Total Employment

[Wiseacre]

Every month the BLS puts out a monthly report of employment/unemployment. Table A-1 in that report shows the total number of employed and the change over the last couple of months so you can see the direction it's going in. Lately it ain't good, but that's not the point of this post.

When Obama took office in Jan 2009, the BLS summary showed the total employment at approx 142.1 million. As you know, that was in the middle of big numbers of people losing their jobs, losses would continue into 2010, even though Obama pushed for and signed a stimulus bill costing about $862 billion. It was said to be needed immediately, and shovel ready jobs were just waiting for the bill to be signed to go into effect. Here's a link to show the numbers for Jan 2009:


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf


So, the bill was signed, but the jobs didn't materialize in the numbers we expected. Then, in June 2009, the recession was said to be over, and economic growth was no longer negative. At that time, the BLS showed total employment to have dropped down to approx 140.2 million, subsequently revised downward to 140.0. Seems to me this is the logical time to start counting jobs created on Obama's watch, considering he got his stimulus bill and then a very large appropriations bill, the largest in our history, passed shortly thereafter. And the Fed obliged by lowering interest rates down to next to zero and also enacted QE1 and QE2, and Twist and Shout, or whatever they called that latest effort. Here's a link to the June 2010 numbers:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf


So, where are we now? The latest BLS numbers say total employment is about 142.3 million. 3 years later, from the end of the recession, we've got about 2 million more employed. And that included part timers who would rather be working fulltime, and the underemployed. I don't think 2 million in 3 years is anywhere near good enough, it doesn't even come close to keeping up with the new workers entering the workforce evey month. And it's not even close to the recoveries from other recessions since WWII.

Question: How does Obama come up with the 4.3 million jobs created? Even the lowest number was 138.6 million in Feb 2010, maybe someone can explain that.

Question: We were supposed to be doing so much better by now, why aren't we? With all the additional spending, low interest rates, QE1 and QE2, WTF? We've been spending money for 3 and a half years like it was going out of style, do you think it's been wisely spent? I don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

The number of jobs created is arrived at by assuming that every X dollars of gov't spending produces Y new jobs.
Of course that is bogus. It is complete and utter bullshit.
The best defense that can be mustered is "it would have been worse." That is the mantra of every author of every failed plan.

 

[Wiseacre]

So, nobody can tell me how Obama gets his 4.3 million jobs created number?

 

[Saigon]

Unemployment in the US is still relatively low compared to your major trading partners.

I don't know what all the fuss is about really.

Spain has 23% unemployment, and Greece 20%.

Try that on for size.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

So, nobody can tell me how Obama gets his 4.3 million jobs created number?

Well, not sure about 4.3 million, but you'd have to count from when the job losses actually bottomed out - in December 09; at 138 million employed. Subtracting that from the 142.0 million employed today gives you 4 million new jobs. But, it would depend on when you want to start counting. Obama took office in January 2009 with 142.2 million employed, the economy shed 4.2 million jobs in his first year. How much of that is really attributable? Most say it takes about 6 months before you can really start having much of an impact; under this analysis, July '09 employment being 139.0 million, you would have a net of about 3 million new jobs (one million lost in the second semester of the presidency plus 4 millions in the subsequent years), which isn't historically bad.

In Bush II's first term, with a much milder recession than this one, the economy generated a grand total of 1.6 million jobs in the same time frame (July '01 137.1 million - April '04 138.7 millions). Bush I's the number was 0.9 million (the economy was still dropping at the end of this period). Clinton faced very favorable post-recession winds and enjoyed a figure of almost 6 million in the same time frame.

The number of jobs created is arrived at by assuming that every X dollars of gov't spending produces Y new jobs.
Of course that is bogus. It is complete and utter bullshit.
The best defense that can be mustered is "it would have been worse." That is the mantra of every author of every failed plan.

Quite wrong. Any X dollars of any spending by anybody necessarily produce Y new jobs. If the government of Wisconsin spends $1 million in 25 teachers' yearly salaries, then it is in fact maintaining 25 jobs. If it takes that funding away, there will be 25 more people unemployed.

As far as 'it would have been worse' you may have a point - it is a bit of a weak argument, as nobody can really know what would happen one hypothetical way or the other. But we can examine cases where different policies were followed, such as the savage austerity which conservatives want to impose (ie, gutting government spending across the board to pay down debt) - like the cases of Spain (unemployment: 24%), Greece (22%), Portugal (15%), or Ireland (14%). Very different policy mix, very different results.

 

[auditor0007]

Unemployment in the US is still relatively low compared to your major trading partners.

I don't know what all the fuss is about really.

Spain has 23% unemployment, and Greece 20%.

Try that on for size.

