The following are numbers as of May 2012. For latest numbers, please click one of the above links.
How has Obama done on jobs?
3,765,000 gained since "trough" of recession.
How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?
4,268,000 gained since the "trough" of the recession.
27 months of private-sector job growth.
20 months of over all job growth.
Have any jobs been lost over the past 27 months?
(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?
However, we are now adding jobs at a fair clip, with an average of 156,600 MORE jobs total added per month since December 2010, and an average of 173,600 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": ....3,765,000
"Raw:" numbers not seasonally adjusted:
- Jobs lost from the time Obama took office to trough: .....4,246,000
- Jobs gained since "trough": .......6,418,000
Net GAIN in raw unadjusted jobs since Obama took office: ..... 2,172,000
*Though, as of May 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. When Bush took office, there were 132,466,000 jobs in total. At this point in Bush's presidency (May 2004), there were 131,361,000 jobs in total, still 1,105,000 FEWER jobs than when Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 552,000 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": .....4,268,000
*(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, 6,404,000 private sector jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession.)
Net GAIN in seasonally-adjusted private-sector jobs since Obama took office: ....55,000
"Raw:" numbers not seasonally adjusted:
- Private-sector jobs lost to "trough": .....4,151,000
- Private-sector jobs gained since "trough": .....6,404,000
Net GAIN in "raw" unadjusted private-sector jobs since Obama took office: .....2,253,000
*Though, as of May 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. When Bush took office, there were 111,631,000 private sector jobs. At this point in Bush's presidency (May 2004), there were 109,747,000 private sector jobs, 1,884,000 FEWER private sector jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 (compared to 55,000 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 May jobs activity:
Jobs increased 69,000 in total in May 2012 (vs. a revised increase of 77,000 in April). Private sector jobs continued to increase while government sector jobs continued to decrease. Private sector jobs increased by 82,000 (vs. a revised increase of 87,000 in March), while government jobs decreased by 13,000 (vs. a revised decrease of 10,000 in April). These numbers are not very encouraging, but it is important to remember that they are seasonally adjusted numbers and the number of jobs and the number of people who have jobs in May is higher than 69,000 (see below). Also, a year ago in May, we added only 54,000 seasonally adjusted jobs, but wound up adding 1,800,000 jobs for the year anyway.
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 May 2012, 4,268,000 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 jobs been lost over the past 27 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 27 months, we have a net gain (more jobs gained than lost) of 4,268,000 private sector jobs, and a net gain (more jobs gained than lost) of 3,765,000 total jobs. In NET terms, NO private sector jobs have been lost over the past 27 months; we have only added jobs. In NET terms, NO jobs in total have been lost over the past 20 months; we have only added jobs.
How can it be that we haven't lost jobs when the pundits went totally bananas over these recent jobs reports?
The jobs numbers are not what was expected. And we need to add more jobs to recover those lost in the recession and to accommodate the growing population. So while no jobs have been lost, these jobs gains are not seen as sufficient.
Have any jobs been lost over the past 27 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 27 months, we have a net gain (more jobs gained than lost) of 4,268,000 private sector jobs, and a net gain (more jobs gained than lost) of 3,765,000 total jobs. In NET terms, NO private sector jobs have been lost over the past 27 months; we have only added jobs. In NET terms, NO jobs in total have been lost over the past 20 months; we have only added jobs.
How can it be that we haven't lost jobs when the pundits went totally bananas over these recent jobs reports?
The jobs numbers are not what was expected. And we need to add more jobs to recover those lost in the recession and to accommodate the growing population. So while no jobs have been lost, these jobs gains are not seen as sufficient.
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": ....4,318,000
Net GAIN in seasonally-adjusted number of people working since Obama took office: .....100,000
"Raw:" numbers not seasonally adjusted:
- Fewer workers to "trough": .......3,627,000
- More workers since "trough": .....5,918,000
Net GAIN in "raw" unadjusted number of people working since Obama took office: .....2,291,000
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, 3,765,000 jobs have been added using seasonally-adjusted numbers (See below).
