The BLS "B" tables (Employer Survey Data, generally considered by everyone from Alan Greenspan on down to be much more reliable than the A tables, Household Survey Data, shows 132,454 thousand jobs in Jan 2001.

Preliminary data for Jul of 2001 shows 133,786 jobs, a net gain of 1.3 million jobs in five and a half years.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

The BLS also shows the civilian labor force population as being 143,788 in 2001 (January) and growing to 149,573 thousand in July of 2005 -- an increase of nearly six million people in five and a half years.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

In other words, so far, the number of jobs available has grown by 1.3 million in five and a half years. In the same period, the number of people wanting jobs, the civilian labor force population, has grown over four times that, 5.8 million people.

Again, 5.8 million new workers looking for jobs, only 1.3 million jobs to give to them.

In contrast, if the rate of job creation under Bush for the past five and a half years equaled that of the average month-month rate of the Clinton administration, we'd be looking at 147,253 jobs in July 2005, not 133,786, a difference of thirteen million jobs.

I'm just saying, this ain't nothin' to crow about. You're still deeply in a net job loss territory when you adjust for population increases in the same period.

But maybe another tax cut for the rich will finally turn things around?

greg

(preliminary data for July of 2005, not July 2001, of course)

greg

Oh, now you're talking about JOBS? Boy, you guys must really be running away from Cindy Sheehan and Pat Robertson!

Sooo when did we start believing what politicians say during a campaign?

Did I miss the memo or something?

As conservatives, doesn't it bother you that over 1 million new government jobs were created during the first Bush administration. If you take these jobs out of the equation - things look a lot bleaker.

Oh, and it's not five and a half years, it's four and a half years. My apologies, I was typing faster than I think (and I don't type very fast).

greg

Even best numbers aren't enough to keep up with growth. And imagine how bad the numbers would be if all those national gaurd guys were in the states

Oh, now you're talking about JOBS? Boy, you guys must really be running away from Cindy Sheehan and Pat Robertson!

Umm...right. Because we don't feel the need to say something every day about the nut jobs on the left or the right, we're running away from them.

Greg, the numbers you cited are in thousands. Just thought I'd make that clear in case anyone was confused (e.g. there were 132,454,000 jobs in Jan 2001). And, by the way, exactly what made you think I was "crowing"?

And since you brought up Clinton, I will point out for comparison that the average monthly job growth in 2004 and 2005 year-to-date were 182,833 and 192,800, respectively. In 1995 and 2000, the numbers were 179,500 and 162,333. For 1996-1999 the numbers ranged from 232,000 to 279,000. Readers are free to draw whatever conclusions from these numbers that they wish.

Wow.....this post is really pathetic. Making excuses for a president who can barely produce as many jobs in 4 yrs as our last president produced per month.

When will conservatives learn that investing in people's health, education and our national infrastructure is *good* for the economy?? Letting the rich wallow in ther billions during a war and recession is *bad* for the economy.

Caleb, your reading comprehension is apparently what is pathetic. No one is making excuses for anything here. I'm just presenting the data in case anyone's interested.

Personally, I was a little surprised that the Bush jobs record had come out of the deficit and is now 1.3 million in the positive. Given how much we heard about the net job loss as of the beginning of 2004, I was surprised I haven't heard anything about this.

I'm pretty sure that what Caleb is reacting to is, at least in part, the style of the initial post -- it really seems to suggest that you take these numbers to indicate something substantially negative about Kerry's relationship of the truth, and something substantially positive about Bush's relationship to the job market; and a sort of liberalmediabias spin on top of that. Now, maybe you didn't mean to be suggesting that, but there sure is the appearance of such a suggestion.

As for why we're not hearing about it now: for starters, I'm pretty surr I recall seeing it get some mild coverage earlier in the year, when some earlier version of the Jan & Feb numbers were first available. Second, it's just now that big a story: instead of "Bush Economy Sucks on Jobs in a Really, Really Bad Way, Unprecedented since Hoover", we now have "Bush Economy Sucks on Jobs in a Really, Really Bad Way, Just Missing the Hoover Standard by a Number the Size of a Rounding Error". Not exactly an earth-shattering change, no?

I submit that any interpretations of the "style of my initial post" are wholly the assumptions of the reader. For instance, in no way was I suggesting that the Kerry campaign was lying about job loss during the Bush administration. At the time they made the claim, there *was* a net job loss. Their extrapolation that Bush's first term would show a net job loss was a prediction, and making an incorrect prediction is not the same as lying.

At the time they made the claim, there *was* a net job loss. Their extrapolation that Bush's first term would show a net job loss was a prediction, and making an incorrect prediction is not the same as lying.

