The final pre-election Jobs report - and a new spin?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If "cough cough" is to be believed, then they could very easily show up 1% unemployment.

Household survey shows net gains. Recession inherited.

Unemployment figures don't count a lot of unemployed people

The official unemployment figures were 5% or so when Bush took office (admittedly the true values were probably a bit higher)
The labor pool needs to increase by 150,000 jobs per month.
Bush lost 900,000 jobs in those 44 months. We're 9 million jobs off from where we need to be.  That's about 6% of jobs

5%+6%=11%

Ouch

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.

The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some say it started in March. Others say October.

It doesn't actually matter, because no Bush economic policy had gone into effect and anyone who watched the news knew we weren't in good shape heading into the election and beyond.

Those 22.7 million Clinton jobs and  that $87 billion surplus were destroying America.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Recession inherited.

I thought it was a "cough cough" survey. If that's the case, expect 1% unemployment.

Granted, you'd still whine that it wasn't counting people or whatever the hell.

Inherited from who? It started March 2001, right when that tax cut that was supposed to help the economy was passed. And where are you getting these 1% unemployment figures? The long-term unemployed, even if they are looking for a job, and people who just graduated who never had a job, ARE NOT COUNTED AS UNEMPLOYED.

The Bush budget did not go into effect until FY 2002.    Are you seriously implying that a budget that is not yet passed in full nor implememted in any part caused the recession?

Who knows what caused it, but the point is, Clinton created 11 million jobs per term. Even if Bush got a bit of bad luck, he should have been able to create a few million jobs.

Clinton rode the tech bubble until it burst his last year.  He had no clue what to do then, but did not care either since he was going out.

You want a good economy all around?  Get a moderate President and a conservative congress.  You want one with potential explosive growth but with plenty of pitfalls along the way?  All conservative.  You want to ruin your economy, possibly for a very, very long time?  All liberal.

Clinton created 11 million jobs in his first term with no tech bubble. Every Democratic President for 80 years has had jobs created at a faster rate than every Republican President for 80 years. I don't think that's a coincidence. The amount of months spent per year in recession are less the more control the Democratic Party has, and are the worst when the GOP controls everything. Except for a 6 month recession under Carter, not 1 recession has started under a Democratic President since 1947.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Bush's  recession started 2 months into his Presidency.
Carter's 6 month recession ended in 1980
LBJ and Clinton had a lot of economic boom

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Probably because the economy is good for most of the time that the Democrat is in, and thus is bound to eventually go down a little at some point. Thus it's technically on the downswing, but only after having gone up so far first.

Why is it that the deficit is always better when a Democrat is in office, and worse when a Republican is in office? Why is it that Democratic presidents have consistently had a better record of job creation during their tenures than Republicans for 75 years? Must just all be a huge coincidence.

80 years



It's all in here:

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even if some really rosy job numbers come out coincidentily *cough**cough* right before the election, there's no way that it will change the fact that the number of jobs in America has gone down under Bush (currently 900,000 in the hole), in the first Presidential loss of jobs since Hoover. Every Democratic President for 40 years (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) has had a net increase of around 10 million jobs per term. Why couldn't Bush create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, let alone break even?

Why is it that every Republican President since Eisenhower has inherited a ressession from a Democrat President?

Probably because the economy is good for most of the time that the Democrat is in, and thus is bound to eventually go down a little at some point. Thus it's technically on the downswing, but only after having gone up so far first.

Why is it that the deficit is always better when a Democrat is in office, and worse when a Republican is in office? Why is it that Democratic presidents have consistently had a better record of job creation during their tenures than Republicans for 75 years? Must just all be a huge coincidence.

Why is it that there is always a up-swing in economic growth during the final term of a Republican Administration and why does this trend always continue onto the first term of a Dem administration only to go down at the end?  We saw this with Carter, we saw this with Clinton, we saw this with LBJ.

Let's refute this.
Using those job numbers,
1960 (Eisenhower) -0.8%
1961-1968 (JFK and LBJ) at least 2.1% each year
1968 (LBJ) 3.5%
1969 (Nixon) 2.9%
1970 (Nixon) -0.6%

That seems to break your pattern. I will admit that Carter and Clinton's worst numbers were the last year, but those were still postive, and other years of their Presidency were quite good.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's another way to look at the numbers:
Post-war with 1 year lag on the terms

Truman 1946-1949 2.82%
Truman 1950-1953 3.42%
Eisenhower 1954-1957 1.37%
Eisenhower 1958-1961 1.17%
JFK/LBJ 1962-1965 3.25%
LBJ 1966-1969 3.40%
Nixon 1970-1973 2.35%
Nixon/Ford  1974-1977 2.0%
Carter 1978-1981 1.85%
Reagan 1982-1985 2.1%
Reagan 1986-1989 2.47%
Bush 1990-1993 0.77%
Clinton 1994-1997 2.62%
Clinton 1998-2001 1.27%
Bush 2002-2003 -0.20%

The 2001 numbers hurt the 1998-2001 numbers a lot.  Well, not Clinton's fault, 9/11 changed everything, right?
Anyways, only Carter and Clinton 2nd term numbers are worse than any Republican term.

