AUG: +151,000 jobs. Unemployment rate steady at 4.9%. AUG details here!.. Jobs since Obama took office?... Unemp. rate under Obama?

Friday, October 3, 2014

How Many Jobs Has Obama Created or Lost? September 2014

*******************************************************************

July 2015 update for THIS REPORT found HERE.

July 2015 numbers were released Friday, August 7.  Details HERE.
******************************************************************



Note:  This report is outdated.  For latest numbers, please click the link above.

How many NET jobs created or lost under Obama* as of September 2014?  
How many private sector jobs have been lost or added during Obama's presidency?



How many new jobs in the last 5 1/2 years since Obama was inaugurated?  How many Americans were working or employed when Obama took office... compared to now?

Numbers for September with latest revisions:

Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 in seasonally adjusted numbers:
  • 9.8 million MORE jobs in total
  • 10.3 million MORE private sector jobs
  • 8.6 million MORE people working
How many workers were full-time or part-time at the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 compared to now?

  • 8.7 million MORE people working full-time.
  • 120,000 FEWER people working part-time.  
  • (Yes, despite what you may have heard, from the depth of the recession until now, we have many more additional people working full-time vs. part-time jobs. When a recession hits, companies generally cut back on full-time workers first.  When companies start hiring again, the number of full-time workers increases.)

Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009) in seasonally adjusted numbers:
  • 5.5 million MORE jobs in total
  • 6.1 million MORE private sector jobs
  • 4.4 million MORE people working

How many workers were full-time or part-time when Obama was inaugurated compared to now?

  • 3.5 million MORE people working full-time
  • 982,000 million MORE people working part-time



Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 55 months since February 2010?

NO!

  • 55 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.
  • The longest consecutive period of private-sector job increases since this number has been kept. 

Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 48 months since September 2010?


NO!

  • 48 months of consecutive overall job growth.
Are more people unemployed now than when Obama took office in January 2009?  

NO!
  • Despite 1,652,000 MORE people in the labor force (either working or actively looking for work) now vs. January 2009, there are 2,796,000 FEWER people unemployed now than in January 2009. 





*What's the difference between "net" and "gross" jobs gained and lost?


Let's get something straight:  Jobs are lost every week and every month. People are fired, people are laid off, businesses or locations are closed and everybody is let go. 
 

Also people quit every week.  You yourself, dear reader,  may have quit a job at some point in time. 


But people are also HIRED every week and every month.  New businesses open, businesses expand, businesses replace people who have left or been fired.  Every week.  You yourself, dear reader, may have been hired for a job at some point in time.This happens in good times and bad. 

Yes, even in bad times, people are getting hired.  Even in good times, people are let go.  

Now:  The monthly jobs reportupon which this article is based, presents estimates based on surveys as to how many jobs are gained or lost in a given month.  Those numbers are based on the number of new jobs (people getting hired, businesses opening) MINUS the number of jobs that have been cut (people getting fired, people quitting, businesses closing or cutting back).

The monthly jobs report therefore reports NET job growth or loss.  


For 48 months in this country, we have had MORE jobs being added than we have had jobs being cut.  For 55 months in the private sector (not counting federal workers, state or local workers such as teachers, firemen, cops, or people who staff the DMV, only counting people who work for private businesses), we have had MORE jobs added than we have had jobs being cut.


To reiterate:  How many jobs have been created in the last 5 years versus how many jobs have been lost?
All numbers provided on monthly jobs reports, which is what the series on jobs created/lost under Obama is based, are NET jobs numbers.  In other words, they reflect gains after all job losses are subtracted, or they reflect job losses after all gains are added. 
For the past 55 months (as of September 2014), we have had NET gains in private jobs numbers every month.  In other words, in every month since February 2010, more private jobs have been created than have been lost.  In every month since September 2010, more jobs in total have been created than have been lost.
Fact check and important information on these jobs numbers...

The above jobs numbers are from the BLS jobs report of September 2014, which was released in early October 2014.  The surveys used to gather these numbers in August are taken as of the week which includes the 12th day of the month, in this case, September 12, 2014. 

9 comments:

  1. >I'm not sure what you are quoting...that's just Republican hogwash, designed to convince low-information voters that they would be better off if they put the Republicans back in power... Probably not anywhere close to 10 million.

    I have used several reputable sources such as center-left CNN in the past, and this will be my last attempt to show you that we are about 10 million jobs short.

    According to extremely non-partisan and reliable Wikipedia:
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States)

    How many jobs must be created to return to pre-recession levels?[edit]

    Answering this question involves understanding the current employment level relative to the pre-recession peak, as well as the jobs needed to address new labor force entrants as the population grows. U.S. total non-farm employment peaked at 138.1 million in January 2008. As of March 2013, employment was 135.2 million, a net loss of 2.9 million jobs. Employment fell from the peak in 1/2008 until 2/2010, then began to increase through early 2013.[198]

    From January to November 2012, the U.S. added approximately 151,000 jobs per month on average.[22] Each month, The Hamilton Project examines the "jobs gap," which is the number of jobs that the U.S. economy needs to create in order to return to pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who enter the labor force each month. Job creation would have to average 208,000 per month to close the gap by 2020; 320,000 by 2017; or 472,000 by mid-2015.[23] During the prosperous 1990's decade, the U.S. created an average of 182,000 jobs/month.[22]

    Bloomberg reported that as of May 2013, the employment-to-population ratio for those aged 16–65 was 67.5%, well below the average of 72.5% in the decade preceding the recession that began in January 2008. This was approximately 10 million jobs short of the number that would exist at the average ratio.[199]

    By the way, I am not a Republican and neither is Mortimer Zuckerman whose article I have posted earlier. Mort is a Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zuckerman is apparently an independent who has contributed to both parties at various times.

