So Bush lost more jobs than any other president, ever?

[XT]

Doesn’t the very question make the assumption that there is some basic number of jobs thats ‘correct’…or that some basic number of people are entitled to employment? What exactly IS the basic number of jobs thats ‘correct’ for the US? Why that number? Is the yardstick set at ‘the Clinton years’ for some reason? Again, why?

I never have understood this. When times are good and the economy is rolling, more people are employed…sometimes more people are employed than are strictly necessary. When times are tougher and there is a recession, then less people are needed (you know, there are less goods and services in demand, etc) and so employment shrinks. The ‘basic’ level of employment is…whatever the market can support for employment.

As long as this is kept to reasonable levels then its not really much of a problem. Look at unemployment figures in some of the European states for examples of whats tolerable. And mind you, I lost my job when Clinton was still in office because the IT company I was working for when tits up…and I remained unemployed for well over a year. So, I was directly effected by the dot com bubble burst, spending a year unemployed and then starting my own business and making something like 1/3rd of my old salary for another 2 years. Only recently did I start paying myself more than half of my old salary. This is to forstall any knee jerk ‘but what about the poor unemployed workers!!’ appeals to emotion.

To me, the key question is: Is the economy starting to really recover? Are business’s starting to expand (and I’m not talking about employment here)? My read on this is that the jury is still out. There are some signs that indeed the economy is recovering, but its probably too early to tell…and the recovery so far has been fairly weak. Part of that, IMO, is the strange mix this president has…on the one hand he cuts taxes like a good fiscal conservative to stimulate the economy (which I think it DOES stimulate the economy in certain situations). On the other he increases SOCIAL type spending and entitlement programs which I feel are a drag on the over all economy. Definitely mixed signals…which is why we have a mixed recovery IMO.

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Sam Stone

And let’s get this straight: Bush did the accepted economic thing to get the economy moving: Cut taxes and increase spending. Loosen the money supply (the fed did that). Those are the three stimulative tools at the government’s disposal, and they used all of them.

True that is the accepted stimulus but that glosses over many issues presented like that.

Where or to who were the tax cuts targetted? Yes, they were technically across-the-board to all but the lion’s share was to the already wealthy and corporate interests. Didn’t Dubya’s dad call that Voodoo Economics? I thought the whole trickle down theory was put to rest as a non-starter after Reagan but here we are again and it still isn’t working (jobless economic recovery?).

Increased spending is fine but where and who gets it? In this case I see the military getting it and corporations like Halliburton have a fine time sucking at the national teet. Is that the best allocation for government spending with the goal being to revitalize the economy?

[Sam_Stone]

Aeschines said:

So, would my understanding be correct that he did only these things?

I’m not sure what you mean. Was this the sum total of Bush’s economic policy? of course not. What else are you thinking of? Something Bush did to cause jobs to be lost? I’d be happy to hear what you think.

Also, I’m not sure whether these measures are “accepted” by every economist–either in general or in this particular case.

In very broad strokes. Jshore has a valid point in that there is dispute about the correct form the tax cuts should have taken. Bush is a ‘supply side’ tax cutter, cutting tax rates on the people that generally drive job growth - small businesses, wealthy people who invest, etc. Some have argued that the problem has been a ‘demand side’ problem, and a tax cut to the lower class would have been better. Bush did cut taxes across the board, but the cut was definitely top loaded.

I’m on the fence on this - The problem was both supply and demand. The problem I have with a demand-side cut, especially in the form of a one-shot rebate (which Bush also did), is that it’s distortionary. A one-shot injection of money into the economy causes all kinds of spurious signals in the price system. Do you ramp up production because your sales went up 10% last month? If you do, what happens next month when the windfall is gone and now you’re producing more than the economy can bear? It’s inefficient. So I would prefer to see permanent tax cuts, even if that means they have to be smaller. And I would prefer to remove friction from the wheels of the economy, and that means cuts that help the people who do productive things with capital.

[jshore]

@xtisme

Part of that, IMO, is the strange mix this president has…on the one hand he cuts taxes like a good fiscal conservative to stimulate the economy (which I think it DOES stimulate the economy in certain situations). On the other he increases SOCIAL type spending and entitlement programs which I feel are a drag on the over all economy.

