JUNE BLS: +288,000 jobs, Unemployment rate declines to 6.1%. Details HERE Jobs since Obama took office? HERE Unemp. rate under Obama? HERE

Friday, May 4, 2012

How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? (April 2012 update)

How Many Jobs Were Lost in Obama's First 3 Months in Office?


The following numbers are as of APRIL 2012.  For the latest numbers, please click one of the links above!



How has Obama done on jobs?  
3,745,000 gained since "trough" of recession.

How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?
4,248,000 gained since the "trough" of the recession.

26 months of private-sector job growth.
19 months of over all job growth.

Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 26 months?
No net jobs have been lost since September 2010 (19 months) when the last of the Census 2010 workers were let go.

Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past
26 months?  NO.  

(Explanations below.  Keep reading.)


How many jobs have been lost or gained during the Obama administration?  Have more new jobs been created or have more jobs been lost under Obama to date?   

Summary:  We are still in negative territory in terms of jobs numbers since Obama took office.  We still have 572,000 FEWER jobs (total) now than when Obama was inaugurated, but we now have 35,000 MORE private-sector jobs than when Obama was inaugurated.  (You can find updates to these numbers HERE!.) 

However, we are now adding jobs at a fair clip, with an average of 171,000 MORE jobs  total added per month since December 2010, and an average of  188,000 MORE jobs added per month in the private sector since December 2010.

Here's a summary of data from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics).  All numbers lost to the "trough" of the recession reflect ALL non-farm jobs lost between the time Obama took office and the lowest point of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 :
(Note:  All of the jobs numbers are NET numbers.  In other words, we know that jobs are lost and added every month, in good years and in bad.  The numbers reported here, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, are "net" numbers; that is, the number of jobs gained after the number of jobs lost is subtracted, or the number of jobs lost after the number of jobs gained is added.)  
Seasonally adjusted:
  • All jobs lost from the time Obama took office to "trough" (bottom of recession): .....4,317,000
  • All jobs gained since "trough": ....3,745,000


    Net LOSS in seasonally-adjusted jobs since Obama took office: .... 572,000                     

    "Raw:" numbers not seasonally adjusted:
    • Jobs lost from the time Obama took office to trough: .....4,246,000                                                    
    • Jobs gained since "trough": .......5,658,000


      Net GAINED in raw unadjusted jobs since Obama took office: ..... 1,412,000 

      *Though, as of April 2012, we still have fewer jobs (in adjusted numbers) than when President Obama took office, jobs are being added at a faster clip under Obama than under George Bush at the same time in his presidency.  At this point in Bush's presidency (April 2004), there were still 1,415,000 fewer jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 572,000 fewer for Obama).  The number of jobs didn't eclipse the number when Bush was first inaugurated until February 2005, in Bush's second term.  

      How many private sector jobs have been gained or lost since Obama took office?

      Seasonally adjusted:
      • Private-sector jobs lost to "trough" (bottom of recession): .....4,212,000
      • Private-sector jobs gained since "trough": .....4,248,000
               
      *(This is the number often used by Obama and the Democrats as the number of private jobs created since the "trough" of the recession .  It is a correct number, but it is a seasonally-adjusted number.  In "real" unadjusted numbers, 5,630,000 private sector jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession.)
        
      Net GAIN in seasonally-adjusted private-sector jobs since Obama took office: ....35,000                      



      "Raw:" numbers not seasonally adjusted: 
      • Private-sector jobs lost to "trough": .....4,151,000 
      • Private-sector jobs gained since "trough": .....5,630,000                          
      Net GAIN in "raw" unadjusted private-sector jobs since Obama took office: .....1,479,000  

      *Though, as of April 2012, we still have fewer private-sector jobs (in adjusted numbers) than when President Obama took office, jobs are being added at a faster clip under Obama than under George Bush at the same time in his presidency.  At this point in Bush's presidency (April 2004), there were still 2,194,000 fewer private sector jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 35,000 MORE for Obama).  The number of private-sector jobs didn't eclipse the number when Bush was first inaugurated until June 2005, in Bush's second term.     

