Tag Archives: White Americans decimated under Obama

Goldman Sachs Jan Hatzius Obamacare caused few hundred thousand workers hours cut, Disincentives for full time employment, Involuntary part time employment, White Americans decimated under Obama, Citizen Wells Hatzius jobs debate

Goldman Sachs Jan Hatzius Obamacare caused few hundred thousand workers hours cut, Disincentives for full time employment, Involuntary part time employment, White Americans decimated under Obama, Citizen Wells Hatzius jobs debate

“All of the employment gains among women since the recession hit in December 2007 have been taken by foreigners, even at a time when the numbers of U.S.-born women surged more than 600,000, according to new federal statistics.”…Washington Examiner August 7, 2015

“Nearly half of U.S. companies are reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the ACA. One in five firms indicates they are likely to hire fewer employees, and another one in 10 may lay off current employees in response to the law.

Other firms will shift toward part-time workers. More than 40 percent of CFOs say their companies will consider switching some jobs to less than 30 hours per week or targeting part-time workers for future employment.”…Duke University Fuqua School of Business December 11, 2013

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells


You remember Jan Hatzius and the jobs debate with Citizen Wells?

From Zero Hedge June 8, 2016.

“Goldman Crushes Democrat’s Dreams: Shows Obamacare Has Cost “A Few Hundred Thousand Jobs””

“We suspect Lloyd Blankfein will be receiving a call from The White House (or Treasury) very soon as Goldman Sachs’ economists did the unthinkable in the age of political correctness – while investigating the state of under-employment in America, the smartest people in the room found that ObamaCare has led to a rise in involuntary part-time employment, estimating that “a few hundred thousand workers” have been forced to cut hours and has “created disincentives for full-time employment.”

Goldman’s Jan Hatzius explains that they find mixed evidence to support the theory that the employer mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has contributed to the elevated level of involuntary part-time work.

Our estimates of the effect by industry do show signs of an effect, particularly among the sectors that had the greatest gaps in required health insurance coverage prior to implementation of the mandate, but the relationship is weak.


It is possible that the level of involuntary part-time workers could be a few hundred thousand higher than it would be otherwise as a result of the mandate, which is a small share of the 6.4 million workers employed part-time involuntarily, but potentially a much larger share of the “underemployment gap”.”


“As Goldman concludes…

Overall we believe that the evidence suggests that the ACA has at least modestly elevated involuntary part-time employment.


While the effect is hard to quantify given the apparently loose relationship just noted, we would estimate that a few hundred thousand workers might be working part-time involuntarily as a result of the ACA. We reach this estimate by multiplying the difference between the actual and estimated involuntary part-time workers in the five sectors most affected by the ACA mandate by total employment in those sectors. We can reach a similar estimate by dividing the sectors into two groups weighted equally by total employment, and subtracting the difference between actual and estimated involuntary part-time employment in the less-affected group by the difference in the more affected group. These admittedly rough measures fall in the middle of the few academic studies on the topic, and suggest that while the effect of the ACA employer mandate is small compared to the total number of the 6.4 million workers employed part-time for economic reasons, it could constitute a more significant share of the estimated remaining “underemployment gap.”

There goes Blankfein’s invite to Hillary’s inauguration.”

Read more:


From Citizen Wells February 8, 2015.

“Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius was interviewed on CNBC on Friday, February 6, 2015 after the January jobs report.

From Citizen Wells February 7, 2015.

From Zero Hedge February 6, 2015.

“Following the January jobs report, Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius appeared on CNBC but instead of joining Steve Liesman in singing the praises of the “strong” the report (which apparently missed the memo about  the  crude collapse), he decided to do something totally different and instead emphasize the two series that none other than Zero Hedge has been emphasizing for years as the clearest indication of what is really happening with the US labor market: namely the recession-level civilian employment to population ratio and the paltry annual increase in average hourly earnings.

This is what Hatzius said (2:40 into the clip):

The employment to population ratio is still 4% below where it was in 2006. You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population that still leaves quite a lot of room potentially, and the wage numbers are telling us we are just not that close, although we are getting closer.””

Read more:


I sent the following email to  Jan Hatzius.

I have not yet received a response.

I have a math, computer science & business background.
I am also one of the baby boomers.
You recently appeared on CNBC & stated:

The employment to population ratio is still 4% below where it was in 2006. You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population that still leaves quite a lot of room potentially, and the wage numbers are telling us we are just not that close, although we are getting closer.”

Would you elaborate on:

“You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population”

I am preparing an article

and want to be accurate.





Jan Hatzius did respond in less than 24 hours and we debated via email the validity of his statement:

“You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population”

I will not present the entire exchange unless he requests it.

Here are our ending remarks.


“Thanks for your response.

I have no wish to be unkind to you.
However, I consider it a “sacred” duty to report the truth, facts.
For what it is worth, I have much German ancestry and was baptized and raised in the Lutheran Church.
I even worked as VP of Administration for a German company in the US circa 1983.

Apples and oranges.
The studies that you quote are projections done in 2006, not historical analysis.
I am not questioning the projections.
They are projections probably done by competent people using the best data available.
But they are projections, not history, done before probably the biggest anomaly in recorded US job history.

