Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Economist 6/26-29)

Topics: National , poll

Economist / YouGov
6/26-29/10; 1,000 adults
Mode: Internet
(YouGov release)
Update: More here

National

Obama Job Approval
42% Approve, 49% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 81 / 15 (chart)
Reps: 7 / 89 (chart)
Inds: 35 / 60 (chart)

Congressional Job Approval
12% Approve, 64% Disapprove (chart)

2010 Congress: Generic Ballot
Registered voters (N=713): 45% Democrat, 44% Republican (chart)
Adults: 45% Democrat, 39% Republican

State of the Country
28% Right direction, 58% Wrong track (chart)

 

Comments
Paleo:

Obama at 42% and Democrats winning the generic? Internet polls.

Meanwhile, Faux has him at 47%:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/ObamaAfghan.pdf

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wow... terrible numbers for Obummer.

42% approval, 35/60 indies, 28% right direction, 12% conhressional approval.... yikkes

____________________

Mike E:

Holy Cow Batman. These numbers are a disaster for the dems. Charlie Cook is right, a conservative tidal wave is coming.

____________________

obamalover:

@Mike E

You are being deluded. How is it disaster if Dems are beating the GOP by 6%? People may hate the Dems but they hate the Republicans even more.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Whatev.

The trend is still my friend.

Whether you look at Pollster or RCP (those are the ones I check), BO's fall may have slowed the past few months, but it still there. Easy does it.

/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

____________________

Mike E:

@OBL.

Here is how my friend. This is Chalie Cook at the National Journal.

"The numbers were from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted June 17-21 among 1,000 adults by pollsters Peter Hart (a Democrat) and Bill McInturff (a Republican). Among the registered voters in the survey, Republicans led by 2 points on the generic congressional ballot test, 45 percent to 43 percent. This may not sound like a lot, given that Democrats now hold 59 percent of House seats. When this same poll was taken in June 2008, however, Democrats led by 19 points, 52 percent to 33 percent.

That drop-off should be enough to sober Democrats up, but the next set of data was even more chilling. First, keep in mind that all registered voters don't vote even in presidential years, and that in midterm elections the turnout is about one-third less. In an attempt to ascertain who really is most likely to vote, pollsters asked registered voters, on a scale of 1 to 10, how interested they were in the November elections. Those who said either 9 or 10 added up to just over half of the registered voters, coming in at 51 percent.

Hart and McInturff then looked at the change among the most-interested voters from the same survey in 2008. Although 2010 is a "down-shifting" election, from a high-turnout presidential year to a lower-turnout midterm year, one group was more interested in November than it was in 2008: those who had voted for Republican John McCain for president. And the groups that showed the largest decline in interest? Those who voted for Barack Obama -- liberals, African-Americans, self-described Democrats, moderates, those living in either the Northeast or West, and younger voters 18 to 34 years of age. These are the "Holy Mackerel" numbers."

____________________

Field Marshal:

How about Clinton justifying Byrds KKK membership today? Unbelievable. Clinton is such a racist bigot.

____________________

jack:

How come Gallup has him at 49% also among adults?

____________________

Stillow:

Dems have a 1 point edge on the generic ballot which is a big improvement for the GOp from this pollster. And remember those are registered voters.....which means the GOP probably has a nice solid 4 point edge or so with likely voters. No way to cut this one, its very bad for barry and the Dems.

Ugly and getting uglier for Barry and his crew.

____________________

Stillow:

jack - The dai8ly trackers typically take big swings...just a few days ago Gallu phad him at 44....Both Gallup and Rass's trackers take big swings over the course of a week or two. Not sure why.

____________________

StatyPolly:

There is snowball's chance in hell that young voters are turning out in any significant numbers in either 2010 or 2012. And god bless. This group is spectacularly disengaged from political process. It makes me think of Leno's "Jay walking" episodes. Otherwise normal and bright sounding young people can't even name the current VEEP, or multitudes of other bare minimum basics.

To paraphrase Ann Coulter - with this group, Obama is so 2008. They've since moved on to Justin Bieber.

____________________

iVote:

Meanwhile, Obama's at 49/44 today in Gallup and 47/45 today in Fox News, of all places.

