Which presidents were best for private-sector jobs?

[Mina]

I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

Biden 5.20
FDR 5.04
LBJ 3.56
Carter 3.28
Truman 2.70
Clinton 2.63
Reagan 2.27
Nixon 2.11
JFK 2.04
Obama 1.27
Ford 0.86
Eisenhower 0.50
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

 

[Neoclitorus]

I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

Biden 5.20
FDR 5.04
LBJ 3.56
Carter 3.28
Truman 2.70
Clinton 2.63
Reagan 2.27
Nixon 2.11
JFK 2.04
Obama 1.27
Ford 0.86
Eisenhower 0.50
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

forget it, mina.

your party is all washed up due to your persecutory attitude towards concerned parents.


that's really the deal here.

 

[Mina]

forget it...."

I'm sure you'd like everyone to forget it, but the history isn't going anywhere, no matter how hard you try to flush it down the memory hole. The reality is that private sector job creation tended to be a lot better under Democratic leadership.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

Biden 5.20
FDR 5.04
LBJ 3.56
Carter 3.28
Truman 2.70
Clinton 2.63
Reagan 2.27
Nixon 2.11
JFK 2.04
Obama 1.27
Ford 0.86
Eisenhower 0.50
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

McNamara fallacy. This ignores many other factors that would influence job creation such as the employment rate, economic growth rates, and other factors in the economy. One should note, that in Biden's (so far), FDR's first term, LBJ's term, and Carter's term, inflation was high and rising and the economy tanked.


Thus the cherry picked information in the OP is meaningless drivel.

 

[Mina]

McNamara fallacy. This ignores many other factors that would influence job creation such as the employment rate, economic growth rates, and other factors in the economy.

Yes. If it were only a couple presidents, we could indeed assume it was just driven by other factors. But that's a pretty striking pattern spread across fifteen presidents and eighty years. And you'd see similar patterns if you checked total job creation, changes in poverty rates, changes in real incomes, GDP growth rates, stock performance, change in budget deficits, change in murder rates, and on and on. At some point "dumb luck" starts to seem like a lame excuse.

One should note, that in Biden's (so far), FDR's first term, LBJ's term, and Carter's term, inflation was high and rising and the economy tanked.

The economy never tanked during LBJ's term. He inherited a growing economy and it continued to grow for about a year after he left office. It's true that Carter's economy went briefly into recession, but it's worth noting that it was the shortest recession in our history, and he left a growing economy. As for FDR's first term, the economy grew all four years of that term. The recession that eventually hit was in his second term -- by which point we'd set the record for the longest growth cycle in American history to that point. Then, after an unusually short recession, it was back to break-neck economic growth.

Thus the cherry picked information ....

That's not what cherry picking is. I presented ALL the private sector job creation data from 1940 to the present (the period for which I have the data). Cherry picking would be if I were to, say, leave out Reagan and Nixon, because it messes up the consistency of the pattern. It's not that the information has been cherry-picked. It's just that it ran afoul of your assumptions, and that can be an uncomfortable experience.

 

[Flash]

I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

Biden 5.20
FDR 5.04
LBJ 3.56
Carter 3.28
Truman 2.70
Clinton 2.63
Reagan 2.27
Nixon 2.11
JFK 2.04
Obama 1.27
Ford 0.86
Eisenhower 0.50
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

That job creation might be in spite of government policies rather than because of those policies.

Presidents often get the credit or blame for economic developments for which they are not responsible.

 

[Cypress]

I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

Biden 5.20
FDR 5.04
LBJ 3.56
Carter 3.28
Truman 2.70
Clinton 2.63
Reagan 2.27
Nixon 2.11
JFK 2.04
Obama 1.27
Ford 0.86
Eisenhower 0.50
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

So the last three Republican presidents collectively actually lost jobs for the 16 years they had in office.

 

[Walt]

your party is all washed up due to your persecutory attitude towards concerned parents.

Parents love Disney, you know the company that the alt right has declared war on. Parents generally think highly of their teachers, you know the people the alt right have declared war on. I could go on, but you get the point.

 

[Lightbringer]

I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

Biden 5.20
FDR 5.04
LBJ 3.56
Carter 3.28
Truman 2.70
Clinton 2.63
Reagan 2.27
Nixon 2.11
JFK 2.04
Obama 1.27
Ford 0.86
Eisenhower 0.50
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

Reagan and Clinton. Biden being on that list is a fucking joke. He's not creating jobs, those jobs already existed they were just put into hibernation.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Parents love Disney, you know the company that the alt right has declared war on. Parents generally think highly of their teachers, you know the people the alt right have declared war on. I could go on, but you get the point.

virginia.

"What happens in Virginia will, in large part, determine what happens in 2022, 2024, and on." -- kamala harris

 

[Walt]

Reagan and Clinton. Biden being on that list is a fucking joke. He's not creating jobs, those jobs already existed they were just put into hibernation.