According to the BLS data that I cited before, there were 132,546 (THOUSAND) jobs in the US at the end of February 2001.

At the end of December, 2004 there were 132,449 (THOUSAND) jobs.

That's a net loss of ninety-six thousand (96,000) jobs between the end of Bush's first full month in office and the end of the last full month of his first term.

Unprecedented since Herbert Hoover. How did Kerry make an incorrect prediction regarding Bush's first term performance?

greg

So, it's possible to interpret the statistics such that Bush did not lose jobs over the course of his first term, but just barely. With as much lipstick as you can put on this dog, the Republican economy added 119K jobs in 4 years (or roughly five weeks worth of population growth of the workforce).

If your point is that this is the best argument that George II has a successful domestic policy, I agree. If someone paid me to come up with a position defending W's domestic performance I'd probably end up splitting hairs as well.

The main difference between job creation numbers before (since '75) and after 2000 is what the BLS calls "the plug factor." Buried deep in their website you can find their new "link relative" method for estimating jobs that fall under the radar...in other words, jobs they assume were created but not reported (as when the local gas station hires a new mechanic). Before 2000, the plug factor was a constant 35,000 per month which was added to the verifiable figure. Since 2000, the figure can balloon to many times that number with the same justification. Example: in June, 2004, BLS reported 112,000 jobs created. The plug factor added to verifiable jobs was 182,000. So, no jobs were created and the verifiable jobs fell by 70,000 (which is a math fiction so we don't really know) Therefore, even if the new method is more accurate (I can't say it's not), you cannot easily compare job creation numbers between Clinton and Bush...you have to know the plug factor. A good article is linked below that refers to this. Gosh, if the economy/job picture is so rosy, why did Bush close the office that reported layoffs in 2001...obviously to save the $1.6mm used to fund it, not to cover anything.
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/body_index3.cfm?id=9982

Half of the jobs in the recent uptick have been in construction or real estate related fields. That has absolutely nothing to do with the White House or W in general. Federal policy, which has created massive deficits, should have and will lead to increased interest rates, which in turn will stop construction and jobs in construction will disappear. Further, this growth has been part of a worldwide construction boom, which suggests that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with it. The only area where the Bushies should rightly claim credit is in the expansion of the government. This includes the actual beauracracy they've put in place (think security checkpoints) as well the increase in jobs related to the gold rush in Iraq.

According to the BLS data that I cited before, there were 132,546 (THOUSAND) jobs in the US at the end of February 2001.

At the end of December, 2004 there were 132,449 (THOUSAND) jobs.

LOL. Why on earth would you compare the end of December 2004 to the end of February 2001? Because you're playing games with the data. A Presidential term lasts 4 years, i.e. 48 months. Surely the only fair way to assess the impact of Bush's first term is to compare one month in 2005 to the same month in 2001. If you pick January, there was a net increase of 119,000 jobs due to Bush's first term. If you pick February, the net increase was 327,000. And it keeps going up from there.

I am simply pointing out the data and the fact that the jobs situation has markedly improved since the last time it was getting a lot of attention in the media. For some reason this makes a lot of liberals hysterical. Perhaps you need to get over the fact that Herman Munster lost the election!

What these posts seem to be missing (and I haven't read all of them) is the following:

1) The Fed has lowered interest rates to record low levels, which probably did much more to create the (meager) amount of new jobs in the economy than Bush's agenda.

2) Fed actions are reversable (and they are currently in reverse, as they are raising interest rates every meeting). Bush's contribution (if that is the right word) is based on huge deficit spending. This is irreversable (at least until the debt is repaid -- which has lots of other adverse consequences which go with it, such as a weaker dollar, dependence on foreign central banks, a "crowding out" effect where private business has to compete with the goverment to borrow funds, etc.)

3) The number of people working is only one measure of employment health -- others include average wages and the quality of the work (someone going from an $85,000 white collar job to flipping burgers is still working, but...)

Surely the only fair way to assess the impact of Bush's first term is to compare one month in 2005 to the same month in 2001.

Huh?

Why on earth would you compare the end of December 2004 to the end of February 2001?

Because those dates represent the first full month of Bush's first term and the last full month of the same term?

I think you've never understood, Eric, that the population, including the population of people looking for, needing, or seeking work, increases relentlessly irrespective of who is in the White House or which political party they represent.

People keep reproducing in, and immigrating to, this country in significant excess of the natural attrition rate due to death or emigration. That drives the population up, every second of every minute of every hour, of every day, of every year.

Those new people need jobs. If the economy doesn't, or can't, create them then you have a net rise in unemployment. It's basic math.

Again, going from my first post. In the first four years of the Bush administration, the working population of this country increased by 5.8 million people.