____________________

iVote:

By the way, that Fox poll is a +3 point improvement for Barack from late May.

____________________

Field Marshal:

iVote,

Obama is not up for re-election in November.

____________________

Mike E:

@iVote.

"...and 47/45 today in Fox News, of all places. "

There is a bit of a left wing slant in their polling. I am beginning to doubt the studies that have show Fox to be the most centrist news outlet in the US. I think they are left of center (maybe not quite as much as CNN, but certainly left).

____________________

Mike E:

@Stillow

"jack - The dai8ly trackers typically take big swings...just a few days ago Gallu phad him at 44....Both Gallup and Rass's trackers take big swings over the course of a week or two. Not sure why."

Statistical noise superimposed on slight real fluctuations. Rasmussen reports monthly averages that minimize statistical noise. Look very bad for Barry. Down again, to his lowest ever, after a slight post healthcare bounce. Down 39 since he took office.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month

____________________

melvin:

What do Joe Barton,Rep bonehead of Ohio,Mike Steele and Rand Paul have in common? Am still waiting to hear what the Republicans are going to do if they were to get back in power.Foxnews have the top ten programs on cable,the Conservatives controls 90% of talk radio,so why is the Republicans are still hated with all that media power they have? The Gop should be up by 12% in the Generic ballot with all that media power behind them.

____________________

melvin:

Sharon Angle just killed her chances in Nevada. SHES A BIRTHER,she let the cat out of the bag on a far-right radio station.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Reading the comments on here makes you forget that Bush was ever in the 20s, or Reagan below 40 and Clinton below 40. Oh glory days.

You folks obsess over every 1% drop in Obama's approval and every piece of not-so-great economic news as if it's a new triumph. You're worse than the democrats that celebrated every casualty in Iraq.

Do you really think that the republican congress if or when it takes over will be that much different than the republican congress of 05-06? It's going to be 85% the same people. Good luck getting them to cut anything meaningful.

"This group is spectacularly disengaged from political process. It makes me think of Leno's "Jay walking" episodes."

You don't really think that all young people are like that do you? Way to be condescending.

If you actually talk to any young people, you'll realize their support for Obama in 2008 was not out of vapidity as you suggest, but has to do with a different outlook on a variety of issues, particularly foriegn policy. IMO, growing up without the Cold War is one of the biggest factors. But they generally have a less distrustful view of government. Again, they didn't grow up with Watergate, Carter, Reagan, and when they hit the job market, private sector jobs were far less secure and offered far fewer benefits than decades past.

____________________

melvin:

Sharon Angle just killed her chances in Nevada. SHES A BIRTHER,she let the cat out of the bag on a far-right radio station.

____________________

Mike E:

"SHES A BIRTHER"

Even if this were true, (its not), I think most Nevadans would rather have her than Dingy ("this war is lost"-I was in charge as unemployment went from 6 to 14%,-I voted for Obamacare) in their senate seat.

____________________

melvin:

The economy just created 83.000 jobs,but the media is talking like it lost a Million jobs.Chuck Todd on msnbc is a far-right Conservative who pretends to be a Moderate,its time the Democrats call this guy out.Chuck Todd told his guess on hardball today:this news on the economy today was a disater for the Democrats.Everyday Chuck Todd have negative views of Democrats.Chuck if you is trying to keep your job at msnbc by talking far-right its not going to work,because Comcast is going to get rid of you anyway.

____________________

Mike E:

"or Reagan below 40 and Clinton below 40. Oh glory days."

The difference is Reagan was cutting taxes and shrinking government, i.e. taking all the right steps for economic recovery. Obama is expanding givernment which is driving the economy in the wrong direction. Clinton was also pivoting right, e.g. shoving welfare reform down the throats of the left. Obama is, staggeringly, going left, pushing the unwanted Obamacare on the nation, pandering to amnesty minority and talking about cap and trade in the face of a sceptical, post climatergate, country.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - If we are obsessed, then what are you? A groupie for the obsessed?