What we are addressing is simple.
The percent of people employed in 2006 vs now.
It does not matter what the mix of age groups employed is.
The problem is that there are not enough jobs now of the right type to give the same ratio as in 2006.
The problem is exacerbated by too many part time jobs which yield a result of too many people working multiple jobs.
Jan Hatzius:

“It is also true that there are not enough jobs. That’s why I said population aging accounts for 2 of the 4 percentage points of decline, not for the entire decline.
Best regards,

I would like to thank Jan Hatzius again. He did not have to respond.

I will leave it to the reader to decide who is right.

However, I found an article that may provide insight.

From Fortune November 6, 2012.

“Obama’s best friend at Goldman Sachs”

“To be sure, the German-born Hatzius hasn’t publicly stated that he supports the President. But his analysis, which is widely read in financial circles, has long jibed with the monetary and fiscal policies embraced by Democrats. In numerous notes published over the last few years, Hatzius has advocated stimulus spending and called for more quantitative easing, renouncing efforts to slash the deficit as premature.”

“Hatzius’ views have endeared him to the likes of liberal economist Paul Krugman, who has mentioned the Goldmanite nearly a dozen times in his New York Timesblog. Krugman has repeatedly referred to Hatzius’ group as “excellent,” calling the economist a “very calm, measured guy.” Back in 2009, he noted that Hatzius’ analysis was “spot on.””

“Hatzius sounded warnings about the housing market as early as 2005, when hepublished a report that asked “Bubble Trouble? Probably Yes.” In December of 2007, the economics writer Ben Stein criticized Hatzius in the New York Timesfor his gloomy prognostications, accusing the economist of fear-mongering in order to support Goldman’s bearish position.

Stein (incorrectly) mocked Hatzius for his view that the subprime mortgage crisis could spin out of control, hampering lending and slowing growth. “He is also postulating,” Stein wrote, “that lenders would have to retrench so deeply that lending would stall and growth would falter — an event that, again, has not happened on any scale in the postwar world, except when planned by the central bank.” (The piece, available here, is worth reading for its comedic value alone).”

Read more:


Further remarks from Citizen Wells:

“The reason that we have a 4 percent drop in the p of p, percent of population, working is that we do not enough jobs and
good full time jobs to maintain the same ratio.

The problem is exacerbated by too many part time jobs which yield a result of too many people working multiple jobs.

In 2006 we knew how the population was growing in terms of births and deaths with some anticipated immigration.

We did not know that the economy was going to collapse and that Obama would permit a flow of illegals to enter our country
and workforce. We also did not know that much of the job growth was going to be in part time and lower wage positions.

Regarding baby boomers and their impact on the job market.

This is being tossed about indiscriminately without justification.

We are on the leading edge of baby boomers reaching the traditional retirement age of 65.

Most of the baby boomers, which include those born up to 1964, have not reached retirement age yet.

Some people retire before that age but in recent years there has been a trend of retiring later.

Older workers generally have a more beneficial impact on the p of p ratio. Those retiring generally are retiring from a
full time job. Many of those who continue to work are in one part time job.

This yields a one to one scenario of one person to one job.

Younger people are having a more detrimental impact on the p of p ratio.

Because so many of the jobs being created are part time and/or lower wage jobs, the younger folks are working 2 or more of
these jobs.

This is hurting the ratio.

Also, unlike what you are being led to believe, there are far more of the younger people.

Let’s take the example of those turning 65 in 2014, born in 1949 and those turning 22 in 2014, born in 1992. I chose age
22 to account for college even though some of them entered the work force earlier, if they could find a job.

There were 3.56 million people born in the US in 1949. 85 % or 3.026 million are alive.

There were 4.08 million people born in 1992. Probably at least 4 million still alive.

Let’s assume that all of the people who turned 65 retired.

That is still a net gain of about a million in the workforce.

I mentioned above that in 2006 we did not know that Obama would allow so many illegal immigrants into the US.

Recently I reported about the even bigger drop in the p of p ratio in NC.

From Citizen Wells February 3, 2015.

“The plummet of the labor force participation rate in NC, other states and the US is big news and should be more widely

The percentage of the population working is also important and in some ways more significant.

Since the big news today was the lowest so called initial claims number in 15 years let’s go back to January 2000 and
compare the employment to population percent from then to now.

Jan 2000 64.6

Dec 2014 59.2

That’s a plummet of 5.4 percent!

Jan 2000 65.1

Dec 2014 56.5

That’s a plummet of 8.6 percent !!!”


From the Center for Immigration Studies August 2014.

“An analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that, since 2000, all of the net increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job in North Carolina has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).
This is the case even though the native-born accounted for 61 percent of growth in the state’s total working-age population.”

Read more:


In conclusion, the answer is simple.

We do not have enough good jobs to maintain the same ratio of people working that we had in 2006.”



