Matthew Yglesias » A Job Growth Comparison

Sep 6th, 2008 at 11:02 am

A Job Growth Comparison

Here’s a little chart that’s kicking around the CAPosphere:

Looks to me like we’ve become a nation of whiners.

Comments
47

Filed under: Economy, Jobs,

47 Responses to “A Job Growth Comparison”

Craig Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Why can’t Obama use some visual aids like this during the debate? He’d get mocked, presumably, but I think most swing voters and undecideds would really, really like it. Plus it would throw McCain for a loop. Let’s face it, people really like charts and stuff. They’re easy to understand and they make sense.
fletc3her Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
But surely the economic outcome during the Clinton years is the result of the careful planning put in place by Reagan and Bush and the lackluster outcome during the recent Bush administration is the result of Clinton getting a hummer in the oval office. In this ownership society one must know that the results of your actions only occur while a member of the opposite party is in power.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some visual aids as well. Past performance is no proof of future results, but it seems wiser to bet on the team with the good record.
ike Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
the rise of the internet and information technology in general rivaled the industrial revolution in how it changed the world and the workplace, unless Obama has some secret plan for another once in a lifetime quantum leap in technology…i don’t see how this is helpful
Joel Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“the rise of the internet and information technology in general rivaled the industrial revolution in how it changed the world and the workplace,”

But the internet and information technology disappeared after 2001?
dm Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I’m pretty good at reading graphs, but I think this one could use some help. For example, labels for each of the three lines on the graph itself: “Job growth under Clinton”/”Job growth under Bush”/”Population growth”.

Yes, yes, I can read legends, but puzzling over the legend lessens the impact.
sd Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
This is really silly “analysis.” The Bush line goes negative for the first 2-2.5 years of his Presidency. An administration’s economic policies take a while to impact the national economy. Plus in March 2001 the stock market, which has grown wildly over-inflated in the last 2 years of the Clinton administration, came crashing down to earth in one of the more spectacular asset price contractions in recent US history. Plus in September 2001 there was a major terrorist attck on the US that sent consumer confidence plummeting.

From roughly the 2.5 year mark until roughly the 7 year mark the Bush line is going up at roughly the same slope as the Clinton line. Which is to say that job growth for the majority of the Bush years was just as good as job growth in the Clinton years. The only difference is that there is a dip in the last year of Bush (as oil hit $100+ per barrel) and more significantly, the Bush years started out going into a hole. You can blame Bush for that, assuming that you can make an argument that:

1) Bush’s economic policies, which were not implemented in any form until several months into his Presidency, are responsible for the jobs contraction that started on day 1 of his Presidency (note the marked softening of the Clinton line in his last year in office).

2) That http://www.poop.com with no revenues and no near term prospects of turning a profit really was worth $700 a share at the end of 2000 but the incompetent Bushies triggered a selloff that deflated its price to pennies a share.

3) That Bush is somehow responsible entirely for a terrorist attack on his watch that entered the planning stages several years before.

4) That its somehow Bush’s fault that the U.S. economy goes into recession every 7-9 years like clockwork.
tree Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
sd says

From roughly the 2.5 year mark until roughly the 7 year mark the Bush line is going up at roughly the same slope as the Clinton line.

I’m looking at the chart, and I see the Bush line going up by roughly 6% while the Clinton line goes up by roughly 13%. So, at its best, the Bush admin produced a job rate increase that was half that of the Clinton admin.
tree Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Sorry. On edit I want to say

The Bush admin produced an employment growth rate that was half that of the Clinton admin.
Hektor Bim Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
sd is wrong.

The slopes from 2.5 year to 7 aren’t the same, as anyone looking at the graph can see.
Duncan Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
sd#6

You claim the slope is the same once the bubble deflated. Yet the slope from 2004-2006 for Bush is 1.5 and the slope for Clinton from 1997-1999 is 3.0. That isn’t nearly the same, that is showing Bush at half the growth of Clinton during a similar period.