There is no such thing as putting a job in hibernation as we are learning over and over again.

 

[Neoclitorus]

There is no such thing as putting a job in hibernation as we are learning over and over again.

they were in hibernation.

 

[Mina]

That job creation might be in spite of government policies rather than because of those policies.

Presidents often get the credit or blame for economic developments for which they are not responsible.

Yes, that's always a possibility. However, you can think of the list as a reality check on the idea that it doesn't really matter who is president -- that presidential policies have little to do with socioeconomic trends, which are mostly driven by things outside their control. Well, if that were the case, then we'd expect results to be pretty random.... and they're not.

For example, picture if we flipped a coin 80 times. How big of a gap would we expect between the number of heads and the number of tails? It would be pretty small. Although it's theoretically possible to, say, flip 50 or more heads, it is extremely unlike (1.65% chance), and once you get into the range of say, 60 or more heads, it's absurdly unlikely to happen randomly (0.000429%). So, if you flipped a coin 80 times and saw that many heads, you'd be on firm ground to assume that it was a weighted coin, rather than a bizarre coincidence. If they offer you a wager on the 81st flip, you'd be wise to guess heads, because the evidence suggests it's not a random flip.

Well, in the same way, when you have Democratic eras outperforming Republican ones so often, over so long, across so many social and economic measures, it stops looking like random data. When they offer you a choice of a Republican or a Democratic president, you'd be wide to pick Democrat, because the evidence suggests you'll get better performance.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

Biden 5.20
FDR 5.04
LBJ 3.56
Carter 3.28
Truman 2.70
Clinton 2.63
Reagan 2.27
Nixon 2.11
JFK 2.04
Obama 1.27
Ford 0.86
Eisenhower 0.50
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

Carter's at #4! Hahahaha! Nice research, thanks.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

That job creation might be in spite of government policies rather than because of those policies.

Presidents often get the credit or blame for economic developments for which they are not responsible.

Quite true, but you still have to admit that over a span of 80 years, the (D) = more job creation assertion is well established by the data presented. And that's with the popular RW meme that (D)s are "tax and spend."

 

[Cypress]

McNamara fallacy. This ignores many other factors that would influence job creation such as the employment rate, economic growth rates, and other factors in the economy. One should note, that in Biden's (so far), FDR's first term, LBJ's term, and Carter's term, inflation was high and rising and the economy tanked.


Thus the cherry picked information in the OP is meaningless drivel.

Long term trends mean something.

It cannot be a fluke or a statistical anomaly that for 80 years the economy has typically and consistently done better under Democratic presidents.

"I've been around a long time. And it just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than under Republicans." ---> Donald Trumpf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thewee...04the-economy-does-better-under-democrats?amp

 

[SmarterthanYou]

this post is a very good example of how both sides can use selective stats and criteria to base a premise that pleases them.............when reality dictates that no president is good, or best, for private sector jobs

 

[Mina]

So the last three Republican presidents collectively actually lost jobs for the 16 years they had in office.

Yep. I was accused of "Cherry Picking" by one of the other posters, but if I'd wanted to cherry-pick the results, I'd actually have started the series with GHW Bush's presidency. Then the list would look like this:

Biden 5.20
Clinton 2.63
Obama 1.27
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

 

[Cypress]

Yep. I was accused of "Cherry Picking" by one of the other posters, but if I'd wanted to cherry-pick the results, I'd actually have started the series with GHW Bush's presidency. Then the list would look like this:

Biden 5.20
Clinton 2.63
Obama 1.27
Bush (1) 0.42
Bush (2) -0.04
Trump -0.43

Moral of the story: In 16 years of the last three Republican presidents, the nation collectively actually lost jobs, and there was no net job growth.

While in the 17 years of the last three Democratic presidents, the nation collectively picked up around 30 million jobs

 

[Mina]

Reagan and Clinton. Biden being on that list is a fucking joke. He's not creating jobs, those jobs already existed they were just put into hibernation.

I'm not sure about that. Remember, by the end of 2020, the post-lockdown job recovery had already run its course, and the economy was losing jobs again. The jobs we added in 2021 and 2022 weren't people who'd been furloughed during lockdowns and were just being called back. They included lots of brand new positions long after the lockdowns were over.

Anyway, if we're going to be putting asterisks by those numbers, a good place to start would be to control for deficits. It's one thing for an economy to create a lot of jobs when it's being supercharged by rising deficit levels. It's more impressive to do it when the economy is effectively dealing with withdrawal, by way of falling deficits. That's what makes the Clinton, Obama, and Biden job creation so impressive, since that was even as we were weaning the economy slowly off of massive deficit spending left by their respective predecessors. By comparison, Reagan's job creation was accomplished with the aid of massive increases in fiscal stimulus (and massive increases of monetary stimulus, too, for that matter).