There you have it. Realize it or not, you're looking at a failed economy. 40 million of your fellow citizens who should be working, aren't.
Take a look at the cell at the bottom of the column just right of the dates and compare it to the figure on the far right. You should see 134,839 vs 175,086 (numbers reported in 1000s)
That's a difference of over 40 million jobs. And that figure is how underemployed we are right now in the United States.
Obama's recovery? Are they on crack cocaine? Put down the pipe reporters, you've got a story to tell, and you better get it right.
I looked up the combined government + private sector jobs back before the 1945 shown in my chart. You can see job growth figures reported out in 1945, that referenced earlier data. I just didn't show it all.
I actually started developing a figure we could reference for expected job growth. I started using the data that reported out in 1965, because the figures from then until 2001 were fairly steady.
This allowed me to find a fairly good average growth in jobs we should expect every four years. I picked every four years, because it could be tied to the policies of our presidents.
These figures were tied to the inauguration day every four years. From 1965 to 2001, jobs grew by 95.23%. Yes, there was more growth than that, but when you take the percentages every four years and add them up, you naturally come up with a smaller number. Consider this: if you start at 100 and increase it by 5, that's 5% growth. If you increase 105 to 110, that's no longer as much as 5% growth. It's now 4.76%. Add 5% and 4.76% and you'll have a 9.76% total. Of course that's less than the 10%, which was the actual growth over two terms. When you calculate the percentage in each term, you'll always wind up with a precentage smaller than the total growth as long as we're talking positive numbers. That's the way it works.
95.23% growth over 10 terms, equals 9.523% average growth. To check the validity of this number, I starting showing a projected growth figure on the right, so that I could compare it to what the real figure was. Check out the figure in 1997. After 36 years (remember 1965 figures reflect growth since 1961), the model on the right is within 403,000 jobs. That's spread is only 0.33%. The model thus works out very closely for the first 9 terms, and is only off by 734,000 or 0.55% by the 10th term. That's about as good as we could hope for.
Look what happens after 2001. Check out those four year growth rates. Bush actually came up with the first negative figures on the chart by the end of his first term. During his second term his growth figures over four years were 0.85%. That works out to 0.82% jobs grown over his two terms in office. The word enemic doesn't begin to cover it. Note the average job growth for four years down at the bottom of that column. During the ten terms in the study, the average was 7,887,000 new jobs each four years. In Bush's TWO terms, he increased jobs by 1,083,000. It should have been something like 15,754,000 new jobsf
Watching how the model figures on the right grew through 2013, you can see about where we should be if we had had traditional grown. Well we didn't have it. Instead we're 40 plus millions jobs short of where we should be.
So Obama, you've got a really great economic boom here..., if we're talking third world nation standards.
Get people back to work you ass.
