Which presidents were best for private-sector jobs?

[Flash]

Yes. However, what I find interesting is how often right-wingers have to resort to "special pleading".... basically arguing that the results don't count in each case because of one special situation or another. Like yes, Trump's era saw the worst job losses of any modern president, but that doesn't count because of COVID. The younger Bush's numbers were also terrible, but that doesn't count because 9/11 hurt his first term and a global financial crisis hurt his second. The elder Bush's bad numbers don't count, either, because the Cold War had ended and the military de-escalation and the debt hangover from the 80's created unemployment.

It's not just with job creation figures, either. Like point out to a right-winger that in the Reagan era poverty didn't drop at all, the average unemployment rate was higher than the rate Carter left him, deficits exploded, and the violent crime rate soared. I guarantee you'll hear all sorts of well-rehearsed reasons for why none of that can rightly be blamed on Reagan's leadership.

That's why I say the choice of president is a pretty simple one, which comes down to what you want. If you want good results, vote Democrat. If you want endlessly creative rationalizations for why the results don't count, vote Republican.

I think you have it backwards. Negative economic conditions did not occur because of the president; instead, the president, Democrat or Republican, got stuck with the economic conditions that occurred. For example, you used only negatives for Republican presidents but there have been many for Democrats, also. Were Obama's policies responsible for the recession that caused 10% unemployment during his presidency? You can point to both highs and lows during many of those presidential terms.

Unemployment and inflation were double digits under Carter. Which Carter policies were responsible for that development? Which Biden policies are responsible for the high inflation? Political party does not dictate these trends.

It is true Democrats have traditionally sought low unemployment while Republican seek low inflation.

 

[Mina]

.... but there have been many for Democrats, also.

Yes. This special pleading works that way, too. Obama, for example, presided over pretty much across-the-board improvement in America. Real incomes and real GDP per capita rose, poverty and unemployment fell, we had great stock market returns, violent crime rates fell, incarceration rates fell, the share of Americans covered by health insurance rose, deficits fell, consumer debt levels fell, and on and on.

So, of course "that doesn't count." Obama's across-the-board improvement must be ignored, because he inherited such a mess at the end of the global financial meltdown that there was nowhere to go but up.

And you see that again and again. Clinton gave us even more dramatic improvement, but that doesn't count because something something dotcom bubble. The Carter years saw truly epic job creation, but that doesn't count, since it was just the women's lib movement moving women into the workforce. The Kennedy/Johnson years saw one of the greatest gains in prosperity ever, but that doesn't count, since it was just that Vietnam-ramp-up deficit spending. And how can you count Truman's great economic growth when he got a similar boost from WWII and Korea? FDR has to be ruled out, too, because he inherited an economy at rock bottom, even more so thank Obama, so there was nowhere to go but up.

So, again, there's a simple choice: if you want good results, vote Democrat. If you instead want think-tank-honed excuses for why the real world doesn't count, the Republicans have got you covered.

 

[Flash]

Yes. This special pleading works that way, too. Obama, for example, presided over pretty much across-the-board improvement in America. Real incomes and real GDP per capita rose, poverty and unemployment fell, we had great stock market returns, violent crime rates fell, incarceration rates fell, the share of Americans covered by health insurance rose, deficits fell, consumer debt levels fell, and on and on.

So, of course "that doesn't count." Obama's across-the-board improvement must be ignored, because he inherited such a mess at the end of the global financial meltdown that there was nowhere to go but up.

And you see that again and again. Clinton gave us even more dramatic improvement, but that doesn't count because something something dotcom bubble. The Carter years saw truly epic job creation, but that doesn't count, since it was just the women's lib movement moving women into the workforce. The Kennedy/Johnson years saw one of the greatest gains in prosperity ever, but that doesn't count, since it was just that Vietnam-ramp-up deficit spending. And how can you count Truman's great economic growth when he got a similar boost from WWII and Korea? FDR has to be ruled out, too, because he inherited an economy at rock bottom, even more so thank Obama, so there was nowhere to go but up.

So, again, there's a simple choice: if you want good results, vote Democrat. If you instead want think-tank-honed excuses for why the real world doesn't count, the Republicans have got you covered.

Who is saying "it doesn't count"? I'm not sure about "truly epic job creation" under Carter. It was 10 million which was less than Reagan (16), Clinton (22), or Obama (12).

Trump's average unemployment rate was lower than Obama, Clinton, Carter, JFK, Bush (both), and Reagan. Does that count?

The average GDP growth was higher under Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (both) than under Obama.

I am not defending Democrats or Republicans. My point is that using several economic measures results in both parties leading on different indices. When you have already determined the outcome, it will affect your research.

 

[Mina]

Who is saying "it doesn't count"?

That summarizes a good chunk of the arguments I've had with Republicans over the years. Practically every discussion is me presenting hard historical data and the Republican coming back with a "yeah but" about why it doesn't count.

I'm not sure about "truly epic job creation" under Carter. It was 10 million which was less than Reagan (16), Clinton (22), or Obama (12).

First, obviously, if you do a straight-up comparison of four years to eight, that's gaming things for the longer periods. We'll want an annualized rate. And it doesn't make sense to do a raw job count, since the country grows over time, such that you'd have recent presidents almost always looking better than those from earlier eras. Instead, just do annualized percentage growth. And, in those terms, Carter indeed surpasses Reagan, Obama, and yes even Clinton.

Trump's average unemployment rate was lower than Obama, Clinton, Carter, JFK, Bush (both), and Reagan. Does that count?

I'd say the relevant comparison isn't one average unemployment rate versus another. If you inherit a great situation and make it terrible, and someone else inherits a terrible situation and makes it great at the same rate, you may end up with identical averages, but that hardly suggests you're equal. Someone who steadily takes an unemployment rate from 4 to 10 and someone who takes it from 10 to 4 aren't equally accomplished even if they both averaged 7.

The more sensible way to look at it is to see how that average compares to what he inherited from his predecessor. Trump's average was worse than what Obama had left him. In the same way, Bush's average was worse than Clinton left him, the elder Bush's was worse than Reagan left him, Reagan's was worse than Carter left him, and so on. I think you may need to go all the way back to someone like Calvin Coolidge to find a Republican who DIDN'T lead the country to worse average unemployment rates than what he inherited. And that's because, as a nearly universal rule, Republicans lead the nation into recession. Seriously, how many modern Republicans can you name who didn't inherit a growing economy and then lead the nation to recession? Can you think of even one? I can name at least five Democrats about whom we can say that, just in the last six Democrats, but it's almost unheard of for a Republican not to lead us to disaster. In fact, I can more easily think of a Republican who led us into three separate recessions than one who didn't lead us into even one.

I am not defending Democrats or Republicans. My point is that using several economic measures results in both parties leading on different indices.

Can you name one? Democrats have stronger percentage job creation rates, superior net changes in unemployment rates, stronger performance for the DOW, and the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ, faster net improvement in poverty rates, stronger annualized percentage real median income growth, stronger real GDP growth rates, better trends for consumer debt levels, better trends for changes in budget deficits, better trends for crime and incarceration rates, and so on.

Sure, you can find individual Republican presidential eras that look better than individual Democratic ones when it comes to specified indicators, but I honestly cannot think of a single major indicator where the collective trends during Republican-led eras look better than those for Democrat-led eras. Can you? Even one?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

And many of those manufacturing products in China moved their operations to Vietnam, Thailand, etc. avoiding the tariffs which were placed on China.

They moved them there because labor in China became more expensive, while labor in other Asian countries was more affordable to the companies. Kind of like American countries moved operations to Mexico.

