U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party

[JBeukema]

truthful politics » U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party

 

[Liberty]

does one month jobs as census workers and non-permanent employment tally into that?

 

[xsited1]

truthful politics » U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party

So, how does a President create jobs?

 

[Leweman]

They can create government jobs, really congress would do that I guess. Besides Czars.

 

[sparky]

So, how does a President create jobs?

mostly in 3rd world countries via free trade, and if they aren't down with that , there's the biz of bombin' them into it

 

[expat_panama]

...how does a President create jobs?

He doesn't, he just says he does.

There's a problem with getting BLS numbers from leftist websites instead of from well, the BLS website.

By just looking at the facts, the impact of the '03 tax cuts is clear and so is the impact of policies since '09. While some of us allow leftists like "truthfulpolitics" say what to think, the rest of us just think for ourselves

 

[uscitizen]

truthful politics » U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party

Kinda looks like Reagan and Clowntoon are in a dead heat and Bush was abysmal.
The reason for this is not party specific but an effect of globalization, NAFTA, SHAaFTA, free trade, etc. And lack of proper planning for america by our govt for decades.

 

[expat_panama]

...looks like Reagan and Clowntoon are in a dead heat and Bush was abysmal....

That's exactly what the leftist "Truthfulpolitics" gang wants you to believe when they mangled the BLS numbers. I was surprised myself when I went over the BLS facts first hand, enough to download the numbers and check for the trend line:

We need to realize that current employment has fallen below historic trends to a point we haven't seen since the depression.

Political belly-aching aside, this is serious.

 

[uscitizen]

...looks like Reagan and Clowntoon are in a dead heat and Bush was abysmal....

That's exactly what the leftist "Truthfulpolitics" gang wants you to believe when they mangled the BLS numbers. I was surprised myself when I went over the BLS facts first hand, enough to download the numbers and check for the trend line:

We need to realize that current employment has fallen below historic trends to a point we haven't seen since the depression.

Political belly-aching aside, this is serious.

Umm that is the result of which I speak and it will not really tuern around. We have to learn to live with less.
And I am not much partisan on this both parties have worked hard to make it happen.

 

[expat_panama]

...I am not much partisan on this ...

Absolutely, my comment about 'political belly aching' was for me as much as everyone else because it's so easy to get carried away here.

The point is that we got a real problem and we need to get together on this.

 

[editec]

...I am not much partisan on this ...

Absolutely, my comment about 'political belly aching' was for me as much as everyone else because it's so easy to get carried away here.

The point is that we got a real problem and we need to get together on this.

If by WE you mean most Americans AND most of America's governments, I agree.

But do bear in mind that for some masters of the economic universe these economic hards times are a boon to their economic hegemony.

Most people, even those in the upper 20 or 10% of incomes lost ground.

But the weathiest of the wealthy?

Hell many of them actually gained ground thanks to the economic meltdown.

Remember that if most everybody else is losing purchaing power, while you're not, your position, relative to everybody else, is a tremendous advantage since you can pick up real assets on the cheap in a buyer market.

The super rich are NOT hurting because of this mess.

They benefitted from it.

 

[expat_panama]

...we got a real problem and we need to get together on this.

If by WE you mean most Americans AND most of America's governments, I agree... ...The super rich are NOT hurting because of this mess. They benefitted from it.

LOL, you think my 'we' was me and the 'super rich'?

Seriously, the facts on employment show that our Republic faces a grave threat and this is a real bad time for us to turn against each other with some goofy rich/poor class warfare. America is one nation of both rich and poor, and both groups are better off when the rich are allowed to hire the poor.

If there really does exist somewhere a 'super rich' that gains more from chaos than from order than it represents an anomaly so rare that it doesn't merit consideration.

 

[jeffrockit]

truthful politics » U.S. Job Creation by President/Political Party

So, how does a President create jobs?

Don't know but he continually uses the term " jobs saved or created". Seems like Obama thinks he can based on his own words.

 

[sparky]

...we got a real problem and we need to get together on this.

If by WE you mean most Americans AND most of America's governments, I agree... ...The super rich are NOT hurting because of this mess. They benefitted from it.

