Milestone: More private sector jobs today than when Obama took office.

How much?

 

Its called economics and it is fascinating. Once a person sheds their ideological blinders, many things become fascinating.

Not a very well posed question but I see your intent. The President alone does not control the economy. Blaming Bush individually for the recession is a fools errand.

During the Bush-43 admin, the Republicans had a majority in the Senate for 4 years, and the House for 6 years. The Republicans had majorties in both House and Senate for only 4 years (2003-2007).
During the Clinton years, the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate only for the first 2 years, the remaining 6 were Republican.

Thats called divided government. You can't blame one President or one political party until 2009 when obama and the democrats had total control and used that control to dominate the nation. Pre-2009, the blame goes to all of DC. Post-2009, the blame goes to the democrats.

 

I wasn't attempting to blame Bush at all. I'm curious as to how many jobs were lost in the last Republican administration under your employment method so we can compare apples to apples.

And?

 

Are you implying Obama and Company have taken steps to assure the private sector the best possible business environment in order for them to sustain job growth?

If you are, then please tell me what those specific actions might have been?

If you are not, then your numbers are simply showing what happens without government involvement...

 

I don't think my post implied any such thing.

Are you implying that Obama's policies caused the hudreds of thousands of jobs lost every month when he took office, and then played no role in the economy turning around and adding over 4 million new jobs since January 2010?

If you are, then please tell me what those specific actions might have been and how they caused the initial job loss but had no effect on the economy turning around.

Please explain how you contend there has been no government involvement.

 

Of course you are trying to blame the Bush administration, why else would you want to compare the last republican administration to the obama administration? They are both losers anyway.

Since the recession started in 2007/2008, many jobs were lost during the last year of the Bush admin (as many as were lost during the first year of the obama admin).

Here, from the BLS (http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet), employment as a percentage of population. There is no growth under obama, the economy is just treading water.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

 

Is it somehow unfair to compare the Obama administration with the prior Republican administration using the methodology you apply for Obama? How so?

Where is the data showing the job losses under the prior Republican administration using your methodology?

 

What's the relevancy of that? He's simply trying to explain that looking at raw employment growth numbers isn't very intelligent; humanity has a nagging tendency to continuously expand. It's like looking at nominal GDP numbers without factoring in the GDP deflator to get the real GDP.

 

Fair enough, he wants to come up with some alternative way of calculating employment regarding Obama.

What is unfair about seeing how that same methodology applies to previous administrations and compare apples to apples?

If you are going to say that under this particular methodology, no jobs have been created under Obama since Jan 2010, that may sound bad, but if it also shows that 10 million jobs were lost while Bush was president then that doesn't sound so bad.

Or is your goal simply to unfairly demonize Obama?

 

This has nothing to do with me demonizing Obama. Unlike most of the people here, I realize that the President has a limited ability to impact the economy. When people start posting term dates as parameters for comparing economic "report cards" for each President, I just laugh. Before this argument got into too much of a screaming match, I wanted to make sure people realized that the OPs metrics were silly.

 

The same number of jobs were lost during the last year of the Bush admin as in the first year of the obama admin.

Look at the graph I posted previously, which shows employment as a percentage of population. This takes into account population growth. The major job losses in the recession were evenly split between 2008 and 2009. Since 2009, job growth is flat, meaning job growth under obama is basically meeting population growth. Jobs lost during 2008-2009 have not been regained. There was not any real growth in employment under bush either.

If you want to calculate all the exact numbers, go to the BLS web site referenced earlier.

 

Well, you stated..."That means that all the job losses during his term, that were netting out at about 700,000 jobs lost per month when Obama took office, have been recovered.

That includes about 4.2 million private sector jobs created since January 2010.

We have not fully recovered yet, but we are moving in the right direction.

I wouldn't expect the RW propaganda channels to report this, but amazing how there hasn't been a peep about this milestone in the lame stream media"

If you were not implying Obama is responsible for this job growth then you are implying Obama was not responsible for the job growth...which one is it?

No, I'm not implying. I firmly believe Obama has done nothing to assist the private economy in creating the best possible business environment which fosters sustainable job creation!

If you disagree with me, then please tell me what Obama has done to assist US business to become competitive in the global market place?

The ONLY thing Obama has done is spend huge sums of taxpayer money. This makes him nothing more than a consumer to the private sector. Since his spending is only short term, the resulting job increases are also short term. Government spending DOES NOT create the best possible business environment!

 

I appreciate your stated objectivity. Why didn't you answer the question: "What is unfair about seeing how that same methodology applies to previous administrations and compare apples to apples?"


As an objective observer, do you not agree that it is fair to compare Obama with his predecessors using the same methodology?

Or is it your view that it is fair to judge Obama by different and less favorable methods than were used to judge his predecessors?

 

Is this based on your population adjusted methodology?

