tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post8205309265130606928..comments2023-11-02T06:44:25.146-05:00Comments on Molly's Middle America: Obama vs. Bush on Job Growth (June 2012 Update)Middle Mollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-51691567089763138922012-09-23T14:45:34.523-05:002012-09-23T14:45:34.523-05:00There were 132,466,000 jobs when Bush took office ...There were 132,466,000 jobs when Bush took office in January 2001.<br /><br />There were 133,561,000 jobs when Bush left office in January 2009.<br /><br />In between, the total number of jobs fell to 128,820,000 in August 2003. It rose to 138,023,000 in January 2008 and then started the steep fall.<br /><br />There were 137,778,000 people employed in January 2001 and 142,187,000 people employed in January 2009. <br /><br />In between, the number of people employed fell to 135,701,000 in January 2002. It rose to 146,595,000 people employed in November 2007. Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-62202602588027113612012-09-21T17:09:23.039-05:002012-09-21T17:09:23.039-05:00I would like to know the TOTAL number of people em...I would like to know the TOTAL number of people employed when W took office and the total number of people employed when he LEFT office. Also, the total number of jobs when Bush took office and the total number of jobs when Bush left office. Thank you. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-63949950871295011392012-09-07T18:16:05.238-05:002012-09-07T18:16:05.238-05:00Actually, the recession of 2001 was considered to ...Actually, the recession of 2001 was considered to be brief and shallow. The GDP lost a total of .3%. That recession was considered to last from March 2001 until November 2001. The recession of 2007-2009 was much longer, much deeper, and much more damaging. The GDP lost 5.1%. We hadn't lost anywhere close to that much in GDP since the recession of 1945, right after WWII. We were considered to be in recession for 1 year and 6 months.<br /><br />I do mention Bush's problems in another post <a href="http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2012/04/job-growth-higher-under-obama-than-bush.html" rel="nofollow"> HERE </a><br /><br />Remember that job loss generally continues for a number of months after the economy has started to grow again. The recession of 2001 officially ended in November 2001, but job loss continued for another 21 months. In the steeper 2007-9 recession, job loss continued for only 8 months after the GDP turned positive. <br /><br />I'd never really looked at that comparison before. It seems like quite a testament to the value of the stimulus. Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-89161895027386983912012-09-07T12:07:04.010-05:002012-09-07T12:07:04.010-05:00Also, you should mention that Bush, although he di...Also, you should mention that Bush, although he did not inherit the "freefall" economy like Obama did, he inherited an economy that was slowly recovering from another recession started during the Clinton administration. And then the WTCs were attacked - financial wallstreet, by terrorists to bring down the economy. The fact that the American economy was so quick to recover is a testimony to its resilience. The American economy can recover from almost any event - the rate of recovery depends on the government policies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-4219900745926070612012-09-06T16:27:50.791-05:002012-09-06T16:27:50.791-05:00Oops.. I haven't gotten back to the discussion...Oops.. I haven't gotten back to the discussion of second jobs yet. I'm leaving this comment to remind myself.Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-193220279710355272012-08-22T02:45:51.434-05:002012-08-22T02:45:51.434-05:00Both the number of jobs and the number of people e...Both the number of jobs and the number of people employed are important, which is why the monthly reports usually include the number of jobs along with the unemployment rate. (The number employed is taken from the same source as the unemployment rate.) Now, the number employed is self-reported and includes people who make a little bit of money with small mini-businesses but it also includes professionals who make a lot of money as one man bands in unincorporated small businesses. <br /><br />As the number of jobs comes from payrolls, it would seem to be more accurate, but all of these monthly numbers are based on sample surveys and are preliminary. Jobs numbers for two months are considered preliminary and are usually updated, sometimes up and sometimes down, but the overall payroll jobs numbers can be updated for up to five years after a given month.<br /><br />I think that, over time, both numbers are pretty accurate. Small self-employed enterprises are not included in payroll jobs numbers and agricultural workers are not included in payroll numbers either, so the two numbers are different and will stay that way. <br /><br />More about second jobs tomorrow.... But the number and rate of people with multiple jobs actually goes UP when the economy improves, a trend that goes back as far as I can find the stats (early 90's). Middle Mollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441441493867436577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5912833783359356343.post-75904816553413262412012-08-21T11:10:48.828-05:002012-08-21T11:10:48.828-05:00This is fantastic. I have a question. What is more...This is fantastic. I have a question. What is more important, jobs or people employed? Which is more accurate in your opinion? <br /><br />On a related note, since Bush lost jobs but gained people employed (over the first 41 months according to you) does that mean that people in his economy were dropping their second job? (hopefully because they found a solid single job...?)Jordan Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08545062443877653107noreply@blogger.com