Unemployment Change by President

[Bo]

This is a list of Presidents by how much (percentagewise) the unemployment rate at the end of their terms was in comparison to the beginning of their terms. (0.8% means the unemployment rate was 0.8% greater at the end of a president's term in contrast to the beginning of his term.  -2.5% means the unemployment rate was 2.5% less at the end of a president's term than at the beginning.) This data is for all Presidents since Hoover.

FDR: -23.0% (D)
Clinton: -3.1% (D)
Obama: -2.9% (D) (projected)
LBJ:-2.3% (D)
Reagan:-2.1% (R)
JFK: -0.9% (D)
Carter: 0.0% (D)
Truman:+1.0% (D)
Bush Sr.: +1.9% (R)
Ford:+2.0% (R)
Nixon:+2.1% (R)
Bush Jr.: +3.5 (R)
Eisenhower:+3.7% (R)
Hoover: +21.7 (R)

As evidenced, there is a clear pattern. Unemployment typically goes down under Democratic Presidents and goes up under Republican Presidents. Do you have any ideas why this is so? (BTW, Reagan is the major exception to this rule.)

[Bo]

Anyone?

[phk]

Not enough data.

You should create a time series graph, with variables such as federal outlays, federal tax rates, interest rates, oil prices, etc and run a fixed effects regression.

[Bo]

Not enough data.

You should create a time series graph, with variables such as federal outlays, federal tax rates, interest rates, oil prices, etc and run a fixed effects regression.

I don't have the time to do that. If you want to, go ahead. I'd like to see what you come up with. Isn't it cool that all the Democrats are on top and all the Republicans (except Reagan) are on bottom, though? I think that unemployment typically increases under Republican Presidents and decreases under Democratic Presidents because people tend to elect Republicans (typically) when times are good and Democrats when times are bad ("redistributing wealth" sounds much better to voters when they're in a recession losing money than if they are massively profiting from a business boom).

[phk]

Not enough data.

You should create a time series graph, with variables such as federal outlays, federal tax rates, interest rates, oil prices, etc and run a fixed effects regression.

I don't have the time to do that. If you want to, go ahead. I'd like to see what you come up with. Isn't it cool that all the Democrats are on top and all the Republicans (except Reagan) are on bottom, though? I think that unemployment typically increases under Republican Presidents and decreases under Democratic Presidents because people tend to elect Republicans (typically) when times are good and Democrats when times are bad ("redistributing wealth" sounds much better to voters when they're in a recession losing money than if they are massively profiting from a business boom).

I guess its really a matter of what came first, the chicken or the egg. But I think in the 2000 election, most people had sort of a clue that the prosperity was coming to an end and that Bush's tax cuts were a better deal than Gore's.

[JerryBrown2010]

LOL that shows something

[opebo]

Come on, it is common sense that Democrats are good for employment, Republicans bad.  I mean, common knowledge - everyone knows this.

My father, a dyed in the wool country club Republican businessman, constantly says "I always made more money when a Democrat was in the white house".

[Tender Branson]

Can you also do real changes and not nominal changes to have a better comparison ?

For example Bush Jr. started at 4.2% and ended at 7.6% - which is an increase of 81% compared with when he started.

Clinton for example started at 7.3% and ended at 4.2% - which is a decrease of 43% compared with when he started.

[TeePee4Prez]

Come on, it is common sense that Democrats are good for employment, Republicans bad.  I mean, common knowledge - everyone knows this.

My father, a dyed in the wool country club Republican businessman, constantly says "I always made more money when a Democrat was in the white house".

You're dad's a Republican too?  Well, at least unlike mine he actually benefits from voting that way at least on tax cuts.  My dad's actually a former Democrat pissed over NAFTA and the shafting of Bob Casey Sr. from the 1992 DNC Convention.  Still not convinced to switch back even after Bush Jr., Gingrich, Santorum and Co. did worse.  He voted for Clinton, but NAFTA sealed the deal for his conversion.

[opebo]

You're dad's a Republican too?  Well, at least unlike mine he actually benefits from voting that way at least on tax cuts. 

Yeah, but he's reformed now - voted for Obama.  I think the religious extremism finally stuck in his craw, plus all the pointless war.

[TeePee4Prez]

You're dad's a Republican too?  Well, at least unlike mine he actually benefits from voting that way at least on tax cuts.  

Yeah, but he's reformed now - voted for Obama.  I think the religious extremism finally stuck in his craw, plus all the pointless war.

Funny thing is on some economic issues, my dad's actually to the left of me, but he voted McCain.  I thought Biden would help.  I think he would have voted Biden if he led the ticket.  The religious stuff is actually why my dad votes GOP, but I think he'd vote for a Tim Holden, Tim Ryan, Jack Murtha or Bill Lipinski in a second.  

My mom OTOH, while a practicing Catholic is pro-choice voted for Obama, but now wished Hillary won.  

[Richard]

Ah yes, the usual correlation must mean causation error.  Grow up n00bs.

If you want to show correlation, maybe show us House and Senate makeup vs unemployment.