- Since the economy started to add jobs under Obama, 6,418,000 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 have MORE people reporting themselves as working in both adjusted and 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, 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 and into early 2012. Over the last three months, job growth has slowed, but has continued nonetheless. Private sector job growth has continued throughout 2011 into 2012. We now have 27 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 a loss of 4,246,000 jobs from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession.
- 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 May 2012, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 8.2%, which is slightly more than the March 2012 unemployment rate with 12,720,000 (out of a labor force of 155,007,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. In unadjusted "raw" numbers, the unemployment rate is now 7.9%, an increase of .2% (two-tenths of a percent) compared to the unadjusted unemployment rate in April 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, May 2012?
- In seasonally adjusted numbers, 3,765,000 jobs have been created since the "trough" of the recession in February 2010.
- In raw unadjusted numbers, 6,418,000 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, May 2012?
- In seasonally adjusted numbers, 4,450,000 more people are working since the trough of the recession in November 2009.
- In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 5,128,000 more people are working since the trough of the recession in January 2010.
(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.)
Obama can't really count any of the jobs that may have been created during fiscal year 2008. Since he says those stimulus dollars were from the Bush budget, I guess Bush should get credit for those jobs. Can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteMy answer is right below your comment, Anonymous.
DeleteWe were still losing jobs in FY 2009 (which started in October 2008). Obama was not in office at all during FY 2008, and he wasn't inaugurated until month 4 of FY 2009, which started in October 2008.
ReplyDeleteThat would mean, then, that Obama's count of jobs should start in October 2009. Some economists do believe that this is the appropriate time to start looking at the current President's, in this case, Obama's record.
If so, if we used October 2009 as the starting point for counting jobs, that would mean that 8,491,000 jobs were lost during FY 2008 and FY 2009.
That would mean that, in net job loss/job gain, Obama would have a 3,477,000 gain so far instead of still a 552,000 loss.
It would mean, in private sector jobs, we'd be up 4,038,000 net, not just 55,000.
So, Anonymous, all of those numbers would work much better for the Obama team. Thanks for the suggestion!
To update this a bit: If we were using jobs numbers starting in FY2010, Obama's first full fiscal year in office, Obama would have a total jobs gain of 3,511,000 now. He would have a private job gain of 4,083,000.
DeleteI'm sorry mca, but this is one of the most know-nothing comments I have ever received here.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the "labor board"? Since you seem to believe they have more accurate numbers, can you provide a link? My numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the government site that collects and reports employment and unemployment numbers.
Also, the CBO consistently states that the stimulus was a success. And how could Obama outsource?
Where do you get your information? Unless you come back with some solid links, I will delete your comment.
I don't mind opposing idea or even controversial comments, but I don't see any point in arguing with people who know nothing.
So.. I'll wait a week. Come back with credible links and solid information, otherwise this comment goes.
I will address one other completely false thing you said: "And remember, Obama stopped counting the people who no longer receive unemployment compensation (because it made him look worse), putting the real unemployment above 14%."
I have several articles that discuss the calculation of the unemployment rate.. with links to the BLS website, the people that actually calculate the unemployment rate. Try this one:
How the Unemployment Rate is Calculated
One week. Then this comment goes.
I didn't get rid of his comment. Still deciding whether to keep it or to toss it.
DeleteHow does 136 million (jan'01) minus 138.6 million (apr'04) equal a NEGATIVE 1.4 million as you claim???
ReplyDelete[ 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 ]
Answer below.
DeleteI don't know where you came up with those numbers. It appears that you are looking at numbers of people who were employed and not looking at numbers of jobs. These numbers come from two different sources and show two different things. The number of people employed is self-reported, so it is generally more volatile than the numbers of jobs, even when seasonally adjusted. I'll come back with the link that explains the difference a little later.
ReplyDeleteBut, if you are looking at numbers of employed people, you are a bit off. In January 2001, there were 137,778,000 people who were employed. In April 2004, there were 138,680,000 people who were employed. That's an increase of 902,000 people employed.
In January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people employed. In April 2012, there were 141,865,000 people employed, so that's 322,000 lower.
As of April 2012, Bush wins the "number employed since beginning of term" contest.
OK, so from Jan 01 @ 137,778,000 people were employed.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bush left office in Jan 09 the number was 142,187,000. That's an increase of 4.4M under Bush.
