Bush's Job Growth WORST in 50 Years (Roll out the red carpet for this “staunch Bush supporter.”)

Bush’s giant Right Wing Noise Machine (RWNM) loves to preach about the Bush economic miracle. In fact, the RWNM’s current thinking is Bush doesn’t spend enough time talking about his economic triumphs. If only he did, then everyone would fall in line and believe in the great Bush economic miracle. There is one problem with this argument: it’s a lie. Any way you look at the Bush economy, it comes up short. Today, I want to compare Bush’s job creation record with other economic recoveries. As usual, Bush comes up way short.

The national Bureau of Economic Research has identified 8 recessions since May 1954. For comparison purposed, I only used 5 of these periods because they are longer than the current expansion. Next, I used the total nonfarm employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). I measured the jobs created from the trough (lowest point) to the next identified highest economic point. (The NBER states a “peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession.”) I compared the total number jobs created for the entire expansion as well as the total number of jobs created 49 months into the expansion (According to the NBER, the lowest point of the last trough was in November 2001, making December 2005 the 49th month of this expansion). Here’s how the numbers (in millions) compare.

The expansion of 2/61 – 12/69 created 17,684 total jobs and 6,244 at 49 months.

The expansion of 3/75 – 7/80 created 13,183 total jobs and 12,831 at 49 months.

The expansion of 11/82 – 7/90 created 21,003 total jobs and 11,510 at 49 months.

The expansion of 3/91 – 3/01 created 23,969 total jobs and 8,266 at 49 months.

The current expansion which started in November 2001 has created a total of 3,410 jobs.

In other words, at 49 months into an expansion, Bush’s job creation record is last. While we don’t know when this expansion will end, the Bush economy would have to triple the total number of jobs created in order to get to 4th place on this list.

What’s going on here? The basic problem is some areas of the economy are creating jobs. The BLS tracks 13 different job sectors. 7 (a little over half) have created jobs since November 2001 – natural resources/mining (37,000), construction (539,000), financial (550,000), professional services (238,000), education/health (2.1 million), leisure/hospitality (803,000) and governmental employees (1 million). Of all the jobs created three areas – government, education/health account for 57% of job growth. Of the jobs created outside of education, health and governmental employees (2,167,000), construction, professional services and financial services account for about 60% of the jobs created. Real estate is obviously related to all of these areas. Construction is obviously related to real estate, as are financial services (mortgage lending etc…) and professional services (real estate agents, appraisers etc…) So, real estate, governmental employees and health/education jobs are doing just fine.

6 areas – a little under half of the sectors the BLS tracks – have had a net loss in number of jobs: manufacturing (-2,800,000), information (-565,000), trade/transport/utilities (-353), whole sales trade (-107), retail (-157), and transportation/warehousing (67,000). Manufacturing and information are obviously the two biggest areas of job losses. Some of the information service jobs are the result of natural attrition from Y2K. However, I somehow doubt that is the only reason for the losses. While there is no information regarding outsourcing losses (because the government does not keep any statistics on the subject), I fell safe in assuming outsourcing is a big factor involved in the losses.

In summation, sum people are doing well. They can find jobs and are probably financially somewhat secure. However, others have seen their jobs literally disappear overnight and are hurting to find new jobs that pay commensurate levels. These people are hurting from the current “expansion”. Of course, Bush and the RWNM has forgotten about them.

1. The resession in 2001 was a weak recession, without a lot of job loss. There was less to make up.

2. Bush's quick action made the 2001 recession one of the shortest on record, but in fact it just softened it. In truth the recession-like conditions lasted through 2003, so we are really only in the 2nd year of the recovery.

3. 9/11 was a major blow to the economy, but it happened after the official recession ended, and therefore in what they are calling the recovery period. No other recovery had any major negative events during their first 4 years.

4. Most recessions followed periods of slow growth where the employment already lagged, setting up room for expansion. The policies of the Clinton administration, which masked the downturn of the economy, encouraged job growth right up to the recession, so the number of jobs in the recovery didn't have a lot of room for growth.

5. The economy is changing, with a LOT of people using the internet to run their own businesses. It has never been easier to be self-employed. E-bay estimated at one point over 400,000 people's primary jobs were selling things on E-bay. The household employment survey shows a LOT MORE jobs, with a larger spread between it and the producer survey than is usual in post-recovery periods. During recessions more people DO go work for themselves, but usually during recovery they go back. In this recession people found they COULD work easily on their own, so they didn't go back.

6. Companies, mostly pushed by bizarre government regulations, are making more of their employees contractors, which takes them off the producer employment, and puts them on the household survey. That's why unemployment is at near-historic lows but we don't see producer job growth. As more REAL opportunities for self-employment erupt, the bias against the household survey is less rational. There is a change in the economy, toward self-employment, and the adjustments to the employment picture haven't yet been made to account for it.

I hope this has been helpful to you in refuting the arguments in the post.

For example, Virginia has a 3.3% unemployment, we virtually beg people to come to work. We couldn't grow more jobs if we wanted to, there are no people to work them,

This is silly, you can cherry pick your statistics to support just about any point of view. These years and data are indeed cherry picked. Fact is, most economists of the non-partisan type, agree that the economy and job numbers are doing just fine. Add in the fact that this presidency has to deal with a war and unprecedented natural disasters here and abroad, then the recovery we have been experiencing has been nothing short of fantastic!

You are a liar and a fraud. 5% Unemployment is what we economists call FULL Employment. During the last 2 years of the Clinton Regime, Democrat Party Whores ran around screaming how we had the best economy EVER because we had a 5% Unemployment rate. We have a 5% Unemployment Rate now added to the longest stretch of sustained Economic growth since the 1980s. (The is right loser boy, better then your mythical "Clinton Economy". Democrat Party Whores do NOT get to now manufacture fraudulent "data" and claim Bush's Economy ISN'T really producing the SAME data they hyperventilated about when Clinton ruled.

What you are engaged is a logical fallacy call "Anecdotal Evidence". At any time there are going to be bits and pieces of the economy struggling. For example the existing "News Media" is on the verge of bankruptcy despite the best US Economic performance since the 1980s. Citing the bits and pieces as proof of a the whole economic picture is an psuedo-intellectual tactic resorted to be child level IQS who are too arrogant to admit the complete failure of their emotion based Hysteric Leftist political partisanship.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.