Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73

Thread: Which presidents were best for private-sector jobs?

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    jobs tend to be a lagging indicator.
    Conservatives get elected to fix the problems donkeys cause.
    Look at it month by month to better assess trend.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,330
    Thanks
    145,768
    Thanked 82,564 Times in 52,769 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is one measure, but higher spending is usually going to result in more job creation but may be accompanied by higher inflation, interest rates, etc (Carter). Currently there are 11 million unfilled jobs but there are also several negative economic measures occurring.

    Trying to make it partisan usually doesn't hold up to research. For example, the effects of a certain policy seldom occur immediately and may take 1-2 years before showing any result. Using 1-2 years is a reasonable time for assessment, but it results in different conclusions. If I remember correctly, one year shows better Democratic performance while two years is better Republican performance. It is hard to give a president credit (or blame) for policies unless we can identify policies that caused that result.
    Yep. And every time a RWer here or elsewhere praised Trump for his "great economic policies," and I would ask which specifically are helpful, not a single one could point to anything specific. A few mentioned some EOs but when looked at closely they actually did nothing to change policy regarding the economy, and (like some of Biden's) were just done to appease the base.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,440 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    Yep. I was accused of "Cherry Picking" by one of the other posters, but if I'd wanted to cherry-pick the results, I'd actually have started the series with GHW Bush's presidency. Then the list would look like this:

    Biden 5.20
    Clinton 2.63
    Obama 1.27

    Bush (1) 0.42
    Bush (2) -0.04
    Trump -0.43
    Some of these years were determined by the economic conditions that occurred during the presidential term. The 2008 recession hurt Bush and Obama and would have had the same impact on any president. The pandemic affected Trump's term and the excess money supply and decreased production caused by the pandemic caused the inflation and hurt Biden or anybody else who took office at that time.

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    1,410
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked 468 Times in 345 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 96 Times in 88 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    I've seen a few posters here arguing that Republican policies are better for private sector job creation. So, I thought I'd check whether that's true. Here's the annualized rate of private-sector job creation for each recent president, going back as far as the Federal Reserve site goes (1940):

    Biden 5.20
    FDR 5.04
    LBJ 3.56
    Carter 3.28
    Truman 2.70
    Clinton 2.63

    Reagan 2.27
    Nixon 2.11

    JFK 2.04
    Obama 1.27
    Ford 0.86
    Eisenhower 0.50
    Bush (1) 0.42
    Bush (2) -0.04
    Trump -0.43
    Best for me, will always be Obama, that economy he left that corrupt orange white fuck, was ruined by the GOP and their failures to address Covid-19

  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,440 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Yep. And every time a RWer here or elsewhere praised Trump for his "great economic policies," and I would ask which specifically are helpful, not a single one could point to anything specific. A few mentioned some EOs but when looked at closely they actually did nothing to change policy regarding the economy, and (like some of Biden's) were just done to appease the base.
    And, the tariffs were a disaster. We had to pay the farmers $40+ billion because of retaliation.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Mina (05-18-2022), ThatOwlWoman (05-17-2022)

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,330
    Thanks
    145,768
    Thanked 82,564 Times in 52,769 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    And, the tariffs were a disaster. We had to pay the farmers $40+ billion because of retaliation.
    And how many lost contracts to sell their beans because China switched to Brazil for its supplies?
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Mina (05-18-2022)

  9. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerred59 View Post
    Best for me, will always be Obama, that economy he left that corrupt orange white fuck, was ruined by the GOP and their failures to address Covid-19
    Obama's situation is interesting. Viewed in some ways, his era was underwhelming. The average rate of GDP growth was poor and job creation was slower than for any other modern Democrat. However, I think that comes with two asterisks:

    (1) He inherited an economy in absolute meltdown -- it was shrinking at a rate not seen since the Great Depression, and the financial markets were effectively frozen, leaving no clear path for a quick recovery. He managed to get the US back on a growth path.... and one that outpaced most other leading nations coming out of the Great Recession.

    (2) Although there were few areas of really dramatic improvement on his watch, what we lacked in drama we made up for in consistency. For maybe the first time in living memory, there was pretty much no measure of either economic performance or social prosperity that didn't move in the right direction. Usually you have some things moving the right way and some going the wrong way. Like in the 60's, the economy was growing well, but violent crime was surging. In the Clinton era, violent crime was falling, but incarceration rates were rising. With Obama, pretty much everything moved in the right direction: Real incomes, real GDP per capita, stock values, poverty rates, violent crime rates, incarceration rates, federal budget deficits, unemployment rates, home values, consumer debt levels, US approval ratings internationally, the share of Americans covered by health insurance, and so on. You have to look hard to find any area where we didn't improve on his watch..... and, seriously, can you think of any other modern president about whom that could be said?

