NOV Fri, Dec 2: +178,000 jobs. Unemployment rate drops to 4.6%.NOV details here!.. Jobs since Obama took office?... Unemp. rate under Obama?

Friday, July 5, 2013

Private & Government Jobs Lost & Gained Under Obama (June 2013 update)


How many jobs (total, private, and government) have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?

  • 4,311,000 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%.    
  • 6,582,000 jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, June 2013.  That's an increase of 5.1%.
  • In total, 2,271,000  jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were ADDED from the time Obama took office until now, June 2013.  That's an increase of 1.7%.
  • We have experienced 33 months WITHOUT job losses since September 2010.  We have ADDED 5,974,000 jobs during those 33 months. 
  • We now have 135,902,000 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.
    *  For the purposes of comparison, 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 (March 2005), there were only 329,000 MORE jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 compared to 1,564,000 MORE for Obama.   (This will be updated for June 2013 in the next few days.)


    How many PRIVATE sector jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?
    • 4,198,000 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%.
    • 7,201,000 PRIVATE-sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were GAINED OR CREATED from the "trough" of the recession until now, June 2013.  That's an increase of 6.7%.
    • In total, 3,003,000 private sector jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) have been GAINED from the time Obama took office until now, June 2013.  That's a net increase of 2.7%. *
    • We have experienced 40 months of positive private-sector job GROWTH from February 2010 until June 2013.  We have added 7,201,000 private-sector jobs during those 40 months.    
    • We now have 114,051,000  PRIVATE sector non-farm jobs.
    *As of March 2013,  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 (March 2005), there were still 576,000 FEWER private sector jobs than when he was inaugurated in January 2001 compared to 2,282,000 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 will be updated for June in the next few days.)   

    How many GOVERNMENT jobs have been lost or gained since Obama was inaugurated?  (Government jobs include federal, state, and local government jobs.)
    • 113,000 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  .5%  (about half of a percent). 
    • Another 619,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the "trough" of the recession until now, June 2013.  That's a decrease of 2.8%.    
    • In total, 732,000 GOVERNMENT jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, June 2013.  That's a decrease of 3.2%.  A large portion of these jobs, at least 350,000, have been lost in the "Local Government - Education" sector. (Teachers.)
    • We have experienced decreases in the number of government jobs in 27 out of the last 36 months, starting in June 2010, when the layoff of 2010 Census workers began.  We have experienced declines in the number of government jobs in the last 4 out of the last 6 months.     
    • We now have 21,851,000 GOVERNMENT 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 2013 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 4,198,000 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 is burning out of control and the fire department comes to put out the fire, it continues to burn until it is brought 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 the firefighters arrive 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!

    8 comments:

    1. This morning I was reading an article about the growth of part time work in America, and it piqued my interest enough, and so did a little research.

      This latest jobs report shows a continuing decline in full time good paying jobs. This report (above) along with comments you make about who's feet job losses should be placed at, Bush or Obama, and which administration created faster job growth, shows your unwavering devotion to the current administration and the work they are doing regardless of evidence to the contrary.

      We are now 4 1/2 years from the day that Obama stepped into the oval office and more than 5 years since the start of the current recession.

      In 2009 when Obama took the helm there were 305 million people in America, today there are 316 million. Before the recession there 147 million Americans working, and now with another 11 million people in America there are 144 million people working. Before this recession began there were 25 million part time workers, today there are 28 million.

      Month after month you update the reports and make comments favorable regarding job growth, when the reality is that job growth is miserable. Fully half of all jobs created since the recession began are low wage jobs as defined by earnings at 80% or below the national average, worse than that, part time jobs are supplanting full time jobs.

      In fairness, we shouldn't blame Obama for the recession or the continuing job losses that happened during his first year in office, but the jobs gained since the trough, are laid at his feet. Obama likes to tout the jobs numbers (and so do you), but ignores the quality of the jobs (and so do you).

      You point out which president had faster job growth at this time in their respective administrations, Bush or Obama. What you fail to tell your readers in your comparison is that Clinton also handed Bush a faltering economy that was sinking into recession just as Clinton's term was ending. The market had already peaked and was falling, job losses were beginning and would continue for another year.