In the same period, the number of jobs available increased by only 1.3 million, most of those in the past six months.

Again, we need about 140,000 to 150,000 brand-new jobs each and every month just to tread water with regard to the nation's population increase.

greg

While I think that this discussion is important and somewhat useful, I think that far too much credit (positive and negative) is given to presidents for the performance of the economy and the number of jobs available. Certainly the policies of the government have an impact on the economy. This includes policies of the legislature as well as the executive. But my concern is that these posts seem to be based on the assumption that these policies are the primary factor behind the economy and jobs. Who are we kidding? The economy was going crazy during the Clinton administration and people were getting job (often well paying jobs) that were simply not sustainable based on the irrational exuberance of the market and its infatuation with the potential of various tech ideas. Not the mention that economies naturally go through cycles, we are in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, and, perhaps most relevant to the present discussion, productivity has increased more in recent years than in many years past. (I am sorry I don't have data to back that up; if you don't believe me you can find the data and you will see that it is true)

Mike,

I agree with you, far too much credit is given to national administrations when things go well and far too much blame is attached to them when things go bad. This is certainly true of the Clinton administration during the go-go 1990s, when much of the economic expansion was funded by unsustainable speculation and corn-pone dip-shittedness about "new economies" and other such crap.

The same is true of the current administration which is reeling under the inevitable grim reaper of what was sown during those years. The country's dismal economic record is far less an indictment of the administration than it is a product of just piss-poor timing, none of which they could have controlled.

That said, an economic policy that essentially deconstructs to widening the gulf between the halves and halve-nots (i.e. that increases the income disparity between the class quinties) colliding with an energy policy that says it makes sense to squander half of our immense national debt by purchasing energy from people who hate us just so we can continue mindlessly motoring from one suburban strip mall to the next in search of the same offshored goods is, well, it's inane.

We're a country that now has an economy based on nothing. We have nothing that we can point to that says we can do this either cheaper, better, or faster than someone else and thus we're utterly at the mercy of a so-called "globalization" push that's nothning more than a race to the bottom to see who can devalue their natural environment first for a dollar today. We excel at nothing any more than the creation of suburban sprawl and anomie, our only remaining domestic industry and only that by virtue of the fact that it's locationally protected.

greg

Eric: Why on earth would you compare the end of December 2004 to the end of February 2001?

Greg: Because those dates represent the first full month of Bush's first term and the last full month of the same term?

But you're ignoring an entire two months of Bush's first term. If the question is to assess the effect of Bush's first term on jobs, it's simply common sense that the period you look at should be the same length as Bush's first term actually was.

I think you've never understood, Eric, that the population, including the population of people looking for, needing, or seeking work, increases relentlessly

I understand it perfectly, Greg. That is why I put this at the end of my post:

"Needless to say, caveats about the growth of the labor pool over the past 4.5 years and the nature of the jobs created may apply."

Sheesh! Try reading the post before you make condescending remarks about what I do or don't understand. It happens to be irrelevant to the point I was making, which was--listen closely now--that job growth has been rather strong over the last 18 months. It was you and your liberal cohorts who came along and started arguing against a point I never made. I never said a damn thing about how this data shows how great Bush's economic policies have been. That's partly because I agree with Mike that the President has very little impact on the economy, especially during his own time in office. You apparently recognize this, too, but that didn't keep you from regurgitating the ridiculous "worst economy since Herbert Hoover" remark.

Actually, the job growth over the past 18 months has been 132,116 (THOUSAND) jobs per month according to the BLS, which is a rate below the natural population growth, again according to the BLS.

Not sure how "not even treading water" is equivalent to "rather strong" but I look forward to the talking points.

You apparently recognize this, too, but that didn't keep you from regurgitating the ridiculous "worst economy since Herbert Hoover" remark.

I might be regurgitating it (I'm regurgitating a lot, having just come off of a bout of pneumonia) but that doesn't change the underlying facts. Net job loss, decline in per-capita income, drastic increases in income disparity, record trade deficits, etc.

You really want to go on record defending this, uhhh, record?

greg

If Bob Dole could claim in 1996, as he did, that the economy was stagnant under Bill Clinton, then I think the Kerry campaign can be given some slack if they were slightly off, but nevertheless had the gist that the economy wasn't doing much under Bush.

Actually, the job growth over the past 18 months has been 132,116 (THOUSAND) jobs per month

Wrong. The average is 185,842 per month.
(BLS source) It's actually 19 months, since there is preliminary data for July.

but I look forward to the talking points

No talking points, Gregory. Just the facts. You and your ilk are the ones who have turned this into some kind of partisan pissing contest. I've had enough. Comments are now closed.