The following report is outdated. It has been updated with current data HERE.
How many NET jobs created or lost under Obama* as of February 2016?
How many private sector jobs have been lost or added during Obama's presidency?
How many new jobs in the last 7 years since Obama was inaugurated? How many Americans were working or employed when Obama took office... compared to now?
e
Continue below...
Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 in seasonally adjusted numbers:
- 13,827,000 MORE payroll jobs in total
- 14,261,000 MORE private sector jobs
- 13,061,000 MORE people working (includes self-employed and agricultural workers)
How many workers were full-time or part-time at the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010 compared to now?
- 12,647,000 MORE people working full-time.
- 1,195,000 MORE people working part-time.
- (Yes, despite what you may have heard, from the depth of the recession until now, we have many MORE 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 begins to increase.)
- 3,518,000 FEWER people are working part-time involuntarily than in September 2010 when this number peaked at 9,506,000. This is a biggie, as this means that most of the people who are working part-time WANT to work part-time. In fact, we have about 2.5 million more people working part-time who WANT to work part-time than in the depth of the recession. Also, about 40% of people 65 and over who are working are working part-time.
Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009) in seasonally adjusted numbers:
- 9,507,000 MORE jobs in total
- 10,044,000 MORE private sector jobs
- 8,922,000 MORE people working
How many workers were full-time or part-time when Obama was inaugurated compared to now?
- 7,388,000 MORE people working full-time
- 1,476,000 MORE people working part-time
- 2,909,000 FEWER people working part-time INVOLUNTARILY (because they couldn't find a full-time job.) About 2,736,000 more people are working part-time voluntarily.. because they WANT to work part-time... since Obama was inaugurated.
Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 72 months since February 2010?
NO!
- 72 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.
- The longest consecutive period of private-sector job increases since this number has been recorded.
- ALL jobs losses since the recession (January 2008 was the prior peak of jobs) have been made up, added back, or recovered.
Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 65 months since September 2010?
NO!
- 65 months of consecutive overall job growth.
- This is the longest period of consecutive overall job growth since this number has been recorded (back to 1939).
Are more people unemployed now than when Obama took office in January 2009?
NO!
- Despite 4,750,000 MORE people in the labor force (either working or actively looking for work) now vs. January 2009, there are 4,104,000 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 report, upon 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 65 months in this country, we have had MORE jobs being added than we have had jobs being cut. For 72 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 7 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. The numbers above reflect job gains after all job losses have been subtracted.
For the past 72 months (as of February 2016), 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. This is the longest consecutive period of job growth since these numbers have been recorded.
Fact check and important information on these jobs numbers...
The above jobs numbers are from the BLS jobs report of February 2016, which was released in early March 2016. The surveys used to gather these numbers are taken as of the week which includes the 12th day of the month, in this case, February 12, 2016.
If so many more millions of jobs have been created than lost, how is it that the government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000) shows that the amount of people in the work force has dropped below 63%, during President Obama's watch, lower than at any time since the Carter administration? The percentage of people retiring hasn't significantly increased in the last 8 years, meaning that can be eliminated as the main cause; so I'm genuinely curious as to how those numbers can be reconciled. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI will get back to you with a more lengthy reply, but there is a difference between PERCENTAGE of people in the labor force and the NUMBER of people in the labor force. The percentage of people in the labor force, which includes people working and people actively looking for work, is lower than it has been in recent years (thought it has been stable for the last 3 years). However, the NUMBER of people in the labor force is the highest it has ever been. Please remember that there is NO ideal labor force participation rate, and that what some consider the golden age of the middle class occurred during the 60's when the labor force participation rate was much lower than it is today. Some economists and many right-wing politicians try to paint a lower labor force participation rate as a negative thing. While there are negative reasons contributing to a lower labor force participation rate, there are also GOOD reasons for a lower labor force participation rate. It means that economic conditions are such that young people are in school, parents can stay home with kids, and people can retire.
DeleteAbout people retiring, the number of people in the civilian noninstitutional population (people 16 and up who are not in the military or other institutions) who are older is very, very high and will continue to go up for another decade or so.
In 2008, about 30% of the civilian non-institutional population was 55 or older. Now, 2016, about 35% of the civilian non-institutional population is 55 or older. In 2008, the labor force participation rate was just about 66%, now it is just under 63%, though it has been stable for the past three years. But the fact that 5% more of the population is 55+ does account for most of that 3% drop in the participation rate. Most, but not all..
Traditionally, the highest labor force participation rate is found in the 40-44 year old age group. The labor force participation rate for that group is still about 1.5% lower than it was in 2007/2008. The labor force participation rate for that group is now about equal to what it was in 1984 as women were pouring into the work force. It peaked in 1991, and actually has been going down gradually ever since. (The labor force participation rates of most of the age subgroups actually peaked during the late Clinton years.) Again, remember that there is no ideal labor force participation rate and, over the years, the labor force participation rate has mostly been affected by demographic trends.
I will get back to you with a more lengthy reply, but there is a difference between PERCENTAGE of people in the labor force and the NUMBER of people in the labor force. The percentage of people in the labor force, which includes people working and people actively looking for work, is lower than it has been in recent years (thought it has been stable for the last 3 years). However, the NUMBER of people in the labor force is the highest it has ever been. Please remember that there is NO ideal labor force participation rate, and that what some consider the golden age of the middle class occurred during the 60's when the labor force participation rate was much lower than it is today. Some economists and many right-wing politicians try to paint a lower labor force participation rate as a negative thing. While there are negative reasons contributing to a lower labor force participation rate, there are also GOOD reasons for a lower labor force participation rate. It means that economic conditions are such that young people are in school, parents can stay home with kids, and people can retire.
DeleteAbout people retiring, the number of people in the civilian noninstitutional population (people 16 and up who are not in the military or other institutions) who are older is very, very high and will continue to go up for another decade or so.
In 2008, about 30% of the civilian non-institutional population was 55 or older. Now, 2016, about 35% of the civilian non-institutional population is 55 or older. In 2008, the labor force participation rate was just about 66%, now it is just under 63%, though it has been stable for the past three years. But the fact that 5% more of the population is 55+ does account for most of that 3% drop in the participation rate. Most, but not all..
Traditionally, the highest labor force participation rate is found in the 40-44 year old age group. The labor force participation rate for that group is still about 1.5% lower than it was in 2007/2008. The labor force participation rate for that group is now about equal to what it was in 1984 as women were pouring into the work force. It peaked in 1991, and actually has been going down gradually ever since. (The labor force participation rates of most of the age subgroups actually peaked during the late Clinton years.) Again, remember that there is no ideal labor force participation rate and, over the years, the labor force participation rate has mostly been affected by demographic trends.
a lot of people report that they are not looking for a job even though a whole lot more people are working and continue to find work every month.
Deletea lot of people report that they are not looking for a job even though a whole lot more people are working and continue to find work every month.
Delete