What Will the Average Annual Job Creation Rate Be During Obama's Presidency?

[Bo]

.

[phk]

Anemic. So go to college.

[Mr.Phips]

If four million jobs were lost in 2009, one million created in 2010, 1.5 million created in 2011, and two million created in 2012 million, there will be an average of 125,000 jobs created per year and 500,000 created over his whole term. 

[Bo]

If four million jobs were lost in 2009, one million created in 2010, 1.5 million created in 2011, and two million created in 2012 million, there will be an average of 125,000 jobs created per year and 500,000 created over his whole term. 

Percent please?

[Mr.Phips]

If four million jobs were lost in 2009, one million created in 2010, 1.5 million created in 2011, and two million created in 2012 million, there will be an average of 125,000 jobs created per year and 500,000 created over his whole term. 

Percent please?

Around +.25%. 

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

If four million jobs were lost in 2009, one million created in 2010, 1.5 million created in 2011, and two million created in 2012 million, there will be an average of 125,000 jobs created per year and 500,000 created over his whole term. 

Percent please?

Around +.25%. 

how did you arrive at such a number?

[phk]

If four million jobs were lost in 2009, one million created in 2010, 1.5 million created in 2011, and two million created in 2012 million, there will be an average of 125,000 jobs created per year and 500,000 created over his whole term. 

Percent please?

Around +.25%. 

how did you arrive at such a number?

Animal Spirits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He will have the worst numbers for a Democrat for the last 80 years. However, he will hopefully beat most of the Republicans.

[Bo]

He will have the worst numbers for a Democrat for the last 80 years. However, he will hopefully beat most of the Republicans.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think they will be percentagewise? I was thinking something between 1.7 and 2.3% per year. Also, what do you think Gore's and Kerry's would have been?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He will have the worst numbers for a Democrat for the last 80 years. However, he will hopefully beat most of the Republicans.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think they will be percentagewise? I was thinking something between 1.7 and 2.3% per year. Also, what do you think Gore's and Kerry's would have been?

Well, what I said rules out him getting 2.3% or better, and hopefully has him getting 1.0% or better. That should be doable, but he needs to be re-elected for that. George W. Bush's 0.1% is the worst since Hoover.

As for Gore or Kerry, I would imagine that for the relevant term(s) they would do better than Bush, but still have crappy results.

[Bo]

He will have the worst numbers for a Democrat for the last 80 years. However, he will hopefully beat most of the Republicans.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think they will be percentagewise? I was thinking something between 1.7 and 2.3% per year. Also, what do you think Gore's and Kerry's would have been?

Well, what I said rules out him getting 2.3% or better, and hopefully has him getting 1.0% or better. That should be doable, but he needs to be re-elected for that. George W. Bush's 0.1% is the worst since Hoover.

As for Gore or Kerry, I would imagine that for the relevant term(s) they would do better than Bush, but still have crappy results.

What do you think Gore and Kerry's percentages would be exactly?

[Psychic Octopus]

I'd say that Kerry's numbers wouldn't be that good, considering that he would have been President in a particularly unfortunate time. I mean, by the end of '06, if not '05, it probably would be clear that he would have a tough time as President.

[Bo]

I'd say that Kerry's numbers wouldn't be that good, considering that he would have been President in a particularly unfortunate time. I mean, by the end of '06, if not '05, it probably would be clear that he would have a tough time as President.

I agree that Gore and Kerry would have poor job creation numbers, but I'm curious as to what other people think their percents will be? I'm thinking about 0.3% for Gore if he had only served one term and about 0.6% for Kerry (although the timing of the financial crisis would have determined Kerry's exact job creation numbers).

[opebo]

No Keynesianism = low job creation.

[Bo]

No Keynesianism = low job creation.

All Republican Presidents since Hoover were Keynesians, actually. I just think that since Republicans are typically elected when times are good and Democrats when times are bad, there is much more potential for high job creation under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents (typically).

[Mr.Phips]

If four million jobs were lost in 2009, one million created in 2010, 1.5 million created in 2011, and two million created in 2012 million, there will be an average of 125,000 jobs created per year and 500,000 created over his whole term. 

Percent please?

Around +.25%. 

how did you arrive at such a number?

Here is how I figured it out:

When Obama first came into office, there were 133, 549 jobs.  In his first year, there were four million jobs lost.  In his second year, there will likely be around one million created, around 1.5 million created in his first year, and then around 2 million created in his final year.  That is net of 500,000 jobs created over the whole term and brings the number of jobs at the end of his term to 134,049.  Divide 134,049 by 133549 and you have job growth of 1% over his whole term.  Divide by four and you get an average of .25% job growth per year 

[opebo]

No Keynesianism = low job creation.

All Republican Presidents since Hoover were Keynesians, actually. I just think that since Republicans are typically elected when times are good and Democrats when times are bad, there is much more potential for high job creation under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents (typically).

The may have 'been' Keynesians, but they did not put Keynesianism into practice.  Such policy would not be allowed as it would be too redistributive for those who actual control the government.

[Bo]

No Keynesianism = low job creation.

All Republican Presidents since Hoover were Keynesians, actually. I just think that since Republicans are typically elected when times are good and Democrats when times are bad, there is much more potential for high job creation under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents (typically).

The may have 'been' Keynesians, but they did not put Keynesianism into practice.  Such policy would not be allowed as it would be too redistributive for those who actual control the government.

I think Ike, Nixon, and Ford were just as Keynesian, if not more Keynesian, than most Democratic Presidents. Income inequality remained comparatively low under their watch, and did not increase (much, at least).