Clinton: -3.1% (R [both Senate and House])

[Bo]

Come on, it is common sense that Democrats are good for employment, Republicans bad.  I mean, common knowledge - everyone knows this.

My father, a dyed in the wool country club Republican businessman, constantly says "I always made more money when a Democrat was in the white house".

I don't necessarily think that is the case. I just think people typically have a tendency to elect Republicans when times are good and Democrats when times are bad. I think that the Republican slogans of "trickle-down economics", "free markets", and "help yourself, don't wait for the govt. to help you" are much more popular if people are doing well economically, while the Democratic solgans of "let the govt. help you", "let's redestribute the wealth", and "let's help America's middle class" are typically much more appealing to voters if they are struggling economically. Thus, it is inevitable that under Republican Presidents unemployment will typically go up and under Democratic presidents typically go down. I don't think it's because of their policies, just due to the economic situation when they are elected.

[Bo]

Can you also do real changes and not nominal changes to have a better comparison ?

For example Bush Jr. started at 4.2% and ended at 7.6% - which is an increase of 81% compared with when he started.

Clinton for example started at 7.3% and ended at 4.2% - which is a decrease of 43% compared with when he started.

Yes, I can. Here is the data for all Presidents since Coolidge (1923). Reagan and Truman are the only outliers. Other than those two exceptions, there seems to be a very strong trend here. Unemployment typically decreases under Democratic Presidents and typically increases under Republican Presidents.

FDR (D):-92%
Clinton (D):-42%
LBJ (D):-40%
Obama (D) (projected):-38%
Reagan (R):-28%
JFK (D):-14%
Carter (D): 0%
Coolidge (R):+33%
Bush Sr. (R):+35%
Ford (R):+36%
Truman (D):+53%
Nixon (R):+62%
Bush Jr. (R):+83%
Eisenhower (R):+128%
Hoover (R):+678%

[opebo]

Yes but a far more important criteria for electing presidents is - under which party does the top 0.1% see the biggest increase in 1) its real income and 2) its share of national product.  

[Bo]

Yes but a far more important criteria for electing presidents is - under which party does the top 0.1% see the biggest increase in 1) its real income and 2) its share of national product.  

I agree with you. However, these figures, together with historical job creation figures, make great propaganda for Democratic presidential candidates, even if Democrats are typically elected during bad times.

[opebo]

Yes but a far more important criteria for electing presidents is - under which party does the top 0.1% see the biggest increase in 1) its real income and 2) its share of national product.  

I agree with you. However, these figures, together with historical job creation figures, make great propaganda for Democratic presidential candidates, even if Democrats are typically elected during bad times.

What I was getting at was that the only interest group that matters - and the interest group which the President serves - is the all powerful owning class.  That is, the top 0.1% to maybe 0.5%.  The only people who care about 'employment' are a lot of powerless poors.

[Bo]

Yes but a far more important criteria for electing presidents is - under which party does the top 0.1% see the biggest increase in 1) its real income and 2) its share of national product.  

I agree with you. However, these figures, together with historical job creation figures, make great propaganda for Democratic presidential candidates, even if Democrats are typically elected during bad times.

What I was getting at was that the only interest group that matters - and the interest group which the President serves - is the all powerful owning class.  That is, the top 0.1% to maybe 0.5%.  The only people who care about 'employment' are a lot of powerless poors.

I get your point but my point was that the lower classes decide elections in the U.S., and since Democrats have great propaganda in employment and job creation numbers, they should use it, especially since the lower classes believe in it.

[phk]

Might be better to compare employment rates of the total civilian non-institutionalized population in between the ages 16-65. Or at least change in this with respect to time (the first derivative).

Since it is possible for positive job creation and an increasing unemployment rate to occur at the same time.

This will occur if net amount of people entering the labor force is growing at a faster rate than new job creation.

[Bo]

Might be better to compare employment rates of the total civilian non-institutionalized population in between the ages 16-65. Or at least change in this with respect to time (the first derivative).

Since it is possible for positive job creation and an increasing unemployment rate to occur at the same time.

This will occur if net amount of people entering the labor force is growing at a faster rate than new job creation.

There is a pretty strong correlation between Presidents by change in unemployment rate and Presidents by annual job creation rate. In both cases nearly all of the Democrats are on top and nearly all the Republicans are on bottom.

[Mr.Phips]

This is a list of Presidents by how much (percentagewise) the unemployment rate at the end of their terms was in comparison to the beginning of their terms. (0.8% means the unemployment rate was 0.8% greater at the end of a president's term in contrast to the beginning of his term.  -2.5% means the unemployment rate was 2.5% less at the end of a president's term than at the beginning.) This data is for all Presidents since Hoover.

FDR: -23.0% (D)
Clinton: -3.1% (D)
Obama: -2.9% (D) (projected)
LBJ:-2.3% (D)
Reagan:-2.1% (R)
JFK: -0.9% (D)
Carter: 0.0% (D)
Truman:+1.0% (D)
Bush Sr.: +1.9% (R)
Ford:+2.0% (R)
Nixon:+2.1% (R)
Bush Jr.: +3.5 (R)
Eisenhower:+3.7% (R)
Hoover: +21.7 (R)

As evidenced, there is a clear pattern. Unemployment typically goes down under Democratic Presidents and goes up under Republican Presidents. Do you have any ideas why this is so? (BTW, Reagan is the major exception to this rule.)

