How Bush compares with Hoover on jobs

The Detroit News ^ | Sunday, February 22, 2004 | Thomas Bray

[quantim]

Barely a day goes by without someone in the Democratic Party or the media comparing the Bush record on jobs with that of Herbert Hoover.

[El Gato]

Were jobs measured in terms of one or two income houses in 1929?

Neither, same as now. They are measured in terms of individuals working outside the home. Usually they will talk of "non-farm" jobs. More so than today, in those days, the entire family worked the farm. Also in 1929, a much, much higher fraction of the population lived and worked on farms.

[optimistically_conservative]

[Glenn]

Thanks for the explanation. It was helpful.

[.30Carbine]

Barely a day goes by without someone in the Democratic Party or the media comparing the Bush record on jobs with that of Herbert Hoover.

“This all started when George Bush became president,” said Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe in Oregon last week. “George Bush has been a disaster. George Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover who lost jobs during his presidency.” A story later in the week by White House AP correspondent Terence Hunt repeated the Hoover comparison.

So this is where the Hoover comparison came from. Thanks, quantim. gobucks, you are so outed.

[rodguy911]

Good stuff Ditto. The truth is that there is very little a President can do to stimulate the economy other than give the people back their own money. Bush did that,a little, but really too little to really do anything. I believe the economy runs in cycles and the best thing the govt. can do is stay the hell out of the way.

[Ditto]

The tax cut helps for sure. A little bit by increasing consumer spending but the best thing is to encourage savings and investment which the Bush tax plan has done through faster depreciation on business capital investment. Part of the reason for delayed job growth has been business investing in new equipment which has positioned the economy for long-term growth and higher productivity. It is a Bush Boom that has only just begun.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Most economists agree that the economy already was slowing by the time he became president."

No kiddin'. You can see for yourself in the graphs at this link.

[b4its2late]

BTTT

[Rome2000]

It's the moderates who decide elections, not the fanatics.

Never seen a truer statement.

W's "conservative" critics would be well advised to remember this.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

It's the moderates who decide elections, not the fanatics.
Never seen a truer statement.
W's "conservative" critics would be well advised to remember this.

To a large extent, I agree with you.

But any candidate does need to hold onto, and energize, his or her core voting base. I am concerned that, with his big spending and proposed amnesty for illegals, W isn't doing that.

[Congressman Billybob]

You get, indirectly, at an important difference between the employment base in the 1930s, compared to today. Look at the statistics in the article. How can the loss of 3 million jobs then produce an unemployment rate of about 25% then, but only about 6% today?

Obviously, it is not a result of the fact that the nation's population is slightly more than twice as much now as it was then. More is going on here.

Here are the major differences: What are called the "employment" statistics are not really that. They are the NON-FARM employment statistics. Someone working in a meat-packing plant or a grain elevator is included. But someone who actually works on a farm is NOT. And farmers were a much larger proportion of the population then, than they are today.

The second difference is the prevalence of two-income families. Taxes were negligible then, both income and FICA. The normal family then had a single wage-earner. Today, of course, the pattern is the exact opposite. Bottom line, the percentage of the American population who are "in the labor market" is about five times as large today, as then,

Though the statistics are not assembled "by household," as you suggest, the effect on the statistics is largely the same as you noted.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

[Chi-townChief]

bttt

[Seruzawa]

I was referring to this old stale demoncrap lie:

“This all started when George Bush became president,” said Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe in Oregon last week. “George Bush has been a disaster. George Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover who lost jobs during his presidency.” A story later in the week by White House AP correspondent Terence Hunt repeated the Hoover comparison.

[ambrose]

Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again...

didn't need no welfare state....


everybody pulled his weight!

...

[NYCVirago]

The Dems have been comparing every Republican to Herbert Hoover since the 1930s. Too bad most of their current voters don't even know who Hoover was!

[Mr. Buzzcut]

The economy under Clinton would have fared better absent his policies. The currect economy would be much worse without the Bush tax cuts.

Proper analysis requires powers beyond the scope of the average Lefty and certainly out of Terry McAuliffe's reach.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Dems have been comparing every Republican to Herbert Hoover since the 1930s. Too bad most of their current voters don't even know who Hoover was!

. . . and the irony is that the Democrat who more than any other made a living inveighing against Hoover-- FDR--was the one president whose policies, more than any other president's, resembled Herbert Hoover's. And who was in favor of Hoover's being president (or would have been, apart from partisan considerations) long before Hoover was nominated by the Republican Party.

[republicanwizard]

Exactly what I was thinking. Even if someone were 20 in 1930, it would mean that today he or she would have to be 94 years old. Seriously, Democrats are really out of touch with reality. The only way most people my age know who Hoover was is hearing their grandparents rant and rave about him. Most people my age probably attribute it to senility too.

I think I'm wrong. Democrats haven't lost their mind. They never had one to begin with in the first place.

[republicanwizard]

Indeed, Hoover and Coolidge were anything but friendly. Coolidge referred to his Commerce Secretary sarcastically as "wunderboy."

[timduncan]

My favorite is how the Democrats are talking about how bad the economy is and how it is all Bush's fault, but they never say exactly how they will fix it.

Another good one is when they compare Bush to Hitler and come up with BS things to "back it up".