      Summary of April jobs activity: 

      Jobs increased 115,000 in total in April 2012 (vs. a revised increase of 154,000 in March). Private sector jobs continued to increase while government sector jobs continued to decrease. Private sector jobs increased by 130,000 (vs. a revised increase of 166,000 in March), while government jobs decreased by 15,000 (vs. a revised decrease of 12,000 in March).  

      Is it true that over 4 million private sector jobs have been created in the Obama administration as the Democrats claim?

      (Summary of gross and net jobs activity since Obama was inaugurated is below the jump---  Keep reading!)


      Yes, if one is looking at numbers created from the bottom ("trough") of the recession.  In fact, that number is now low.  In seasonally adjusted numbers as of April 2012, 4,248,000 private-sector jobs have been created since the bottom of the recession.   (Remember that job loss continued for about a year after Obama was inaugurated.)

      Have any private jobs been lost over the past 26 months?


      Remember that these are NET job gains.  In other words, jobs are lost and jobs are gained all of the time, in good economies and in bad.  In growing economies, more jobs are gained over a period of months than are lost.  In declining economies, more jobs are lost over a period of months than are gained.  Over the past 26 months, we have a net gain (more jobs gained than lost) of 4,248,000 private sector jobs, and a net gain (more jobs gained than lost) of 3,745,000 total jobs.  In NET terms, NO jobs have been lost over the past 26 months; we have only added jobs.


      How many workers have been laid off or hired (net) during the Obama administration?  

      Seasonally adjusted:  
      • Fewer people working (net) to "trough" : .....4,219,000 
      • More people working (net) since "trough": ....3,869,000      
      Net LOSS in seasonally-adjusted number of people working since Obama took office: .....322,000                    



      "Raw:" numbers not seasonally adjusted:
      • Fewer workers to "trough": .......3,627,000
      • More workers since "trough": .....5,186,000
      Net GAIN in "raw" unadjusted number of people working since Obama took office:    .....1,559,000        

      Can you summarize the above?
      • Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 when the economy was in free fall and we were losing about 700,000 jobs a month.  Over 4,400,000 jobs were lost before Obama took office.  
      • The employment situation did not bottom out until late 2009 or early 2010.  An additional 4,300,000 jobs were lost between the time that Obama took office and the bottom ("trough") of the recession.  
      • That's a total job loss of at least 8,700,000 jobs over approximately 2 years.
      • Since the economy started to add jobs under Obama, 3,745,000 jobs have been added using seasonally-adjusted numbers (See below). 
      • Since the economy started to add jobs under Obama, 5,630,000 jobs have been added using "real" unadjusted numbers.  
      • We still need more jobs to overcome the loss of jobs that started in 2008 and to make up for the increase in population since 2008.  Please remember that over 49,000,000 people were laid off between Spring of 2008 and the end of 2009, even though people continued to be hired during that time. 
      • However, we now have MORE private-sector jobs in seasonally adjusted numbers than we did when Obama took office, and we now haveMORE people reporting themselves as working in unadjusted numbers than we did when Obama took office, and we are approaching that point in all numbers of jobs and workers. 

      How did you come up with these numbers?  Why isn't there one number instead of all of these?    



      Counting jobs or workers is very tricky. In seasonal numbers, we lost more jobs and workers in the first year of Obama's administration (4.3 million jobs lost), when the economy was struggling to pull out of recession, than we gained during the second and third years of Obama's administration when we experienced job growth.   In this fourth year of Obama's administration, however, we are now ahead of the numbers of jobs and workers when Obama took office in private jobs numbers and in most seasonally unadjusted numbers of workers and jobs. 


      Job growth was brisk in the first months of 2011, slowed down towards the middle of the year, then picked up during the last months of the year.  Job growth has slowed a bit this spring, but has continued nonetheless.  Private sector job growth continued throughout 2011 into 2012.  We now have 26 months straight of private sector job growth.  

      There's usually no one number that explains everything, and most monthly numbers need to be seen as "trends", not absolutes.  People use the unemployment rate, but even that can vary for so many reasons that don't really reflect the true state of the labor market.