 

[Matt Dillon]

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

 

[Matt Dillon]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Flash]

I'd say the relevant comparison isn't one average unemployment rate versus another. If you inherit a great situation and make it terrible, and someone else inherits a terrible situation and makes it great at the same rate, you may end up with identical averages, but that hardly suggests you're equal. Someone who steadily takes an unemployment rate from 4 to 10 and someone who takes it from 10 to 4 aren't equally accomplished even if they both averaged 7.

This sounds like the "yeah, but" argument.....

 

[Lightbringer]

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

Really dumbass, we just saw it happen.

 

[Matt Dillon]

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.

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.

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.

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

Link-?

 

[Walt]

Really dumbass, we just saw it happen.

11 million jobs unfilled, supply chains in chaos, huge numbers of market failures all at once... I could go on and on, but what we did not just see is an extremely easy job hibernation, return of jobs.

 

[Mina]

This sounds like the "yeah, but" argument.....

I don't think so. I see the distinction this way:

You're trying to find the best diet to help you lose weight. On Diet A --the "eat a lot of chocolate" diet-- your weight goes up, whereas on Diet B --which is mostly veggies-- it comes down. However, you really liked Diet A, so you tell yourself "yeah, diet B was better in terms of weight loss, but I was really stressed when I was on Diet A, so the weight I gained then doesn't count."

That's a "yeah, but" argument.

Now, consider that Diet A took your weight from 300 pounds to 350, whereas Diet B dropped it from 350 to 310. If you really love chocolate and want to go back to Diet A, you could try to tell yourself Diet A is better by pointing out that your average weight was lower on that diet. But it wouldn't be a "yeah, but" argument to point out that's a silly metric to use when measuring the effectiveness of a diet. It's just identifying the proper point of comparison.

 

[Mina]

Really dumbass, we just saw it happen.

There were definitely "furloughs" in March and April 2020 -- people like restaurant workers who were basically told to stand by until their businesses were permitted to open again after several weeks. I guess that could be treated as a kind of "hibernation." That's what allowed the extremely rapid hiring of May and June 2020 (and, to a lesser extent, July-September of that year): these weren't fresh hires, where there was the usual slow process of posting a job, collecting applications, doing a couple rounds of interviews, making an offer, giving two weeks notice to an old employer, going through the HR process, and finally on-boarding them. Instead, it was basically just a matter of giving them a call and telling them what shifts they'd be working.

However, while people were furloughed for a few weeks or at most a few months, that's not the hiring we saw later, in the October 2020-and-onwards period. Generally speaking, few of those were people just returning to jobs they'd had before. They were either new people in old positions, or new people in new positions. For example, at the end of 2019, Amazon had 798,000 employees. Today, it's over 1.6 million. That's not a matter of them furloughing workers and calling them back. It's a matter of adding hundreds of thousands of jobs that never existed before.

What was troubling about late 2020 is that once the "ending furloughs" part of the rehiring effort ended, the job market totally lost momentum. November 2020 had barely over 300,000 jobs added, and in December jobs were actually lost. Fortunately, that late-Trump-era weakness ended up being short-lived, and once Biden took office we got hundreds of thousands of jobs added every single month after that (nearly always over 400,000, in fact).

 

[Mina]

Link-?

Not sure who you're asking for a link, but if it's the private sector job creation data you need, it's here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIV

You can also find identical data at the BLS site, but I think you need to use their tool to retrieve it, whereas the FED site allows for a simple link.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Not sure who you're asking for a link, but if it's the private sector job creation data you need, it's here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIV

You can also find identical data at the BLS site, but I think you need to use their tool to retrieve it, whereas the FED site allows for a simple link.

That links to a chart showing the thing I'm talking about.

See the peak? Then the big dip due to shutdowns? Then how it isn't back up to the peak yet?

Aside from that; Where'd you get your info for the OP? Daily leftist shill e-mail blast in your inbox that AM with the talking points for the day?

'Sup?

 

[Mina]

That links to a chart showing the thing I'm talking about.

See the peak? Then the big dip due to shutdowns? Then how it isn't back up to the peak yet?