      Delete
    2. What's your point with all of this endless copying of articles from here, there, and everywhere?

      Delete
    3. About the concern you have with the long-term unemployed figure, again I did not make it up or obtain the number from some right-wing extremist groups.

      I often refer to factcheck.org to check preposterous claims made by both parties and find their monthly "Obama's Numbers" article to be pretty fair, accurate, and useful.

      According to their "Obama's Numbers" article for July, the long-term unemployed figure actually increased and it is at 3,081,000. Please note that the article also says several positive things such as many more have signed up for Affordable Care Act and many are quite happy with their insurance plans, etc.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obamas-numbers-july-2014-update/

      Delete
    4. Not true. Mort voted for Obama in 2008 and has been a Democrat since 1970. According to Wikipedia: "..since the late 1970s, he has donated more than $68,000 to American political candidates with $42,700 going to Democratic politicians.."

      Delete
  2. According to Wikipedia:

    Unemployment among younger workers

    The employment situation from 2009 to 2013 was particularly difficult for younger workers. The Economic Policy Institute reported in April 2013 that:

    The March 2013 unemployment rate of 16.2% for workers under age 25 was slightly over twice the national average.

    Weak demand for goods and services is the primary driver of this unemployment, not a skills mismatch.

    Graduating in a bad economy has long-lasting economic consequences. For the next 10 to 15 years, those in the Class of 2013 will likely earn less than if they had graduated when the economy were at its potential.

    For young high school graduates, the unemployment rate is 29.9% (compared with 17.5% in 2007) and the underemployment rate is 51.5% (compared with 29.4% in 2007).

    For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is 8.8% (vs. 5.7% in 2007) and the underemployment rate is 18.3% (vs. 9.9% in 2007).[78]

    Job openings relative to unemployed

    The ratio of job seekers to job openings is another indicator used to analyze unemployment trends. The number of unemployed persons per job opening rose from 2.9 in 2003 to 6.7 at its peak in July 2009, before falling to 3.1 in April 2013. EPI reported in June 2013 that: "In today’s economy, unemployed workers far outnumber job openings in every sector...This demonstrates that the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers—and not, as is often claimed, available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings."[79][80]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much of what you have written about younger workers is true. We can certainly thank the Republican Recession for the problems that young people will have many years into the future, can't we?

      The unemployment rate for young people continues to decline. The A16 monthly BLS table gives us data on young people, 16-24. The unemployment rate for young college graduates under age 25 is now 7.9%, but it's a relatively small population and a very volatile number. It has been trending lower, but it is still not as low as that of college-educated people 25 and over.

      OK, to reply to this, taken from EPI: " The March 2013 unemployment rate of 16.2% for workers under age 25 was slightly over twice the national average."

      I should look at EPI a little more carefully... They seem not to be doing that well on their basic facts. The implication of this statement is that it is unusual and not good for the unemployment rate for young people 16-24 to be twice that of the overall unemployment rate. But that turns out not to be true. I just threw the unemployment rate of people 16-24 on a spreadsheet and compared it to the overall unemployment rate going back to the late 1940's. Glory and saints alive! That ratio tends to be LOWER during recessions and higher when the economy is stronger! And, since 1949, that ratio has never varied from between 1.8 and 2.6, in other words young people 16-24 ALWAYS have an unemployment rate between 1.8 and 2.6 times that of the overall unemployment rate. ALWAYS. The HIGHEST that ratio has ever been was in the boom years of 1999-2000. In recent years, that ratio was highest (2.36 to 2.41) in late 2006. And the LOWEST that ratio has ever been in the last 40 years was in the recession year of 1983, and, again in the recent recession years of 2009-2011. It is actually appears to be a characteristic of a STRENGTHENING economy when the ratio of the unemployment rate among young people doubles that of the overall unemployment rate. So EPI may have some valid points about unemployment among young people, but this is not one of them.

      And the unemployment rate for young people 16-24 is now 13.7%, a drop of 2.5% over the past year and a half. Data from 2013 is hopelessly out of date this year, as improvements in employment and unemployment rates are pretty strong.

      Delete
  3. By the way, 55-65 group is considered to be mostly working in general, not in retirement as you sort of imply. The trend is they are actually more likely to stay in the workforce past 65.

    In addition to living longer, wage stagnation and bad economy in the past several years, there are many studies and articles pointing out that many older Americans have not saved hardly enough for retirement and will need to work even longer before they can retire.

    About the concern you have with the long-term unemployed figure, again I did not make it up or obtain the number from some right-wing extremist groups.

    I often refer to factcheck.org to check preposterous claims made by both parties and find their monthly "Obama's Numbers" article to be pretty fair, accurate, and useful.

    According to their "Obama's Numbers" article for July, the long-term unemployed figure actually increased and it is at 3,081,000. Please note that the article also says several positive things such as many more have signed up for Affordable Care Act and many are quite happy with their insurance plans, etc.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obamas-numbers-july-2014-update/


    You have already stated that population in the 55-65 working-age group have increased sharply between 2007 and 2014. I agree. You have also said they are mostly working and doing quite well. I agree since the unemployment rate for 55-65 working-age group is very low and even more of 55+ group are working in terms of percentage than in 2007.

    But we have hundreds of thousands less jobs today than in 2007. So guess which age group(or groups) takes a hit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will answer your comments in detail over the weekend.

      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.