      A few explanations and more detail:


      What is a "trough"?  When did we hit the low point of jobs and workers?  When did we hit the high point of unemployment? 

      I use the term "trough" to designate the lowest point of jobs or workers in this recession.  The various counts reach their "troughs" in various months, so it may be a bit confusing.  The unemployment rate reached its high point in October 2009.  The seasonally adjusted number of workers reached its low point in December 2009, but so many workers had dropped out of the work force that the unemployment rate had actually come down.  In raw, unadjusted numbers of workers and jobs, we reached our nadir in January 2010.  The seasonally-adjusted number of jobs reached its low point a month later, in February 2010. 

      How Many Jobs were Lost from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of jobs lost?
      • In seasonally adjusted numbers, employers reported 133,561,000 jobs in January 2009.  At the trough of the recession in February 2010, there were 129,244,000 jobs.  That's a loss of 4,317,000 jobs from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession. 
      • In "raw" numbers (not adjusted for seasonal variances), employers reported 131,555,000 jobs in January 2009.  At the trough of the recession in January 2010, there were 127,309,000 jobs.  That's loss of  4,246,000 jobs from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession. 

      How Many Fewer Were Employed from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of employment?
      • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 142,187,000 people reported themselves as employed in January 2009.  At the trough of the recession in December 2009, 137,968,000 people reported themselves as employed.  That's a loss of 4,219,000 employed people from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession.
      • In "raw" numbers (not adjusted for seasonal variances), 140,436,000 people reported themselves as employed in January 2009.  At the trough of the recession in January 2010, 136,809,000 people reported themselves as employed.  That's a loss of 3,627,000 employed people from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession. 


      What was the unemployment rate when Obama took office?  How high did it go? 
      • For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,049,000 people reported themselves as unemployed and actively looking.  In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was already 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work.
      • At the trough of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 10.0% in October 2009 with 15,421,000 people (out of a labor force of about 153,822,000) reporting themselves as unemployed.  In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000 (out of a labor force of about 153,000,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work.
      • Now, in April 2012, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 8.1%, which is less than the March 2012  unemployment rate with 12,500,000 (out of a labor force of 154,365,000) reporting themselves as unemployed.  In unadjusted "raw" numbers, the unemployment rate is now 7.7%, a decrease of .7% (seven-tenths of a percent) compared to the unadjusted unemployment rate in March 2012.  (Remember, the unadjusted unemployment rate was 8.5% when Obama was inaugurated.)  



      How many jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 to now, April 2012?
      • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 3,945,000 jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession in February 2010.
      • In raw unadjusted numbers, 5,658,000 jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession in January 2010.



      How many more people reported they were working since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 to now, April 2012?  
      • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 3,897,000 more people are working since the trough of the recession in December 2009.
      • In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 5,186,000 more people are working since the trough of the recession in January 2010.

      How Many New Jobs That President Obama Claims to Create Have Been Lost Now?

      Many people find my blog as they attempt to figure out how many jobs have been LOST under President Obama.  The above is one such question that someone is trying to answer.

      For the benefit of this person and others with similar questions about job loss under Obama, let me make this clear:  Since February 2010, we have had NO net losses in private-sector jobs.  Since September 2010, after all Census 2010 workers were released, we have had NO net losses in total jobs.

      ALL JOBS LOSSES took place in the FIRST YEAR of Obama's presidency.
       Look at the chart of private sector job growth HERE.  You should then get the picture. 
      (Note:  All of my employment number reports are based on monthly reports and data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Monthly numbers reports are based on the monthly Employment Situation Report.  The Employment Situation report includes month over month and year over year numbers of jobs and workers.  My analysis is taken from the monthly BLS data copied to an Excel spreadsheet every month.  I calculate detailed percentage increases/decreases, 3 month numbers, 2011 to date numbers, and I compare jobs numbers to those at the time of Obama's inauguration and at the "trough" of the recession.  As the BLS revises its numbers as new information is available, I use the latest available numbers in my monthly articles, which means that those numbers may differ slightly from numbers published in previous months.)

