Thursday, July 26, 2012

Obama vs. Bush on Job Growth (June 2012 Update)

Bush vs. Obama on Jobs...  

One of my readers was trying to untangle the number of jobs lost and gained under both Bush and Obama.


He left a comment:  
OK, so from Jan 01 @ 137,778,000 people were employed.
When 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. 

The Difference Between Jobs and the Number of People Employed

Let's see if I can help him/her out.  First, he appears to be confusing jobs with the number of people employed.  These are two different counts, from two different sources.  The "jobs" number, which is published monthly, comes from a survey of "establishments", that is, employers reporting their payrolls.  But the number of people employed comes from a survey of people and includes agricultural workers, people who are self-employed, and a few other groups not caught in the "Establishment" survey.  There are usually about 9 million more people "employed" than there are "jobs".  Over time, these two numbers parallel each other, but in any given month, they may be quite different. 

In the numbers given above, the person is talking about "people employed" not "jobs".

Now my answer to his/her comments:  




No, 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 and jobs numbers under the two Presidents either from the time they took office to now, the 41st month in office, or we can compare employment and jobs numbers under the two Presidents from the time the recovery in employment started to now, which is the 32nd month of recovery in employment numbers and the 28th month of recovery in jobs numbers.
So I'll do that in a blog entry, as it is time to update the Bush/Obama comparisons.
So.. here's that blog entry with those comparisons between Bush and Obama.

Note:  The numbers stated here are for June 2012, not July 2012.  

Comparing Bush and Obama from the time they took office:
  • Number of jobs when Bush took office:                                   132,466,000
  • Number of jobs in Bush's 41st month in office (June 2004):      131,442,000
  • Jobs lost:                      1,024,000
  • Percentage decrease:     0.8%
  • Number of jobs when Obama took office:                                133,561,000
  • Number of jobs now (Obama's 41st month in office):                133,088,000
  • Jobs lost:                      473,000
  • Percentage decrease:     0.4%  
Overall jobs from time in office until 41st month:  
Advantage Obama. 


  • Number of private jobs when Bush took office:                     111,631,000
  • Number of private jobs in Bush's 41st month in office:          109,841,000
  • Jobs lost:                        1,790,000
  • Percentage decrease:      1.6%  
  • Number of private jobs when Obama took office:                 110,985,000
  • Number of jobs now (Obama's 41st month in office):           111,145,000
  • Jobs added:                    160,000  
  • Percentage increase:        0.1%
Private sector jobs from time in office until 41st month:  
Significant Advantage Obama. 

(At this time in Bush's presidency, we had 1,950,00 fewer private jobs compared to the start of Bush's presidency than we do now in Obama's presidency compared to the start of Obama's presidency.)


  • Number of people employed when Bush took office:                         137,778,000  
  • Number of people employed in Bush's 41st month in office:              139,174,000
  • Increase in Employed Persons:       1,396,000
  • Percentage increase:                      1.0%
  • Number of people employed when Obama took office:                     142,187,000 
  • Number of people employed now (Obama's 41st month in office):     142,415,000
  • Increase in Employed Persons:       228,000
  • Percentage increase:                      0.2%
People employed from time in office until 41st month:  
Advantage Bush    


Comparing Bush and Obama from the "trough"s of their respective recessions:    
  • Total number of jobs at "trough" of recession after Bush took office (August 2003) :                                                                                                              .           129,820,000
  • Total number of jobs in Bush's 28th month of job growth (Dec. 2005) :  134,814,000
  • Jobs added:                    4,994,000  
  • Percentage increase:       3.8%
  • Total number of jobs at "trough" of current recession (February 2010):  129,244,000
  • Total number of jobs now  (Obama's 28th month of job growth):            133,088,000
  • Jobs added:                    3,844,000
  • Percentage increase:        3.0%
Overall jobs from start of recovery to 28th month of recovery:  Advantage Bush. 


  • Number of private jobs at "trough" of recession after Bush took office (July 2003):  108,232,000  
  • Number of private jobs in Bush's 28th month of job growth (Nov. 2005):  112,795,000
  • Jobs added:                     4,563,000
  • Percentage Increase:        4.2%  
  • Number of private jobs at "trough" of current recession (February 2010):  106,773,000
  • Number of jobs now (Obama's 28th month of job growth):                     111,145,000
  • Jobs added:                     4,372,000  
  • Percentage increase:        4.1%  
Private sector jobs from start of recovery until 28th month of recovery:    Slight Advantage Bush.