Where are you getting -2.9% for Obama?  That would mean that unemployment would have to fall to 5.7% in 2012.  I dont think anybody is predicting that unemployment will be nearly cut in half in just two years. 

[Bo]

This is a list of Presidents by how much (percentagewise) the unemployment rate at the end of their terms was in comparison to the beginning of their terms. (0.8% means the unemployment rate was 0.8% greater at the end of a president's term in contrast to the beginning of his term.  -2.5% means the unemployment rate was 2.5% less at the end of a president's term than at the beginning.) This data is for all Presidents since Hoover.

FDR: -23.0% (D)
Clinton: -3.1% (D)
Obama: -2.9% (D) (projected)
LBJ:-2.3% (D)
Reagan:-2.1% (R)
JFK: -0.9% (D)
Carter: 0.0% (D)
Truman:+1.0% (D)
Bush Sr.: +1.9% (R)
Ford:+2.0% (R)
Nixon:+2.1% (R)
Bush Jr.: +3.5 (R)
Eisenhower:+3.7% (R)
Hoover: +21.7 (R)

As evidenced, there is a clear pattern. Unemployment typically goes down under Democratic Presidents and goes up under Republican Presidents. Do you have any ideas why this is so? (BTW, Reagan is the major exception to this rule.)

Where are you getting -2.9% for Obama?  That would mean that unemployment would have to fall to 5.7% in 2012.  I dont think anybody is predicting that unemployment will be nearly cut in half in just two years. 

When Obama entered office unemployment was 7.7%. The Congressional Budget Office Predicts unemployment will be 4.8% in 2017 (and 2016). 7.7-4.8=2.9

[Mr.Phips]

This is a list of Presidents by how much (percentagewise) the unemployment rate at the end of their terms was in comparison to the beginning of their terms. (0.8% means the unemployment rate was 0.8% greater at the end of a president's term in contrast to the beginning of his term.  -2.5% means the unemployment rate was 2.5% less at the end of a president's term than at the beginning.) This data is for all Presidents since Hoover.

FDR: -23.0% (D)
Clinton: -3.1% (D)
Obama: -2.9% (D) (projected)
LBJ:-2.3% (D)
Reagan:-2.1% (R)
JFK: -0.9% (D)
Carter: 0.0% (D)
Truman:+1.0% (D)
Bush Sr.: +1.9% (R)
Ford:+2.0% (R)
Nixon:+2.1% (R)
Bush Jr.: +3.5 (R)
Eisenhower:+3.7% (R)
Hoover: +21.7 (R)

As evidenced, there is a clear pattern. Unemployment typically goes down under Democratic Presidents and goes up under Republican Presidents. Do you have any ideas why this is so? (BTW, Reagan is the major exception to this rule.)

Where are you getting -2.9% for Obama?  That would mean that unemployment would have to fall to 5.7% in 2012.  I dont think anybody is predicting that unemployment will be nearly cut in half in just two years. 

When Obama entered office unemployment was 7.7%. The Congressional Budget Office Predicts unemployment will be 4.8% in 2017 (and 2016). 7.7-4.8=2.9

But in 2012, unemployment will probably be around 8%.  That would mean +.3% for Obama.

[Bo]

This is a list of Presidents by how much (percentagewise) the unemployment rate at the end of their terms was in comparison to the beginning of their terms. (0.8% means the unemployment rate was 0.8% greater at the end of a president's term in contrast to the beginning of his term.  -2.5% means the unemployment rate was 2.5% less at the end of a president's term than at the beginning.) This data is for all Presidents since Hoover.

FDR: -23.0% (D)
Clinton: -3.1% (D)
Obama: -2.9% (D) (projected)
LBJ:-2.3% (D)
Reagan:-2.1% (R)
JFK: -0.9% (D)
Carter: 0.0% (D)
Truman:+1.0% (D)
Bush Sr.: +1.9% (R)
Ford:+2.0% (R)
Nixon:+2.1% (R)
Bush Jr.: +3.5 (R)
Eisenhower:+3.7% (R)
Hoover: +21.7 (R)

As evidenced, there is a clear pattern. Unemployment typically goes down under Democratic Presidents and goes up under Republican Presidents. Do you have any ideas why this is so? (BTW, Reagan is the major exception to this rule.)

Where are you getting -2.9% for Obama?  That would mean that unemployment would have to fall to 5.7% in 2012.  I dont think anybody is predicting that unemployment will be nearly cut in half in just two years. 

When Obama entered office unemployment was 7.7%. The Congressional Budget Office Predicts unemployment will be 4.8% in 2017 (and 2016). 7.7-4.8=2.9

But in 2012, unemployment will probably be around 8%.  That would mean +.3% for Obama.

I think Obama will win reelection in 2012.

[memphis]

Forecasting future unemployment is beyond futile.