Yes, I see that dramatic fall during the Trump era, when his woeful mismanagement of the COVID crisis cratered the job market to a degree never before seen. And I see that we're already almost out of that hole, under Biden. We're currently just 500,000 shy from the all-time high for jobs, and with us adding between 406,000 and 704,000 jobs per month so far this year, we could theoretically get there this month.

Aside from that; Where'd you get your info for the OP?

The link I provided you. Click on download and you can get all the data in spreadsheet format and easily do the math yourself to confirm my numbers.

For example, Trump's last month in office was January 2021, with 121,229 thousand private jobs. Four years earlier, there were 123,312 thousand private jobs. That's a decrease of about 1.689%. That was over the course of four years, which annualized to about -0.425% (in other words, if something were to decline 0.425% each year, for four straight years, it would be down about 1.689% total).

You can do that math for each and find that the numbers are what I provided in that top post.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Yes, I see that dramatic fall during the Trump era, when his woeful mismanagement of the COVID crisis cratered the job market to a degree never before seen. And I see that we're already almost out of that hole, under Biden. We're currently just 500,000 shy from the all-time high for jobs, and with us adding between 406,000 and 704,000 jobs per month so far this year, we could theoretically get there this month.



The link I provided you. Click on download and you can get all the data in spreadsheet format and easily do the math yourself to confirm my numbers.

For example, Trump's last month in office was January 2021, with 121,229 thousand private jobs. Four years earlier, there were 123,312 thousand private jobs. That's a decrease of about 1.689%. That was over the course of four years, which annualized to about -0.425% (in other words, if something were to decline 0.425% each year, for four straight years, it would be down about 1.689% total).

You can do that math for each and find that the numbers are what I provided in that top post.

Yeah, but that's not how you got all that info compiled. You didn't do all that. There's more to it than that. (aside from the percentage figuring, which, if you did all that..why?)

If that's how you did it, why are they not in chronological order? Why are they not from greatest to least or vice versa?

Why would it not read chronologically?

 

[Lightbringer]

11 million jobs unfilled, supply chains in chaos, huge numbers of market failures all at once... I could go on and on, but what we did not just see is an extremely easy job hibernation, return of jobs.

Hibernation is exactly what we saw.

 

[Lightbringer]

There were definitely "furloughs" in March and April 2020 -- people like restaurant workers who were basically told to stand by until their businesses were permitted to open again after several weeks. I guess that could be treated as a kind of "hibernation." That's what allowed the extremely rapid hiring of May and June 2020 (and, to a lesser extent, July-September of that year): these weren't fresh hires, where there was the usual slow process of posting a job, collecting applications, doing a couple rounds of interviews, making an offer, giving two weeks notice to an old employer, going through the HR process, and finally on-boarding them. Instead, it was basically just a matter of giving them a call and telling them what shifts they'd be working.

However, while people were furloughed for a few weeks or at most a few months, that's not the hiring we saw later, in the October 2020-and-onwards period. Generally speaking, few of those were people just returning to jobs they'd had before. They were either new people in old positions, or new people in new positions. For example, at the end of 2019, Amazon had 798,000 employees. Today, it's over 1.6 million. That's not a matter of them furloughing workers and calling them back. It's a matter of adding hundreds of thousands of jobs that never existed before.

What was troubling about late 2020 is that once the "ending furloughs" part of the rehiring effort ended, the job market totally lost momentum. November 2020 had barely over 300,000 jobs added, and in December jobs were actually lost. Fortunately, that late-Trump-era weakness ended up being short-lived, and once Biden took office we got hundreds of thousands of jobs added every single month after that (nearly always over 400,000, in fact).

You should have stopped there. You would have sounded a lot smarter.

 

[Mina]

You should have stopped there. You would have sounded a lot smarter.

The rest of it sounds plenty smart to those smart enough to understand it. Keep working on your reading skills, though, and you'll get there. Good luck!