September 18, 2012--The Real Job Numbers
A lot of numbers are being tossed around about jobs. Some, mainly from Democrats, are being spun; others, primarily from Republicans, are simply untrue.
One pervasive untruth is that Democrats are the party of big spending, which includes enlarging the federal government in order to interfere with the free market and intrude in American's freedoms. This is because, it is claimed, Democrats want to tip our economy toward socialism. If true, the data would show large increases in the federal workforce during Democratic administrations and restraints on hiring when the GOP is in charge.
A corollary to this Republican assertion is that Democrats have to increase taxes in order to pay for an ever-expanding central government and that, one consequence, is fewer private sector jobs.
These days we are hearing this loud and clear from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
On the other side of the political aisle, Democrats accuse Republicans of being more interested in cutting taxes and regulations for corporations and the wealthy in the belief that they are the job creators. Having more disposable, untaxed income will encourage them to invest in new ventures and thereby create new private sector jobs.
Historical Bureau of Labor Statistics' data can help us sort through this political rhetoric.
They have been keeping track of the growth or decline in private sector and federal government employment, administration by administration, since President Eisenhower's second term. Since 1957.
Here is what these data show--
Overall, under Democratic presidents private sector jobs increased at an annual average of 2.48 percent while under Republicans, the increase was less than half that--1.02 percent. This was Bill Clinton's point during his speech at the Democratic convention.
Federal jobs, though, increased faster when Democrats controlled the White House (up 0.59 percent) than when Republicans did (up 0.13). Most of the Democratic increases, though, were during the Great Society days of Lyndon Johnson's presidency--plus 4.15 percent. But on the other hand, during Clinton's first term alone federal jobs declined by 2.06 percent, substantially more than the decreases during Ronald Reagan's two terms. Reagan, recall, called the government the problem and not the solution. But his policies did not reflect that great rhetorical sound-bite--during Reagan's 8 years, the federal payroll was cut by a total of "only" 1.63 percent.
Comparing Barack Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, as bad as things were and are, job data have improved during the past 3 1/2 years. During Bush's second term, private sector jobs grew 0.06 percent--almost not at all--and by 0.10 percent thus far during Obama's administration.
Yes, it is true that about 4.5 million private sector jobs have been added during Obama's first term, but that is not the net gain since it is substantially offset by job loses. It does, though, net out at a tenth of one percent. And the bumpy trend line is heading in the right direction.
These are the facts. They can be spun or ignored, but nonetheless they represent the truth.
One pervasive untruth is that Democrats are the party of big spending, which includes enlarging the federal government in order to interfere with the free market and intrude in American's freedoms. This is because, it is claimed, Democrats want to tip our economy toward socialism. If true, the data would show large increases in the federal workforce during Democratic administrations and restraints on hiring when the GOP is in charge.
A corollary to this Republican assertion is that Democrats have to increase taxes in order to pay for an ever-expanding central government and that, one consequence, is fewer private sector jobs.
These days we are hearing this loud and clear from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
On the other side of the political aisle, Democrats accuse Republicans of being more interested in cutting taxes and regulations for corporations and the wealthy in the belief that they are the job creators. Having more disposable, untaxed income will encourage them to invest in new ventures and thereby create new private sector jobs.
Historical Bureau of Labor Statistics' data can help us sort through this political rhetoric.
They have been keeping track of the growth or decline in private sector and federal government employment, administration by administration, since President Eisenhower's second term. Since 1957.
Here is what these data show--
Overall, under Democratic presidents private sector jobs increased at an annual average of 2.48 percent while under Republicans, the increase was less than half that--1.02 percent. This was Bill Clinton's point during his speech at the Democratic convention.
Federal jobs, though, increased faster when Democrats controlled the White House (up 0.59 percent) than when Republicans did (up 0.13). Most of the Democratic increases, though, were during the Great Society days of Lyndon Johnson's presidency--plus 4.15 percent. But on the other hand, during Clinton's first term alone federal jobs declined by 2.06 percent, substantially more than the decreases during Ronald Reagan's two terms. Reagan, recall, called the government the problem and not the solution. But his policies did not reflect that great rhetorical sound-bite--during Reagan's 8 years, the federal payroll was cut by a total of "only" 1.63 percent.
Comparing Barack Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, as bad as things were and are, job data have improved during the past 3 1/2 years. During Bush's second term, private sector jobs grew 0.06 percent--almost not at all--and by 0.10 percent thus far during Obama's administration.
Yes, it is true that about 4.5 million private sector jobs have been added during Obama's first term, but that is not the net gain since it is substantially offset by job loses. It does, though, net out at a tenth of one percent. And the bumpy trend line is heading in the right direction.
These are the facts. They can be spun or ignored, but nonetheless they represent the truth.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home