Regime Uncertainty and US Employment Woes

Dr. Ed Yardeni’s noteworthy perspective on the recent ‘conspiracy theory’ controversy over US employment data: (bold added) 

The employment gain was attributable to an increase of 838,000 in full-time employment, while part-time employment fell 26,000. What’s odd is that among those working part-time (which edged down slightly), there was a 582,000 increase in those working part-time for economic reasons. In other words, lots of people found full-time jobs, and lots of people who wanted to work full time could only find part-time jobs. Got that? Even odder is that the payroll survey showed that employment in the temporary help industry edged down by 2,000 in September.

While I doubt that anyone at BLS tampered with the household data for political motives, I’m certain no one even thought to bother with the payroll employment numbers. September’s increase was a measly 114,000. I give much more weight to the revisions to the previous two months, which tend to be upwards when the economy is expanding. They totaled 86,000 during July and August, raising their monthly average gain to 161,500. The oddity here was that upward revisions occurred at the local-government level--mainly the hiring of school teachers (up 77,000)--which nearly matched the revision to overall payrolls…

The debatable question is whether the Obama administration’s policies are creating jobs. The answer, of course, is they didn’t create them. Mitt Romney says he’ll create 12 million jobs if he is elected to be the next president. Presidents don’t create jobs. Profitable companies expand and create jobs, especially small ones that turn into big ones.

So politics could have played a sleight of hand trick in the statistical improvements of US employment conditions.

Well, the real reason for the sluggish job conditions can be traced to concerns of small business which makes up the kernel of employment: growing political uncertainty, as I earlier pointed out here.

Sluggish hiring has been an outcome of lethargic business fixed investment…

…which can be traced to REGIME UNCERTAINTY

As Professor Robert Higgs writes, 

I have argued for years that this anemic investment recovery evinces, at least in part, the prevailing regime uncertainty brought about by the Fed’s and the Bush and Obama administrations’ massive, ill-advised, and counter-productive interventions in the economy during the past five years. These interventions are continuing, however, and continuing to prolong the recovery. The idea that these actions will ultimately succeed if only the authorities persist in them long enough and on a sufficiently great scale was a bad idea from the start, and its bankruptcy became fairly evident a long time ago even to many observers wedded to mainstream economics and conventional economic policy making.

Policy makers have cost the U.S. economy a decade or more of normal economic growth. How long will people in their capacities as political and financial actors continue to tolerate this foolish, destructive policy making? I do not know, but I believe I know what the result of these misguided ongoing experiments will be—economic stagnation at best, relapse or another bust at worst.

The bottom line is that in contrast to the quack idea that Presidents "create" jobs, the reality is Presidents “unmake” or “destroy” jobs from repeated interventionism-inflationism which only engenders regime uncertainties or from a political environment which have been antagonistic or hostile to businesses.