We are not Spain or Greece. That being said, there are a number of factors holding back a strong recovery. The biggest factor which is not readily acknowledged is that the baby boomers are downsizing, retiring or getting ready to retire, and they have stopped spending money. This is a massive number of people who just have no need to buy any new homes, cars, or anything. In fact, they are trying to get out of their big homes so they can move into something smaller. These people, which includes many of us, have no reason to go out and buy a big new house, four brand new cars, one for husband, one for wife, and two for the teenage kids. And because so many lost so much when the market crashed, everyone is being extremely conservative with their savings and investments, trying to secure a decent retirement.

With such a drop in spending, there just is no demand for new products and services, so younger people are having trouble getting into the workforce. This is leading to a situation where young people are putting off getting married and starting families, the biggest thing that leads to greater spending. There is nothing like needing to buy a house and raise a couple of kids to increase spending.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unemployment in the US is still relatively low compared to your major trading partners.

I don't know what all the fuss is about really.

Spain has 23% unemployment, and Greece 20%.

Try that on for size.

We are not Spain or Greece. That being said, there are a number of factors holding back a strong recovery. The biggest factor which is not readily acknowledged is that the baby boomers are downsizing, retiring or getting ready to retire, and they have stopped spending money. This is a massive number of people who just have no need to buy any new homes, cars, or anything. In fact, they are trying to get out of their big homes so they can move into something smaller. These people, which includes many of us, have no reason to go out and buy a big new house, four brand new cars, one for husband, one for wife, and two for the teenage kids. And because so many lost so much when the market crashed, everyone is being extremely conservative with their savings and investments, trying to secure a decent retirement.

With such a drop in spending, there just is no demand for new products and services, so younger people are having trouble getting into the workforce. This is leading to a situation where young people are putting off getting married and starting families, the biggest thing that leads to greater spending. There is nothing like needing to buy a house and raise a couple of kids to increase spending.

So this is the excuse d'jour? Baby boomers? Obama has blamed Japanese tsunamis, airport kiosks, and ATMs. So now it's baby boomers.
Bullshit. Baby boomers didnt suddenly start downsizing in 2008. And the majority of boomers are probably well under retirement. I am the last year of the boomers and I just turned 50.

 

[Saigon]

The Rabbi -

I think the latest "excuse" is the same one being used by 190 other governments - there is an international recession.

Again, the US is probably doing better than most.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi -

I think the latest "excuse" is the same one being used by 190 other governments - there is an international recession.

Again, the US is probably doing better than most.

Compared to Zimbabwe we are an economic powerhouse. But I really don't want to be compared to Zimbabwe. Compared to the George W Bush years we do look like Zimbabwe.

 

[Saigon]

The Rabbi -

I suggest you compare the US rationally, and against the countries you trade with - because how they are doing effects the US, too, right?

So how does unemployment in the UK, France and Germany look right now?

How is growth in Japan, Spain and Australia?

 

[Darkwind]

Unemployment in the US is still relatively low compared to your major trading partners.

I don't know what all the fuss is about really.

Spain has 23% unemployment, and Greece 20%.

Try that on for size.

The United States is currently experiencing nearly 20% unemployment. You have to ignore the politically driven number that is currently in use.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Well, not sure about 4.3 million, but you'd have to count from when the job losses actually bottomed out - in December 09 "


Why should we start counting at the low point - isn't that a bit disingenuous? The man asked for and got a stimulus package; told everyone we had to pass it right away cuz people needed jonbs amd we could give 'em shovel-ready jobs immediately. Given the fact that shortly thereafter he also got a huge appropriations bill, the largest in our history, and the fact that the recession was over in June 09 and that's when the 1st so-called recovery started, it seems fair to me to start counting then.

As for being historically bad, check out the link below; here are a few facts from it:


" And on several measures, the current recovery — which started five months after Obama took office and is now in its 35th month — is the worst on record since World War II. "


" Employment: By this point [Jun 09], the average job growth in the past 10 recoveries was 6.9%. Under Obama, jobs have grown by just 1.9%, according to data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
Had the current recovery kept pace with just the average recovery over the past 60 years, there would be 6.5 million more people with jobs today, and the unemployment rate would be below 7%, instead of above 8%. That assumes several million more Americans would have joined the workforce. If the current anemic labor force were unchanged, those 6.5 million jobs would drive unemployment to 4%. "