I'll take your word for it. The last year of the Bush administration was after 7 years of his policies. The first year of the Obama administration inherited from Bush.

It shows employment as a % of population dropping from from over 64 in 2001 to 58 in 2009. In stablized at the end of 2009 and has held basically steady since

You think there was any? I'm still waiting for your calculations with your methodology under Bush.

I'm betting we will see that while job growth has been steady under Obama since Jan 2010, it was way negative under Bush.

And that is the reason you don't post it.

So I take it you haven't done it, and when you just said "There was not any real growth in employment under bush either" you had no clue what you were talking about.

 

My post didn't imply one way or the other. I simply reported a fact, in part because numerous conservatives have repeatedly posted that net jobs have been lost under Obama. My post shows that is no longer true.

Based on the numerous posts by the conservative "experts" here claiming the economy is all Obama's responsibility, you could certainly infer that the growth in new jobs was Obama's doing. But you'd have to ask them why they believe that.

Notwithstanding the lack of implication, I could, and have, certainly make an argument that Obama's policies helped mitigate the recession and foster job growth.

Good for you. If you want to try to prove or support your belief to show it is something more than simply partisan based, unsupported belief, akin to belief in Santa Claus, I'm all ears.

You made the claim. Please tell me how the Tarp and Stimulus and tax cuts had no effect on the economy turning around, and the fact thatthe economy stopped tanking and turned around and started growing just as these Govt intervention programs were going into effect is just a massive coincidence.

That is not accurate. Obama as mostly spend huge sums of borrowed money, continuing the trend he inherited.

So you are agreeing that Govt spending increases jobs in the short term?

 

The question didn't seem directed at me. I made no assertions about previous administrations and judging employment numbers. I hold that nominal job numbers are worthless if they aren't taken into context. This holds true for all Presidents, past, present and future. I don't care what political party a President belongs to, proper figures are proper figures.

 

It was, which is why I put it in my post to you.

My post to Gator asked him to to show how the previous administration fared under his methodology. Your post asked "what is the relevancy of that". Which I have been trying to explain, and discuss by asking you what is unfair comparing apples to apples.

Which you still have dodged and not answered.

 

I asked about relevancy because instead of acknowledging the flaws in the OPs statistics, you immediately began attacking Bush. Too me, that part of the debate was about the relative merits of judging nominal employment numbers. Now it seems you'd rather push the attention away from the OPs incorrect assertion, by continually trying to get me to answer a question I made absolutely no comment on, outside of pointing out that it was irrelevant to that immediate point of discussion. You can't accuse me of "dodging" a question that you yourself threw out to avoid the topic at hand.

 

I didn't attack Bush at all. Please feel free to quote my language you claim is attacking Bush.

I simply asked whether it was fair to used a different methodology to compute employment numbers for Obama than for Bush.

And the fact you have dodged answer that for about 10 posts now tells me all I need to know.

 

Reference; http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/

Total US Employment
CES employment peaked for the US in January 2008 at 138,023,000. Since then 5,014,000 jobs have been lost according to the employer survey. From a trough of 129,244,000 in February 2010, the US has added 3,765,000 jobs according to CES employment figures.

CPS employment reached a maximum of 146,595,000 in November 2007. 4,308,000 have been lost since then according to the household survey. From a December 2009 low of 137,968,000, the US has added 4,319,000 jobs according to the CPS survey.

According to these numbers, 5,014,000 (-) 3,765,000 (=) 1,249,000 net jobs lost. And, 4,308,000 (-) 4,319,000 (=) 11,000 net jobs gained. So...1,249,000 jobs lost (-) 11,000 jobs gained (=) 1,238,000 NET JOBS LOST.

What exactly do you believe Obama did to increase the demand of products and services in the private sector?

Well, I am a business owner and not once has Obama or anyone asked me if there is anything government can do to help me increase the demands on my products? No one has talked to me about government regulations, environmental regulations, immigration policies, tax policies, trade policies, etc. So if Obama is not asking these questions of the private sector, and not taking effective actions to assist business in sustained growth based on this input, then obviously Obama has done nothing other than be a government consumer to the private sector.

I never once said stimulus and tax cuts do not have an effect on the economy?? I said that these actions are only government consumption in the private sector and any effects to the economy will ONLY last as long as the government money lasts. These actions alone have not assisted the private sector in becoming more competitive in the global markets.

All money spent by government is taxpayer money! The taxpayer may not contribute today but the taxpayer will contribute in the future for all debts created. Taxpayers will be burdened with the national debt, IMO, for the next 50 years.