  10. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Some of these years were determined by the economic conditions that occurred during the presidential term.
    Yes. However, what I find interesting is how often right-wingers have to resort to "special pleading".... basically arguing that the results don't count in each case because of one special situation or another. Like yes, Trump's era saw the worst job losses of any modern president, but that doesn't count because of COVID. The younger Bush's numbers were also terrible, but that doesn't count because 9/11 hurt his first term and a global financial crisis hurt his second. The elder Bush's bad numbers don't count, either, because the Cold War had ended and the military de-escalation and the debt hangover from the 80's created unemployment.

    It's not just with job creation figures, either. Like point out to a right-winger that in the Reagan era poverty didn't drop at all, the average unemployment rate was higher than the rate Carter left him, deficits exploded, and the violent crime rate soared. I guarantee you'll hear all sorts of well-rehearsed reasons for why none of that can rightly be blamed on Reagan's leadership.

    That's why I say the choice of president is a pretty simple one, which comes down to what you want. If you want good results, vote Democrat. If you want endlessly creative rationalizations for why the results don't count, vote Republican.

  11. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    BLS chart for private sector employment 1940 to 2022....
    what the covid crisis and shutting down the economy did to the country in perspective........there was nothing else like it, ever.....



    https://data.bls.gov/generated_files...4_net_1mth.gif
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  12. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,440 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    And how many lost contracts to sell their beans because China switched to Brazil for its supplies?
    And many of those manufacturing products in China moved their operations to Vietnam, Thailand, etc. avoiding the tariffs which were placed on China.

  13. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,440 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    Yes. However, what I find interesting is how often right-wingers have to resort to "special pleading".... basically arguing that the results don't count in each case because of one special situation or another. Like yes, Trump's era saw the worst job losses of any modern president, but that doesn't count because of COVID. The younger Bush's numbers were also terrible, but that doesn't count because 9/11 hurt his first term and a global financial crisis hurt his second. The elder Bush's bad numbers don't count, either, because the Cold War had ended and the military de-escalation and the debt hangover from the 80's created unemployment.

    It's not just with job creation figures, either. Like point out to a right-winger that in the Reagan era poverty didn't drop at all, the average unemployment rate was higher than the rate Carter left him, deficits exploded, and the violent crime rate soared. I guarantee you'll hear all sorts of well-rehearsed reasons for why none of that can rightly be blamed on Reagan's leadership.

    That's why I say the choice of president is a pretty simple one, which comes down to what you want. If you want good results, vote Democrat. If you want endlessly creative rationalizations for why the results don't count, vote Republican.
    I think you have it backwards. Negative economic conditions did not occur because of the president; instead, the president, Democrat or Republican, got stuck with the economic conditions that occurred. For example, you used only negatives for Republican presidents but there have been many for Democrats, also. Were Obama's policies responsible for the recession that caused 10% unemployment during his presidency? You can point to both highs and lows during many of those presidential terms.

    Unemployment and inflation were double digits under Carter. Which Carter policies were responsible for that development? Which Biden policies are responsible for the high inflation? Political party does not dictate these trends.

    It is true Democrats have traditionally sought low unemployment while Republican seek low inflation.

  14. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    .... but there have been many for Democrats, also.
    Yes. This special pleading works that way, too. Obama, for example, presided over pretty much across-the-board improvement in America. Real incomes and real GDP per capita rose, poverty and unemployment fell, we had great stock market returns, violent crime rates fell, incarceration rates fell, the share of Americans covered by health insurance rose, deficits fell, consumer debt levels fell, and on and on.

    So, of course "that doesn't count." Obama's across-the-board improvement must be ignored, because he inherited such a mess at the end of the global financial meltdown that there was nowhere to go but up.

    And you see that again and again. Clinton gave us even more dramatic improvement, but that doesn't count because something something dotcom bubble. The Carter years saw truly epic job creation, but that doesn't count, since it was just the women's lib movement moving women into the workforce. The Kennedy/Johnson years saw one of the greatest gains in prosperity ever, but that doesn't count, since it was just that Vietnam-ramp-up deficit spending. And how can you count Truman's great economic growth when he got a similar boost from WWII and Korea? FDR has to be ruled out, too, because he inherited an economy at rock bottom, even more so thank Obama, so there was nowhere to go but up.

    So, again, there's a simple choice: if you want good results, vote Democrat. If you instead want think-tank-honed excuses for why the real world doesn't count, the Republicans have got you covered.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Mina For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (05-18-2022)

  16. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,440 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    Yes. This special pleading works that way, too. Obama, for example, presided over pretty much across-the-board improvement in America. Real incomes and real GDP per capita rose, poverty and unemployment fell, we had great stock market returns, violent crime rates fell, incarceration rates fell, the share of Americans covered by health insurance rose, deficits fell, consumer debt levels fell, and on and on.

    So, of course "that doesn't count." Obama's across-the-board improvement must be ignored, because he inherited such a mess at the end of the global financial meltdown that there was nowhere to go but up.