That shows for 8 years straight jobs were being created. Now take the last 3+ years; Obama started with 142,187,000 and now currently holds a total loss of jobs @ 322K. At this rate alone we can not afford another 4 more years. oh you want to say but Obama is creating more jobs? where and how? even his Job Czar CEO of General Electric has closed plants down in WI and is building new factories in CHINA! And this is NOT outsourcing?
A lot of right-wing talking points in there, Mark. Do you ever check any of this stuff out or do you just buy it all, lock, stock, and barrel?
ReplyDeleteNo, jobs weren't being created for 8 straight years under Bush. Between the time Bush took office and January 2002, 2,000,000 people stopped working.
Then the number of employed people started to go up as the economy improved. About 10,900,000 more people reported themselves as working between January 2002 and November 2007. However, between November 2007 and January 2009, when Obama took office, 4,400,000 people stopped working as the economy tanked.
Now Obama took office in circumstances that were much, much worse than the circumstances that Bush inherited. The number of employed people was still growing when Bush took office, but Obama took office when employment was decreasing at a frightening rate, as I just mentioned, 4,400,000 people stopped working in a span of 14 months. Employment continued to decline as another 4,200,000 workers stopped working in the first 11 months of Obama's term, which is not surprising. The rate of job or employment loss did slow within the first 3 months of Obama's term.
Finally the number of people employed bottomed out in December 2009. Since that time, we have added (as of June 2012) 4,400,000 people working.
No reasonable person can compare Bush's 8 years with Obama's 3 1/2 years, particularly since they inherited such different economies. Digging out of the mess that Obama inherited is much more difficult than anything that Bush had to deal with employment-wise.
(Could you compare the economy that FDR inherited to the economy that Bush or Reagan inherited?)
But we can compare employment under the two Presidents either from the time they took office to now, the 41st month in office, or we can compare employment under the two Presidents from the time the recovery in employment started to now, which is the 30th month of recovery in employment numbers.
So I'll do that in a blog entry, as it is time to update the Bush/Obama comparisons.
And find a reputable link that shows that GE CLOSED any plants in Wisconsin. They are expanding in China for the Chinese market, as are most large American corporations, but GE has not closed any plants in Wisconsin.
Molly LOL Mark was using the same measure you used to promote Obamas job growth.
DeleteThats the problem with those that support Obama, they cant stand using the same measure. That would be fair - and we cant have that now can we?
All you can do is change the subject ;)
Your comment makes no sense. What "same measure"? I worked through his numbers and issues point by point.
DeleteMore detail, please, as to what "same measure" you are talking about, otherwise I will delete your comment. I'm in no mood to tolerate Republican ignoramuses these days.
I thought the issue with GE was they were creating plants & Jobs in China, not the USA? GE's move to China may be good for GE and China, but Imelt, CEO of GE, is on Obama's Jobs Council, tasked with creating US jobs. Moving the headquarters of its X-ray business to Beijing seems duplicitous. Arguably, GE claims no US jobs will be lost, but none will be gained either. The Obama administration (Imelt in particular) should be proactive in promoting US jobs.
ReplyDeleteAll major American-based corporations are expanding into China to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding Chinese market, thunderbolt.
ReplyDeleteThe President's Job Council was an attempt to gather American CEO's and others together to talk about ways of improving the numbers of U.S. jobs. It's unclear to me whether or not this council has been of any help to the President or the U.S. as a whole in the quest to add more jobs, though I certainly wouldn't blame that on Obama.
Though GE did not close the Xray division, they did move four of its top executives to China, and they have said they moved the headquarters of the Xray business to China.
I'm not sure that I would call the panel on "Jobs and competitiveness" part of the Obama administration; it is an outside council. Immelt has said that he is a Republican, and Obama has attempted to reach out to business and Republicans.
This is a summary of GE's workforce in the year 2011:
"GE's U.S. work force is something of a sensitive issue for Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, who serves as chairman of President Barack Obama's jobs and competitiveness council and has urged business leaders to do more to spur domestic job growth.
The company employed 131,000 people in the U.S. at the end of last year, down 1.5% from 133,000 at the end of 2010.
