How Many Jobs Were Lost or Created Between 1999 and February 2015 in the United States of America?
Continue below.....
(See bottom for multiple year summaries; see bottom for summaries of both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama administrations; see bottom for links to month-by-month summaries.)
- Jobs at end of 1999: 130,778,000
- Jobs GAINED 2000: +1,946,000
- Total jobs at end of 2000: 132,724,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2001?
- Jobs LOST 2001: -1,735,000
- Total jobs at end of 2001: 130,989,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2002?
- Jobs LOST 2002: -508,000
- Total jobs at end of 2002: 130,481,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2003?
- Jobs ADDED 2003: +105,000
- Total jobs at end of 2003: 130,586,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2004?
- Jobs ADDED 2004: +2,033,000
- Total jobs at end of 2004: 132,619,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2005?
- Jobs ADDED 2005: +2,506,000
- Total jobs at end of 2005: 135,125,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2006?
- Jobs ADDED 2006: +2,085,000
- Total jobs at end of 2006: 137,210,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2007?
- Jobs ADDED 2007: +1,140,000
- Total jobs at end of 2007: 138,250,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2008?
- Jobs LOST 2008: -3,576,000
- Total jobs at end of 2008: 134,774,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2009?
- Jobs LOST 2009: -5,089,000
- Total jobs at end of 2009: 129,685,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2010?
- Jobs ADDED 2010: +1,066,000
- Total jobs at end of 2010: 130,751,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2011?
- Jobs ADDED 2011: +2,080,000
- Total jobs at end of 2011: 132,831,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2012?
- Jobs ADDED 2012: +2,257,000
- Total jobs at end of 2012: 135,088,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2013?
- Jobs ADDED 2013: +2,388,000
- Total jobs at end of 2013: 137,476,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2014?
- Jobs ADDED 2014: +3,116,000
- Total jobs at end of 2014: 140,592,000
How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in 2015 to date? (not yet updated for June 2015)
- Jobs ADDED 2015 to date: +534,000
- Total current jobs: 141,126,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Carter's Presidency (Jan 1977 to Jan 1981): +10,345,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Reagan's first term (Jan 1981 to Jan 1985): +5,336,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Reagan's second term (Jan 1985 to Jan 1989): +10,795,000
- Total jobs GAINED in all of Reagan's Presidency (Jan 1981 to Jan 1989): +16,131,000
- Total jobs GAINED in George H. W. Bush's Presidency (Jan 1989 to Jan 1993): +2,637,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Clinton's first term (Jan 1993 to Jan 1997): +11,577,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Clinton's second term (Jan 1997 to Jan 2001): +11,312,000
- Total jobs GAINED in all of Clinton's Presidency (Jan 1993 to Jan 2001): +22,889,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Bush's first term (Jan 2001 to Jan 2005): +59,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Bush's second term (Jan 2005 to Jan 2009): +1,224,000
- Total jobs GAINED in all of Bush's Presidency (Jan 2001 to Jan 2009): +1,283,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Obama's first term (Jan 2009 to Jan 2013): +1,316,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Obama's second term (Jan 2013 to date): +5,833,000
- Total jobs GAINED in Obama's Presidency to date (Jan 2009 to date): +7,149,000
- Total jobs GAINED since the "trough" of the recession, in February 2010: +11,477,000
- Total number of jobs GAINED between January 2008 (pre-recession peak of jobs) and now, February 2015:
+2,761,000 - Total jobs GAINED since December 1999: +10,348,000
- Total jobs GAINED since January 2001 (Start of Bush's Presidency): +8,432,000
- Total jobs GAINED since January 2005 (Start of Bush's second term): +8,373,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2006: +3,916,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2007:
- +2,776,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2008: +6,352,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2010: +10,375,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2011: +8,295,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2012: +6,038,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2013: +3,650,000
- Total jobs GAINED since December 2014: +534,000
- Total number of jobs LOST between January 2008 and December 2012: -3,301,000
- Total number of jobs LOST from / between 2007 and 2012 (From December 2006 until December 2012): -2,146,000
- Total number of jobs LOST between January 2008 (peak of jobs) and December 2013:
-979,000 - Total number of jobs LOST from / between 2007 and 2013 (From December 2006 until December 2013): -176,000
* All numbers are from latest REVISIONS of BLS seasonally adjusted jobs numbers. Both private and government jobs are included in these numbers.
