It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years

[Ldir]

Show me where I bashed Obama.



Hint: You can't. Because I didn't.


I said the report is flawed because it picks what segments it's measuring and ignores others.


Oh- You might want to read who made the post you're quoting in your response. But if that's too much effort, then please - Continue making a complete ass of yourself for our amusement. Goes to my point that many/most of the denizens of this forum are too full of their own idiocy and political bias to smell the sh*t they're shoveling.


By the way: In case you hadn't guessed, I wasn't attacking Obama there, either.

I was talking about werepossum. You mentioned strawmen. He made one. I showed it to you. "Here is that strawman you are looking for." You might want to work on your own reading skills. But if that's too much effort, then please - Continue making a complete ass of yourself for our amusement.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

That's kind of like blaming Bush for 9-11 since it happened on his dime, wasn't at all his fault. What Bush did after 9-11 is a different story. Similarly, I don't blame Obama for job losses that were going to happen no matter who was elected in 2008. The jury is still out on whether or not he is going to make those problems better or worse.

I'm not blaming Obama directly for job losses, and I don't blame Bush for it either. Sure, Bush didn't help anything - he was a dumbass who looked abroad while the problems at home kept brewing. But this whole catastrophe wasn't his fault fundamentally - it was 40 years in the making. Bush might have been able to alleviate the recession's ills, but he couldn't have stopped it.

The problem is that the Dems are touting their victories when all it is is a recovery of what we had before, which wasn't all that awesome, except now with a mountain of debt. Until Obama takes serious measures to take on the national debt, secure the border, and make congress work the fuck together instead of blaming Bush and the Republicans, I'm not going to respect his leadership.

 

[Fern]

It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years

^ That's extremely counter-intuative. I'm having trouble believing it. Bill Clinton left Bush with his dot.com burst bubble, so Bush inherented a recession. Then 9/11 hit etc. and on the way out Bush had the start of this current recession. So, over his 8 yrs he had a couple of bad periods. But still...

I'm also sceptical of why we need to do all this math with 'jobs lost/gained' etc. Isn't the most obvious way to tell to simply look at the total number of private sector jobs exisitng at the begining of Bush's term and compare that to those at the end of his term?

Is somebody trying to use stats to distort the record to meet his/her political agenda?

Here's some data from the BLS (total jobs by year). Link:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Somebody double-check my understanding etc, but I get a different answer than the author.

Looks like non-gov jobs are split into 2 sections: Goods producing (manufacturing) and services.


1. Goods producing:

Total Jobs 12/31/2000 (Bush took over early 2001) 131,785,000

Total Jobs 12/31/08 (Obama took over early 2009) 136,790,000

Looks to me like a net increase of just over 5 million jobs for this sector of private jobs.

2. Service Jobs:

Total Jobs 2000 107,136,000

Total Jobs 2008 115,456,000

A net increase in jobs of over 8 million jobs for this sector.

Total of #1 and #2 above is over 13 million new jobs under Bush.

Somebody pls double-check. In spite of the bad periods under Bush, I think this makes a little more sense, unemployment was never this high during the Bush admin and an awful lot of new people entered the job market over those 8 years. To merely maintain the same level of employment/unemployment some substanial number of new jobs must be created to account for all these new people.

Fern

 

[Scotteq]

I was talking about werepossum. You mentioned strawmen. He made one. I showed it to you. "Here is that strawman you are looking for." You might want to work on your own reading skills. But if that's too much effort, then please - Continue making a complete ass of yourself for our amusement.

Beg Pardon sir - I was both wrong, and Rude.

Somebody pls double-check. In spite of the bad periods under Bush, I think this makes a little more sense, unemployment was never this high during the Bush admin and an awful lot of new people entered the job market over those 8 years. To merely maintain the same level of employment/unemployment some substanial number of new jobs must be created to account for all these new people.

Fern

Fern - The answer is: At the moment we are about 11 and a half million jobs short of the pre-recession 5% unemployment rate. So if we add 300,000 jobs a month - and sustain that - it will take 5 years to get back to that same 5%.

Except the growth in America's workforce is between 125,000 and 300,000 a month. So to compensate for that, the actual number of jobs needing to be added is at least 425,000 a month for that same 5 years.

Also - The only thing that's kept the U3 unemployment rate stable is people have been dropping off the rolls and into the U4/U5/U6 categories because they have been unemployed for 41 weeks or longer. As pointed out earlier, the U6 is over 17%. Not 'Great Depression' stuff, to be sure. But really, really bad nevertheless.

There's a very nice graph at the bottom of this page showing the change in numbers of jobs over the last years. There's a little bump for May 2010, and then the graph resumes it's downward trend.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/september_jobs_picture


http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/unemployment-96-september-2010

Here's a .pdf copy of the actual jobs report






******


And again - Pardon my rage against the original article here. But you guys are clearly NOT getting the whole story. To use a rude/crude analogy, it's like finding yourself sitting in front of a huge turd and having some asshole come along and tell you "Oh Look.. there's a lovely piece of delicious, nutritious corn..." Some of us here are apparently happy to hear all about how wonderful corn is, since we like corn and have an interest in promoting it.

Others look at the larger picture and want to choke the living shit out of that guy.

 

[bamacre]

What sort of stupidity is this? If you take a country like America and have Bush hit it in the face with a base ball bat there is going to be a huge bruise and broken bones. The bruising will get worse day by day and the pain will be awful. Then the healing will begin and a point reached at which the bones begin to knit as dead blood and flesh is dissolved away or infection killed off. For weeks and months after the body begins to mend you will still look black and blue. It takes time to recover from Bush shitting in your face. It's really sad to see you not acknowledge that because you're a partisan hack.

Sorry. I was told by our resident "expert economists" we'd be "out of this mess in 12 months." Perhaps the current administration should have been honest with the American people, "we're going to spend trillions of dollars we don't have, so expect the economy to be better in 10 years." Then perhaps the American public wouldn't be so disappointed.

 

[werepossum]

^ That's extremely counter-intuative. I'm having trouble believing it. Bill Clinton left Bush with his dot.com burst bubble, so Bush inherented a recession. Then 9/11 hit etc. and on the way out Bush had the start of this current recession. So, over his 8 yrs he had a couple of bad periods. But still...

I'm also sceptical of why we need to do all this math with 'jobs lost/gained' etc. Isn't the most obvious way to tell to simply look at the total number of private sector jobs exisitng at the begining of Bush's term and compare that to those at the end of his term?

Is somebody trying to use stats to distort the record to meet his/her political agenda?

Here's some data from the BLS (total jobs by year). Link:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Somebody double-check my understanding etc, but I get a different answer than the author.

Looks like non-gov jobs are split into 2 sections: Goods producing (manufacturing) and services.


1. Goods producing:

Total Jobs 12/31/2000 (Bush took over early 2001) 131,785,000

Total Jobs 12/31/08 (Obama took over early 2009) 136,790,000

Looks to me like a net increase of just over 5 million jobs for this sector of private jobs.

2. Service Jobs:

Total Jobs 2000 107,136,000

Total Jobs 2008 115,456,000

A net increase in jobs of over 8 million jobs for this sector.

Total of #1 and #2 above is over 13 million new jobs under Bush.

Somebody pls double-check. In spite of the bad periods under Bush, I think this makes a little more sense, unemployment was never this high during the Bush admin and an awful lot of new people entered the job market over those 8 years. To merely maintain the same level of employment/unemployment some substanial number of new jobs must be created to account for all these new people.

Fern

You're just not using the new math. Under Obamanomics, jobs gained under Bush were lower than they would have been if Obama had been President, so that thirteen million is actually a negative number. Similarly, all jobs lost under Obama are actually due to Bush, whereas all jobs gained under Obama are due to his own electrifying almightiness. This works better if you are heavily medicated; it works best if you are heavily medicated on drugs someone else paid for.

 

[PJABBER]

Also - The only thing that's kept the U3 unemployment rate stable is people have been dropping off the rolls and into the U4/U5/U6 categories because they have been unemployed for 41 weeks or longer. As pointed out earlier, the U6 is over 17%. Not 'Great Depression' stuff, to be sure. But really, really bad nevertheless.

There's a very nice graph at the bottom of this page showing the change in numbers of jobs over the last years. There's a little bump for May 2010, and then the graph resumes it's downward trend.
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/september_jobs_picture


http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/unemployment-96-september-2010

Here's a .pdf copy of the actual jobs report

Thanks for those links. They are understandable to the layman and provide a clear description of the data.

 

[Vic Vega]

It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years

Heh... so, if most people were gainfully employed during the past eight years and lost their jobs in '08 and '09, eventually those people will go back to work. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these numbers essentially are meaningless... unless your goal is political spin.

 

[umbrella39]

Heh... so, if most people were gainfully employed during the past eight years and lost their jobs in '08 and '09, eventually those people will go back to work. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these numbers essentially are meaningless... unless your goal is political spin.

Where does it state most people were gainfully employed 2000-2008?

 

[Vic Vega]

Where does it state most people were gainfully employed 2000-2008?

Somehow I don't think you need help Googleing unemployment rates for the past decade.

 

[glenn1]

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/0...reated-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/

It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years

Great news. That means we can scrap the repeated extensions of unemployment to 99 weeks. Time to go get a job you lazy fvcks, Obama has led us out of the misery of the Bush days and happy times are here again.

 

[EXman]

Before i call Bullshi!t how many of these are temporary jobs that will evaporate if BHO doesn't get another 80 billion stimulus dollars.

He's creating demand, artificial demand, what will happen when we run out of money? Spending your way out of debt is foolhardy. Also I believe it is now causing a "government bubble" that will at some time have to burst just like the Dot com and housing bubble.

Honestly Bush was a goober. He was never a fiscal conservative or much or a big picture conservative in my book. And I think enforcement was lacking all the way from the first Bush years through the Clinton years and then onto the Bush "W" years and not just due deregulation I think our government got to bloated and lazy and does not reward its employees enough to draw in good private sector quality types to fill in postions especially in administrative/leadership positions.

Happy Columbus Day!

 

[sandorski]

.. Spending your way out of debt is foolhardy. ...!

Indeed it is, but who is doing that?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Indeed it is, but who is doing that?

Not Obama. He's spending ourselves into even a bigger hole.

 

[piasabird]

How does government take credit for any job creating in the private sector? The government did not create the jobs. If there was less taxes and less legislation there would be even more jobs.

 

[werepossum]

Indeed it is, but who is doing that?

The Democrat Party, who believes that the key to getting out of a hole lies in the speed of digging.

The Republican Party, who believes that the key to getting out of a hole lies in digging slightly more slowly than the Democrat Party wants to dig at a given moment.

 

[Carmen813]

The Democrat Party, who believes that the key to getting out of a hole lies in the speed of digging.

The Republican Party, who believes that the key to getting out of a hole lies in digging slightly more slowly than the Democrat Party wants to dig at a given moment.

I think they dig different holes at equal paces.

 

[nyker96]

I wonder why Obama is pretty quiet about his job creation results on the campaign trail. I think Dem hate to brag about achievements is what's killing them in most election years. Modesty don't get much votes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I wonder why Obama is pretty quiet about his job creation results on the campaign trail. I think Dem hate to brag about achievements is what's killing them in most election years. Modesty don't get much votes.

I think Obama is smart enough to know 'fail' when he sees it....the OP is another matter though.