      Economies behave like a pendulum, the more they swing in one direction the faster they come back. The recession handed Bush wasn't as deep, though it was severe, and so there were not as many jobs to replace, Obama's recession was deeper and his job creation should have been considerably stronger than it is. I am not trying to be partisan, only fair. As a matter of fact during the recession that began just as Bush took the presidency, 1.6 million jobs were lost before the jobs number became positive again. The recession that Obama inherited had job losses of about 7.4 million. So comparing raw job growth numbers is disingenuous at best because it does not take into account the pendulum effect.

      I believe that this administration is doing more damage to the nations workforce than good. The administrations policies are detrimental to good jobs returning, and returning at a faster rate. Our president likes to take credit for (and you give Obama credit for) any jobs created since his inauguration. The reality is that if by some stroke of luck aliens abducted Obama and all the rest of his administration along with him, the world wouldn't come to and end, jobs would continue to grow. Obama is not creating any jobs, rather his policies are hindering jobs that would be created anyway. This Obamacare he shoved down our throats has created more uncertainty for business, is keeping small companies from expanding past the 50 employee insurance provision mandate, and turning full time workers into part time workers in other companies where employers are trying to avoid paying ever increasing health insurance premiums that were supposed to decrease instead of increase, dramatically I must add.

      How you can find any good these statistics month after month is beyond me. Nearly 5 years later and 11 million more people, 3 million less jobs overall, 3 million more part time workers, half of all new jobs in low paying service industries. It's pathetic, and that's being generous!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Mr. Real Truth, I have a life... I'm sorry that I don't get back to answer your comments as quickly as I would like.

        So.. let's take it a bit at a time:

        "This morning I was reading an article about the growth of part time work in America, and it piqued my interest enough, and so did a little research."

        Can you please reference the article you were reading?

        "This report (above) along with comments you make about who's feet job losses should be placed at, Bush or Obama, and which administration created faster job growth, shows your unwavering devotion to the current administration and the work they are doing regardless of evidence to the contrary."

        I come from a very conservative family and a very conservative neighborhood. My father was a union man who didn't like the unions very much and my mother came from a long line of small business people who didn't like the Democrats very much... They didn't like FDR and really didn't like Kennedy. They were extraordinarily racist and felt that progressive legislation was just helping people who were lazy, and most of those people were "minorities".

        I have maintained a middle-of-the-road position and split my vote, both at the federal and state levels, for most of my adult life.

        It was sometime in the mid 2000's when I realized the people who were anti-Republicans were right all along: The Republicans were destroying the middle class and cared not one bit for you or me. The destruction started in the 70's when the Repubs decided that the country was "too progressive" and started to plot to "take the country back", destroy the social safety net, install fundamental Christianity as the state religion (de facto if not de jure) and put the middle class in its place... which is quite a bit below what it was in the 50's and the 60's. The solid, middle class upbringing that I experienced as the child of very middle class people was simply not available to more and more people, including people who worked all of their lives. I had seen people that I knew who, unlike my Dad who was protected by the union and worked until he was 68, were tossed out of their jobs at age 50 or 55 and struggled until they could collect social security.. This was well before the current recession; it started back during the Reagan years, but I didn't really put the pieces together until 7-8 years ago.

        So I'm not going to quibble with you or anyone about jobs numbers. The recession that Obama inherited was the worst since the Great Depression. Anyone who tries to compare this recession with the Reagan Recession or the mild recession of 2001 and tries to say that those recessions were equal to the recession of 2008 (when the truth is that we were looking down at the full collapse of our economic system) is either completely delusional or simply not interested in the Truth.

        I may write more if I have some free time.

        Delete
      2. This comment has been removed by the author.

        Delete
      3. It's been a week since you last responded so I hope you see this reply. I enjoy research and really that's why I take the time to write these rather long comments or rebuttals, and I am retired and wake up every morning at about 3 AM, so I enjoy this. I am not naive and so don't really expect somebody that is liberal to become conservative over my little drivel .... but there's always hope. So then I do hope that you don't lightly dismiss what I have to say in this rebuttal to your reply just because it comes from a conservative. There is some serious meat to my answer and worth serious consideration.

        By the way, I also have a life, but retired one year ago and apparently have more free time than you. I enjoy research and have strong opinions and love a good intelligent back and forth discourse or debate, and I do thank you though for commenting on my comments.