  • Number of people employed at "trough" of recession after Bush took office (Jan 2002):  135,701,000
  • Number of people employed in Bush's 32nd month of job growth (Sept. 2004):  139,487,000
  • Increase in employed persons:     3,786,000   
  • Percentage increase:                   2.8%

  • Number of people employed at "trough" of current recession (October 2009):   138,401,000    
  • Number of people employed now (Obama's 32nd month after trough in employment): 142,415,000
  • Increase in employed persons:     4,014,000   
  • Percentage increase:                   2.9%
People employed from start of recovery until 28th month of recovery:  Slight Advantage Obama.   


In Summary...
O.K., so Bush does better than Obama in some measures of employment growth from that early period, and Obama does better than Bush in some of these measures of employment growth.  (Again, Bush did not inherit an economy that was in free fall, as did Obama.)  But how many people now pillorying Obama because of jobs numbers were out there calling Bush a "failure" due to jobs numbers in summer of 2004?  I think I know the answer to that one.... 

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Jump (July 14, 2012)

First time unemployment jobless claims increase by 34,000 for week ending July 14th.  Despite this increase, the four-week moving average # of claims decreased  by 1,500.


For the week ending June 30th, 5,752,116 people are receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs). 

Percent of Unemployed People Receiving Benefits drops to
45.1%.


Extended Benefits claims continue to decline by another 6.5% as fewer people from fewer states are eligible for Extended Benefits.  Only 7.6%  of the number of people who were receiving Extended Benefits a year ago are receiving Extended Benefits this year.






First time unemployment claims increased by a substantial 34,000 over those reported last week.  Last week's claims were revised upwards by 2,000.  The four-week moving average decreased by 1,500.  This is the first week of increases after three weeks of declines.  As a whole, claims have been stable this spring and summer except for the last two weeks.  There have been slight upwards revisions in the initial claims numbers in nine out of the last ten weeks.  (The chart below shows REVISED claims numbers.)


As usual, to put this into perspective, check out the red line on the chart below to see where jobless claims are now, in spring and early summer of 2012, compared to spring and early summer of the past three years.

From the current report:


In the week ending July 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 386,000, an increase of 34,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 352,000. The 4-week moving average was 375,500, a decrease of 1,500 from the previous week's revised average of 377,000

The initial claims as announced last week were 350,000, so the claims from that week were revised upwards by 2,000. 











The chart above is one of the BEST charts for understanding and observing changes in the weekly initial claims numbers over time.  This year (red-2012) and the past three years (blue- 2009green- 2010 and black- 2011) are marked in different colors.  You can see that, as a trend, first time claims for unemployment have gone down SIGNIFICANTLY from one year to the next, even though there are variations within the year.  

Be aware that:

  1. These are first time claims, so people who have continued to receive benefits or who are losing any unemployment benefits would not be counted in these numbers.  
  2. They are seasonally adjusted, so most variations caused by weather or holidays are already included in these numbers.  
  3. As these are weekly numbers, they are more volatile than the monthly numbers.

Current Spring-summer Initial Claims Lowest Since 2008; Historical Claims Data Below

As a whole, the current numbers of initial claims continue to be the lowest spring-summer initial claims numbers since 2008, as can be seen on the chart above.  

Average initial claims for this time of year for earlier years include:

  • June-early July 2000:  289,000
  • June-early July 2001:  388,000
  • June-early July 2002:  388,000 
  • June-early July 2003:  424,000
  • June-early July 2004:  344,000
  • June-early July 2005:  326,000 
  • June-early July 2006:  308,000
  • June-early July 2007:  317,000
  • June-early July 2008:  382,500

    Mid June-early July 2012 4-week moving average:  375,500 

Continuing regular state claims, from people who are continuing to claim unemployment through the initial 20 to 26 week regular unemployment program, increased 1,000 for the week ending July 7th after decreasing by 5,000 week before.  3,314,000 people filed continuing regular state claims in the week ending July 7th.  As a whole, continuing regular claims continue to decline despite some individual weekly increases.  (There were 3,727,000 continuing claims a year ago.) 