How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (June 2015 update)
How Many Government Jobs (Federal, State, and/or Local) have been created since Obama took office?
How Many Government Jobs (Federal, State, and/or Local) have been created since Obama took office?
The 2011 inflation-adjusted median income in the US was $50,054. The last year where inflation-adjusted median income was lower was 1995 at $49,935. Can you please explain how unemployment rates correlate to inflation-adjusted median income? What I am trying to understand is why if unemployment rates have been steadily dropping lately is US median incomes going down and not up. I do know that this is before income taxes have been applied, so tax rates don't have anything to do with those numbers (at least not directly). Is there a basic shift in the economy to where people are now working for lower wages than the previous 17 years? Is this indicative of wage deflation or significant underemployment? Any enlightenment or clarification would be most appreciated!
ReplyDeleteBelow is link to statistical info. on median incomes:
http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php
Generally, as more people find jobs, market pressure will start to raise the wages of those people. But there may also be a lag of a year or two. Remember also that this recession is the worst recession since the 1930's, and we don't have a lot of solid data from that time for the purpose of comparison.
DeleteIn the recession of the early 80's, the unemployment rate started to come down in mid 1983, but the median income was still low in 1983. The median income did, however, go up in 1984. I think we'll have to wait a year or two to see what will happen when the data from this year and next is analyzed.
I know that the unemployment rate has generally been higher in the 2000's before the Great Recession than it was during the 1990's.. The rise in the mid 2000's was definitely due to a bubble, which is why everything hit the skids so quickly.
There is underemployment now, but it is going down... Will it decrease to 2007 levels.. without collapsing in a bubble a year later? I don't think that anybody knows as of yet.
We have lost over 6 million jobs since the start of this recession, and have gained back a little over half of that according to this a report from NELP,
Deletehttp://nelp.3cdn.net/8ee4a46a37c86939c0_qjm6bkhe0.pdf
From the report -
...
Specifically, we examine employment trends in 366 detailed occupations. We formed three equal groups, each representing a third of U.S. employment in 2008: lower-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83; mid-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $13.84 to $21.13; and higher-wage occupations with median hourly wages from $21.14 to $54.55 (all in 2012 dollars)....
Lower-wage occupations constituted 21 percent of recession job losses, but fully 58 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage occupations constituted 60 percent of recession job losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage occupations constituted 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.
The mid-wage jobs are being replaced with those you may need EITC or Food Stamps to live with, at least periodically. With little to no place to move up.
Nice charts.
I have heard of that report. I'm not disputing the basics of the report, but I do have some concerns about the report, mostly based on the database that NELP is using.
DeleteThe report uses Current Population Survey data, not Current Establishment Survey data. That's my biggest concern. CPS data is not as accurate as CES data, and it is self-reported. So they aren't basing their results on how much people are actually making and what sector the people actually work in; they are asking people what occupations they are in. I regularly look at the difference between the people who report that they work for the various government bodies (state, local, and federal) and the number of people that the government reports are actually on payroll. They are generally off, but it doesn't mean that they are so far off that the results of this particular study are wrong.
If you look at the average weekly and hourly wages for non-supervisory personnel, 2011 was a recent peak, but 2012 is down a bit.
Again, I'm not sure the report is really, really wrong, but I'm not sure it is as accurate as the NELP thinks it is.
I'll have to write a post about this.. explaining what I like and what I'm not sure about concerning the NELP report.
Thanks very much for posting!
More thoughts...
Delete"The 2011 inflation-adjusted median income in the US was $50,054. The last year where inflation-adjusted median income was lower was 1995 at $49,935. Can you please explain how unemployment rates correlate to inflation-adjusted median income? What I am trying to understand is why if unemployment rates have been steadily dropping lately is US median incomes going down and not up."
Not sure where you are getting the median income figure, but it is probably based on tax returns. If so, in a country in which a huge percentage of the work force is aging and leaving the work force, there are many more households either depending on one income or depending strictly on retirement income. It would make sense that the median income of such a population is going to decrease even if the unemployment rate goes down.