      20 comments:

      1. Plus you have to remember the first year of Obama'a presidency was still George W's policies. I do not know if you calculated that in

        ReplyDelete
        Replies
        1. I am using jobs numbers from the beginning of Obama's term, but you raise a very good point.

          There is much discussion about when one should start "counting" an incoming President's effect on jobs or any kind of economic policy. Some say that everything that happens during the entire first fiscal year, from January 20 when the new President takes office, until September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, should fall under the outgoing President's balance sheet. Others say three months or six months.

          There is no common standard, but it is good to note that at least for some period of months, a new president is at the mercy of his predecessor. The U.S. economy is a mighty big ship, and it isn't easy or quick to turn it in any direction.

          Delete
      2. How many now working are working 2 jobs or under-employed? How are you figuring seasonal numbers?

        ReplyDelete
      3. How much more (or less) are those working actually making? Losing a $50,000 job, and replacing it by working two jobs that total
        $40,000, by your calculations would double the number of jobs. But the worker's total income is 20% less than he was making. You can spin the numbers to make them say anything you want. In November, the voters will tell you what is really happening.

        ReplyDelete
        Replies
        1. I answered this below as well, but my answer may have been buried in that long comment. Average hourly earnings, average weekly earnings, and the index of weekly payrolls (compared to 2007) are all up over last year. This means that, while some people certainly are trying to make up for a higher paying job by working two lower paying jobs, that isn't really widespread. The number of people working two jobs is DOWN since 2007 and 2008, and the average weekly and hourly wages per ONE job are up.

          Delete
      4. The number of people working two jobs went down a bit during the worst of the recession and now it has gone back up. Back in 2007, it was about 5.4%, then down to about 4.8%, and now back up to about 5.0%. I just looked at the multiple job holders numbers back in the late 1990's and that percentage was in the 6's% range back then.

        There are more people working two jobs when the economy is better, so an increase in the number of people working multiple jobs is a good sign.

        Now the following numbers are all up over last year: Average weekly hours, average overtime hours, average hourly earnings, average weekly earnings, index of weekly payrolls compared to 2007.

        If you didn't have any complaints about Bush in terms of jobs in 2004, then you should like Obama. In a much worse recession, he is ahead of Bush at the same time in his presidency in number of jobs created.

        Romney is Bush III; actually he is worse than Bush II. Why would the country go back to the policies that pushed us off of the cliff five years ago? And why are you so gullible that you don't see the Republicans for who and what they are? Why do you want this country to go down the tubes and become a place in which only the wealthy and the lucky thrive and everybody else lives and dies like a Middle Age peasant?

        ReplyDelete
      5. We were already at the bottom of the cliff. When are all the people realizing what will happen to them if they vote for Romney. To me it sounds like he thinks 30 years back!! And like they say." You keep repeating the same lies over and over, you will believe them yourself, and that is what Romney does. He is out for hinself, and the rest of us???...... Suffer peole I got yah!!!!!! But it is to late to turn back, at least for the next 4 years I will put all of you in the poor house, but I am getting richer by the minute".!

        ReplyDelete
        Replies
        1. Though I try to keep my jobs numbers (and posts about them) objective, I share your concerns about Romney. Also, his jobs record in Mass was not very good. Massachusetts has traditionally had a lower unemployment rate than the nation as a whole... except during the Mitt Romney years. A year after Romney was gone, the unemployment rate dropped to below the national average again. I don't know what was going on there to cause this disturbing trend during those four years.

          Delete
      6. I know that most liberals want to walk that same line of claiming that Bush's policies pushed us off some cliff. The problem with Bush was his push for the War on Terror and the continued costs of the wars. The cliff that we fell off was because of policies enacted during Jimmy Carter's presidency and expanded upon during Clinton's terms. The Community Reinvestment Act gave incentives to banks to lend money to borrowers that couldn't generally afford the mortgages they received. Under lowered standards homes were purchased by individuals that would not be able to afford their homes if they were to stop appreciating to the point that owner's could sell and get out. It was a constant gamble that didn't backfire until the bubble burst in 2008. Bushes policies did not create those issues.