October 2, 2015 September jobs report White House and damned media still lying to you, The reason main street first and now Wall Street are collapsing, People employed not mythical jobs is the real news, White Americans decimated under Obama

October 2, 2015 September jobs report White House and damned media still lying to you, The reason main street first and now Wall Street are collapsing, People employed not mythical jobs is the real news, White Americans decimated under Obama

“In December 2014 there were 18 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country who had arrived since January 2000. But job growth over this period was just 9.3 million — half of new immigration.”…Center for Immigration Studies February 2015

“There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”…Gallup CEO Jim Clifton 

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells



The US Labor Department will come out with the September “jobs” report this morning. Once again the mainstream media including Fox and even Zero Hedge will blindly follow the cues about the mythical jobs that were created last month.

We know that most of the jobs created under Obama are part time, low paying jobs and this correlates well with the growth in Hispanic employment which correlates with the influx of illegal immigrants.

Why did no one, aside from Citizen Well,s report the over 130,000 drop in white employment in the first 6 months of 2015 and the decimation of white employment since Obama took office?

I got this data from the US Labor Dept.

People employed by ethnicity. Not mythical jobs.

There has been much written here about this. Search on employment to read more.

From Citizen Wells September 4, 2015.

““Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 173,000 in August, and the
unemployment rate edged down to 5.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.”

There was an increase in 23,000 white American employment in August.
However, white employment is down 132,000 since January!!!


***  Update 9:10 AM  ***

Almost 1.5 million more white Americans dropped out of labor force since Jan.

White employment to population ratio down .3 percent since Jan.

White labor force participation rate down .6 percent since Jan.


Regardless of the unemployment rate and jobs data provided by the US Labor Department this morning, September 4, 2015, the real employment situation can also be found in their data.

White employment.


Hispanic employment.


I found this article by Business Insider from February 10, 2011.

“No One Looking At This Chart Could Possibly Call It A Recovery”

“Currently the problem in the US jobs market mainly lies with, what I call, the maintenance rate. This is the minimum monthly job creation rate that our enormous system–our economy and government with its revenues and liabilities–must have in order to maintain itself as population grows. Getting lost in the weeds, therefore, of monthly unemployment rates is a waste of time. After having lost 8+ million jobs from the top of the last expansion, nitpicking one’s way through the additions, revisions, and changes to the presumed size of the work force misses the point. And that’s this: any month in which the US does not create at least 125,000 jobs, from a systemic point of view, is negative. It’s less than zero.”

“Now you know why annual government budgets have blown out into the the trillions: the economic flows normally provided by a functioning economy are now provided through unemployment checks, food stamps, FDR style spending and other distributions. In short, the “economy” cannot be experiencing a recovery when, after 10 years of population growth and growth in future liabilities, the number of people employed is hovering around levels last seen in 2002-2004. Whether you chose to look at just Non-Farm Employment, or Total Employment, the US Labor Market is essentially flat-lining since a deep trough was reached in late 2009, early 2010.

Those who would make sweeping claims about a recovery in the entire economy should place these two charts shown here in their printed columns, along with the fact that the US population has grown by over 25 million people since the year 2000.”

Read more:


The referenced study from above was retrieved from the WayBack Machine.

Why was it scrubbed?

From the Brookings Institute February 4, 2011.

“The traditional unemployment rate does not fully capture the extent of labor underutilization in our economy. In addition to the 14 million Americans who are officially counted as unemployed (the jobless who are still actively looking for work), there are over 11 million Americans who either want to work but have given up looking, or who are underemployed in the sense that they are working part time because full-time work is unavailable. These additional workers are less visible but are undoubtedly victims of the recent recession.”

“The Hamilton Project explores the monthly “job gap” based on the employment numbers—or the number of jobs the economy needs in order to return to return to pre-recession employment levels while absorbing the 125,000 people who enter the labor force each month.

The annual revision to the historical payroll numbers released with the January report paint an even starker picture for the job gap this month, increasing it to 12.4 million jobs.

The chart below shows the evolution of the job gap since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. The thick line in the chart below shows the net number of jobs lost since the Great Recession began.

The broken lines display the date by which the jobs gap would be closed under alternative assumptions about the rate of job creation going forward. If the economy adds about 208,000 jobs per month, the average monthly rate for the best year of job creation in the 2000s, then it will take until July 2023 to close the job gap. At a more optimistic rate of 321,000 jobs per month, the average monthly rate for the best year of the 1990s, the economy will reach pre-recession employment levels by May 2016. ”


From Zero Hedge September 2, 2015.

“Exposing The Lie Behind The “Strong Jobs Recovery” In One Chart”

“With all eyes glued to Friday’s payrolls report, we thought it worth reiterating some ‘facts’ about US employment data. As ECRI notes, the sustained decline in the official jobless rate – now approaching the Fed’s estimate of “full employment” – is a misleading indicator of labor market slack. The data shows that the so-called jobs recovery has been spearheaded by cheap labor, with job gains going disproportionately to the least educated — and lowest-paid — workers.

Indeed, the stagnation in nominal wage growth is consistent with the weakness in the employment/population (E/P) ratio. That said, even the E/P ratio may be overstating the health of the jobs market.

After dropping to three-decade lows in the wake of the Great Recession, the E/P ratio, has barely improved since the fall of 2013, reversing only about one-fifth of its decline from its pre-recession highs.””