I'm going to have to do a bit of digging to see if this is true.
Another question: Because of population increases there are about 110,000-125,000 people wanting to newly enter the job force every month. Hence, we need the GDP to expand just to have work for the increasing population. So this means just to not lose ground jobs wise, on average 5,280,000 to 6,000,000 jobs need to be created during any one term of a President just for unemployment rates NOT to increase. More than these amounts of jobs would have to be created to gain ground in terms of unemployment. Will you please tell me where in your statistics this is addressed? I am not sure I am fully understanding your unemployment statistics.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Actually, we only need about 70,000 new jobs a month to deal with population growth for one big reason: Most of the population growth is in the 55 and over age group. They have a much lower "employment participation ratio" than people 25 through 54 years.
DeleteI wrote about that here:
How many jobs needed per month for population growth?
Employment participation is also affected by demographics and overall economics. Right now employment participation among people 55+ is, while still low, going up. It is about the same as it was during the old days before Medicare and before Social Security was fully kicking in. It's not a mark of a prosperous country when old people have to keep working.
I don't attempt to make any estimates as to how many jobs we need in any of my regular monthly columns. My numbers compare jobs numbers, total, private, government, from one month to another and from year to another.
Interesting.
DeleteThen you are not accounting for the 200,000+ refugees brought into the US each year?
Wayne
Luvsiesous.com
"Then you are not accounting for the 200,000+ refugees brought into the US each year?"
DeleteIncreases in the population as listed by the Census and as included in jobs reports include refugees and immigrants, both legal and illegal immigrants. From November 2013 to November 2014, the number of foreign born people in the "civilian noninstitutional population" of this country who are over 16 years old, not in the active military, not institutionalized (in prision or such places as nursing homes) has increased by 1,290,000. We gave refugee status to about 70,000 people so far in 2014, but that number include children.
So.. all numbers of breakdown by age, for instance, include all foreign born, including immigrants and refugees.
I strongly doubt your stats. Virtually every month of the Obama Presidency has run something like this: 150K add 357K Lost. February was 227K added, 357K Lost. My numbers aren't exact, but they don't have to be. Further, those are just jobs lost, they don't count those who the Government no longer count..... You would do much better to get your facts from www.shadowstats.com. Here's their link.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Your understanding of jobs numbers and BLS stats is unfortunately very poor, which means that you are easily duped by someone like the Shadow stats guy.
Delete"I strongly doubt your stats". My stats are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. Anyone can look at those numbers, even you, even the shadow stats guy:
BLS graph of nonfarm jobs
First of all, until very recently, the BLS, which is the agency from which the REAL jobs numbers come from, was directed by a guy appointed by Bush. Why would a guy appointed by Bush have any interest or need to lie for Obama?
Secondly, it's clear that you don't understand NET jobs numbers. Let's look at January, as the complete numbers for February are not yet available. In January 2013, 4,247,000 people were HIRED. Yes, over four million people were hired in January, not 119,000. 1,507,000 people were laid off or discharged in January, another 2,218,000 people quit their jobs. 376,000 people left their jobs for other reasons such as retirement.
Let's add and subtract: 4,247,000 people were hired; 4,101,000 people were "separated", most of them "voluntarily". That comes out to about 146,000 more people working, which is about 20,000 more than the latest revisions.
The jobs numbers that are reported every month are NET jobs numbers, such as I just tried to explain above. I don't know if you can understand this, but I tried. It's not 227,000 jobs added and 357,000 lost.. It's 4,247,000 jobs ADDED while 4,101,000 jobs LOST.
So.. just where does this number of 227,000 jobs added and 357,000 lost come from? I can't find it anywhere. Can you provide a link? It's not true, but unless you can provide a source, there is not much I can do. Why do you allow yourself to be lied to?
Now... the shadowstats guy. Again, why do you allow yourself to be deceived, lied to, and used? Here's what the shadowstats guy says at the link you provided:
" The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers."
