Bush's First-Term Record on Job Growth

The Heritage Foundation ^ | 02/04/2005 | Tim Kane, Ph.D.

[HowDareYouQuestionMy]

Did the economy create jobs during President George W. Bush’s first term?

The answer is yes, no matter which employment survey is used to measure jobs. But a lingering controversy over which of the two Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) surveys is the better measure continues to cloud the issue. The survey of households, which contacts people directly, reports a net increase of 2.37 million employed Americans since President Bush was sworn in. The payroll survey shows a net gain of 119,000.

read more...

[HowDareYouQuestionMy]

This is a month old, but many of you have asked for these statistics. You can now positively refute any liberal's claim that Bush "lost jobs" during his first term.

[MJY1288]

Considering what we have been through since George W. Bush inherited the Clinton Recession, and then the Corporate scandals and last but not least, the attacks of 9/11. I'd say we are damn lucky we didn't see the country slip into a major Depression.

This doesn't take into account that we conducted 2 major military operations that are still on going, as well as the billions we have spent on Homeland Security. When historians look back on these days, they will wonder how we came through these tough times as well as we have

[Aetius]

I think that's considered gospel by the Left.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I truly understand why President Truman wanted a one-armed economist.

No question that the recovery is looking better all the time and a huge number of jobs have been created. But..

If linking to facts that differ from the posted article ("On the other hand. . . .") makes me a "Bush hater" then so be it.

How the government calculates unemployment, www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

http://online.sfsu.edu/~pgking/macropdfs/unemp.pdf (more detail)

Current Population Survey Home Page, www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

Estimates of population are the basis of household along with the survey of app. 60,000 households.

Household v. payroll, comparisons, changes, etc.,

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/03/bls_on_payroll_.html

bigpicture says that the household and payroll can be made to produce similar results. How?

"The BLS did this by subtracting from the Household Survey:

"1) Total agriculture and related employment;

"2) Self-employed, unpaid family and private household workers (nonagriculture);

"3) Workers absent without pay from their jobs.

"BLS then added back in nonagriculture wage and salary multiple job holders.

"The use of the broader standard (including farm and unpaid family workers) is what apparently created the divergement . . . ." [End excerpt]

Don't believe bigpicture? See www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm, see why "George Lewis" and "Lisa Fox" have "jobs" but payroll says they don't.

Meanwhile the posted article says differences since 2001 are due to a reduction in job-changing and explains why payroll is always wrong. Fine.

I truly wish these clowns (on both sides) would stop playing games.

Meanwhile, I want to know why this is being ignored:

Northeastern U. labor studies 2000 - 2004

http://www.nupr.neu.edu/7-04/immigration_july04.shtml

It uses the BLS data to show lots and lots of jobs (millions) being created -- a huge number of those jobs going to recent immigrants while established immigrants and citizens lost jobs.