Total number of people receiving unemployment insurance decreased slightly to 45.1% of officially unemployed for the week ending June 30th.  

The weekly report also tells us the total number of people who are receiving unemployment benefits.  For the week ending June 30th, 5,752,116 people are receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs).  This compares with 12,749,000 people who are unemployed according to the monthly June unemployment situation report which was released last week.  Those numbers, showing that only 45.1% of the officially unemployed are receiving benefits, should make it clear that people do NOT need to be receiving unemployment insurance to be counted among the unemployed.

Extended Benefits Expire; 6.5% Fewer People Receive Extended Benefits

As we've been mentioning, many states have now "triggered" off of Extended Benefits.  There are now only 4 states in which Extended Benefits were still available.  Those states were:  Rhode Island, Idaho, Nevada, and New Jersey.  All other states have triggered off of Extended Benefits.

Rhode Island, Nevada, and New Jersey will trigger off of Extended Benefits as of the second week of July.  The only state left with Extended Benefits as of mid-July will be Idaho.

As of the week ending June 23rd, 43,972 people were still receiving Extended Benefits.  However, for the week ending June 30th, this number declined to 41,108, a reduction of about 6.5%.  I mentioned last month that we could expect that the total number of people receiving unemployment benefits would decline to below 6,000,000 as Extended Benefits expire, which did happen several weeks ago.  In late April, 350,579 people were receiving Extended Benefits.

In two months, 88.3% of the people who were receiving Extended Benefits are no longer receiving such benefits.  We do not know how many of these 309,471 people found jobs or how many have another source of income. 

To reiterate, while a decrease in the number of people FILING for initial claims is a good thing and indicates that fewer people are being laid off, a decrease in the TOTAL number of people getting unemployment insurance may only show that fewer people are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Any questions or confusion, please leave a comment or email me!

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Down Significantly (July 7, 2012)

First time unemployment jobless claims decrease by 26,000... Four-week moving average # of claims decreases  by 9,750.

Extended Benefits claims decline by another 7% as fewer states are eligible for Extended Benefits.  Only 7%  of the number of people who were receiving Extended Benefits a year ago are receiving Extended Benefits this year.


For the week ending June 23rd, 5,874,035 people are receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs). 

Percent of Unemployed People Receiving Benefits is stable at 
46.1%.





First time unemployment claims decreased by a significant 26,000 over those reported last week.  Last week's claims were revised upwards by 2,000.  The four-week moving average decreased by 9,750.  This is the third week in a row that initial claims have decreased.  As a whole, claims have been stable this spring, but with slight upwards revisions in the last eight of nine weeks.  (The chart below shows REVISED claims numbers.)


As usual, to put this into perspective, check out the red line on the chart below to see where jobless claims are now, in spring and early summer of 2012, compared to spring and early summer of the past three years.

From the current report:
In the week ending July 7, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 350,000, a decrease of 26,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 376,000. The 4-week moving average was 376,500, a decrease of 9,750 from the previous week's revised average of 386,250.
The initial claims as announced last week were 374,000, so the claims from that week were revised upwards by 2,000. 





The chart above is one of the BEST charts for understanding and observing changes in the weekly initial claims numbers over time.  This year (red-2012) and the past three years (blue- 2009green- 2010 and black- 2011) are marked in different colors.  You can see that, as a trend, first time claims for unemployment have gone down SIGNIFICANTLY from one year to the next, even though there are variations within the year.  

Be aware that:

  1. These are first time claims, so people who have continued to receive benefits or who are losing any unemployment benefits would not be counted in these numbers.  
  2. They are seasonally adjusted, so most variations caused by weather or holidays are already included in these numbers.  
  3. As these are weekly numbers, they are more volatile than the monthly numbers.


Current Spring-summer Initial Claims Lowest Since 2008; Historical Claims Data Below

As a whole, the current numbers of initial claims continue to be the lowest spring-summer initial claims numbers since 2008, as can be seen on the chart above.  