        I am going to try and tackle a response to you one piece at a time. For it all to make sense, I can't make it a short "sound bite", so it will be in a few parts. First I'm taking on those evil Republicans.

        By your referencing your parents, FDR and Kennedy, I assume that you are closer to my age, and that's good, it's easier to have an intelligent discussion with somebody that has some life under their belt.

        I will also assume that your heart is in the right place, but I have come to believe that liberals or progressives just have it all wrong. You are blaming Republicans or conservatives for the decline in the middle class, and in reality Republicans are no more to blame than Democrats, if there is any decline at all.

        You say, "It was sometime in the mid 2000's when I realized the people who were anti-Republicans were right all along: The Republicans were destroying the middle class and cared not one bit for you or me".

        I have no idea why you had this "transformation of beliefs", but I must disagree with your epiphany entirely. The world began to change, and it wasn't The Republicans that were changing it. I remember the 50s and 60s well, I grew up in those decades. Most cars we drove were built in Detroit or Dearborn or Lansing, not Osaka or Seoul or Munich. Except for Volkswagen's and a very few little mini-cars like Citroen's and Peugeot's or Sunbeams, Americans built 95% of what we bought and drove. All the TVs we bought and watched were made by RCA, Admiral, Sylvania, Philco, GE and Motorola, and American workers in American factories built every one. The same goes for radios and refrigerators and coffee pots and washing machines and pretty much every household appliance we owned. We never heard of Honda or Sony or Samsung or Hyundai or LG. And the list goes far beyond autos and appliances. Just about everything that Americans bought and had in their homes, what they sat on, slept on, ate on, built with, what they wore, played with, it was all made in America, and made by American workers in American factories.

        Were Republicans to blame for the rebuilding of Japan and China and Indonesia, Korea and India and much of the world after WW2? Was it the Republicans fault that these countries experienced growth, and through ingenuity and determination began building and exporting first cheaper, and then better and cheaper products that Americans bought?

        American manufacturing and American workers became complacent, thinking that they could just go on as they had been regardless of the changing world. Manufacturers believed that they could deliver a product and Americans would buy whatever they produced regardless of the quality or the price. And the workers that made those products believed that they were entitled to ever increasing wages and benefits for basically unskilled labor. America felt entitled. Life was good.

        The rest of the world saw how we lived the good life and wanted the same.

        Delete
      4. Part 2.

        In 1952, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the average family income in the United States was $3,900. per year. Today it is over $51,000 (was over $55,000 in 2008, good job since then Barry). I am looking at a page on my computer right now that showed some appliances for sale in 1952. A Coldspot refrigerator that is antiquated compared to today's models and only half as large for $329. That's 8.5% of the average family's income in 1952, or one entire months salary. 8.5% of today's income of $51,000 is $4,335 , and yet we can buy a better fridge than the Coldspot for around $500 today, only about 3 days pay. Even a state of the art fridge today won't set you back much more than One or two weeks pay. Here is a black and white 21 inch Silvertone television for $339. Again, that's more than a months income. Go to Wal-Mart today and you can buy a 50" flat screen high definition color set for $448. They have nine models that size for less than $500. That's three days wages today for the average person. Something as small and simple as a pop up toaster cost $21 in 1952. That's nearly 2 days income back then. You can buy a better one at Wal-Mart today for $7.84 ..... one hour at minimum wage. The list is long and I could show you socks and shirts, washers and dryers, patio furniture to underwear, children's toys to table lamps, everything is so much less expensive today, and the middle class that you say is being destroyed has so much more today than they did then ...... why even the poor as defined by our governments own income statistics have more and better possessions than the middle class did in the 50s/60s.

        Would you be happy paying $4,000 for a simple refrigerator? $4,500 for a small black and white TV? How about $280 in today's dollars for a toaster? I think I know what your answer would be, and I believe it would be the same for all Americans. We want to have our cake and eat it to ...... or in other words, we want to have good paying, good benefit manufacturing jobs back in America like we had in the 50s and 60s, and $7 toasters at the same time. Is this the fault of the Republicans?

        It has been said by liberals for a long time, that Republicans only care for the rich, but Democrats care for the poor, the down trodden and middle class. That narrative is embedded into the liberal mindset. Liberals discuss it among themselves, write about it, agree with each other over it, there is never any examination to see if there is truth to that narrative, after all why bother to look at any facts about that statement when everybody knows already that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the poor. So I think we should take a look at some facts about the middle class.