And, you believe this why? Most economists believe that all types of government spending would tend to be stimulative at least in the short run as long as the deficit spending didn’t have the negative impact of raising interest rates and thus crowding out private investment. And, I think that we can safely say that interest rates were not too much of a problem over the last few years given the fed’s dropping the Federal Funds rate down, down, down. After all, it is hard to imagine that pumping more money into the economy will have a negative stimulative effect!

[Sam_Stone]

Yep.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Funny, at first glance, I thought the topic was “Did Bush get fired a lot, more so than any other President?”

He did have a number of business failures before becoming governor of Texas, after all.

[XT]

@jshore

And, you believe this why? Most economists believe that all types of government spending would tend to be stimulative at least in the short run as long as the deficit spending didn’t have the negative impact of raising interest rates and thus crowding out private investment. And, I think that we can safely say that interest rates were not too much of a problem over the last few years given the fed’s dropping the Federal Funds rate down, down, down. After all, it is hard to imagine that pumping more money into the economy will have a negative stimulative effect!

The key words being ‘short term’…in the long term it can (and has in the past in both the US and other nations) had a negative effect. You are right to call me on this of course…we aren’t talking the long term here and I shouldn’t have put that line in. You are right also (in broad terms) about the interest rates of course. I guess I should have gone into more detail…I just kind of winged that last post as I’m still out of town and just occationally checking in to see whats going on in between bouts of heavy drinking.

-XT

[Lynwood_Slim]

I read someone that “jobless” recovery might be a bit of a misnomer, because the while “jobs” have not been created, the unemployment rate is down.

I read that “jobs” means those on employment rolls. It does not count the self employed or contractors. I might be mistaken on this, but perhaps someone in this erudite but contentious group knows.

I know in the (small) firm that I run, we have cut employees, mainly because of health insurance and payroll taxes. We outsource lots of things – website, graphic design, computer network maintenance, etc. So, we cut our work force and use lots of self employed contractors, especially computer savvy people. We have not cut our budget, just the way we spend money on staff: less full time people.

Btw: our contractors seems to like it. They get paid well, have very flexible schedules, etc., and everyone of them has a spouse who has insurance from their job, so they don’t need the health insurance.

Are self employed, especially those who do 1099 oriented private contract work counted in “employment” numbers. Are their “jobs” counted?

[BrainGlutton]

@Lynwood Slim

I read someone that “jobless” recovery might be a bit of a misnomer, because the while “jobs” have not been created, the unemployment rate is down.

I read that “jobs” means those on employment rolls. It does not count the self employed or contractors. I might be mistaken on this, but perhaps someone in this erudite but contentious group knows.

<snip>

Are self employed, especially those who do 1099 oriented private contract work counted in “employment” numbers. Are their “jobs” counted?

From the Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Measuring_unemployment:

Measuring unemployment

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides some definitions which are similar to, but not the same as, those of other countries.

BLS definitions

The BLS counts employment and unemployment (of those over 16 years of age) using a sample survey of households.[5] (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm) In BLS definitions, people are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey week. This includes not only regular full-time year-round employment but also all part-time and temporary work. Workers are also counted as “employed” if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were:

On vacation;

Ill;

Taking care of some other family or personal obligation (for example, due to child-care problems);

On maternity or paternity leave;

Involved in an industrial dispute (strike or lock-out); or

Prevented from working by bad weather.

Typically, employment and the labor force include only work done for economic gain. Hence, a homemaker is neither part of the labor force nor unemployed. Nor are full-time students nor prisoners considered to be part of the labor force or unemployment. The latter can be important. In 1999, economists Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger estimated that increased incarceration lowered measured unemployment in the United States by 0.17 percentage points between 1985 and the late 1990s. In particular, as of this writing (2004) 3 percent of the US population is incarcerated.

On the other hand, individuals are classified as “unemployed” if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior four weeks, and are currently available for work. The unemployed includes all individuals who were not working for pay but were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off.

Finally, it is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by BLS definitions, i.e., to be outside of the “labor force.” These are people who have no job and are not looking for one. Many of these are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labor force activities.

Children, the elderly, and some individuals with disabilities are typically not counted as part of the labor force in and are correspondingly not included in the unemployment statistics. However, some elderly and many disabled individuals are active in the labor market.

In the early stages of an economic boom, both employment and unemployment often rise. This is because people join the labor market (give up studying, start a job hunt, etc.) because of the improving job market, but until they have actually found a position they are counted as unemployed. Similarly, during a recession, the increase in the unemployment rate is moderated by people leaving the labor force.