Average initial claims for this time of year for earlier years include:

  • June-early July 2000:  289,000
  • June-early July 2001:  388,000
  • June-early July 2002:  388,000 
  • June-early July 2003:  424,000
  • June-early July 2004:  344,000
  • June-early July 2005:  326,000 
  • June-early July 2006:  308,000
  • June-early July 2007:  317,000
  • June-early July 2008:  382,500

    June-early July 2012 4-week moving average:  386,250 

Continuing regular state claims, from people who are continuing to claim unemployment through the initial 20 to 26 week regular unemployment program, decreased 14,000 for the week ending June 30th after increasing the week before.  As a whole, continuing regular claims continue to decline despite some individual weekly increases.  (There were 3,737,000 continuing claims a year ago.) 

Total number of people receiving unemployment insurance stays the same at 46.1% of officially unemployed.  

The weekly report also tells us the total number of people who are receiving unemployment benefits.  For the week ending June 23rd, 5,874,035 people are receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs).  This compares with 12,749,000 people who are unemployed according to the monthly June unemployment situation report which was released last week.  Those numbers, showing that only 46.1% of the officially unemployed are receiving benefits, should make it clear that people do NOT need to be receiving unemployment insurance to be counted among the unemployed.

Extended Benefits Expire; 7% Fewer People Receive Extended Benefits

As we've been mentioning, many states have now "triggered" off of Extended Benefits.  There are now only 4 states in which Extended Benefits were still available.  Those states were:  Rhode Island, Idaho, Nevada, and New Jersey.  All other states have triggered off of Extended Benefits.

Rhode Island, Nevada, and New Jersey will trigger off of Extended Benefits as of the second week of July.  The only state left with Extended Benefits as of mid-July will be Idaho.

As of the week ending June 16th, 47,425 people were still receiving Extended Benefits.  However, for the week ending June 23rd, this number declined to 43,972, a reduction of about 7%.  I mentioned in the past month that we could expect that the total number of people receiving unemployment benefits would decline to below 6,000,000 as Extended Benefits expire, which did happen several weeks ago.  In late April, 350,579 people were receiving Extended Benefits.

In two months, 87.5% of the people who were receiving Extended Benefits are no longer receiving such benefits.  We do not know how many of these 307,000 people found jobs or how many have another source of income. 

To reiterate, while a decrease in the number of people FILING for initial claims is a good thing and indicates that fewer people are being laid off, a decrease in the TOTAL number of people getting unemployment insurance may only show that fewer people are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Any questions or confusion, please leave a comment or email me!

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in June 2012?


Information about JUNE 2013 HERE!!

The following information is about JUNE 2012.  For June 2013, click the link above.

80,000 new jobs were 
created in the month of June 2012.  NO jobs were lost (net) in the month of June 2012.


The private sector generated 84,000 new jobs, but the government sector continued to shed jobs; it lost 4,000 jobs in June 2012.


128,000 more people reported themselves as working in June 2012.

If NO jobs were lost (net) in June, why was the press so negative and the pundits so unhappy?

We need more jobs for a stronger recovery.  84,000 MORE jobs is not seen as adequate for the economy to continue to recover.  We lost 8.7 million jobs during the Great Recession, the population has continued to grow, and we have recovered about 4 million jobs.









The unemployment rate stayed exactly the same, 8.2%, as it was in May.   The static unemployment number this month was due to an increase in the civilian labor force, that is, the number of people working or looking for work.  Both components of the civilian labor force, the number of people working and the number of people looking for work increased in June.


Saturday, July 7, 2012

How Many Jobs Have Been Created in 2012 to date? (June update)




How many jobs were created in all of 2012 to date, from December 2011 through June 2012?   902,000

How many private-sector jobs have been created in 2012?   952,000

How many more people working in all of 2012 to date, from December 2011 through June 2012?  
1,625,000 


Have jobs been lost in 2012?  NO.  I'll repeat that:  NO jobs have been lost (net) in 2012. 

How many jobs have been lost in 2012?  NO jobs (net) have been lost in 2012.  

          
  • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 902,000 jobs have been CREATED in 2012.  That's 150,000 jobs ADDED per month in 2012.
  • In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 1,151,000 jobs have been CREATED in 2012.  That's 192,000 jobs ADDED per month in 2012.
  • In terms of total jobs and private-sector jobs, we have ONLY JOB GAINS in 2012.  
How many private-sector jobs were created in all of 2012, from December 2011 through June 2012?  Have private-sector jobs been created or  lost in 2012?