        Where is the middle class today compared to years gone by, and is any decline real or perceived. First of all, how would you even define a decline? Is it purchasing power, the amount of possessions one has, the quality and amount of those possessions, the amount of hours you must work to enjoy this middle class lifestyle? In my opinion, the middle class has it better today than 50 years ago (except for the past 5 years). Do you remember when you actually had to crank up the windows in your car, use a key to lock or unlock the car door, get up off the couch to change the channel on the TV, wash dishes by hand and darn your own socks, get your shoes re-soled, reheat food in the oven instead of the microwave, make your own ice cubes, put a record on the turntable, share a party phone line with 5 other neighbors because it was cheaper than a private line ...... do you remember all that? The average home in America was 1,000 sq feet in 1950, 1,200 sq feet in 1960, over 2,200 sq feet today.

        Delete
      5. Part 3.

        That was the 50s and 60s when things were perceived to be so much better, so just how worse off is the middle class today?In my example I showed the costs of some items in 1952 along with the average family income of $3,900. The real determination of better off by what we can buy is purchasing power. Inflation takes its toll on the value of a dollar. So what amount of money does it take today to equal the purchasing power of $3,900 1952 dollars? Well the amount you would need to earn today, with all the inflation throughout the years to equal that 1952 $3,900, is $33,104 in todays dollars. But the average family income today is over $51,000, so that means that the middle class has 55% more purchasing power today than it did in 1952. It was as high as 65% before this last recession when the average family income was $55,000. In 1950 the average work week in America was 42.7 hours long. In 1960 it was 40.9 hours long. 40.3 in 1970. 39.8 in 1980. The average work week in America today is 34.5 hours. So today the middle class has 55% more purchasing power than 1952 and working almost 8 hours less a week to get it. So does that sound like the middle class is worse off than they were 50 or 60 years ago? Not to me.

        Exactly where is the middle class worse of? They work less, have more money, live in bigger homes with more and better possesions, have more food. The only place that I can think that the middle class went backwards would be in the non economic area, the family values area, but that's not part of this discussion, and If I were to include this it would be the fault of liberal progressive policies anyway and not Republicans.

        I have thought for a long time that liberals need a "boogey man", it is only when they have somebody to blame for things that they can feel justified in whatever it is they do, and feel superior at the same time in their liberal mantra of "we care for the down trodden and you conservatives don't" belief. Well liberals have made Republicans their boogey man, and sold that "boogey man" to their liberal progressive sheep-like followers. It doesn't matter that the Republicans are not the boogey man, almost all liberals believe it .... you believe it, you said so. And yet if one would only rationally look at the evidence about where the blame should be placed, it almost always proves the exact opposite, which of course makes Democrats more to blame or at least equally to blame for whatever malaise the country is experiencing.

        There is no real middle class decline, but there could be even more middle class growth, and the reason that there is not even more middle class growth is not fault of Republicans, but rather the blame falls upon government, and liberals are always for ever bigger government, and the blame should go to unions, and the middle class itself can share some of the blame.

        Delete
      6. Part 4.

        First the unions. They did their good deeds, had their place and time and did do good for the American worker in the early to mid part of the last century fighting for better working conditions, safer working conditions, and better pay .... but over time they got greedy. Before the near collapse of the auto industry the average cost to the manufactures in wages and benefits was about $73 an hour, to have a worker screw a nut onto a bolt. This isn't highly skilled work. Was it the Republicans fault that in Japan the pay and benefits that Toyota and Honda and Nissan pay their workers is about $43 per hour? And was it the Republicans fault that Toyota and Honda and Nissan cars were of higher quality than what Detroit was offering? It is the complacency and entitlement mentality of both the American manufacturer and the American worker and the greed of the unions that sent most of our manufacturing jobs overseas. Republicans had no more to do with that than Democrats, and in reality, neither could have done much to stop it. Many other middle class jobs and the products that were produced or manufactured in America were also lost to workers in other nations because they could manufacture and deliver them to the store shelves in America less expensively than we could. Nothing could have been done to change that by either Republicans or Democrats. Protectionism doesn't work, it was tried before. It might have slowed the pace of our jobs being lost while forcing Americans to pay more for goods, but it wouldn't have stopped anything permanently. In a way, that's what unions try and do, protect high wages and benefits for their workers regardless of the consequences to the manufacturer or the costs to the consumer. Like it or not we are now in a global marketplace and we either compete or try and pretend it isn't so and blame one another to create our "boogey men".

