With the revised job totals published this morning, we now know that 2012 was a better year for job creation than previously believed -- 2.17 million jobs were created just last year overall, 2.24 million in the private sector. When I noted that 2012 was the best year for jobs since 2005, and better than seven of the eight years Bush/Cheney was in office, some of you were skeptical. I received a few "that can't be right" emails.
So, let's take a minute to take a closer look. I put together this chart this morning, showing annual job totals from the start of Bush/Quayle through the end of 2012. Blue represents Democratic administrations, while red represents Republican administrations, and darker colors represent job creation overall, while lighter colors represent job creation in just the private sector.
What does this tell us? A few things. First, Clinton and Obama outpace Bush and Bush in creating new jobs, even though both Democratic administrations inherited weaker economies.
Second, the 2.17 million jobs overall in 2012 really was the best year since 2005, and surpass seven of the eight years of Bush/Cheney. While 2012 obviously wasn't robust for job creation, it managed to surpass three two of the eight years Clinton/Gore was in office, too.
And third, while the private sector has done better than the overall economy under Obama, under his three most recent predecessors, the opposite was true.
Yes, it's further proof that if President Obama is a radical socialist, he's really bad at implementing the tenets of his leftist ideology.
Leave a Comment:
Obama = Worst. Socialist. Ever.
Damn you! I was going to respond with exactly that!!!
Never a more appropriate time for Comic Book Guy XD
Looks to me that every year Bush, Clinton and Bush II were in office, government jobs grew (dark bar gains more that light bar gains, dark bar losses fewer than light bar lossed) with the possible exception of 2003, which is so slight it's hard to tell.
Only under Obama have government jobs been clearly reduced. And that for each of his first four years.
Query:
How do Republicans get away with saying they're superior job creators?
Answer:
Marketing. Telling people what they want to hear. Inducing fear of "the other". Meatbags are easily decieved.
The Amurrican Peepul, as a whole, are a grossly over-rated national group.
Because Everyone Knows its true! And in our modern media culture what Everyone Knows to be true is far more important than what a bunch of pedants with a bunch of actual data know to be true based on silly old empirical evidence.
Politico, Halperin and Joe Scarborough exist solely to mock those who try to challenge what Everyone Knows with objective data. Halperin's role is to dispense and articulate what Everyone Knows so that Everyone Who Matters (his "gang of 500) may know what Everyone Knows. Scaroborough's role is mock at the most simplistic level, to mock with incredulous guffaws the very idea that what Everyone Knows isn't true. And Politico's role is to give a cynical and worldly-wise chuckle at the pathetic futility of challenging what Everybody Knows even if Politico knows what Everyone Knows is wrong.
The GOP response to steller job creation under democrats and less then desirable under Republicans is simple. Democrats enjoy the spoils of Republican policy while Republicans suffer under Democrat policy. Of course, we'll have to elect another Democrat to see if there's a dip in jobs after Obama leaves to be sure it's not just because Republicans screw it all up.
"How do Republicans get away with saying they're superior job creators?"
They do not get away with it among intelligent people.
"stellar job creation " ?? rofl... keep drinkin the Kool aid.
Says the ghost of Jim Jones.
the amazing part of your numbers is they do not take into account jobs lost vs jobs gained. Is this important or not?
Is it? Perhaps you could provide a chart of jobs lost per month from 89 to 2011? I'd like to see that myself. If you don't have one, it should be easy to research, no?
Just one question - if the numbers are higher under Bush II, is that important or not?
Maybe this will help, charts of percentage of the population that are employed. You'll note the accelerating declines. Why? This measure can't be numerically manipulated like the unemployment rate.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/about-jobs-improvement-under-president-obama
Actually, I headed over to:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm
Where you can grab data and do your own analysis. I'm guessing the numbers you're after are seasonally adjusted "Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now". Unfortunately those numbers only go back to 1994. Doubly unfortunate, their graphing software makes a common error - the numbers range from 4,000 to 7,000 a year, with no zero point. All that said, numbers for Obama aren't great so far in terms of unemployment. I urge you take a look at the site and do your own analysis - interesting.
Re: #3.2
Since you posted that link again, I'll post my response again:
Thanks for the link. I don't know who "zerohedge" is, but the graphs were from FRED - one of my favorite sources for data.
One of the graphs is this one:
Civilian Employment - Population Ratio (SA
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO
I would like to point out several things:
One is that the graph in the article stops with January 2011 - and so misses the improvement since then.