    And you see that again and again. Clinton gave us even more dramatic improvement, but that doesn't count because something something dotcom bubble. The Carter years saw truly epic job creation, but that doesn't count, since it was just the women's lib movement moving women into the workforce. The Kennedy/Johnson years saw one of the greatest gains in prosperity ever, but that doesn't count, since it was just that Vietnam-ramp-up deficit spending. And how can you count Truman's great economic growth when he got a similar boost from WWII and Korea? FDR has to be ruled out, too, because he inherited an economy at rock bottom, even more so thank Obama, so there was nowhere to go but up.

    So, again, there's a simple choice: if you want good results, vote Democrat. If you instead want think-tank-honed excuses for why the real world doesn't count, the Republicans have got you covered.
    Who is saying "it doesn't count"? I'm not sure about "truly epic job creation" under Carter. It was 10 million which was less than Reagan (16), Clinton (22), or Obama (12).

    Trump's average unemployment rate was lower than Obama, Clinton, Carter, JFK, Bush (both), and Reagan. Does that count?

    The average GDP growth was higher under Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (both) than under Obama.

    I am not defending Democrats or Republicans. My point is that using several economic measures results in both parties leading on different indices. When you have already determined the outcome, it will affect your research.

  17. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Who is saying "it doesn't count"?
    That summarizes a good chunk of the arguments I've had with Republicans over the years. Practically every discussion is me presenting hard historical data and the Republican coming back with a "yeah but" about why it doesn't count.

    I'm not sure about "truly epic job creation" under Carter. It was 10 million which was less than Reagan (16), Clinton (22), or Obama (12).
    First, obviously, if you do a straight-up comparison of four years to eight, that's gaming things for the longer periods. We'll want an annualized rate. And it doesn't make sense to do a raw job count, since the country grows over time, such that you'd have recent presidents almost always looking better than those from earlier eras. Instead, just do annualized percentage growth. And, in those terms, Carter indeed surpasses Reagan, Obama, and yes even Clinton.

    Trump's average unemployment rate was lower than Obama, Clinton, Carter, JFK, Bush (both), and Reagan. Does that count?
    I'd say the relevant comparison isn't one average unemployment rate versus another. If you inherit a great situation and make it terrible, and someone else inherits a terrible situation and makes it great at the same rate, you may end up with identical averages, but that hardly suggests you're equal. Someone who steadily takes an unemployment rate from 4 to 10 and someone who takes it from 10 to 4 aren't equally accomplished even if they both averaged 7.

    The more sensible way to look at it is to see how that average compares to what he inherited from his predecessor. Trump's average was worse than what Obama had left him. In the same way, Bush's average was worse than Clinton left him, the elder Bush's was worse than Reagan left him, Reagan's was worse than Carter left him, and so on. I think you may need to go all the way back to someone like Calvin Coolidge to find a Republican who DIDN'T lead the country to worse average unemployment rates than what he inherited. And that's because, as a nearly universal rule, Republicans lead the nation into recession. Seriously, how many modern Republicans can you name who didn't inherit a growing economy and then lead the nation to recession? Can you think of even one? I can name at least five Democrats about whom we can say that, just in the last six Democrats, but it's almost unheard of for a Republican not to lead us to disaster. In fact, I can more easily think of a Republican who led us into three separate recessions than one who didn't lead us into even one.

    I am not defending Democrats or Republicans. My point is that using several economic measures results in both parties leading on different indices.
    Can you name one? Democrats have stronger percentage job creation rates, superior net changes in unemployment rates, stronger performance for the DOW, and the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ, faster net improvement in poverty rates, stronger annualized percentage real median income growth, stronger real GDP growth rates, better trends for consumer debt levels, better trends for changes in budget deficits, better trends for crime and incarceration rates, and so on.

    Sure, you can find individual Republican presidential eras that look better than individual Democratic ones when it comes to specified indicators, but I honestly cannot think of a single major indicator where the collective trends during Republican-led eras look better than those for Democrat-led eras. Can you? Even one?

  18. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,330
    Thanks
    145,768
    Thanked 82,564 Times in 52,769 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    And many of those manufacturing products in China moved their operations to Vietnam, Thailand, etc. avoiding the tariffs which were placed on China.
    They moved them there because labor in China became more expensive, while labor in other Asian countries was more affordable to the companies. Kind of like American countries moved operations to Mexico.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. adds 179,000 private-sector jobs in November: ADP
    By Bourbon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-2018, 08:56 AM
  2. Private sector adds 206,000 jobs in November
    By The Dude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2011, 07:37 AM
  3. Private sector adds almost 200,000 jobs in January
    By Bfgrn in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-04-2011, 12:23 AM
  4. The economy is adding private sector jobs
    By Canceled.LTroll.8 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-18-2010, 09:03 PM
  5. We've created jobs in the private sector for 6 months in a row
    By Canceled.LTroll.8 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2010, 09:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •