Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (October 2012 Jobs Data)

Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Update: Click here for the most recent jobs statistics.

On the first Friday of every month, I update the unemployment numbers so that I can compare the unemployment rate under President George W. Bush with the unemployment rate under President Obama at that time. The genesis of this ritual began when I felt compelled to respond to some left-leaning sites that were comparing Obama’s first two years and four months in office with Bush’s last and worst economic year (the above chart shows the most recent incarnation of this narrative).

In October, the private sector added a respectable 184,000 jobs in the thirty-second consecutive month of private sector job growth. This development is rather positive news. The country had a net employment gain of 171,000 total jobs (private and public). Moreover, 171,000 is 46,000 jobs higher than the 125,000 jobs needed each month just to keep pace with the growth of the working-age population, which is encouraging.

October is the tenth month in which the overall number of jobs lost/gained during the Obama administration is better than the number lost during the Bush administration. It is also the sixth month since the number of net private sector jobs gained or lost during the Obama administration turned positive. That said, the unemployment rate is still six-tenths of a percentage point worse today than it was during President Bush’s last full month in office, and it is one-tenth of a percentage point worse than what it was when President Obama first entered office. In other words, the unemployment rate in all 46 months of Obama’s presidency has been higher than that of any single month in President Bush’s 8 years in office.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased by one-tenth of a percentage point to 7.9% — the third lowest month of unemployment during the Obama presidency. This number remains six-tenths of a percentage point higher than President Bush’s last full month in office in December 2008. However, it marks the second consecutive month in which the unemployment rate has been lower than 8% after a string of 43 consecutive months during the 46-month Obama presidency in which unemployment had been 8% or higher.

Unemployment Rate, Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

That said, the unemployment rate only accounts for the percentage of the unemployed who are actively seeking employment. It does not include people who have given up on finding jobs. The month ended with 410,000 more people employed at the end of October than were employed at the end of September. The discrepancy between the change in the number of people employed and nonfarm payrolls stems from the fact that households report the employment number, while businesses report nonfarm employment.

The civilian labor force increased faster than the number of new employees entering the work force increased. Therefore, the main reason the unemployment rate increased is that the numerator (the number of unemployed Americans) in the unemployment equation decreased by a smaller percentage than the denominator increased (the civilian labor force). Put simply, the unemployment rate worsened because the number of people labor force increased more than the number of people employed. This development is not necessarily a bad thing. The fact that more people are now looking for employment could be a sign that economic activity may be improving.

The civilian labor force ended October at 155.6 million vs. September’s 155.1 million. 143.4 million people had jobs in October, which was an increase of about 410,000 people from September versus about 578,000 people who joined the labor force.

Both the Bush and Obama presidencies have been marked by a steady decline in the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate measures the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the total working-age population. The labor force participation rate improved by two-tenths of a percentage point from 63.6% in September to 63.8% in October.

Labor Force Participation Rate, Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Putting the Numbers into Perspective

The employment statistics during President Bush’s period in office continue to look better than those under President Obama’s to date if one puts more emphasis on the overall unemployment rate. However, President Obama’s employment statistics seem better if one looks at total private sector employment. Over President Bush’s tenure, the private sector lost a net 646,000 jobs, assuming that he gets credit for all jobs lost in January 2009 and none for those lost in January 2001. I changed my methodology in response to a left-leaning blogger‘s fair point “that CES estimates represent information reported by survey respondents for their pay periods that include the 12th of the month.” Hence, any subsequent numbers for jobs created near the end of January would likely appear in the February numbers.

If one attributes the first 19 days of January 2009′s job losses to Bush, and the remaining 11 days of job losses to Obama, the private sector shed 339,000 jobs during the Bush administration (the private sector gained a net 147,000 jobs if one attributes all of January 2009′s job numbers to Obama, and all of January 2001′s numbers to Bush). Surprisingly, this number includes the 3.78 million private sector jobs lost in 2008, and an additional 839,000 in 2009 (514,000 if one attributes the first 19 days of January 2009′s job losses to Bush).

Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In contrast, under President Obama’s administration, the private sector has gained a net 759,000 private sector jobs (a gain of 434,000 if one attributes the remaining 11 days of job losses in January 2009 to Obama, and a loss of 80,000 if one attributes all of January 2009′s losses to him).

Again, the point of this argument is not to assess blame on either administrations’ policy. It simply puts the numbers into perspective.

For each job the private sector cut under George W. Bush, the private sector gained~1 job under Barack Obama (if one attributes January 2009′s job losses to Obama, the private sector eliminated ~0.5 jobs for every job it created under Bush). The economy would need to destroy 1.41 million private sector jobs for Bush to break even with Obama (not accounting for the 125,000 jobs that the economy must create each month just to keep pace with population growth).

While President Obama has surpassed President Bush on private sector job creation, the unemployment rate has remained persistently high. It will likely continue to remain so as more people enter the labor force as the economy improves, even if the private sector continues to add jobs at similar rates. The country still has a long way to go to restoring full employment and the President is running out of time. According to The New York Times, no sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment was over 7.2% on election day.

And President Obama is no FDR.

Either way, the country will learn whether President Obama can buck this trend in less than five days.

About these ads

About Sean Patrick Hazlett

Conservative clean energy crusader, national security hawk, financial analyst, engineer, and former military officer.
This entry was posted in Business, Finance and Economics, Media, Policy, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (October 2012 Jobs Data)

  1. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (August 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  2. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  3. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (September 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  4. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (June 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  5. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (May 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  6. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (March 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  7. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (April 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  8. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (February 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  9. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (January 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  10. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (December 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  11. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (November 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  12. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (October 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  13. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (September 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  14. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  15. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (June 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  16. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  17. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (May 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  18. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (August 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  19. Pingback: Bush vs. Obama: Total Private Sector Employment | Reflections of a Rational Republican

  20. Raymond Ford says:

    So your saying Bushes numbers were worse than reported?

  21. And if public sector jobs had risen under Obama at the same rate as under the Bush administration, we would be looking at closer to 7% unemployment. And those people would be paying taxes. Instead, states (mostly those with Republican control) saw the opportunity to make a political statement and cut their budgets on the backs of public employees.

  22. Nelson says:

    Bush invested his money into paying the big corporations for war work in Iraq. By the time he left office there had been no job development in the US for eight years.

  23. Fairbs says:

    Hi, I would like to thank you for taking a rational look at something everyone in OUR country should be concerned about (the jobs situation and not necessarily who has created more). I’m incredibly sick of the libtard / republicon mentality. And I also feel that it is also easy to fall into especially in our internet tough guy world. I’ve been a Republican, a Democrat, and now an independent and I think whatever brand we choose to describe ourselves, we should try be respectful and productive in our discourse.
    A final comment I’d like to add is that I have strongly Republican relatives and there are times where they just won’t accept data like you’ve presented here. The other side just has to be wrong and that really frustrates me.

  24. Steve L says:

    Your Bush vs Obama unemployment comparison has one MAJOR flaw… Obama takes over right in the middle of a spike. Surely he’s not responsible for the unemployment rate spike that continues during his first 3 months in office. And if that spike is attributed correctly, it really makes all the numbers and comparisons very, very different.

    • Steve,

      There’s no better way to do it without injecting subjectivity into the process. Someone on the right might argue that the major flaw in this analysis is that I don’t ascribe November and December 2008 to Obama since employers surely reduced hiring in anticipation of an Obama presidency. I’d rather keep it simple. Moreover, even the Democratic Party tallies the numbers the exact same way I do. Does that make the Democratic Party’s analysis flawed as well?

    • fairbs says:

      You could also attribute something done in bush’s term for the reversal of the trend and that Obama shouldn’t get credit for any of the growth. Either way, it’s good that Americans are getting back to work. I would like to say that I don’t believe that supply side economics or trickle down works. Every Republican since Reagan has tried this and the economy always tanks soon after.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s