No one has forgotten past presidents....some presidents can recover from low approvals, some cannot. Reagan rebounded to win one of the biggest landslides ever. clinto rebounded to win with less than a majoirty for the second time in a row. Carter never rebounded. So I am not sure what your point is, but we can draw certain conclusions based on the type of man the president is and his ability to rebound. To many of us, wheather you agree or not, this president probably cannot recover the way a Reagan did. But time will tell.

as for the youth, sure they voted for Barry because it was the cool thing to do in 2008. Most Barry supporters under 25 had no idea what he stood for outside the bumper sticker slogans of HC for all, etc. I know in my early 20's, like most, I was paying attention to making money and chasing women. Young people got caught up in the media hype over Barry...its faded though. There will be no significant turnout of younglins in 2010 or 2012.

Barry's drop in approval to the low 40's is important because it signifies a drop in some of his core support. More importantly his disapproval is near 50 in every poll. IMO he does not possess the intelect or character of someone like Reagan to be able to rebound the way Reagan did. Reagan was a leader, Obama is a campaigner. If Barry is able to hold on to power and win in 2012 he will do it with a very narrow victory like Bush/Kerry.

____________________

Stillow:

Just a snipit on Angle, local CBS here has a poll out of just NV-03, which is Henderson whcih si in clark county where most of the vote is. angle leads Reid 54-42. Also in that distrcit titus traisl Heck 53-44.

Though I have not seen a poll on Northern NV, its assumed Angle will iwn easily as its solid GOP terriroty. Reid would have to get nearly 70 percent in the city of Las Vegas to pull out a 1 or 2 point win.

____________________

melvin:

When September comes around Reid is going to define this woman like you never seen a Canidate be define before.Sharon Angle donot even want to debate Reid.You can run but you cant hide Sharon,your views are just to extreme even for the Gop.

____________________

Mike E:

@Melvin.

This from NBC (not exactly a right wing outfit).

"The US economy lost 125,000 jobs in June, more than economists had forecast, as thousands of temporary census jobs ended and private hiring grew less than expected.

And though the unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 9.5% from 9.7%, the lowest in a year, it was largely due to more people dropping out of the labor force."

Heck of a job Barry. No wonder Americans are growing sick of his deluded, "Let me be clear, make no mistake, we are headed in the right direction," BS.

____________________

Mike E:

"When September comes around Reid is going to define this woman like you never seen a Canidate be define before."

It dosnt matter. Harry could have everyone believing she is satan, they would still vote his skinny azz out.

____________________

HookedOnPolls:

Chuckie Todd... a right-wing guy....LOL.....LOL

____________________

melvin:

100.000 of those jobs was census jobs by the way Mike.Last month when the economy created over 470.000 jobs you Republicans was quick to point out 400.000 of those jobs was census jobs,now why cant you Republicans say the samething this month? Foxnews is putting out the same view point.

____________________

Mike E:

@Melvin.

Why was Obama trumpeting them as evidence that we had "turned a corner"?

____________________

melvin:

the far-right is going crazy today because obama is ahead of reagan in the siena president poll.get a life you far-right nuts,did you neo-cons forget? it was Reagan who passed amnesty back in 1986.

____________________

Mike E:

From the AP.

"CHICAGO — Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law."

OMG. Omamacare is allready starting to cause a disaster.

____________________

iVote:

Wow. Mike E thinks that Fox News is left of center. I'd hate to see what you actually consider center, then. Yikes.

____________________

Mike E:

"Wow. Mike E thinks that Fox News is left of center. I'd hate to see what you actually consider center, then. Yikes."

Oh iVote. You are so earnest.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"You folks obsess over every 1% drop in Obama's approval and every piece of not-so-great economic news as if it's a new triumph. You're worse than the democrats that celebrated every casualty in Iraq."


Really!? Celebrating BOBO's low approval is WORSE than celebrating casualties in Iraq? Okay.


"Do you really think that the republican congress if or when it takes over will be that much different than the republican congress of 05-06? It's going to be 85% the same people. Good luck getting them to cut anything meaningful."

Yes, I do. Big time. Especially in a gridlocked govt. Had GOP controlled at least one chamber the past 18 mos, there would not be that crappy trillion dollar stimulus/Dem campaign slush fund that my grandchildren will be paying back, no bailouts (even if some of them were done under Bush) and no HCR. Spending is up like 40% since BOBO took over. Yes, I do think GOP Congress will make a big difference. Huge.