Bush’s also starts to slow starting at 2005 and very evident, as it has become negative, in 2007.

point 1 – you blame 9/11 and market confidence yet don’t allow for Bush to affect market confidence on Jan, 2001. The double standard is typical.

re 9/11 – Bush is obviously bears responsibility for 9/11. He famously disregarded reports of Osama’s plans, he came in with pre-conceptions that Clinton focused on Osama too much, and he disabled inter-agancy communication channels that Clinton had put in place during his terms.
Mo Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
While the point is good, it’s crazy misleading. You’re using the bottom of the business cycle to the top compared to a top to a bottom. You should be better than that. Not that Bush hasn’t mismanaged, but it’s a pretty dishonest way of showing it.
Matt Stevens Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Yes, Clinton wasn’t single-handedly responsible for the 90s boom, just as Jimmy Carter didn’t create stagflation on his lonesome, Reagan shouldn’t get all the credit for his boom years, and the Depression wasn’t all Hoover’s fault. Nevertheless we reward politicians when times are good, punish them when they’re bad. It isn’t 100% fair, but it’s better than shrugging your shoulders and assuming nobody’s responsible for anything.
Julian Elson Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Look, the point of this chart isn’t that the Republicans are responsible for everything bad that happened economically or otherwise over the past seven years. It’s that, for one thing, the Republicans largely view current policies (perhaps with a few extra tax cuts and an attempt to individualize health insurance) as perfectly sufficient given the circumstances, and for another thing, many of them don’t take the idea that there are real problems with the economy seriously. The reality is that job creation has been slow under Bush by historic standards, and that most families are poorer than they were eight years ago. If Republicans had wanted to acknowledge that the country was going through some hard times, but claim that it was due to circumstances beyond their control, and make an argument for that, then fine (I might disagree, and say that they were responsible for at least a good fraction of it, but at least we could have an argument), but many Republicans — even if they’re not so impolitic as to call us a “nation of whiners” — want to claim that the economy has done well, when it hasn’t.
Condor Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Free trade, elimination of labor unions, shift from manufacturing to service sector based jobs, a quicker and more severe business cycle, a trend of low wage arbitrage through contracting and outsourcing, parlor-game business school tricks such as downsizing for a profit rather than actually growing a business, tax policy that favors the wealthy who in fact don’t reinvest back in the country, and investment gimmicks that insure the asset and capital allocations don’t actually make their way back into the business world but instead get tied up in Vegas-like derivatives or hedge funds.

All of this is of an economic philosophy that began under Reagan and indeed continued under Clinton, but Bush has pretty well squeezed as much as he can get out of it for his associates and his party. The entire country knows this is a failed approach to capitalism and that greed overrode what was right for the country for twenty years now. The crossroads now is that McCain wants to double down, deregulated more (hi fannie and freddie) and believe that the free market will repair all social ills. Nevermind that we have basically left capitalism behind and are now in oligarchy territory.

Jobs will not resurface in this country until the economic philosophies that are not interested in job creation nor the well-being of the American people are finally left behind.
Lewis Carroll Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
The trend would be easier to dismiss if it weren’t so robust across multiple administrations, external conditions, and various other factors:

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

I haven’t actually done a regression analysis, but I would imagine that the probability of these trends being due to chance is extremely low.

See also Bartels’ new book on this subject.
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
An administration’s economic policies take a while to impact the national economy.

Seen a chart of the stock market over the last 8 years lately?

But the internet and information technology disappeared after 2001?

Believe it or not, you *will* find movement conservatives using a variation of this argument. “The tech bubble burst! That’s why Bush didn’t create as many jobs!”
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
From roughly the 2.5 year mark until roughly the 7 year mark the Bush line is going up at roughly the same slope as the Clinton line.

I guess in Republican Land 4% is “roughly the same” as 20%.
joe from Lowell Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
You don’t even have to credit the Clinton administration’s policies with that dramatic improvement so evident in this chart. OK, fine, it was the entrepreneurial blah blah blah of the blah blah blahs that caused the 1990s to be the longest, greatest period of peace-time expansion in American history.

The fact is, the Republicans (including John McCain) told us in early 1993 that Clinton’s economic policies would cause a recession. Supposedly intelligent people like Newt Gingrich said there would be soup lines. Well, not so much. In the mean time, we got a reduced deficit and growth which, unlike the 1980s boom, actually flowed to a large degree to the lowest levels of the economic scale, lifting tens of millions out of poverty (as opposed to about 500,000 in the 80s).

And now, they’re telling us exactly the same thing about Barack Obama’s economic policies. “It’s the largest tax increase in American history! It will destroy jobs! The sky is falling! Doom, doom, DOOOOOMMMM!!!” I don’t think these people know what they’re talking about.
David Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Heh.

Repbus have no problem giving credit to their presidents when the economy does well.
JonF Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Re: a quicker and more severe business cycle

Not sure that’s the case. Recessions seem to come about every ten years (the current unpleasantness being an exception) which is approximately what they always did. And the recession troughs are never so low as they used to be, and the peaks never quite a high either. Factors like just-in-time inventory and the shift to services (where neither mass layoffs nor mass hirings happen) have moderated the bumpy ride a bit.
joe from Lowell Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
You’re generally right, JonF, but I think what we’re looking at new is something different than a business-cycle recession.

It isn’t the slowdown in the economy causing trouble in the markets; it’s trouble in the securities market causing a slowdown in the economy. (Which, btw, is why the rebate checks were so pointless. Who put their rebate check into a real estate fund?)

So we might be in for something that doesn’t look much like the ‘91-’92 or 2001 recessions.
JonF Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Re: You’re generally right, JonF, but I think what we’re looking at new is something different than a business-cycle recession.

Yes, and I think we’re looking at something akin to the late 70s crappy economy: inflation (led by commodities) and stagnation. So bring on Abba, platform shoes and the lesiure suit. Maybe Obama can borrow Jimmy Carter’s sweater?
On the other hand there is a pinch of ‘91 thrown in as well: remember the S&L meltdown and the real estate crash that triggered it? OK, Michelle Obama can borrow Barbara Bush’s pearls, an maybe some new Nirvana is waiting in the wings.
E. O'Neal Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Clinton inherited an economy growing at a 4% rate. Bush inherited an economy reeling from the bursting of the dotcom/telecom bubble and entering a recession. Then we were hit by 9/11. After several years of strong economic growth, we’re now bearing the brunt of worldwide high energy prices and the housing/financial crisis. But so far we’ve avoided recession. All a president can do for the economy is to support pro-growth tax, spending and regulatory policies, which Bush has done. Only simpletons hold the notion that the president is running the economy.

Another thing to consider is that unemployment has been at historically low levels until the past couple of months, and it remains in the normal range. We really haven’t needed more employment growth in recent years, though we could use it now. What is more important to our standard of living than employment growth is productivity growth, and that has been strong by any historical measure.
roschelle Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 5:22 am
The “maverick” is looking more and more like a sidekick…merely going along with the powers that be…he says and does whatever he thinks his champions want to hear. Just like calling lobbyists ‘birds of prey’ which is a total contradiction to what his true ties with these unnecessary evils in Washinton are.
Luke Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Ed O’Neill?!?!? I love your work! Except not on economics. This graph plainly shows that employment has lagged behind population, meaning there are more unemployed people under Bush regardless of the official unemployment metrics.

SD, the graph measure RATE OF CHANGE of employment levels–it’s already the first derivative, and your eyeball is pretty inaccurate at the second derivative.

So, in Bush Year 3 vs Clinton Year 3, job growth was at negative 2% vs positive 8%, even though the job growth was growing at a vaguely similar rate. Actual job numbers, however, were still in decline.
Lewis Carroll Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Bush’s span also got the economic benefits of spending like a drunken sailor (Keynesian stimulus) and the lowest cost of money since WW II (loose monetary policy), and still has nothing but abysmal performance to show for it.
Jose Padilla Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
E O’Neal says:

“Clinton inherited an economy growing at a 4% rate. Bush inherited an economy reeling from the bursting of the dotcom/telecom bubble and entering a recession.”

Sir, let me politely suggest you have your head up your ass. 1st Quarter GDP growth in 1993 was negative. When Clinton came into office, the country was on the verge of wobbling into a double-dip recession.
battery Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 9:30 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
laptop battery Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
laptop battery
battery Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 3:03 am
laptop battery
Edward G. Says:
February 20th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Duncan Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Bush is obviously bears responsibility for 9/11. He famously disregarded reports of Osama’s plans, he came in with pre-conceptions that Clinton focused on Osama too much, and he disabled inter-agancy communication channels that Clinton had put in place during his terms.

That was a pathetic (and typical) attempt at liberal revisionism. The “inter-agency communication channels” were disabled under the Clinton Administration by Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno (a.k.a. “the wall”). It was removed shortly after 9/11, which led to the swift I.D. of the hijackers. And if Clinton supposedly “focused on Osama too much”, then he wouldn’t have been hesitant to capturing (the Sudanese offered him up) or killing him (the CIA had a chance in Afghanistan in ‘98; Sandy Berger prevented it).

There’s no way Bush bears total responsibility for 9/11, unless you’re one of those retards who thinks the operation was planned from the day of Bush’s inauguration….
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Incredible site!
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 8:24 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
viagra cheap Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me.
viagra

Matt Yglesias

A Job Growth Comparison

47 Responses to “A Job Growth Comparison”

Blogroll