Still, GE noted the figures were affected by the sale of its majority stake in NBC Universal to Comcast Corp., CMCSK -2.30% after which 12,000 U.S.-based NBC workers were no longer classified as GE employees. Excluding that, GE said its U.S. work force would have been up by 10,000, or 8.3%, last year.
GE spokeswoman Deirdre Latour defended GE's U.S. hiring efforts, saying that since 2009, it has announced plans to create 13,000 U.S. jobs, "over 11,000 of which are industrial jobs."
She said in a statement Friday that most of the announced jobs had been filled by the end of 2011. "GE hired about 15,000 people in the U.S. in 2011 for these and other job additions, plus normal attrition backfill," she said.
In addition, Mr. Immelt announced plans last week to hire 5,000 U.S. military veterans over the next five years."
Article at WSJ on GE and jobs
Here's a bit about recent job development from GE in the Albany, NY, area:
"What brought Immelt to the area Tuesday was the grand opening of GE’s $100 million battery plant in Schenectady, which is commercializing technology discovered and developed in Niskayuna.
The first 6,000 batteries are being shipped to a customer in South Africa, a $60 million order. The plant will employ 450 people when at capacity, likely in 2015, Immelt said."
GE opens battery plant
If you do a Google on General Electric Work force USA for the past month, you will find several recent articles on various plants that GE is expanding in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that GE (and Obama) have received so many negative press in the right-wing blogosphere, but not a word about any new plants or additional workers opened in the past 2-3 years here in the U.S.
Please remember that the right-wing people do NOT want you to know what is really going on in this country... they just want you to dislike Obama and anything associated with him, and they want to present anything or anybody associated with Obama in the most possible negative light.
Molly, please help me understand. Last month we had an increase in new jobs of 80,000 and that's for the whole month of June. The average weekly new unemployment filings number ending July 7 for 4 weeks was 376,500 per week. To get the total unemployment filings for the month of June you would multiply 376,500 by 4 which would be 1,506,000 And you would find the daily unemployment number which would be 13,446.428 and factor in the 2 extra days in June. bringing the total to 1,519,446 then you subtract the 80,000 new jobs for June and you get one million, three hundred ninety four thousand, four hundred sixty four, nearly 1.4 million more new filings for unemployment than new jobs created. Is that good news? Am I missing something here? Do you not count new unemployment filings as jobs lost? Help me understand. This seems like terrible news.
ReplyDeleteThe jobs numbers are always NET numbers: In other words, the number of new jobs minus any jobs lost. In good times and bad, people lose their jobs; in good times and bad, people are hired. When more people are hired than fired (or quit), the jobs numbers go up; when more people are fired (or quit) than are hired, the jobs numbers go down.
ReplyDeleteFor the past 21 months, the jobs numbers have gone up, which means more people hired than fired or quit. The JOLTS report, which I write about monthly, shows the whole "flow" of jobs. JOLTS for April .
The JOLTS report is generally two months behind the other jobs numbers, but the principles hold. The 80,000 new jobs in May is a NET. There are 80,000 MORE people on the payroll in June, 80,000 MORE people hired than people who were let go.
The preliminary JOLTS numbers for May show 4,361,000 hires in May, 1,885,000 layoffs and discharges, 2,120,000 quits, 344 "other" separations for reasons such as retirement or relocation.
Not everybody who is laid off files for unemployment; so the 1,885,000 is in line with the number of new claims for unemployment that we've experienced over the last 2-3 months.
The big key is hires. We had 4,361,000 new hires in May (last month for which data is available), and that is wayyyy wayyy higher than the 80,000 net new jobs.
We are averaging 4,300,000 hires a month to date this year. That doesn't include people who are self-employed; agricultural workers, or people working as 1099 contractors.
I meant "80,000 new jobs in JUNE is a NET" up there.
ReplyDeleteProblem with your math Molly is that you ignore the 150,000 net jobs we need to add every month just to maintain population growth. You mention we are almost to the number of jobs as when Obama took office... but the fact remains there should be an extra 7.2 million in the workforce compared to when Obama took office. (150k x 48) He is 7 million jobs in the hole.
ReplyDeleteHow Many Jobs a Month Do We Need to Keep up with Population Growth?