        If any blame is to be placed for our manufacturing jobs going overseas, it should lie more at the feet of Democrats than Republicans. It is the growth of government and the rules and regulations that burden and inhibit competitiveness in the marketplace that helped accelerate the demise of manufacturing in America. We all want good wages, but like it or not, we must compete in this global marketplace that we find ourselves in today. The unions raise the cost of manufacturing products by demanding higher and higher wages and benefits, and the government requires ever increasing regulations that is burdensome on the manufacturers and in turn raises the cost of manufacturing a product some more, the attorneys with their constant lawsuits over the silliest things create another layer of expenses to manufacturing products in America, and all the while nations with less regulation and lower wages, fewer lawyers are making and delivering those same products to us for less. Is any of this the fault of the Republicans?

        We surely need some rules and regulations, but the key word is some, not so many that they hinder growth, but government doesn't know how to contain itself, doesn't know how to limit itself. The unintended consequences of the never ending regulations is stifling growth and innovation.

        Reagan was right when he said that the government is not the answer to the problem, but rather that government is the problem.

        Delete
      7. Part 5.

        And lastly to blame, if their is really any less "middle class" in the "middle class", it is because of the expectations of the middle class itself. In the 50s and 60s people still saved money. Everybody had a savings account, every child had a piggy bank, we were taught that saving money was a good thing. People still used layaway at stores, we waited till it was paid for before we brought it home. People actually waited to buy something until they could afford it and then paid for it in cash. We didn't live in a credit card society then. In the 50s and 60s most people that bought cars still put down 20 to 50% and then only financed the rest for 2 or 3 years maximum. Today people want new expensive cars with little or nothing down, and then finance them for 60 or 72 months. There are even 8 year loans now, 96 months for a car. People don't want to wait until they have saved some money, they want it all now! Everything today is on a credit card, nobody want's to wait until they can afford anything. They buy houses like I mentioned above (2,200 sq ft) with 4 or 5 bedrooms and 3 baths, with little or nothing down, and when the housing market collapsed they blamed everybody but themselves when they couldn't afford the payments and they were foreclosed on. I am looking at an article reprint that was in the May 1959 issue of Better Homes and Gardens. It was called "the smart way to buy a house". Here is a cut and paste from that article about the loans. "Conventional Loan: Your down payment runs from 20 to 40 percent (some savings and loan associations may require only 10 percent). Interest in most areas is between 5 1/2 and 6 percent; payments may be spread over 15 to 20 (sometimes 25) years". What a difference. Had the middle class today bought 1,000 to 1,200 sq foot homes with 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom and had they put down 20 to 40% like was required in 1959, how many would have been "underwater" and affected by this 2008 housing crash? Not many.

        It is the middle class expectations of today that far exceed what middle class expectations were 50 years ago that is the real culprit. If our expectations were the same, do you have any idea how much the average family would be able save out of that $51,000 a year, remember, it only takes $33,000 to equal the purchasing power of the $3,900 in 1952, so living the same would allow the average family to sock away $18,000 a year. But do they? No, they whine about not having it very good and those evil rich people, it's all their fault, as Mr. Obama says, they need to pay their fair share. The middle class today wants to live a $100,000 a year lifestyle on a $51,000 a year income.

        I am going to close this for now with a summation.

        Except for the past 5 years where the middle class has actually gone backwards a bit, the middle class is far better off than it was 50 and 60 years ago. The Republicans are not to blame for the world changing and our manufacturing base contracting. Unions and the government are more to blame for holding down American ingenuity and competitiveness. The middle class itself raised it's expectations so high with it's gotta have it all today mentality that it now feels entitled and believes it is going backwards where in actuality it is just the opposite.
        You say that you started to put the anti Republican pieces together about 7 or 8 years ago.

        Well Molly, I believe you have the pieces in the wrong place ..... your heart may be in the right place, but the pieces are all wrong.

        Delete

    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.