Monday, July 07, 2008

George Bush's net jobs total will be half of Jimmy Carter's 

NYT's Paul Krugman:

Over all, Mr. Bush will be lucky to leave office with a net gain of five million jobs, far short of the number needed to keep up with population growth. For comparison, Bill Clinton presided over an economy that added 22 million jobs.

For political purposes, there are better comparisons to make. If you are going to cite the 22 million net jobs created during Clinton's presidency you should also note that this is about the same number of jobs created under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr... COMBINED.

That's right. In terms of job creation, 8 years of Clinton nearly equalled 8 years of Reagan plus 4 years of Bush plus 8 years of more Bush. I predicted that "Dubya's economy will create fewer net jobs in eight years than Carter did in four". That's the comparison to use. If Bush ends up with 5 million net jobs over eight years, that will be half the number of jobs created during Jimmy Carter's four year term. People need to know these things.

Net Job creation and Stock Market performance are far superior during Democratic Presidencies. That's just a fact, jack.

Again, it's your money.

===
Net Jobs Created (* = 2 term president):

Clinton*: 22.75 million

Reagan*: 16.1 million

Carter: 10.33 million

Bush "43"*: 5 million (projected total)

Bush "41": 2.6 million
===

Since 1901 the Dow Jones industrial average has gained

6.4%/year during Republican presidencies

versus

9.1%/year during Democratic presidencies
===

Update: Atrios has related, but snarkier, thoughts.

Labels: , , , ,

3 comments DiggIt! Del.icio.us

3 Comments:

You know, some dunderhead republican will try and claim that's because Reagan/Bush1's economic policies took a while to take effect and Clinton was the beneficiary. It's a nonsense argument I've heard before.

By Blogger Scott, at 10:38 AM  

Right. Then they have to explain why Reagan's policies resulted in the Bush 1 recession, and why Bush 1's policies (once they took effect) resulted in the massive job's growth during Clinton.

I admit that categorizing economic trends by Presidential administrations is crude, but it's irresistible. Someone will do it. And when significant trends seem to arise over time, it's almost political malpractice not to exploit it.

Yet the Dems will never go on the talk shows and repeat this data ad nauseum, in a coordinated way. Why?

By Blogger oyster, at 2:48 PM  

The Dems--at least those who aren't DLC/GOP-Lite types--can't get on the talk shows in any coordinated way.

By Blogger Michael, at 7:10 PM