LOL, you think my 'we' was me and the 'super rich'?

Seriously, the facts on employment show that our Republic faces a grave threat and this is a real bad time for us to turn against each other with some goofy rich/poor class warfare. America is one nation of both rich and poor, and both groups are better off when the rich are allowed to hire the poor.

If there really does exist somewhere a 'super rich' that gains more from chaos than from order than it represents an anomaly so rare that it doesn't merit consideration.

The illusion of choice is often hard to explain , especially when one has been born / bred into a system where it's a cloak for the convergence of interests

but all one really needs do is explore the addage rich get richer/ poor poorer, follow the $$$ to the legislation that creates disparity

like Citizens United vs. the FEC

candy coated treason being fed to babes in the wood.....

 

[expat_panama]

...he continually uses the term " jobs saved or created". Seems like Obama thinks he can based on his own words.

Other possibilities are that (1) he knowingly chooses to lie about creating jobs, and (2) that he says what he wants and couldn't care less what the truth is.

It's the same with posting a graph that says their "job creation" data came from the BLS when it didn't. When the BLS talks about 'job creation' it's talking about changes in levels of employment. The 'truthfulpolitics' graph is not a truthful representation of the BLS they cited as their data source.

 

[editec]

Oh the BUSH II/OBAMA response HAS saved some jobs, without doubt.

Especially in the banking and finance industry.

 

[pinqy]

When the BLS talks about 'job creation' it's talking about changes in levels of employment.

Actually, no. There is a difference between "jobs" and "employment." The Current Employment Statistics Survey is a measure of non-farm payroll jobs (the sample universe is all businesses that contribute to Unemployment insurance). BLS contacts the businesses, and asks how many employees they have for the pay period that contains the 12th of the month. So anyone who has 2 or more jobs will be counted for each job s/he has. Excluded is agriculture, self-employed, military, and anyone working in someone's house (maids, personal chefs, butlers, nannies etc).

So the CES is a measure of jobs, and any changes reflect an increase or decrease in jobs.

Employment, on the other hand, is the number of people working, regardless of how many jobs they have. Employment comes from the Current Population Survey and is a household survey. It includes agriculture, the self-employed, people working in others' houses and unpaid family workers.

So, the truthpolitics graph is an accurate representation of the change in the number of jobs over the year. Your graph is simply showing the level, not the yearly change.

Both graphs are accurate, they're just different views.

 

[uscitizen]

All politicians try and spin the employment numbers in their favor.

 

[expat_panama]

When the BLS talks about 'job creation' it's talking about changes in levels of employment.

...the truthpolitics graph is an accurate representation of the change in the number of jobs over the year. Your graph is simply showing the level, not the yearly change. Both graphs are accurate, they're just different views.

Actually no (lol!), a search at bls.gov shows that what they use for 'job creation' is employment levels plus tweaks, but between you and me I like the CES better even though a lot of people gripe that it counts anyone who worked a couple hours per week.

Truthpolitics is not an econ site working on seeing business reality; if it were we'd be able to see what numbers they were looking at. It's a leftist political site set up to supply ammo for food fights. In the meantime employment's fallen from 3 percent long term growth to a level that's so far down it's not been seen since the depression.

 

[pinqy]

[ctually no (lol!), a search at bls.gov shows that what they use for 'job creation' is employment levels plus tweaks, but between you and me I like the CES better even though a lot of people gripe that it counts anyone who worked a couple hours per week.

Well, the QCEW, which is what's coming up on your search, uses the same universe etc as the CES. It's a census (98% coverage) instead of a sample and is quarterly, not monthly....so it's basically the same data, just not as timely and much more accurate. I didn't see Business Employment Dynamics come up on the search, but that's a good source of quarterly flows (gross changes).

But really, for a non formal discussion, I see no reason not to use CES data for "job creation" since that is what is used for monthly views of job creation.

Truthpolitics is not an econ site working on seeing business reality; if it were we'd be able to see what numbers they were looking at. It's a leftist political site set up to supply ammo for food fights. In the meantime employment's fallen from 3 percent long term growth to a level that's so far down it's not been seen since the depression.

Employment has started going back up. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say hasn't been seen since the depression.