O.K., a friend of yours who isn't working tells you that he/she really wants a job. You sit down with him and discuss options and possibilities. You say: "Hey, Joe, I think it is great that you want a job and sad that you can't find one. Where have you been looking for work?" "Well", he says, "I haven't looked for work for over two years now. I just don't think I can find a job."
What do you say to your dear friend, Mr. Webwild? Do you offer to help him update his resume? Do you suggest to him that perhaps the biggest reason he hasn't found a job is because he is not looking for work or applying for any jobs? Do you tell him, "Hey, Joe, the job situation still sucks but it is getting better. About five million people have gotten jobs in the past two years, but you can't get one unless you look."?
These are some of the people that the shadowstats guy is trying to add back as unemployed. I'll have to finish this tomorrow with more quotes about exactly what was changed back in 1994.
But really... How much sympathy are you going to have for a guy who claims that he wants a job... but hasn't looked for two or more years? Is the job fairy supposed to just come down and sit on his head and fly him off to an employer?
A few more stats:
ReplyDelete2,647,000 total jobs added from January 2001 to January 2009. We were shedding jobs in the hundreds of thousands every month when he left office.
Despite all of the job losses which continued into the first months of Obama's presidency, there are now 1,564,000 additional jobs from the time Obama took office.
Private jobs numbers under Bush: 54 months of private job growth under Bush before the housing bust hit: 7,338,000 private jobs at 136,000 a month.
Private jobs numbers under Obama: 37 months of private job growth so far: 6,488,000 private jobs at 175,000 a month.
In re your comment above: "Actually, we only need about 70,000 new jobs a month to deal with population growth for one big reason: Most of the population growth is in the 55 and over age group. They have a much lower "employment participation ratio" than people 25 through 54 years."
ReplyDeleteIn my language, population growth means the total population has gotten larger. With this definition, the population growth is not in the "over-55" group; rather the percent of the total population in that age group is growing.
This is leading to a question. What is the monthly or annual addition to the total working age population (let's define it as 18 and older)? What is the monthly or annual number of working age people leaving the workforce for whatever reason? If I use new entries minus the number leaving, will I get your number of 70,000 new jobs required per month?
Thanks.
You want to count 85 year old grandmas, people who are disabled, and other people who are retired as the "total working age population"? That's my point.
DeleteWhen the population is rapidly aging, as it has been for the past decade or so, you have to account for those kinds of changes in the labor force participation rate. Many of the people who are blathering on about the "drop in the labor participation rate" simply aren't making those kinds of adjustments.
Now.. let's take a step backwards. The population has gotten larger, so we do have population growth. The population growth is in the over-55 group and the percent of the total population in that age group is growing. In the last four years, since April 2009, we have added 9.9 million people to the "civilian non-institutional population 16+", which is the divisor or denominator of the labor force participation rate. So the population is growing overall.
The population of people 55+ has increased by 9.7 million in those same four years. So we certainly DO have population growth in the 55 and over group.
I have a link up there to my 70,000 a month calculations. Have you read through that?
I'll have to finish this tomorrow, but there are numbers that tell us what is happening to the civilian non-institutional population 16+.. How many who were employed are leaving the work force, how many who were not in the work force are entering the work force, etc. etc.
Hi. Thanks for pointing me to that link. No, I had not read that; yes, that is an excellent and thorough answer. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteStatistics are fun aren't they?
ReplyDeleteWith 364,000 new graduates(1) each month (2); And over 20,000 refugees/month and other 'immigrants:'
How is it we do not need more than 350,000 additional jobs per month to break even?
Additionally, with only 30% of the jobs created going to Americans, and the other 70% to immigrants, wouldn't we need 700,000 new jobs per month to keep American citizens employed? (3) Yes, they also talk about 40% of new jobs going to Americans. Not sure about how they compute that. But, that is why I used 700,000 new jobs, instead of 1.2 million.
Wayne
Luvsiesous
(1) Approximate
(2) rounded down, based upon CIA factbook yearly data for 15 to 24 year age group. And about 385/month leaving at the 65 year mark. Which btw, should have a much greater percentage of men working than women compared to the younger generation: right?
(3) http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/02/peter-morici/economist-immigrants-have-taken-all-new-jobs-creat/