Employment Down, Profits Up: The Aftermath of the Financial Crisis in 1 Graph

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/employment-down-profits-up-the-aftermath-of-the-financial-crisis-in-1-graph/279671/



Six years after the recession started, five years after the crash, and four years after the recovery began, the share of the country with a job has declined by more than 7 percent. And yet ... corporate profits are crushing, again. The stock market is setting weekly nominal records, again. Home prices are rising, again. Finance is flush, again.

The financial crisis supposedly "changed everything." It really hasn't. Why not?

Here's where I feel like I'm supposed to tell you to get mad, and how to get mad. But the thing is ... get mad at what, exactly? At whom? The lesson of this story -- and of the graph that leads this piece -- isn't as simple as: There is one thing to blame, and we know what it is. It isn't as simple as: Washington cares more about bank profits than bankrupt people.

The frustrating lesson is: Lots of people messed up inside of a messed-up system.

Take, for example, the protagonist of the U.S. government's recovery efforts: the Federal Reserve. The Fed's go-to weapons -- cutting short-term interest rates to zero and quantitative easing (giving the banks cash for their less liquid assets) -- accomplished many important goals. It not only averted a meltdown, but also set the stage for record-breaking years of profits. Meanwhile, median household incomes are still declining. Unemployment is still more than 7 percent.

[Johnny Ready]

1. 2 Cents - But No Change

This will probably sound far fetched, but it has crossed my mind a few times.

The result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failing could not have been a surprise to anyone involved in banking or real estate. Millions of foreclosed homes, and families left in financial distress. My real estate people were telling me in 2006 we were heading for a depression as a result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They knew then and so did a lot of other people. Ok...
The point is, it is possible a small percentage of people were hoping to cause the fall, by over extending both lenders. Realizing it would lead to the bailouts. Realizing jobs would be lost causing workers to take jobs that now pay half of their pre fall value. It has also caused every supplier in the US to cut costs which has only increased profit for the wealthy. The fall has also caused a panic among workers who are now working harder than ever in fear of losing the job they were finally able to find, increasing profit for the wealthy, again. The fall also eliminated a large number of Mom and Pop small businesses, eliminating competition. All of these benefits to profit were predictable and possibly expected and or created.
But why? Some of my friends suggest the US is working towards a 90% poor and 10% wealthy populace. Suggesting also the credit freeze and resulting damage were planned to this end.
If that is true, the numbers certainly show who has benefited from this accusation and or truth.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Real Simple - the writer is a Right Wing Shill

First lets start off with the graph - No source published, and obviously flawed when you consider during Oct 2007 through Jan 2008, corporate America was laying off workers in the 10s of 1000s per day.

Second, Derek Thompson is a "fellow from visiting research fellow at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget at the New America Foundation" which is funded by the "Peter G. Peterson Foundation" who negotiated EXTREMELY lopsided Trade Pack with South Korea and is currently seeking to END Social Security and Medicare

Center for Economic and Policy Research, has been highly critical of the Peterson Foundation, stating that Medicare and Social Security are "under assault at the hands of the Peterson Foundation

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_G._Peterson_Foundation

[xchrom]

3. oh that's interesting. neo-liberals in the woodwork. nt

[FreakinDJ]

4. Interesting if you want to preserve Social Security

[xchrom]

5. indeed i do. i can't abide peterson. nt