The accuracy of unemployment statistics

The unemployment rate may be different from the impact of the economy on people. First, the unemployment figures indicate how many are not working for pay but seeking employment for pay. It is only indirectly connected with the number of people who are actually not working at all or working without pay. Second, in the United States those who work as little as one hour a week for payment are considered employed, even if they wish to work more. Therefore, critics believe that current methods of measuring unemployment are inaccurate in terms of the impact of unemployment on people as these methods do not take into account:

Those who have lost their jobs and have become discouraged over time from actively looking for work.

Those who are self-employed or wish to become self-employed, such as tradesmen or building contractors or IT consultants.

Those who have retired before the official retirement age but would still like to work.

Those on disability pensions who, while not possessing full health, still wish to work in occupations suitable for their medical conditions.

Those who work for payment for as little as one hour per week but would like to work full-time. These people are “involuntary part-time” workers.

Those who are underemployed, e.g., a computer programmer who is working in a retail store until he can find a permanent job.

On the other hand, the measures of unemployment may be “too high.” In some countries, the availability of unemployment benefits can inflate statistics since they give an incentive to register as unemployed. Homemakers and other people who do not really seek work may choose to declare themselves unemployed so as to get benefits; people with undeclared paid occupations may try to get unemployment benefits in addition to the money they earn from their work. Conversely, the absence of any tangible benefit for registering as unemployed discourages people from registering.

However, in the United States and several other countries this is not a problem, since unemployment is measured using a sample survey (akin to a Gallup poll). This method is also used by many countries besides the U.S., including Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Economic Community. According to the BLS, a number of Eastern European nations have instituted labor force surveys as well.

The sample survey has its own problems, because the total number of workers in the economy is based on guesses rather than a census. So many economists look to the survey of employers (http://www.bls.gov/ces) to get a better estimate of the number of jobs created or destroyed.

Due to these deficiencies, many labor market economists prefer to look at a range of economic statistics such as:

Labour market participation rate (the percentage of people aged between 15 and 64 who are currently employed or searching for employment)

The total number of full-time jobs in an economy

The number of people seeking work as a raw number and not a percentage

The total number of person-hours worked in a month compared to the total number of person-hours people would like to work

[Sam_Stone]

This is a good time to point out that there is a sharp break in the statistics between the jobs survey, which surveys employers about the number of people they have hired, and the household survey, which asks the people themselves.

The household survey looks a lot better than the employer survey, and this could be to numerous reasons:

1. More people self-employed. Web designers, contract tradesmen, sole proprietors, etc.

2. More people choosing to go back to school. I think this is an important factor, because a lot of the jobs lost before were skilled IT jobs that aren’t coming back. These people may have chosen to go back to school.

3. People well enough off to be able to take time off work. Leaves of absenses, intentional delays before looking for a new job, etc. The guy who lost his job so he took a year to travel, that sort of thing.

The unemployment rate is currently 5.4%. Historically, this is a very low rate, significantly under the post WWII average. When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, when the Pundits were sayin the economy was very good and the unemployment rate low, it was actually higher than it is now. This has led some people to believe that the political columnists are talking down the economy because a Republican is in power.

Here’s a prediction: If Kerry wins the election, within a couple of months people will start talking about how the economy is so much better, and they’ll try to give Kerry the credit for a great economy - even if the trends remain unchanged.

[squeegee]

The household survey looks a lot better than the employer survey

Sam, the Household Survey numbers were down -201,000 jobs last quarter v. +96,000 jobs created according to the BLS. cite.

Are you sure you want to be citing this figure as a good indicator, because this makes the jobs figure look quite a lot worse for the current administration.

[Alien]

@Sam Stone

Pattern2: President inherits a bad economy, which is shedding jobs right and left. President implements new policies, and job market turns around and starts creating jobs. President goes into election with a good economy with solid monthly job creation numbers.

Bush is in Pattern2. As I recall, the economy lost a million and a half jobs in Bush’s first year or so - this would be before he has had a chance to enact any major economic legislation, and before his first budget would have really taken effect. Since Bush’s economic problem has taken hold, the economy has turned around and jobs are being created at a good clip. Unfortunately, the original job losses were so severe that he hasn’t made up all the lost ground yet.