The author also makes a point of showing that on 1/1/2009 it was 60.6%. As of 1/1/2013 it is 58.6. (Anybody remember what happened to the economy in between those two dates?)
Does this chart look good? H*** No! Are the numbers going up? Yes - creeping.
Another thing I want to point out is that the current % is similar to what it was back in the early 80's. As I recall, that was about the time wages started to stagnate and it became necessary for the Moms to go back to work - thus increasing the % of the population employed. So maybe the 60.6% employment is not a target we want to strive for (speaking as a Mom who had to work full-time from the time my kids were little).
I believe the chart reflects "net job growth" which factor in "loss jobs". Regardless, facts are real and the numbers support the GOP are not good economic stewards!
Wouldn't it have to factor in lost jobs in order to have a negative number? I mean you can't create negative jobs. So this would probably have to be net job growth.
It also doesn't take into account all the people who have given up looking for a job, and become Democrat to just vote themselves benefits.
Were 2001 & 2002 Clintons fault? You blame Bush for 2009 & 2010. Did 9/11 have any effect? I guess your stats speak for themselves. Keep the lies coming brother.
2001 was the Dot Com bust as well as 9/11. So blaming Bush probably isn't completely justified.
Bush inherited a surplus. All he would have to do is basically "Don't mess up." Instead he decided to go to unfunded wars and give everyone a tax cut. Bush blew a surplus and Obama inherited a mess. The two are hardly comparable.
Ahhh the mythical "clinton surplus". There can be no surplus when there is a running defict. Gotta love the creative bookkeeping though.
Ah yes, the rush limpball talking point trotted out once again. *sigh*
Am I blind? I only see 2 worse years for Clinton. 1995 & 2000.
Is the reason that public sector jobs did better before Obama; because, back then, the Republican Party did not do things to hurt the economy on purpose?
Are Republicans just bad at government?
That's not all of it. The safe general rule of human behavior is that basically people are no damn good and those on the right are the worst of a bad lot.
Sure... that explains why EVERY Democrat controlled state is financially in the toilet, and EVERY Democrat controlled city is unlivable because of the corruption and crime. Still, I suppose to Democrats, maybe that IS good government ? Still, what can you expect from sheeple who consider Maddow a reliable source for anything other than radical leftist propaganda... so sad...
Thank you for proving my point.
So, you're not going to tell it about California?
That's mean, 'cause you know he'll never find out on his own!
Inheriting a bad economy makes it easier to add jobs than inheriting a good economy, cause there are more people to take jobs and more jobs recently lost.
I think the republicans are expert in creating delusions while demonizing their opponents ie the "so called liberal media", the democrats etc. The MSM buy into their spin to avoid their constant media attacks therefore the factual reality is skewed and not realized until after the fact....shows they are not fiscally responsible, be it jobs, the deficits, equality etc.
I see these comments and I just have to wonder what strange alternate universe do you live in where Democrats are NOT the kings of deception and delusion ? I quit being one 30 years ago because I saw the rot forming. Hasn't gotten any better.. Couldn't become a Republican, they are nearly as bad.. but not quite. Still, them mindless adherence to the destructive DNC line I see here is disturbing.
"I quit being one 30 years ago..."
And here I thought we had another Middle Schooler...
The math geek in me just needs to say that this graph should have a key:
[dark blue] Democratic Job Creation
[light blue] Democratic Private Sector Job Creation
[dark red] Republican Job Creation
[light red] Republican Private Sector Job Creation
It would be interesting to see the same chart, not from the view of who held the White House, but from who controlled Congress. Clinton looks better on the economy and job creation after the Republicans take control in 1994. Bush, who was a bit of spendthrift anyway, looks far worse after 2006, after the Democrats run wild, and the Democratic supported real estate bubble bursts. Not all the blame for the crash is atributable to the Republicans, nor the booms to the Democrats. Much blame to share, but a lot of the malaise is also a Democratic construct. After six years of Democratic control, including two years of Democrartic super-majorities, with control of the White House, it continues. When is it the chosen one's whatch? Just saying.
Riiight. Anything good is because of Republicans and anything bad is because of Democrats. Got it.
Hey, thanks for playin'.
HI
I guess you missed Republican President George W Bush's support of the real estate bubble during his 2004 re election campaign along with his Balance Budget by 2012 promise not to mention Republican President Ronald Reagan (Deregulation) appointed Greenspan!