"You don't really think that all young people are like that do you?"

Not all, but on average, hugely more so than all other age groups. No question about it.

"If you actually talk to any young people, you'll realize their support for Obama in 2008 was not out of vapidity as you suggest, but has to do with a different outlook on a variety of issues, particularly foriegn policy."

I talk to plenty of young people. Overwhelming majority have no interest in politics WHATSOEVER, but the few that do should be replacing all the over 30 folks in our Diplomatic Corps ASAP. I am sure Peace on Earth will break out shortly thereafter.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Finally the incompetent minority rule in DC is coming to an end. Unfortunately the blacks are going to be the biggest losers of all. The black voters blindly voted for Obama in hopes that he would somehow elevate their race, but just the opposite has come to fruition. Blacks put all their eggs into the Obama basket and ultimately ruined any chance of another minority being POTUS in the foreseeable future. Now that blacks have egg on face and have proved themselves to be race line lockstep voters, their candidates can no longer be taken seriously by non minority voters. This damages all minorities especially blacks, its very sad. Additionally white guilt voters that voted for OilBoBo feel as if they gave the blacks a gift by voting for BO now feel as though they are paid up on their ridiculous guilt, leaving minorities on their own politically. Notice to minorities voters; NOTHING IS FREE!

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Really!? Celebrating BOBO's low approval is WORSE than celebrating casualties in Iraq?"

No. I was in the military and serving overseas when the democrats were engaging in that behavior. Of course I didn't like it. But celebrating bad economic news like 650,000 people giving up looking for work isn't exactly honorable either. Frankly I'm tired of partisans cheering on bad news for the country because it hurts the party in power. It means they've got nothing other than complaints, not real ideas.

Although I fully thought that the media should have been allowed to show more about those wars than they did/do. They don't show wounded or dead soldiers, they don't show what an IED does to even an uparmored Humvee, they don't show the mental stress soldiers go through in all phases of deployments. If people saw what really goes on in those damn wars, no one would support them.

If you saw how much money we waste, you wouldn't support them. I saw KBR charge the army $70,000 to pave a stretch of road no longer than 75ft and no wider than an alley. With loose gravel. And they employ locals to do the manual labor at less than U.S. minimum wage. The officer I was working for at the time signed the work order. KBR security guards get paid 50-100% more than soldiers to guard gates all day.

1.05 trillion over less than 9 years and counting. And you complain about less than 1 trillion over 10 years to spend money IN AMERICA on people's health care.

"Yes, I do think GOP Congress will make a big difference."

Bullsh** They will not cut the wars, they will not cut defense contracts, they will not cut medicare. THOSE are what's exploding the budget, not the dept. of education or dept. of labor which are combined less than 3% of the budget. The republicans will make meaningless cuts, if any. They haven't been out of power so long that they've come up with any innovative ideas.

"crappy trillion dollar stimulus/Dem campaign slush fund"

You do realize that more than 1/3rd of that were "tax cuts" (read: extra tax credits for most people), another 1/3 aid to states so they didn't go bankrupt, and 1/3 actual stimulus spending or "pork," of which 40% of it was republican sponsored?

The bailouts were indeed Bush policy, which Obama continued. What I recall is that when the financial sector bailout failed the first time, we had the largest one-day numerical drop in the stock market ever. Frankly I would have gotten some satisfaction seeing the results of allowing the 5 or 6 banks that hold 60% of the country's capital fail.

"Not all, but on average, hugely more so than all other age groups. No question about it."

Thanks again for your condescension. Certainly all my A and B students and a good number of my C ones would be quite insulted. You do realize Jay Leno has editors that choose the people who are the most clueless. If all young people were clueless like them, his audience wouldn't laugh. I'm under 30. I know who the VP is. So does my gf, so do many of my friends, so do many of her friends. Most of us are under 32-33. I work with a new bunch of 18-24 yr olds every semester. Yeah, some of them would not be able to name the VP, or they might come close but not quite get it right. I can make them memorize the name "Joe Biden" if you like, although knowing his name and position will not make a difference as to what their values are that influence their worldview.