There are several problems with this analogy. First of all, the economic downturn wasn’t confined to the US, it hit world markets. But the US market enjoyed 4 big tax cuts ,3 directed towards households and 1 corporate. In addition, the dollar fell with 30% which made US goods 30% more competitive on world markets. Yet, the rest of the world has managed to turn the economy around with the same pace as America. Secondly, the US economy seemed to jump start last fall, then stopped. Why is that?

And just so we’re straight about the facts: Jobs in America is not being created “at a good clip” unfortunately, it’s doesn’t make up for population growth which means that there are fewer jobs available per person in the US market for each month passing by.

@Sam Stone

Another reason why so many jobs were lost - because the economy just came out of a period of over-employment. The employment rate was down to around 4% - a number which until recently economists considered to be lower than ‘full employment’.

4% is too low for the economy to handle? Absolutely not, 2.5% is generally accepted as the bottom line to maintain flow in the hiring market. Strangely enough, the worker versus total population ratio in Europe is beteween 70 and 80%, in the US it’s 63%. We have been discussing this before, the US Government has a much more strict method in counting the unemployed.

@Sam Stone

And let’s get this straight: Bush did the accepted economic thing to get the economy moving: Cut taxes and increase spending. Loosen the money supply (the fed did that). Those are the three stimulative tools at the government’s disposal, and they used all of them.

This is laughable: Cut taxes and increase spending? Even core capitalist economist doesn’t advocate increased spending. Quite the opposite, they want less spending so that more capital are left to private sector, especially during a recession.

@Sam Stone

Finally, this year we’ve had another economic shock - oil prices are skyrocketing. That has a restrictive effect on the economy, and it would have happened to any president (it has little to do with the middle east - OPEC is running at capacity production). The problem is the growth of the economies of China and India, and the subsequent spike in demand for energy.

Higher oil prices has a big impact on the world’s economy, that’s true. But it has nothing to do with OPEC’s production capacity. A couple of years ago oil went for $25 with plenty of spare capacity, more than enough to meet world demands for years ahead. The reasons for today’s high oil prices are, listed in proper order: 1. Middle East uncertainty, 2. Venezuela & Nigeria uncertainty, 3. winter is approaching in the north, as every year, and 4. low production capacity at oil refineries, including shutdowns due to the hurricanes

@Sam Stone

The question is not whether Bush has gained or lost jobs overall since he took office - that’s sound bite politics. The question is whether he has done the right things to stop the loss of jobs, whether his economic policies are correct.

I think the numbers speak for themselves: To keep up with population growth, a average of 140.000 new jobs per month were needed during this term, which amounts to 6.7 million jobs necessary for the job market to be in the same shape in 2004 as in 2000. That’s in addition to the net loss of about 1 million. Further, add in the quality of jobs, it’s not good sign when a nation’s work force goes from high quality manufacturing to low paying service jobs. And it has happened even with the help of a 30% lower dollar value and the largets tax cuts in US history.

As stated earlier in this thread, when the inflation was in the double-digits (the opposite of a lower dollar value), oil prices approached $80 (in today’s dollars), and with no huge tax cuts, even then didn’t the US economy have a net loss of jobs.
There’s also a story of irony (or fear, depending on your viewpoint) in all this. According to the tale, when Nixon was presented with numbers revealing a 0.5% (yes, that’s zero point five) deficit in the federal budget he went through the roof, or so it’s said. Economists in those days and today agrees that a small deficit coupled with reduced spending is a good way to jump start a declining economy. The key however is to be careful and not overdo it.

The huge-tax-cuts/deficits-don’t-matter line arose during the Reagan years. But since debt doesn’t rear it’s ugly head until it reaches 80-100% of GDP, nobody knows just how hard the US (and world) economy will be hit when or if that happens. What we do know is that debt has sunken several large and apparently thriving investor-friendly economies, like Argentina just to mention one of the more recent incidents.

[Polerius]

@Sam Stone

The question is not whether Bush has gained or lost jobs overall since he took office - that’s sound bite politics.

And what’s wrong with a good sound bite? The Republicans have gotten *a lot * of mileage out of sound bites that, when investigated, were totally meritless.

So, if the Democrats have found a good sound bite that they can repeat ad-nauseum and influence peoples’ votes, good for them. It’s good to know that the sound-bite war is “fair and balanced”.

