Obama and the Dems credit the recent better job market to the Stimulus bill, but defend the-still-week job market by saying that jobs are a “lagging indicator,” it lags the rest of the economy when it comes to improvements, therefore the Stimulus does not yet fully reflect in the job market.
The Problem is this: February, the month the stimulus was signed and before any stimulus money was dished out, the economy lost 60,000 jobs less than in January, and in March the economy lost even less jobs than in February. If the “logging indicator” excuse is true, why did the economy in March, the month stimulus money merely started rolling out, lose less jobs than it did in each of the two months before it? The March improvement cannot be attributed to the stimulus considering jobs are a lagging indicator. Right? It takes time for the Stimulus to reflect in the market. Aint it so?
Whichever way you will cook it, you are toast: if you use “lagging” is a factor, how/why did we get the March improvements? You will of course have to agree that some (or most) of March happened on its own (just as February certainly did happen on its own because it was before the Stimulus). If so, how much of the general improved job markets since then took place on its own independent of Obama? And if you will say logging is not a factor and the better March number IS a direct result of the stimulus, why is the job market now, a half year later, still not doing better than it is?
Side Note: if you wonder why February saw improvements even before the Stimulus, go back to Katrina for the answer: the New Orleans waters receded before the Bush team took any action. Why? because there is this much havoc that panic can cause before things get less bad on its own. The same is with the job market: it started getting less bad on its own, back in February.
(This writing was posted here too)