" GDP growth: The Obama recovery has also performed far worse than average when it comes to GDP growth. After 11 quarters, the economy is still only 6.8% bigger than it was when the recession ended. In contrast, GDP was 16% bigger, on average, by this point in the previous 10 recoveries, the Minneapolis Fed data show.
The current recovery is so slow, in fact, that it just barely beats GDP growth 11 quarters after the 1980 recession ended — even though there was the intervening long and painful 1981-82 recession. And unless GDP shoots up in Q2, the current recovery will soon be the absolute worst since the Great Depression.
Had the Obama recovery tracked the average GDP growth in the 10 previous recoveries, the economy would be almost $1.2 trillion bigger today. "


" Incomes: By the third year of the past five recoveries, real median household incomes climbed an average 2.8%, according to the Census Bureau, which only has household income data back to 1967.
But in the current recovery, real household incomes dropped 5.4% during the recovery, according to Sentier Research, which compiles a monthly household income index using Census data.
"Unlike previous recoveries, we actually saw household incomes drop faster during the recovery than they did during the recession itself," said Gordon Green, who co-founded Sentier. "

Obama's 'Extraordinary' Economic Recovery Actually 6.5 Million Jobs Below Average - Investors.com

 

[Saigon]

Darkwind -

That is possible, I wouldn't like to guess either way.

But compare any stat - public debt as a % of GDP; unemployment, YoY growth....the US appears to me to be in a similar situation to Germany, France and the UK.

Stats for the Eurzone appear here in graphical form:

BBC News - Eurozone in crisis in graphics: Deficit

 

[pinqy]

Every month the BLS puts out a monthly report of employment/unemployment. Table A-1 in that report shows the total number of employed and the change over the last couple of months so you can see the direction it's going in. Lately it ain't good, but that's not the point of this post.

When Obama took office in Jan 2009, the BLS summary showed the total employment at approx 142.1 million. As you know, that was in the middle of big numbers of people losing their jobs, losses would continue into 2010, even though Obama pushed for and signed a stimulus bill costing about $862 billion. It was said to be needed immediately, and shovel ready jobs were just waiting for the bill to be signed to go into effect. Here's a link to show the numbers for Jan 2009:


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf


So, the bill was signed, but the jobs didn't materialize in the numbers we expected. Then, in June 2009, the recession was said to be over, and economic growth was no longer negative. At that time, the BLS showed total employment to have dropped down to approx 140.2 million, subsequently revised downward to 140.0. Seems to me this is the logical time to start counting jobs created on Obama's watch, considering he got his stimulus bill and then a very large appropriations bill, the largest in our history, passed shortly thereafter. And the Fed obliged by lowering interest rates down to next to zero and also enacted QE1 and QE2, and Twist and Shout, or whatever they called that latest effort. Here's a link to the June 2010 numbers:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07022009.pdf


So, where are we now? The latest BLS numbers say total employment is about 142.3 million. 3 years later, from the end of the recession, we've got about 2 million more employed. And that included part timers who would rather be working fulltime, and the underemployed. I don't think 2 million in 3 years is anywhere near good enough, it doesn't even come close to keeping up with the new workers entering the workforce evey month. And it's not even close to the recoveries from other recessions since WWII.

Question: How does Obama come up with the 4.3 million jobs created? Even the lowest number was 138.6 million in Feb 2010, maybe someone can explain that.

Well, there's a difference between "jobs" and total employment.

Total employment comes from a monthly household survey and the universe is everyone 16 and older not in prison, the military, or an institution. Employed is "worked at least one hour for pay during the reference week or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business/farm."
This is a count of people and a person is counted once no matter how many jobs s/he has.

"Jobs" comes from a monthly survey of establishments and the universe is non agricultural businesses who contribute to Unemployment insurance. Excluded are farm workers, the self employed, unpaid family workers, and people who work in other people's houses. This is a count of JOBS, so a person who has 2 jobs will be counted twice.

OR, his "jobs" count could come from the Quarterly Census of Employmnet and Wages, which has the same definitions as the monthly jobs survey, but is a (almost full) census. There's a larger delay.

And then of course he could be using seasonally adjusted numbers or not seasonally adjusted, and he could be using just private sector or total nonfarm.

As all politicians, he'll pick whatever numbers work best for his purposes.

 

[Darkwind]

Darkwind -

That is possible, I wouldn't like to guess either way.

But compare any stat - public debt as a % of GDP; unemployment, YoY growth....the US appears to me to be in a similar situation to Germany, France and the UK.

Stats for the Eurzone appear here in graphical form:

BBC News - Eurozone in crisis in graphics: Deficit

Without a doubt. It is why real austerity measures are required both here in the US and in Europe. However, since no austerity meausures have been implement to date, and given that we are beginning to regress into recession, I think that it will get worse and may never recover.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

" Well, not sure about 4.3 million, but you'd have to count from when the job losses actually bottomed out - in December 09 "


Why should we start counting at the low point - isn't that a bit disingenuous? The man asked for and got a stimulus package; told everyone we had to pass it right away cuz people needed jonbs amd we could give 'em shovel-ready jobs immediately. Given the fact that shortly thereafter he also got a huge appropriations bill, the largest in our history, and the fact that the recession was over in June 09 and that's when the 1st so-called recovery started, it seems fair to me to start counting then.