DeleteI'm trying to work out the actual number of jobs we really do need to add. It's not as easy as your calculations make it out to be.
ReplyDeleteWe have had an average of 205,000 additional people a month into the "civilian noninstitutional population 16+" since January 2009. If you go back ten years, we've had an average increase of about 214,000 additional people a month.
But since January 2009, 199,000 of those additional people a month are moving into the 55+ age groups. The number of people moving into their prime working years, 25-54 has DECREASED by 25,000 a month. The labor force participation rate and the employment participation rate of people 55+ is about half that of people 25-54. This has always been true, even though we now have more people 55+ working than ever before (which actually may be a disturbing statistic).
I need to play around with these numbers a bit more, but it is clear that, as 199,000 people a month move from an age group with a 80% labor force participation rate down to an age group with 40% labor participation rate, we need fewer jobs for this huge section of the population.
In fact, every month, as 199,000 people cross that 55+ threshold, it seems as though we actually free up 75,000 jobs (199,000 x 37.5%). The number of 55+ people "not in the labor force" has increased by 122,000 people a month since Obama was inaugurated, and only 3% of those 55 and over people claim to "want a job".
Based on the very small employment participation rate (37.5%) of older people, we are short 3,700,000 employed people and we are short 3,300,000 jobs ("Jobs" represent about 93% of employed people, as the jobs numbers do not include all employed people.)
But let's take that forward. Let's assume that the proportion of the people in the various age groups holds steady for one more year (It will be close, but I don't know specifically how many people will turn 55, 25, or 16 this year.) If that is true, we would only need 840,000 more jobs total between now and July 2013 for the growth in population. That's 70,000 a month. Anything over that is helping with that 3,300,000 jobs deficit. We've averaged 1,800,000 new jobs a year over the past two years.
Some of that jobs deficit will take care of itself as the Baby Boomers get older and older. As the Baby Boomers age out of the 55-65 age group, they will need even fewer jobs.
I'll have to put all of my calculations into a post to explain all of these numbers, but we need AT MOST 70,000 jobs a month to accommodate the growth of the population, anything over that will eliminate the jobs deficit over time.
One thing to remember is that the employment participation ratio has gone down over time, starting with 64.4 when Bush was inaugurated, down to 62.4 when Bush started his second term, down to 60.6 when Obama was inaugurated. It was down to 58.2 but now has started to come up a bit.
We don't know what the ideal employment participation rate is. Some people seem to assume that having a lower employment participation rate is a bad thing, but I'm not sure that is so.
Back in the heyday of the middle class, in the 60's, our overall employment participation ratio was only 55% to 58%. Back in the heyday of the middle class, after Medicare, as the WWII generation was able to retire, most with pensions thanks to unions, the employment participation ratio of people 55+ actually dropped down to 29 and 30%. Now, with a higher retirement age, fewer pensions, and less security, we have more older people working. I really don't think that is a good thing.
Molly, you fail to recognize the economic crisis that 9/11 caused. That's convenient for you to leave out. Also, as of 2006 Bush was a lame duck president. Dems controlled the Senate and by 2008 everything that came out was theirs. Bush's tax cuts created between 3-5million jobs between 2003-2006, depending on your source. Labor B of Stats says 5 million since you are so keen on them. I use 2003 b/c that's when the tax cuts would have had time to affect the economy. On the same token the last recession was over in June of 2009. None of Obama's stimulus money was spend til march of 2010. The economy had already started to turn around before his policies had any affect.
ReplyDelete"Bush's tax cuts created between 3-5million jobs between 2003-2006, depending on your source. Labor B of Stats says 5 million since you are so keen on them. I use 2003 b/c that's when the tax cuts would have had time to affect the economy."
DeleteWell, you can't compare 2003-2006 with 2009-2012. Bush was already in office two years by the time jobs numbers started to come around. In fact, if you compare the two presidents at the same time in their presidency, Obama's record on jobs is better than that of Bush. In July 2004, Bush was down 978,000 jobs since the beginning of his term; now, as of July 2012, Obama is down 316,000 jobs since the beginning of his term.
