Ryan, Jimmy Carter, and Obama…payroll employment by Presidential Administrations
Payroll Employment by Presidential Administrations
Ryan is saying that Obama’s record is like Jimmy Carter’s record.
When it comes to employment we should hope so.
During Carter’s four years in office payroll employment expanded some 10 million,
or 12.5%. or at an average annual rate of 3.1% This is the second best employment record of
any post WW II Presidential administration. It is almost a full percentage point stronger than
Reagan’s average gain of 2.2%.
I would think the better comparison would be against Bush where over eight years payroll employment only expanded some 308,000. Interestingly, in three and a half years under Obama payroll employment has expanded more that it did over eight years under Bush.
You would think that someone in the press would call the Republicans on their claims.
In modern times every Democratic presidential administration left office with a lower unemployment rate than when they took office. But only one Republican Administration has managed this accomplishment.
For some unknown reason (I can’t imagine what) you are crediting February to the outgoing president. For example, for George W. Bush you are giving him credit for February 2009. Why in the world would you do that? The February 2009 data is clearly the first month of the Obama presidency in terms of the payroll data and Bush’s last month is January 2009. Bush’s first month is February 2001 and Clinton’s last month is January 2001. Let me suggest a reason why you might want to fudge the truth. If you count from February 2001 to January 2009 for the Bush presidency, you will find Bush created 1,032,000 jobs. This more than twice Obama’s job creation through July 2012. I look forward to your correction of the Bush record.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I would think the date would have to be February for all administrations (which it is) since that’s when the January data would be available. So I don’t see what the problem is here. And, of course, the graph shows the overall trends rather clearly.
These numbers are meaningless without the context of the percentage of population employed. There are other, less less clear, socialeconomic changes under some of these numbers, be they the massive growth of women in the workforce, a failure to acknowledge he effect of stagflation/inflation and the effect of monetary policy.
This is what you are missing. January data is available in February, but it is still the January data. The February data is available in March. But the key issue isn’t when the data is available, but when the data is collected. The data is collected during the reference week that includes the 12th of the month. All outgoing presidents are still in office during the January reference period and all incoming presidents are in office during the February reference period following an election year.
The February data is the first under the new president.
The data is sampled in the middle of the month — the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday — and the inauguration is late in the month so the January data is always under the old president.
If you use the January data it does not make any difference.
It does make a difference and a rather significant one at that, but I am glad that you agree that the February data is the first under the new president and the January data is always the last month under the outgoing president. Given this, if you calculate the jobs created under Bush from February 2001 to January 2009, you will see that 1,032,000 jobs were created under the Bush presidency and not 308,000.
I think it’s funny that you’re so bent on defending Bush, Tom. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel… Really, from a practical perspective, does it make sense to credit the first month’s economic performance of a Presidents term to that President any way? Presidents have a limited impact on economic indicators as it is. I guess I don’t understand why you’re splitting this particular hair.
Talk about hitting the ground running.
Well, you see, it’s like this.
9/11 happened too soon in the Bush administration to be Bush’s fault.
On the other hand, Clinton got the benefit of Reagan’s reforms, but Bush had to fix Clinton’s recession.
On the other hand, Obama is responsible for the deficit that followed the 2008 crash…
you see how it works.
Actually, the methodology of counting the employment during the presidential administration for every president is wrong in the above table, except for the last president. I claim my right to defend all presidents who have been maligned by the table above.
Yes, Tom, Obama benefited from Bush’s policies!
Tom Dougherty — Bush was president for 96 months. You can count it from January to January or February to February. But you still have to count 96 months, not the 95 months your approach does.
You did not just go there did you? A little remedial math is in order is it not? Bush was president for 8 years. Multiply that by twelve per year and you get 96. I’m with you all the way with the 96. But now get this January to January is 13 months not 12. Do you get this point? OK, then if you count January to December 8 times you get 96. Do you see what I’ve done? If Bush’s first month is January his last month must be December. If you count February to be his first month, then his last month is January. What you don’t do is count January to January or February to February. That is adding an additional month. Over the eight years period you would be adding an additional month at the end making it 97 months. Not only is including February 2009 adding an additional month it is also including a month that Bush is not in office. It is time to stop trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes and admit your number is wrong.
Look again. In my calculation, Feb 01 is under Clinton and Feb 09 is under Bush. It still works out to be 96 months or 8 years.
Note I use Feb as the change data for all the Presidents. They all are for the correct time.
My calculations are correct.
You keep trying to claim that I did something I did not do.
you sound a little strained. perhaps straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel.
your false precision about the dates of effective office is very inappropriate. look at the overall trends for the whole period “in office” and it’s hard to argue with spencer’s conclusions.
i think that Carter and Reagan provide an interesting counter-example. Carter started well and ended badly. Reagan started badly and ended well. I think the reason in both cases is Volkers misbegotten war on inflation.. which only ended when his tight money policies began to bankrupt … the banks.
Another interesting example appears to be Bush 2, who appears to have reversed a bad trend that started at the end of the Clinton administration… only to lose it entirely by the end of his own. I am inclined to blame both the bad turns (Clinton’s and Bush’s) on the deregulation of the banks, or related policies that led to bubble economics.
In any case the whole problem is more complex than your imaginary critical dates.