        ReplyDelete
      7. Jimmy Carter and the CRA? You believe that and you expect others to believe that as well? I'll post more about this later, but you need a better source of information.

        ReplyDelete
        Replies
        1. The CRA was not the problem: encouraging people to be able to have homes if they had income and something down, the American dream. The problem was that banks/investment houses saw a way to make bunches of money by selling as many mortgages as they could--regardless of people's ability to pay, allowing investors to buy 2nd through 20 properties with nothing down, and bundling the whole mess and selling them for great bucks and taking the money and running away. By the way, banks allowed people to buy far beyond their means, including some nice middle class working folks (in my family), betting that the market would keep going up. Nothing can go up forever. This situation is very likely to repeat itself unless we get decent restrictions in place, which so far Congress has not been willing to do.

          Delete
      8. Picking and choosing start dates in incorrect accounting. Here is a scenario. You have $1000 in stock on Jan 1. It goes down to $500 in July. It goes back up to $1000 on Dec 31. Do you have a 100% growth, as Obama's math dictates, or zero growth? You tell me!

        ReplyDelete
        Replies
        1. This report is from April. On my later posts, I offer jobs numbers from several sets of dates so that the reader has complete information.

          How Many Jobs Lost or Gained under Obama? (August update)

          Delete
        2. I'm copying something that I posted above when someone mentioned that, during the first months of Obama's tenure, we were still "under" Bush's policies.

          "I am using jobs numbers from the beginning of Obama's term, but you raise a very good point.

          There is much discussion about when one should start "counting" an incoming President's effect on jobs or any kind of economic policy. Some say that everything that happens during the entire first fiscal year, from January 20 when the new President takes office, until September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, should fall under the outgoing President's balance sheet. Others say three months or six months.

          There is no common standard, but it is good to note that at least for some period of months, a new president is at the mercy of his predecessor. The U.S. economy is a mighty big ship, and it isn't easy or quick to turn it in any direction."

          Delete
      9. A detailed look at the government's own data base shows that about 9 million people without jobs have been removed from the labor force simply by the government defining them as not being in the labor force anymore. Indeed - effectively all of the decreases in unemployment rate percentages since 2009 have come not from new jobs, but through reducing the workforce participation rate so that millions of jobless people are removed from the labor force by definition.When we pierce through this statistical smoke and mirrors and factor back in those 9 million jobless whom the government has defined out of existence, then the true unemployment rate is 19.9% and rising, and not 7.7% and falling.”

        ReplyDelete
        Replies
        1. Absolute garbage. Don't comment on things you know nothing about.

          Delete
      10. I miss the first six years of bush before the democrat majority. we had to many jobs on the street now everything is being sucked up the governments fat butt.

        ReplyDelete
        Replies
        1. Your memory is poor; unfortunately you have been brainwashed and befuddled by the righties in this country.

          The first years of the Bush administration were wracked by a recession and the first time I ever heard the term "jobless recovery" was back during 2003 or 2004. The unemployment never dropped as low as it was during the Clinton years, and any recovery was based on the overheated housing market, overheated in large part due to lax oversight of mortgage institutions, banks, and hedge funds, which allowed financiers to turn our economy into a casino. Not surprising that it all collapsed in 2006, BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress.

          I knew people who were looking for work in 2003 and 2004, and those were certainly not boom years.

          You need to get your information from better sources; the right wingers in charge of Fox, talk radio, and the right wing blogs want you to be stupid.

          Delete
      11. So first of all, ones most crucial instrument whenever spinning ones CURRICULUM VITAE can be your likely employer's outline on the Jobs administrative you need to sign up for.

        ReplyDelete

      I appreciate intelligent comments and questions, including those that are at odds with anything posted here. I have elected not to screen comments before they are published; however, any comments that are in any way insulting, caustic, or intentionally inflammatory will be deleted without notice. Spam will also be immediately deleted.