In private sector jobs, Bush's record was worse: In July 2004, Bush was down 1,749,000 private sector jobs since the beginning of his term; as of July 2012, Obama is up 332,000 private sector jobs.
So: Obama inherited a much worse financial situation; he has had to deal with an obstructionist Republican Congress, and he has not been able to ramp up government spending to help create jobs. Yet the record job creation in his first 42 months in office is better than that of Bush.
Stimulus money was available and spent in 2009. According to recovery.gov, 36 billion was received by various recovery recipients in February through September 2009. An additional 18 billion was received by various recipients in October through December 2009.
I would suggest that you also find better sources of information.
There was no real comparison between the recessions that these two Presidents had to deal with either. The GDP decline, peak to trough, was 0.3% in the 2001 recession; the GDP decline, peak to trough, was 5.1% peak to trough in the 2007-9 recession.
DeleteSeems like the Bush tax cuts didn't work half as well as the stimulus package.
Obama has done a terrific job of preventing a recovery. He has waged war on the energy and finacial sectors which are key to a recovery. He has done nothing to aid the housing market which is another essential part of the recovery and he has prevented hiring and expansion in businesses b/c of his Obamacaretax and the uncertainty cause by looming tax hikes. There's also the issue of the oil moratorium that caused thousands to lose their jobs. Don't tell me was concerned about the enviroment b'c he secured billions in loans for Brazil to drill in the Gulf to provide themselves with oil. He's been great, you aren't misguided and brainwashed at all.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that our economy isn't recovering is b/c Obama doesn't want it to. Obama is a corporatist, he said this at a WH dinner with a bunch of economists. He believes a few large corporations should run the economy. That's why he is putting all the small businesses under with his Obamacaretax. No small businesses can afford to give their employees insurance or they'd already do it. Anyway, he thinks everything will be good when there are just a few large corporations left standing. Unfortunately corporatism has a history of failure. Mussolini was a corporatist too. It's been tried plenty throughout history and has never been successful.
ReplyDelete"Another reason that our economy isn't recovering is b/c Obama doesn't want it to. Obama is a corporatist, he said this at a WH dinner with a bunch of economists. He believes a few large corporations should run the economy."
DeleteJoshua, I'm not even going to attempt to answer this unless you come back with the specific quote and source about this White House dinner with a bunch of economists.
"Molly, you fail to recognize the economic crisis that 9/11 caused. That's convenient for you to leave out."
ReplyDeleteWhere do I leave that out? There are a couple of posts in which I compare and contrast the employment/unemployment situation between Obama and Bush and I mention that both faced challenges. Now, in terms of the economy, the economic collapse that drove the banks to the point of insolvency was much more serious than the economic problems created by 9/11. If you are truly interested in the comparisons between Bush and Obama, I would suggest you dig a bit and search a bit more in this blog.
"Also, as of 2006 Bush was a lame duck president. Dems controlled the Senate and by 2008 everything that came out was theirs."
The housing bubble had crashed by the time the Dems took control of Congress. Housing starts and construction jobs started down in summer 2006. The deteriorating housing situation plus the unending wars were two of the major reasons that the Dems regained control of Congress in January 2007.
More later.
None of these numbers matter. We are gaining in population. If we do not create in the area of 200,000 jobs per month we are not keeping up with the increase in the population. Also, you keep blaming Bush. The policies that put us in the ditch were started in the Carter administration. This means that three republicans and two democrats were in office and didn't realize the problem. The Dems also controlled at least one house of congress for 24 of those years and the Repubs controlled at least one house of congress for only 13 of those years.
ReplyDeleteSo stop with the blaming and lest start talking about solutions. I think the problem is the democrats tried all their solution in the first two years of the Obama administration and all we got was stagflation. So now the left is out of ideas and instead of trying to come up with new ones they are just blaming everybody and everything they can.
Sorry.. I didn't see this comment earlier.
DeleteBecause the population growth is mostly among people 55+ and those people have a much, much lower employment-participation ration than the population as a whole, right now (and for the next few years), we need only about 70,000 new jobs a month to handle the growth in population.
Which is why the unemployment rate is going down even with a job growth of only 169,000 a month (since December 2010).
How Many Jobs a Month Do We Need for Population Growth?