Friday, July 6, 2012

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



The following numbers are as of June 2012.  Please click the link above for current numbers.




How has Obama done on jobs?
How Has Obama done on private-sector jobs?

Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010:

  • 3,844,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 4,373,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 4,447,000 MORE people working 


Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009):
  • 473,000 FEWER jobs in total
But:
  • 160,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 228,000 MORE people working


Since the stimulus was passed (February 2009): 
  • 251,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 885,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 755,000 MORE people working


Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 28 months?
NO!

  • 28 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.


Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 21 months?
NO!
  • 21 months of consecutive over all job growth.


(Explanations and detail 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 total jobs numbers since Obama took office; however, we are in positive territory in private sector jobs.  We still have 473,000 FEWER jobs (total) now than when Obama was inaugurated, but we now have 160,000 MORE private-sector jobs than we had when Obama was inaugurated.


However, we are now adding jobs at a fair clip, with an average of 152,000 MORE jobs  total added per month since December 2010, and an average of  170,000 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": ....3,844,000
Net LOSS in seasonally-adjusted jobs since Obama took office: .... 473,000                     

Private & Government Jobs Lost & Gained Under Obama (June 2012 update)

This report has been updated.  September numbers can be found HERE:

Private & Government Jobs Gained & Lost Under Obama (September update)


How many jobs (total, private, and government) have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?  
  • 4,317,000 TOTAL jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST in from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of 3.2%. 
  • 3,844,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, June 2012.  That's an increase of 2.97%.
  • In total, 473,000  jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, June 2012.  That's a decrease of 0.35%. *
  • We have experienced 21 months WITHOUT job losses since September 2010.  We have ADDED 3,144,000 jobs during those 21 months. 
  • We now have 133,088,000 TOTAL non-farm jobs.  

*  These are all net figures, meaning that they represent the total number of jobs at the end of a reporting period.  All losses have been subtracted from all gains and vice verse.
    *  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.   (These numbers will be updated for June in the coming days.)     



    How many PRIVATE sector jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?
    • 4,213,000 PRIVATE-sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of 3.8%.
    • 4,373,000 PRIVATE-sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were GAINED OR CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, June 2012.  That's an increase of 4.10%.
    • In total, 160,000 private sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) have been GAINED from the time Obama took office until now, June 2012.  That's a net increase of 0.14%. *
    • We have experienced 28 months of positive private-sector job GROWTH from February 2010 until June 2012.  We have added 4,373,000 private-sector jobs during those 28 months.    
    • We now have 111,145,000 PRIVATE sector non-farm jobs.
    *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.  (This number will be updated for June in the next few days.)     

    How many GOVERNMENT jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?
    • 102,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until the "trough" of the recession in early 2010.  That's a decrease of  .47%  (about half of a percent). 
    • Another 531,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the "trough" of the recession until now, June 2012.  That's a decrease of 2.36%.
    • In total, 633,000 government jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, June 2012.  That's a decrease of 2.8%. 
    • We have experienced decreases in the number of government jobs in 21 out of the last 25 months, starting in June 2010, when the layoff of 2010 Census workers began.  
    • We now have 21,943,000 GOVERNMENT non-farm jobs, not including people in the military.  (Civilians employed by the U.S. and working for the military are counted.)
    (Note:  Current numbers taken from the June Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Situation Report.  Historical numbers taken from various archived Employment Situation reports as indexed HERE. Specifics will be provided upon request; please email me or leave a comment.)

    An afterthought---
    A reader asks:

    How Many Private Sector Jobs Were Lost Because of Obama?

    We haven't lost ANY private sector jobs (net) since February 2010, a year after Obama took office.  Between January 2009 and February 2010, we lost 4,213,000 private sector jobs as stated above.

    Should we "blame" Obama for not being immediately able to stem the tide of private sector job loss in 2009?  If a house if burning out of control and the fire department comes to put out the fire, it continues to burn until it is put under control and cooled down, right?  Now.. would you blame the fire department for the continued fire and the time to put it out after it arrives on the scene?
    Well, you might, but I wouldn't:  Here's my reasoning:  Burning Down the House!



    So my answer to this question would be a big, fat ZERO.  I do NOT feel that Obama is to blame for any loss of jobs between January 2009 and February 2010.  If you think he is, please leave a comment and explain your reasoning!