As for being historically bad, check out the link below; here are a few facts from it:

I wasn't saying we have to start counting at the low point, only that you get a figure close to the "4.3 million" if you start from there. Like I said, most economists would tell you you would have to start counting about 6 months into the presidency, which would yield about 3 million on job gains (from July 09 to April '12).

Likewise, the figure for the same time period for Bush I (Jul 89 - Apr 92) and Bush II's first term (Jul '01 to Apr '04) is very much below this 3 million mark at 1.6 and 0.9 million respectively.

The data is publicly available at the BLS; I like looking at it from Google because its easier though [link by clicking "Google"].

What your article fails to mention is that 1) Every single recovery has been progressively slower than the last in terms of job recovery, this pattern dating back several decades; and 2) Obviously, the numbers are going to be worse in this downturn because it was worse than any other downturn in several decades.

I think the main thing I would criticize about Obama's handling of the recession is that his policies inever went far enough: at the beginning it might have been better that he squander his political capital on a larger stimulus and a deeper focus on tax and financial reform rather than Health care, which was not the principal problem at the time and which basically tied him up for the rest of his term. Virtually nobody thought the amount oif stimulus was nearly enough. This mistake will probably be his undoing in November, but c'est la vie.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi -

I suggest you compare the US rationally, and against the countries you trade with - because how they are doing effects the US, too, right?

So how does unemployment in the UK, France and Germany look right now?

How is growth in Japan, Spain and Australia?

NO.
U.S. trade as a percentage of GDP is about 5%. That leaves 95% of the rest of the economy not dependent.
So first fallacy.
Second, plenty of other countries are doing fine. Israel has a 4.8% growth rate and an unemployment rate of 5.6%. Estonia has a 12+% growth rate. Singapore has a 4.9% growth rate and 2% unemployment.
Second fallacy.
All the countries you mention have followed policy prescriptions similar to what Obama's team has done for the last 3 years. So no surprise their economies suck.

 

[KissMy]

Looking at the raw unadjusted data, this was actually one of the better jobs creation months since Obama took office. Even so it amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of jobs. When charted the little bump still looks like tits on a gnat. Also previous months were revised down. Basically jobs plummeted as soon as Democrats took power in 2007 & are now up since Republicans took the House in 2011.

 

[Saigon]

NO.
U.S. trade as a percentage of GDP is about 5%. That leaves 95% of the rest of the economy not dependent.
So first fallacy.
Second, plenty of other countries are doing fine. Israel has a 4.8% growth rate and an unemployment rate of 5.6%. Estonia has a 12+% growth rate. Singapore has a 4.9% growth rate and 2% unemployment.
Second fallacy.
All the countries you mention have followed policy prescriptions similar to what Obama's team has done for the last 3 years. So no surprise their economies suck.

Right - so countries like Estonia and Israel are valid comparisons with the US...but England and France aren't.

And the state of economies in your major trading partners does not effect the US economy. I am dure companies like Ford, Microsoft and Apple would be pleased to know their offshore markets don't matter.

Jesus wept.

 

[The Rabbi]

NO.
U.S. trade as a percentage of GDP is about 5%. That leaves 95% of the rest of the economy not dependent.
So first fallacy.
Second, plenty of other countries are doing fine. Israel has a 4.8% growth rate and an unemployment rate of 5.6%. Estonia has a 12+% growth rate. Singapore has a 4.9% growth rate and 2% unemployment.
Second fallacy.
All the countries you mention have followed policy prescriptions similar to what Obama's team has done for the last 3 years. So no surprise their economies suck.

Right - so countries like Estonia and Israel are valid comparisons with the US...but England and France aren't.

And the state of economies in your major trading partners does not effect the US economy. I am dure companies like Ford, Microsoft and Apple would be pleased to know their offshore markets don't matter.

Jesus wept.

You first want to say that slowing trade with other countries is responsible for poor performance here. So I point out that trade only accounts for 5% of total GDP, a small amount.
Then you want to say that other countries aren't doing well so we aren't either. So I point out plenty of countries have good economies because of their superior economic policies. Had we has superior economic policies our economy would be doing better. Note that during the late 1990s most of the world was in recession while we were doing fine.
Then you want to claim that because certain companies do a lot of their business overseas that is indicative of the economy as a whole.

You are stupid beyond belief. Your ignorance is astounding. You need to start with a comic book of economics and work your way up from there.