Share these numbers with your Republican and Romney-supporting friends!
The 25 months of private sector job growth under Obama has provided more jobs as a percentage than the equivalent 25 months of private sector job growth under Bush. The margin is only a few hundredths of a percent (3.77% increase for Bush vs. 3.79% for Obama), but it does favor Obama.
Both George Bush and Barack Obama experienced economic and employment turmoil in the months after they took office.
Bush's problems
Though jobs numbers were still high when George Bush was inaugurated in January 2001, the dot.com bubble had burst, and jobs numbers were starting to decrease. This was exacerbated by the 9/11 terrorist attack that took place 8 months after his inauguration. Jobs numbers started plummeting downward and did not hit bottom until August 2003, two and a half years after Bush's presidency started. Job growth continued with few monthly declines for four years, until the last year of his presidency.
Obama's problems
Barack Obama assumed office with a MUCH more challenging economic situation. The housing bubble had burst two and a half years before he took office, and the repercussions were widely felt during the year before his election. Two months before the election, we faced a total collapse of the banking system and the stock market lost a higher percentage of value than it had since the Great Depression. 4,500,000 jobs had already been lost before he took the oath of office, including an average of 760,000 jobs lost monthly in each of the three months before he took office. Jobs numbers did not hit bottom for a year after he was inaugurated, not until February 2010. Private sector job growth has continued every month since that trough in early 2010, with now 25 months of private sector job growth.
How does job growth under these two presidents compare if we look at job growth since the bottom going forward 25 months?
We'll compare with and without government jobs. Government jobs, particularly at the state and local levels, have been hit hard with budget cutbacks after the recent recession and have not started to recover, and we may lose more as there is tremendous pressure to continue eliminating jobs at all government levels. However, private sector jobs have started to recover.
Total jobs (including government jobs):
Bush:
- At "trough" (August 2003): 129,820,000
- 25 months later (September 2005): 134,240,000
- Plus 4,420,000 jobs, for a total percentage increase of 3.4%.
- An average of 176,800 total jobs were added per month in those 25 months.
Obama:
- At "trough" (February 2010): 129,244,000
- 25 months later (March 2012): 132,821,000
- Plus 3,577,000 jobs, for a percentage increase of 2.8%.
- An average of 143,080 total jobs were added per month in those 25 months.
Bush still leads Obama overall due to an increase in government jobs during those years. During those first 25 months of recovery in 2003 through 2005, 325,000 jobs were added at all levels of government (federal, state, local). During the first 25 months of this recovery, we've had to cut 474,000 jobs, mostly in education and other services at the local (city, town, county) level. (And the Republicans say that the Democrats are the big government spenders?) However, in private sector jobs, Obama's record has started to eclipse Bush's record and is now ahead of him as a percentage increase:
Total private jobs:
Bush:
- At "trough" (July 2003): 108,232,000
- 25 months later (August 2005): 112,311,000
- Plus 4,079,000 jobs, for a percentage increase of 3.77%.
- An average of 163,160 private sector jobs were added each month during those 25 months.
Obama:
- At "trough" (February 2010): 106,773,000
- 25 months later (March 2012): 110,824,000
- Plus 4,051,000 jobs, for a percentage increase of 3.79%
- An average of 162,040 private sector jobs were added each month during those 25 months.
What might have been....
We can only imagine how many more jobs we'd have and how much farther we'd be on the way to recovery without obstructionist Republicans waging war on public education, particularly at the state and local levels.
Other Comparisons of Jobs Numbers Between Bush and Obama:
I came across the following comment about the labor force and job growth during the Bush years. My explanation and rebut is below the comment:
Obama is actually doing better in terms of creating jobs, coming from a much worse jobs situation, than Bush at the same point in his presidency. You talk about 6 million jobs created under Bush: From the "trough" of jobs under Bush, in summer 2003, until the "peak" of jobs in January 2008, when everything started to crash, 8.2 million jobs were created. But most of those were created during Bush's second term. At the same time from the "trough" of jobs, 26 months after hitting bottom, in September 2005 (in Bush's second term), 4,500,000 jobs had been created. But private job creation in that same time frame was only 4,163,000 compared to 4,248,000 private sector jobs now, in 26 months, under Obama.