"Overwhelming majority have no interest in politics WHATSOEVER,"

They have good reason not to be. That's why Stewart/Colbert are so popular among them...they make fun of the hypocrisy & futility of political discourse in this country. And the sneering condescension of people like you who disparage them for having a different worldview not based on the cold war and culture wars.

I've been saying for years that the recession hit young people before the general population. They have a much higher debt load than their parents (and WAYYY more than their grandparents) and what jobs they can get have less purchasing power, due in no small part to health care coverage. What I notice in the job market now is the same thing that I encountered when I first stepped into it, just more people in it. It's the same b.s. the younger generation has been experiencing the whole past decade.

Today you need a bachelor's degree to get a job with the same sort of purchasing power (or likely less) that my parents could get with a hs diploma. But college was also proportionally cheaper for them. You think young people don't perceive that? And you wonder why they don't make the same kinds of choices at the ballot box when they do vote.

____________________

Field Marshal:

This just shows that Dems have ZERO compassion for the unemployed and just want the issue for political purposes. For the Dems, its party and politics over citizens and country.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/Dems-refuse-compromise-to-extend-unemployment-benefits-97625324.html

____________________

Field Marshal:

But celebrating bad economic news like 650,000 people giving up looking for work isn't exactly honorable either. Frankly I'm tired of partisans cheering on bad news for the country because it hurts the party in power. It means they've got nothing other than complaints, not real ideas.

I don't think anyone is "celebrating" more than trying to get people to see how BAD Obama's economic polices truly are. The news illustrates that the stimulus was garbage, which i think most people already know, and also shows you cannot attack private industry and banking and then expect them to hire and loan money. Its actually very simple.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"But celebrating bad economic news like 650,000 people giving up looking for work isn't exactly honorable either."

and

"Frankly I would have gotten some satisfaction seeing the results of allowing the 5 or 6 banks that hold 60% of the country's capital fail"

The two above statements don't jive together too well, do they? What do you think the results would have been? I think a lot more that 650,000 would have giving up looking for work, had those banks failed. BTW, I was totally against the TARP, and also was willing to let those banks fail. Now, I have to admit to being wrong, considering how wildly successful TARP has been, since nearly every penny got repaid to the Treasure and the banks survived in one form or another.

Obviously, I don't refer to you, when I claim youth's political disengagement. Sure, some small percentage is very engaged, but majority are not at all. It's self-evident by the fact that this group votes in puniest numbers compared to other groups. They turned out in 08 in greater numbers than in I don't know how long, but it's BS that it had anything to do with their "post cold war worldview". They came out because BO was cool. That should be abundantly evident in 2010 and 2012.

You really believe that BO's policies of increasing the size and scope of govt and slamming business at every turn will increase young earners' their purchasing power? Health care costs a big burden? I know a good deal about health care here in CA, and unless they happen to be in that small percentage that have serious pre-existing conditions, people 30 and under can get very nice individual policy for about 100-150 a month. Less if want just some type of catastrophic only type coverage. I imagine TX is even cheaper since most costs are lower there. I just can't regard this as a serious obstacle to "American Dream"

I also disagree about purchasing power today vs. your parents youth. Purchasing power for what? IPods? 60" flat screen HD TV's? Sure, recessions are tough and tougher financially on the younger workers, but when unemplyment rate was low, market fought for fresh grads like crazy. I was shocked to see how high starting pay for new grads was in 2007.

It's true that we may be more stress and more in debt than say 30 years ago, because we try harder to keep up with the Joneses, but we posses and consume a tremendous amount more of goods and services than in 1980. More American travel all over the world than ever. A couple of years ago I saw a Fed govt stat that an average residence built in 2003, I think, was 2500 sq ft, versus 1150 built in 1965. More than doubled. Is that purchasing power? Of course we live longer and are healthier later in live. As Marge Hearn explained when she was asked how she felt on her 90th birhtday, "I feel great! 90 is the new 80".