I've clearly said whenever the government spends/purchases from the private sector, this might create more jobs, and if it does, the jobs only last as long as the government money is spent. Let's say you (the People) don't have any money to buy some more plaid-on-plaid shorts and shirts and black knee-socks. So (the Government) gives you $50 to buy some of your plaid-on-plaid. You go out and spend that $50 on your plaid-on-plaid ensemble with black knee-socks. The Target store where you shop (Private sector) sees an increase in demand and may or may not hire depending on how they feel about this new demand being sustained. Remember that the store has the option to hire part-timers, or have current employees work overtime to meet new demand, and hiring full-time workers is the last job action they will take. In this example let's assume the other 1000 people in your retirement home also got $50 and shopped at that Target store and Target hired one new employee (job creation). Now a few months pass, you have no money, the government won't give you any more money, Target's business drops, Target terminates that one employee, and now we're right back where we started regarding employment.

In the case of stimulus and tax cuts and other political tricks, all of this is nothing more than Obama spending taxpayer money as consumers in the private sector. Spending money as a consumer does absolutely nothing to allow US business to become more competitive in the global markets...

 

I'd merely point out that conservative dogma says that low taxes, low regulation and a smaller government means a better economy. That this proves untrue is where the right loses on a factual basis. On the messaging, they lie their guys to win elections.

 

I can't argue with that. It becomes about a result that, whilst consistent with aspects of right wing dogma, fits more comfortably with orthodox economic analysis

 

stop making things up

 

Is there a reason for your lack of argument?

 

The stimulus, the auto bailouts, pay raises for soldiers, mortgage settlement agreements, etc etc, all increase dmeand for private sector services.

Lot's of people talk at you all the time about that. Maybe you are not paying attention.

Really? The deficit and the failure of Congress to address the debt has reduced the value of the $US, making US exports more competitive. The US has also signed a number of trade agreements in the last few years that have reduced and eliminated tarriffs on US goods and services offered by US companies.

Many US companies are their own worst enemy when trying to compete globally. Many do not use the metric system, many resist ISO certification, and many many small and medium sized companies have no clue about what selling overseas entails and have no desire to learn, considering a risky expense. That said, there are quite a few small and meduim sized US companies that do quite well in overseas markets. Their products are competitive in price quality and innovation with the best from other nations. These companies took the risk to go metric, get ISO certified, and learn how to do business internationally. Many took advantage of local state and federal programs specifically aimed at helping small and medium sized US businesses get into overseas markets through training, setting up foriegn contacts, arranging contracts, financing sales and letters of credit, navigating customs and tarriffs. The SBA can be a lot of help even if you don't want or need their money, they do a lot more than lend and can hook you up with others who can help.

There is a lot of hoops to jump through if you are going to sell overseas. I used to ship whole houses overseas to foreign customers and hire Amercian builders to go with them and oversee their construction. You think the tarrff schedule for your widgets is onerous, try shipping an entire house to Korea or Japan and getting a visa for your builder.

If you are having trouble getting into overseas markets you are not trying hard enough.

[/QUOTE]
All money spent by government is taxpayer money! The taxpayer may not contribute today but the taxpayer will contribute in the future for all debts created. Taxpayers will be burdened with the national debt, IMO, for the next 50 years.

I've clearly said whenever the government spends/purchases from the private sector, this might create more jobs, and if it does, the jobs only last as long as the government money is spent. Let's say you (the People) don't have any money to buy some more plaid-on-plaid shorts and shirts and black knee-socks. So (the Government) gives you $50 to buy some of your plaid-on-plaid. You go out and spend that $50 on your plaid-on-plaid ensemble with black knee-socks. The Target store where you shop (Private sector) sees an increase in demand and may or may not hire depending on how they feel about this new demand being sustained. Remember that the store has the option to hire part-timers, or have current employees work overtime to meet new demand, and hiring full-time workers is the last job action they will take. In this example let's assume the other 1000 people in your retirement home also got $50 and shopped at that Target store and Target hired one new employee (job creation). Now a few months pass, you have no money, the government won't give you any more money, Target's business drops, Target terminates that one employee, and now we're right back where we started regarding employment.

In the case of stimulus and tax cuts and other political tricks, all of this is nothing more than Obama spending taxpayer money as consumers in the private sector. Spending money as a consumer does absolutely nothing to allow US business to become more competitive in the global markets...[/QUOTE]

So the government builds a highway around a city. Once the highway is built all the people who built it are out supposedly of work and the local economy declines back to its old state. But that is not what happens. What happens is that landowners along the highway begin building shopping malls and business parks and housing developments and the local economy soon returns more in taxes than it cost to build the highway in the first place.

Let's look at another government spending program more like your target shopper example, cash for clunkers. It is estimated that the 600,000 cars sold in the three months of cash for clunkers saved over 70,000 direct manufacturing jobs in 2009 as car dealers ran out of cars and instead of the mass layoffs they had planned, manufacturers kept production going to replace inventory. By mid 2010 the recovering economy allowed them to maintain production, albeit at lower levels than before, but at least they were operating.

If you consider what was going to happen without this program, 70,000+ layoffs and even more people keeping their money in their pockets rather than spending it, it was a small bridge that led from further economic decilne to tiny, but significant economic growth that has persisted.