Maybe 6 month lag would be more usefull.....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Exactly. The economy is growing, but it is mostly going into the hands of a select few. Economic growth under Democratic administrations is much more equitably distributed generally speaking. That's better for the economy in the long term, to raise the fortunes of those on the bottom more relative to those on the top.

Allow me to explain this chart




Well, you cannot really count Roosevelt because things couldn't have gotten much worse during the Depression and the war certainly created a lot of jobs.  So there is one gone.

We then go onto Truman.  Most of what Truman gained was nherited from FDR.  The Truman administration saw the worst Recession until Carter and at the end the economy was just abismal.  Can't blame Truman for this, though, it was the post-war bust.

Kennedy cut taxes!!!!!!!  A lot!!!!!!!  And put in place a lot of good reforms to keep things running.

LBJ just inherited what Kennedy did and by the end of his term we were once again in recession because of Veitnam and the Great Society.

Nixon attempted to remedy this, but rapid inflation caused by global problems and years of post-war economic bust caused problems for both he and Ford yet they still managed 3.3% jobs growth.

Carter's first two years were marked by jobs growth.  His last two were marked by the biggest recession in the 20th century.

Reagan inherited this recession, but still managed to create 20 million new jobs by the time he was out.

The Pacific Rim Market Crash ruined the first two years of the Bush 41 Presdency, but it is now a proven fact that the economy was growing during the last 8 months of his Presidency.

Clinton was in the right place at the right time.  He benefited from the lift at the end of Bush's term and also from the changing economy and new technology that gave a massive lift to the economy.

However, towards the end, the "Clinton" economy began to slow down and by Jan 2001, before G.W. took office, slipped into recession.  Jobs growth should have out paced jobs loss, but guess what?  9/11 happened.

At anyrate, the jobs are coming back and, if you believe the Democrat, these figures are insignificant anyway, because the number of jobs matters nothing, now that Bush is adding jobs, it is the quality.

Those are the per centage increase job numbers per year. You can't add Nixon and Fords numbers, that's a meaningless statistic.
FDR averaged a 5.3% increase per year over 12.1 years, which is simply amazing.  Truman still beat the average even after FDR had created so many jobs. FDR and Truman about doubled the jobs in their 20 years.  Sorry, 1968 and 1969 had good job gains, LBJ did not leave us in bad news job wise. You are right that 1980-1982 were bad for jobs, but if you think that compares to the Hoover adminstration, you're smoking crack.  Reagan/Bush averaged only 1.6% per year for their 12 years. Increase in 2000=1.5%. Increase in the last 12 months now (about the only 12 positive months for Bush)=1.3%.  And that 1.5% was by far Clinton's worst year, and in fact is the 3rd worst year of any post-WWII year under a Democratic President.

As for JFK tax cuts, the top marginal rate was an effective 87% his whole Presidency. The top marginal rate was 70% or more for 1936-1980.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I have followed jfern's link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site and tried to duplicate the chart's numbers.  I can't get it to agree.  For example, using Reagan (1981-1988), I get about 2.6%.  Maybe I am doing something wrong.  Has someone duplicated the results?

The chart itself comes from a pro Democrat shill site (www.americanassembler.com).  The chart also has -9% for Hoover, when the Bureau of Labor site that is linked only goes back to 1939.  I am not rejecting the number, only indicating that the source of the American Assembler chart may be different from the stat link provided.

If someone has duplicated the numbers, let me know how.  It is a cool site.

Here's how you get it. Go to formatting options. Change it to 12 month percent change. Add up all of the December values for 1981-1988, and divide by 8. I got 2.05%. That link has all of the data 1939 and later. This has all of the President's data from either BLS or the Economic Policy Institute.

Oh, and to be fair to Bush, he's now only 900,000 jobs in the hole and has a annual increase of -0.26%

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is something else to consider.  Unemployment rates.  Bush's first two years were better than Clinton's first two years.   His third year was worse.

Is creating positions necessarily good if there are no workers there willing to take them?

I mean sure at some point, if employment is too high, you might run out of qualified workers. Often there are qualified workers, but for whatever reason, the companies don't find them - good example: Silicon valley in the middle of the Dot COM boom. I'll give you that a lot of unqualified people were hired, but there were qualified people out there.

But anyways, in Jan. 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%. That doesn't count a lot of people - people who are long term unemployed, people who just graduated, and so on, even if they're trying to find a job. Since Jan. 2001, the potential labor pool has increased by 44 months * 150,000 jobs per month = 6.6 million people. We lost 900,000 jobs. So 7.5 million more people are unemployed. Somewhere around 140 million people exist in the potention labor pool, so there was about a 5% increase in the effective unemployment rate, so true unemployment is at least 9% , probably higher.