(This is, of course, aside from all the other good points that were brought up about the job loss)

[Siege]

I think the quality of jobs is a factor. Four years ago, I was a software developer, making a nice amount of money. Two years ago, I was laid off and, after 7 months of looking for a job, I took one as an administrative assistant for a lot less money. I used to work for a manufacturing plant in my hometown which, while the pay wasn’t that great, did provide good benefits and steady employment. That plant was shut down a few years ago and its equipment moved to Malaysia. The next town over has a brand new Walmart. No doubt building the Walmart did create jobs, but, from what I know of Walmart and retail in general, I doubt the jobs at Walmart pay as well or have nearly the benefits of the jobs in that manufacturing plant.

Here’s one other thing to consider. When I was unemployed and then while I was working as an administrative assistant, I spent a lot less money than I did when I was a developer. As a result, I pumped a lot less money into the economy than I did when I was a developer. I’ll also point out that the $300 tax cut I got did not make up for my loss in salary or the increase in gas prices.

CJ

[elfkin477]

@RTFirefly

If anyone’s claimed that Bush lost more jobs than anyone ever, I’ve missed it.

Although that’s not the phrasing that Kerry used during the debate, the implication is there, at least in regards to “ever” being after the great depression. If you’re the only president to lose jobs, you must also have lost the most jobs, right? Since apparently no other president has ever lost any. :rolleyes:

From the debate #2 transcripts

Kerry: Now, the president has presided over an economy where we’ve lost 1.6 million jobs. The first president in 72 years to lose jobs.

Kerry: We now have a $2.6 trillion deficit. This is the biggest turnaround in the history of the country. He’s the first president in 72 years to lose jobs.

[jshore]

@elfkin477

Although that’s not the phrasing that Kerry used during the debate, the implication is there, at least in regards to “ever” being after the great depression. If you’re the only president to lose jobs, you must also have lost the most jobs, right? Since apparently no other president has ever lost any. :rolleyes:

From the debate #2 transcripts

Kerry: Now, the president has presided over an economy where we’ve lost 1.6 million jobs. The first president in 72 years to lose jobs.

Kerry: We now have a $2.6 trillion deficit. This is the biggest turnaround in the history of the country. He’s the first president in 72 years to lose jobs.

You have completely missed the point, my friend. The OP asked, “Is this statement adjusted for inflation of population? Was there a president who lost a greater percent of jobs?” And, the answer to this question is that the number 0 is 0% of the population. I don’t care if the population is 10 people or 10 million people. So, saying that this is the first President to lose jobs is not a statement like saying these are the largest annual budget deficits in history, which can rightfully be challenged as not being true if you normalize it by looking at the deficits as a percentage of GDP (and perhaps even if you just put it into constant…i.e., inflation-adjusted…dollars although I am not sure about that.) The statement about jobs, when stated as Kerry has, does not need any such adjustments.

[Steve_MB]

@rjung

Ronald Reagan already proved that trickle-down economics didn’t work; Bush has proven that he didn’t learn a damn thing from Reagan.

Er, Reagan was one of those presidents between Hoover and Bush II who scored a net gain of jobs.

[rjung]

Yes, because Reagan ditched trickle-down economics in 1982 after he realized it wasn’t working.

[jshore]

Also, it would be a pretty low standard to say that “Trickle down economics worked because when we tried it, we did not experience a net loss of jobs. We experienced a huge growth in our national debt and economic growth that was not particularly spectacular but was notable in the fact that it concentrated nearly all the gains to the wealthiest people…But, we did not experience a net loss of jobs.”

[Hyperelastic]

@Sam Stone

The household survey looks a lot better than the employer survey, and this could be to numerous reasons:

1. More people self-employed. Web designers, contract tradesmen, sole proprietors, etc.

Any source for this conjecture?

2. More people choosing to go back to school. I think this is an important factor, because a lot of the jobs lost before were skilled IT jobs that aren’t coming back. These people may have chosen to go back to school.

Don’t you suppose that those people “choosing” to go back to school might have chosen differently were they still employed?

3. People well enough off to be able to take time off work. Leaves of absenses, intentional delays before looking for a new job, etc. The guy who lost his job so he took a year to travel, that sort of thing.

What reason do you have for believing this sort of thing is distorting the unemployment figures in some new way that the current methods of measurement do not capture?