On a Friday morning in February 2009, the Labor Department issued its standard monthly readout on the state of the United States labor market. It was the first of 96 jobs reports to be issued during the Obama presidency, and it was a catastrophe.
“With Grim Job Loss Figures, No Sign That Worst Is Over” was the print headline for The New York Times. “598,000 Jobs Shed in Brutal January,” said The Washington Post.
There was considerably less hand-wringing upon the release of the final jobs report of the Obama years on Friday, and for good reason. The nation added 156,000 jobs in December, and the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, not the 7.9 percent reached eight years ago.
To be precise, that report from February 2009 covered the period shortly before President Obama took office, and the state of the economy in the final days of his administration will be captured by numbers released early next month. But we’re close enough to the end of the Obama era that it’s hard to imagine any radical shifts in those numbers.
URBAN STUDIES
Granted, presidents have limited ability to shape the economy. Congress controls the power to tax and spend, and the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy. A president has only subtle ways of influencing either. Luck plays a big part in economic results, too; Bill Clinton didn’t invent the internet, but its advent helped drive a jobs boom during his presidency.
Still, with moving vans starting to pull up to the White House gates, it’s a fine time to look at how President Obama’s jobs record stacks up against his predecessors. The short answer: The Obama years have been a gloomier period for American workers than the years of Ronald Reagan or Mr. Clinton. But Mr. Obama’s record looks much better if you make adjustment for the fact that he took office in the middle of an economic free fall, or if you compare him with either President Bush.
“With Grim Job Loss Figures, No Sign That Worst Is Over” was the print headline for The New York Times. “598,000 Jobs Shed in Brutal January,” said The Washington Post.
There was considerably less hand-wringing upon the release of the final jobs report of the Obama years on Friday, and for good reason. The nation added 156,000 jobs in December, and the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, not the 7.9 percent reached eight years ago.
To be precise, that report from February 2009 covered the period shortly before President Obama took office, and the state of the economy in the final days of his administration will be captured by numbers released early next month. But we’re close enough to the end of the Obama era that it’s hard to imagine any radical shifts in those numbers.
URBAN STUDIES
Granted, presidents have limited ability to shape the economy. Congress controls the power to tax and spend, and the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy. A president has only subtle ways of influencing either. Luck plays a big part in economic results, too; Bill Clinton didn’t invent the internet, but its advent helped drive a jobs boom during his presidency.
Still, with moving vans starting to pull up to the White House gates, it’s a fine time to look at how President Obama’s jobs record stacks up against his predecessors. The short answer: The Obama years have been a gloomier period for American workers than the years of Ronald Reagan or Mr. Clinton. But Mr. Obama’s record looks much better if you make adjustment for the fact that he took office in the middle of an economic free fall, or if you compare him with either President Bush.
Job Growth: The Obama Era Falls Short
One of the simplest ways to measure employment is to look at the rate of job growth during a presidency. Here, the math is straightforward. With one month to go, the number of payroll jobs in the United States is up 8.4 percent since Obama took office. Of the last three two-term presidents, that falls considerably short of the levels reached by Presidents Reagan (17.7 percent) and Clinton (20.9 percent), but substantially better than the results achieved by George W. Bush (a gain of 1 percent).
One of the simplest ways to measure employment is to look at the rate of job growth during a presidency. Here, the math is straightforward. With one month to go, the number of payroll jobs in the United States is up 8.4 percent since Obama took office. Of the last three two-term presidents, that falls considerably short of the levels reached by Presidents Reagan (17.7 percent) and Clinton (20.9 percent), but substantially better than the results achieved by George W. Bush (a gain of 1 percent).
There are also some ways in which this isn’t a fair comparison. That’s because job growth rates are heavily shaped by two things that a president can’t control: the state of the economy when they take office, and demographic forces that shape the availability of workers.
Here, Presidents Reagan and Clinton had a big advantage. Both took office not long after a recession had ended, meaning that their job growth results were boosted by unemployed workers who were returning to the work force. And both presided during a time when baby boomers were in prime working years and women were entering the work force.
By contrast, both President Bushes took office with the economy at full employment, when there was nowhere for job growth to go but down. And President Obama took office during a period of economic disaster, with less favorable demographics: Baby boomers are now retiring, and the proportion of women who seek to work is stable, not growing.
Here, Presidents Reagan and Clinton had a big advantage. Both took office not long after a recession had ended, meaning that their job growth results were boosted by unemployed workers who were returning to the work force. And both presided during a time when baby boomers were in prime working years and women were entering the work force.
By contrast, both President Bushes took office with the economy at full employment, when there was nowhere for job growth to go but down. And President Obama took office during a period of economic disaster, with less favorable demographics: Baby boomers are now retiring, and the proportion of women who seek to work is stable, not growing.
Unemployment: High on Average but a Better Handoff
One way to filter out those effects is by looking at the unemployment rate, which captures only the share of people who are looking for a job who can’t find one.
The average jobless rate during the Obama presidency is quite high by modern standards, at 7.4 percent. Even amid the miserable job growth record of the George W. Bush administration, the jobless rate averaged only 5.2 percent.
The sheer depth of the recession that Mr. Obama inherited, combined with the slow, long slog out of it over which he presided, ensured that the jobless rate was, on average, elevated through his presidency.
One way to filter out those effects is by looking at the unemployment rate, which captures only the share of people who are looking for a job who can’t find one.
The average jobless rate during the Obama presidency is quite high by modern standards, at 7.4 percent. Even amid the miserable job growth record of the George W. Bush administration, the jobless rate averaged only 5.2 percent.
The sheer depth of the recession that Mr. Obama inherited, combined with the slow, long slog out of it over which he presided, ensured that the jobless rate was, on average, elevated through his presidency.
If you look not at the average, but compare the economy a president inherited with the one he passed along to his successor, President Obama’s record looks a great deal better. If the December jobless number is unchanged in January, Donald J. Trump will inherit among the lowest jobless rates of any new president in modern times. Only Richard Nixon and George W. Bush inherited a lower rate.
And the 3.1-percentage-point decline in joblessness over President Obama’s eight years ties with Mr. Clinton for the steepest drop during a presidency in the post-World War II era. Read More...
And the 3.1-percentage-point decline in joblessness over President Obama’s eight years ties with Mr. Clinton for the steepest drop during a presidency in the post-World War II era. Read More...
No comments:
Post a Comment