I always like to use the example of a car to illustrate this. An average mid-size sedan cost about 10K in 1980. Now an average mid-size sedan costs around 25k. It's exactly the same money in constant, adjusted for inflation dollars. But today's car is vastly improved over its 30 yo predecessor. It probably contains three times the system and parts. Safety, power, efficiency, comforts, gadgets, cupholders. It just goes on an on. So the price in real dollars stayed the same, but you get 2-3 times more value for the same money.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

" They turned out in 08 in greater numbers than in I don't know how long,"

Actually their turnout numbers were very similar to 2004, just a 1% uptick. It was just that they swung strongly toward the democrats.

"it's BS that it had anything to do with their "post cold war worldview." They came out because BO was cool."

I don't know why you insist on this simplistic and condescending explanation. It's like me saying seniors voted against Obama because he was black. Do you accept that?

What I'm referring to in this "post cold war worldview" are fundamental differences backed up by surveys. John Zogby wrote a book on it, Frank Luntz also addressed it. Young people react very differently than their predecessors on key issues. Too differently to chalk it up to youthful naivete. If there was linear progression that corresponded with aging, there wouldn't be such a sharp difference between 25 and 45, and 45 would be further away from 65 than they are. Young people answer questions like "Should the U.S. intervene in other countries to protect its national interest?" something like 50-70 points differently than older generations. They are on average more interested in multilateralism and less distrustful of government. I have many students for whom their dream is to work in the gov't in jobs like urban planner, state dept analyst, transportation engineer, etc... They tailor their degrees specifically for the public sector. This is different even from when I was in college when all the rage was computer programming, computer informations systems and the like. These jobs have been shipped to India and they distrust the private sector as a result.

"people 30 and under can get very nice individual policy for about 100-150 a month."

I don't know what you consider very nice. IN TX the laws are far less strict, there is much the ins co's won't cover on cheap plans and far more ways they can get around paying on claims. States like CA have more consumer protections. I believe the new HCR law will tighten up some of that. Our "consumer protection" is that you are allowed to sue your insurer if they don't pay out, which a lot of states won't let you do.

Most young people don't have $10-20K in the bank to cover the out of pocket maximum on those low end plans. A plan with a reasonable out-of-pocket max that covers most potential problems costs around $300/mo - and even then you'll be paying out $4-7K on deductibles/coinsurance. So ~3500 per year through premiums and in the event of a health issue you're out $10K a year. Not many people can stand that for long.

"I also disagree about purchasing power today vs. your parents youth. Purchasing power for what? IPods? 60" flat screen HD TV's? "

1) Not many of them have 60" inch TVs nor do they have the living space to accommodate one. 2) you are completely out of touch if you are using cars, ipods, or TV's in your argument against less purchasing power. HDTV's are no longer status symbols...you can't buy a cathode ray tube TV today even if you wanted to, except 2nd hand. You can get a good 26" HDTV for $300. That's less than my parents paid for a 25" TV in the 80s. An ipod is no longer a status symbol. MP3 players have been around 10-12 years, they're cheap. An iPhone maybe...and I notice richer kids are the ones that have those. But then imitators are becoming more and more ubiquitous and cost-competitive. And cel-phones on their own are not a luxury, but required to communicate in today's world. Poor people have cel-phones.

As for cars, you have a point, but an irrelevant one. Yes, there has been little inflation and perhaps deflation in the auto market since ~the late 90s. Ie: a 2011 Mustang has more power, higher mpg, and at least equal materials to a 1998 one, while both cost $25-30K new. That's awesome, but it's not my point. The point is that the average student's debt upon graduation is equal or greater than the cost of one of those cars. Those same studies I noted above indicated more than 50% of young people consider college more of a burden than an opportunity.

What I'm talking about is health care, education, and housing. All of them have have inflated well past the average rate requiring more of a debt burden to remain "middle class." When my mom was my age, she made about the same as I do now adjusted for inflation, but she could afford a mortgage on a house in a relatively safe neighborhood on just her own income. I can't even dream of owning a house in the next 10 years unless it's in a very unsafe neighborhood or on the far end of the next county over. She was able to get a college education without student loans. Today it is impossible to pay out of pocket for tuition & living expenses at any 4-year university with the earning power a hs diploma will command. The only way it's possible is if you take 5-10 years to get 4-year degree. This is happening more and more and poses a problem when it comes to rankings because the stats look like the school's graduation rate is low when it's just slow. UT-Austin has recently become very sensitive to that.

So let me put this in simple terms. Young people are forced to either 1) delay earning, or 2) start with more debt in order to get to the same place or in many cases less well-off. Our wheels are spinning faster to go the same speed.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The two above statements don't jive together too well, do they? What do you think the results would have been?"

The 2nd one was meant to be sarcastic.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Did the people at pollster.com take the day off or something?

____________________

melvin:

Field Marshal only 1 Republican President in the past 100 years has created jobs in decreased the unemployment rate.Every Democrat with the exception of Obama has decreased the unemployment rate. Go check your history before you talk.

____________________

dpearl:

Been away from the internet for Fourth of July and just returned to read the above discussion. I don't understand where people are getting the figure of 650,000 discouraged workers - there was no such statement in the jobs report. The number of newly discouraged workers reported was actually about 124,000 after improving by a similar amount last month (i.e. the number just returned to April levels). If you want to follow the unemployment rate that includes discouraged workers as part of the unemployed then you should be looking at the so-called U4 index. That index went from 10.6% in April to 10.3% in May to 10.2% in June. The U3 index is the one normally followed and that has gone from 9.9% in April to 9.7% in May to 9.5% in June.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"I don't understand where people are getting the figure of 650,000 discouraged workers"

"The jobless rate did come down in June from 9.7 percent the month before. But that was mainly because 652,000 people abandoned their job searches."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38053726/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

If you google "652,000" you'll find lots more on the subject.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"their turnout numbers were very similar to 2004, just a 1% uptick."

You're right, it was only a 1% increase as a percentage of total voters. It probably represents about 5% increase among the eligible voters in the group, but it's not as sharp a gain I thought it was.

I'll cede you the point on youth worldview. It's legit.

"I have many students for whom their dream is to work in the gov't in jobs like urban planner, state dept analyst, transportation engineer, etc... They tailor their degrees specifically for the public sector."

Yeah, as of today, that seems like a smart strategy. Not only govt is almost the only serious employer that's hiring, it also pays nearly double than private industry if you include benefits. Sure, it makes sense from employee's perspective. But what about the fact that each and every govt employee fully and completely depends on contributions from the private sector? Private sector creates wealth out of thin air. Public sector exists by skimming of the top of private sector. With the recent exceptions of GM and student loan industry. By my rough calculation, the average income earner pays about 10k of Fed tax annually. And an average Fed employee costs I think 116K. So it takes 12 private sector workers to sustain one Fed employee. Unless you support massive public takeover of industry, it is an unsustainable model, even in it's current state. Let alone increasing the public sector.

I want to comment on health insurance and standard of living points, but will try to get to those tomorrow. Pretty typed out for the day..

____________________

dpearl:

"If you google "652,000" you'll find lots more on the subject."

StatyPolly: I guess you and others on this site are confused because the same error seems to be rampant in the media and in the bloggosphere. The 652,000 number is simple the change in the size of the labor force - that goes up and down for a variety of reasons. Only 124,000 of that was due to an increase in discouraged workers who gave up looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The 652k is a large drop for any one month and is a big negative sign on the employment picture.

A bigger issue with the household survey is that it assumes job creation from business startups that may or may not exist. From Jan 1 through June 30, it assumes that 728k jobs were created through newly formed companies. There is really no basis for this statistic. In fact, its significantly more than was assumed in prior recessions and recoveries.

____________________

dpearl:

"A bigger issue with the household survey is that it assumes job creation from business startups that may or may not exist."

FM: I presume you are talking about the establishment survey and not the household survey. The establishment survey does contain an adjustment based on a birth-death model for creation and demise of businesses. The estimated jobs created under this model are pretty well balanced by the estimated jobs lost so the overall effect of this adjustment is not very large and is fairly stable - i.e. not a big issue as your purport. Further, the small adjustment that is made tends to add slightly more jobs than warranted at the beginning of a recession and subtract slightly more jobs than is warranted for recessions that last awhile (i.e. the current effect is probably downward not upward as you suggest).

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR