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

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

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 November, the private sector added a respectable 147,000 jobs in the thirty-third consecutive month of private sector job growth. This development is rather positive news. The country had a net employment gain of 146,000 total jobs (private and public). Moreover, 146,000 is 21,000 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.

November is the eleventh 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 seventh 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 four-tenths of a percentage point worse today than it was during President Bush’s last full month in office, but it is one-tenth of a percentage point better than what it was when President Obama first entered office. In other words, the unemployment rate in all 47 months of Obama’s presidency has been higher than that of any single full month in President Bush’s 8 years in office.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate decreased by two-tenths of a percentage point to 7.7% — the lowest month of unemployment during the Obama presidency. This number remains four-tenths of a percentage point higher than President Bush’s last full month in office in December 2008. However, it marks the third consecutive month in which the unemployment rate has been lower than 8% after a string of 43 consecutive months during the 47-month Obama presidency in which unemployment had been 8% or higher.

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

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 122,000 fewer people employed at the end of November than were employed at the end of October. 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 decreased faster than the number of new employees entering the work force decreased. Therefore, the main reason the unemployment rate decreased is that the numerator (the number of unemployed Americans) in the unemployment equation increased by a smaller percentage than the denominator decreased (the civilian labor force). Put simply, the unemployment rate improved because the number of people in the labor force decreased more than the number of people employed decreased. This development is not a positive one, but seems consistent with a policy regime driven by entitlement growth rather than by economic growth.

The civilian labor force ended November at 155.3 million vs. October’s 155.6 million. 143.3 million people had jobs in November, which was a decrease of about 122,000 people from October versus about 350,000 people who left 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 worsened by two-tenths of a percentage point from 63.8% in October to 63.6% in November.

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

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

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 905,000 private sector jobs (a gain of 580,000 if one attributes the remaining 11 days of job losses in January 2009 to Obama, and a gain of 66,000 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~1.4 jobs under Barack Obama (if one attributes January 2009’s job losses to Obama, the private sector added ~0.5 jobs for every job it created under Bush). The economy would need to destroy 1.55 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. Nevertheless, the country still has a long way to go to restoring full employment.

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.

7 Responses to Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (November 2012 Jobs Data)

  1. octavian61 says:

    It would be nice to see how much the PUBLIC sector gained in job growth. And compare the growth with that of the public sector. Which one has gained the most in the past ten years. Would be very interesting.

  2. octavian61 says:

    It would be nice to see how much the PUBLIC sector gained in job growth. And compare the growth with that of the private sector. Which one has gained the most in the past ten years. Would be very interesting.

  3. Well done Patrick the charts are really positive, festive greetings.

  4. Jeff Fordham says:

    Public sector employment has dropped greatly while private sector employment has increased albeit slowly….. and this despite the opposite rhetoric from the right wing bubble where they create their own reality. Here is a link to some data …………..public sector and private sector graphs are #6 and # 7 down from the top. ……..and don’t hesitate to read some of the other data that show things are much better now under Obama….like corporate after tax profits………which have never been higher. Could you imagine what could happen if the obstructionist Republicans in Congress decided to work with Obama? Like I said years ago……this new found fiscal responsibility from the right wing after the debacle of GWB………..is pure bullshit. Obama was sworn in with giant trillion dollar spending programs already on the books……… take away his stimulus expenses, and identify the 1 trillion plus in war costs which were held off the books until 2009/2010 and Obama doesn’t look too bad…………given the fact he came in under a crashing economy.

    link to the data: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-private-sector-and-the-public-sector-under-obama-2012-6?op=1

    My new bumper sticker: FOX NEWS IS GOOD FOR DEMOCRATS
    KEEP BELIEVING YOUR OWN BULLSHIT

  5. --Rick says:

    My view is that we finally got rid of Tweedle Dee only to end up with Tweedle Dum. Two peas in the same pod – on a compassionate conservative and the other an arrogant would be dictator requiring all sane citizens to hold tight to their wallets when in the company of each of them.

  6. Henry says:

    I find the distinction odd for the last full month of Bush’s presidency. The December 2008 report would survey Dec 14th-20th. The Jan 2009 report would be done on Jan 18th-24th. The elapsed time period from Dec 21st to Jan 24th would be 35 days. Only the last 5 days, Jan 19th-24th, would be in Obama’s Presidency.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2009&month=1&country=1

  7. Henry says:

    If we are going by full months, we would measure the unemployment rate for Bush from 02/2001 – 12/2008. While Obama’s full months would be from 02/2009 to 11/2012. It would be more consistent.

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