There is no evidence that the "rate of increase" of people not in the labor force became steeper the day Obama took office. The number and rate of people "not in the labor force" has continued to grow since the late 90's as the number of people 55+ has increased. The pace of retirements has been accelerated by the recession, but blaming this on Obama is just plain silly. For heaven's sake, Republicans, let's let people retire! 47,000,000 out of the 89,000,000 people "not in the labor force" (not employed or actively looking for work) are 55+.
Other Comparisons of Jobs Numbers Between Bush and Obama:
I came across the following comment about the labor force and job growth during the Bush years. My explanation and rebut is below the comment:
The number of Americans 'not in the labor force' had risen steadily under Bush (although Bush did also create millions of net jobs - six million in his second term, which is rather more impressive than Obama's net 129,000 to date) - but the rate of its increase became steeper the day Obama was sworn in and has kept up that accelerated pace since (which is why there are now nearly 90 million Americans 'not in the labor force' but conveniently omitted from headline unemployment stats).The "number of people not in the labor force", the inverse of the number of people IN the labor force, did go up throughout Bush's term as it continues to go up now.
Obama is actually doing better in terms of creating jobs, coming from a much worse jobs situation, than Bush at the same point in his presidency. You talk about 6 million jobs created under Bush: From the "trough" of jobs under Bush, in summer 2003, until the "peak" of jobs in January 2008, when everything started to crash, 8.2 million jobs were created. But most of those were created during Bush's second term. At the same time from the "trough" of jobs, 26 months after hitting bottom, in September 2005 (in Bush's second term), 4,500,000 jobs had been created. But private job creation in that same time frame was only 4,163,000 compared to 4,248,000 private sector jobs now, in 26 months, under Obama.
There is no evidence that the "rate of increase" of people not in the labor force became steeper the day Obama took office. The number and rate of people "not in the labor force" has continued to grow since the late 90's as the number of people 55+ has increased. The pace of retirements has been accelerated by the recession, but blaming this on Obama is just plain silly. For heaven's sake, Republicans, let's let people retire! 47,000,000 out of the 89,000,000 people "not in the labor force" (not employed or actively looking for work) are 55+.
Obama may have more private sector job growth than G.bush, but Bush overall had created more jobs. The really only major spike Obama had was when the census was being done in 2010, but then all those jobs were lost when the census was over. Bushs' unemployment was 7.3 at the end of his second term. Obama's is now is 8.1; it hit 10 percent seven months into his presidency. people who can't find jobs for two years will be taken off the record of unemployment, so there are probably more jobless people than Obama can take credit for.
ReplyDeleteAt this time in their respective presidencies, Bush was down 856,000 jobs (August 2004), and Obama is down 261,000 jobs. Bush came in with a much lower unemployment rate than Obama inherited. The economy was losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took over. The unemployment rate under Bush was already 7.8% when Bush left office, not 7.3%. You need more accurate sources of information.
DeleteI have more posts with data and graphs comparing Obama and Bush: First, at the bottom of the monthly unemployment report HERE.
Second, HERE is a more comprehensive and recent update to this article which dates back to April (using March data).
And, no, your last statement is completely wrong. If people can't find work but actively look for years they are counted and always have been. The duration REPORTED has changed from 2 years up to 5 years, but people who are looking for work are always and have always been counted as officially unemployed.
As I said, you need some better sources of information.
Clarifying the above a bit:
DeleteAt this time in their respective presidencies, Bush was down 856,000 jobs (August 2004), and Obama is down 261,000 jobs. Bush came in with a much lower unemployment rate than Obama inherited. The economy was losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took over. The unemployment rate under Bush was already 7.8% when Bush left office, not 7.3%. Jobs and unemployment numbers reflect activity as of the 12th of the month. Therefore, all jobs and unemployment numbers for January 2009 fall in the Bush column. You need more accurate sources of information.
I have more posts with data and graphs comparing Obama and Bush: First, at the bottom of the monthly unemployment report to which I posted the link above.
Second, I posted a link to a more comprehensive and recent update above. This article, the article you are reading now, dates back to April (using March data).
And, no, your last statement is completely wrong. If people can't find work but actively look for years they are counted as unemployed and always have been. There is no limit on the number of months or years that someone can report themselves as unemployed as long as they make one active attempt to find work during the month.
The duration REPORTED has changed from 2 years up to 5 years, but people who are looking for work are always and have always been counted as officially unemployed.
As I said, you need some better sources of information.