (i.e., a fixer-upper in So Cal), there will be record number of millionaires. Never mind that those future millionaires will not be "rich."  And never mind that business has always been slow to re-employ following a recession or financial upset.

Anyone who's watched It's A Wonderful Life knows that it's us 99%ers against the rich people who refuse to employ us but just want to make money off of us.  (Who needs school when there are movies? Who needs education when we have public schools?)  With record profits, you would think there was something strange about companies getting more money when there are record numbers of unemployed.  How are there record profits when the 99% can't afford to spend as much money?

Look at the chart below and see if there is any pattern to recessions (the shaded areas) and unemployment.   Unemployment rises fast and goes down much more slowly.  Yet, we are given to believe that business owners discovered GREED (ooooo, the conservative sickness!) during the Reagan-Bush era and it's this misplaced value on money that has gripped American industry unlike past generations where businesses ran on love and compassion.

This should make you wonder... If companies find they can get by with less people (HIGHER PROFIT), why do they eventually rehire the work force over time?   For the same reason they hired these people before the recession:  Hiring productive employees makes the company more productive.  This is the ONLY reason companies hire in the first place.  They don't hire out of compassion and then fire people when they have a sudden epiphany that they are in the business of MAKING MONEY.

The only exception to the rule in this chart is the Reagan recession.  The jobs came back as quickly as they left and resumed the usual march toward 6%, leading to Reagan's easy reelection. Look up Milton Friedman's commentary on why this occurred and how Reagan helped to stop runaway inflation.  Like Thatcher, Reagan was accused of being stone-hearted.  People didn't buy that bit of liberal mud-slinging in 1984.

But let's talk about that red zone at the far right of the chart.  That thing that the spenders (the Democratic Congress that came to power in 2006 conveniently blamed on Bush.  (And you totally bought it, didn't you? Admit it.)

Wow.  After 2009, that sucker continued to skyrocket past the Carter level, into the level reached during the very temporary spike in Reagan's administration.  You can see below that unlike the Reagan spike, the 10% level became the baseline for a slow normal descent.

In the chart below, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that in the times since the Reagan era, unemployment peaks after the end of the recession.  Just something to think about....

But before you get to thinking that this what happened recently is a completely normal unemployment, look below at long-term employment, and wonder whether there are long-term consequences to indefinite unemployment benefits coupled with Obama's business-unfriendly policies.  Or just let your eyes glaze over and duckspeak your Bush-did-it mantra.

Geez, before 2009, no matter how bad things got, the long-term unemployment was never this bad.  Yet, when they weren't blaming this on Bush being uniquely bad (they could've blamed it on the Republican Congress, but that would've drawn attention to the fact that Democrats took over Congress before the deficit got out of control and the economy fell apart) they were claiming that Obama really had turned everything around. Or some version of "Just think how much worse it would've been without my special Obama magic making things better!"

Andrew Sullivan waved his hands at this meltdown and said, "Obama musta kept it from getting even worse!"  Obamamagic!  

If that doesn't scare you, look at this:

Wow.  You still think that this crisis was handled effectively?

Let's end with an example of liberal Michael Scott racism:

Because in the experience of most liberals, there is apparently nothing better than an accusation of racism for evading a real conversation.   Don't blame Obama: He's black.  Cut the rich, never-had-to-do-much-to-get-accolades, promised-the-moon-and-didn't-deliver, lied-through-his-teeth-about-transparency poor black guy a break and don't criticize the way he runs the country.  He is black after all.

What liberals can use as their poster now:

UNPRECEDENTED DEFICITS
UNLIMITED DRONE WARS

MASS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF WAR
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF PATRIOT ACT
KILL LISTS WITH NO CONSISTENT JUSTIFICATION

VAST COUNTER-ESPIONAGE POWERS

MASSIVE GRAFT AND PATRONAGE
SOARING, SOARING, SOARING DEBT

WIDESPREAD GOVERNMENT COVER-UPS
GUNRUNNING TO JIHADISTS AND MEXICAN GANGS
HARASSMENT OF DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENTS

SUPPRESSION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS

TOTAL MOCKERY OF TRANSPARENCY

WE DON'T MIND AS LONG AS A LIBERAL DOES IT