The Bush Jobs Record - The Worst Since Herbert Hoover

Joeychgo

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
6,044
Reaction score
193
Location
Chicago, IL
The Bush Jobs Record
The Worst Since Herbert Hoover
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The numbers speak for themselves:[/font]
  • [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More than 1.5 million private-sector jobs have been lost under President Bush, compared to nearly 21 million private-sector jobs created under President Clinton.

    [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The best month for job growth during the Bush Administration would not even rank in the top 10 months of job growth during the Clinton Administration.

    [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Manufacturing jobs have been lost in 37 out of 43 months under George Bush. In all, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost.

    [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8 million Americans are unemployed, 34% more than when President Bush took office. And that number does not include discouraged workers and the underemployed.

    [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Although the economy is finally starting to recover some of the job losses suffered between 2000 and 2003, George Bush is still on track to have the worst job-creation record since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression.

    [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]George Bush would need to create over 700,000 jobs every month for the remainder of his term just to match the job record under his father, who himself had the worst job creation rate since the Great Depression.

    [/font]
  • [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Long-term unemployment has more than doubled under Bush.
    [/font]
SOURCE
 
Bush’s Job-Loss Recovery the Worst on Record Since the Great Depression (October 7, 2003)

By Cynthia Green

With wages stagnant, job creation slow and unemployment swelling, it’s clear that President Bush’s trillion-dollar tax cuts still haven’t produced the kind of economic recovery that will lift all workers and job seekers.

A new report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the labor market is in worse shape now that when the most recent recession ended, in November 2001.

In "Labor Market Left Behind," senior economist Jared Bernstein and EPI President Lawrence Mishel give Bush and his team the dubious honor of presiding over the lousiest recovery, in terms of employment growth, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking employment in 1939.

Bush’s first and perhaps last term in office will end with a net job loss, likely in the millions, making him the only commander-in-chief since Depression-era President Herbert Hoover to earn such a distinction.

"Since the recovery began, the unemployment rate has gone up by 0.6 percentage points," the authors note. The African-American jobless rate has risen by 1.3 percentage points. And though the downturn has crossed so many demographic lines, the slump in job opportunities has been worse for college graduates than for high-school dropouts, according to the report.

Private-sector payrolls are off by 1.2 million jobs, or 1.1%, since the end of the recession, "making this the weakest employment recovery on record," Bernstein and Mishel write. In all previous recoveries since World War II, even the sluggish one in the early 1990s, the economy has added jobs by this point in the cycle.

When the recovery began, unemployment stood at 5.6%, up from 4.2% at the beginning of the recession. It’s been drifting higher ever since, booking a 6.1% rate in September, more than 20 months out from the end of the recession, and again unusual for post-WWII recoveries.

The 57,000-job gain in September was largely due to a 33,000 rise in temporary employment – the kind of jobs that don’t offer benefits and don’t stick around.

In contrast to the Clinton-era boom of the late 1990s, when an average of 240,000 jobs were added monthly and inflation-adjusted wages were growing at a 2.0% annual clip, real pay stopped growing altogether in 2002 – and fell by about 1.0% for low- and high-wage workers, according to Bernstein and Mishel.

The economy that has been hemorrhaging an average of 93,000 jobs monthly since March 2001 also suffers from chronic long-term joblessness, the authors note.

Over the last year, the average duration of unemployment has lengthened by 2.7 weeks, from 16.6 to 19.3 weeks. Since April, the average jobless spell has lasted 19.5 weeks. The last time this rate was above 19 weeks for at least four months was in late 1983, when the jobless rate was about 9.0%, Bernstein and Mishel write.

"The relatively low rate of unemployment masks the full extent of labor market distress," they write, noting also the millions of part-time workers frustrated in their search for full-time jobs and others who cannot enter the work force because of obstacles like child care or transportation constraints.

Further, anemic job creation has increased the competition for fewer available slots. As many as two million discouraged folks have given up searching for work and are no longer counted among active job-seekers. This phenomenon of a "missing workforce" has actually kept the unemployment rate artificially low, and also means that once these people return to the labor market, the struggle for jobs will be that much more fierce, the report says.

"Although the economy is expanding, it is doing so at too slow a rate to quickly lower unemployment or generate the needed job growth," Bernstein and Mishel write.

"Even if predictions of a strong rebound in growth in the second half of 2003 are accurate, unemployment will remain close to 6.0% through the rest of this year and most of 2004," they say. The economy must grow by more than 3.5% to bring down the jobless rate. Figures for the latest quarter show the economy expanding by only 2.4%.

The Republican theology of tax giveaways for the wealthy has not yet translated into a recovery for workers, but the combination of these cuts and rising government is likely to generate some job creation along with faster economic growth, Bernstein and Mishel say. Still, dispiriting recent wage trends and depressed employment levels suggest that a "self-sustaining, robust recovery is not just around the corner," they say.

"It will be a long wait before the economy returns to the tight job market and broad-based wage gains that workers benefited from just a few years ago at the end of the 1990s," Bernstein and Mishel write.

Cynthia Green is a freelance writer.

2003 Labor Research Association
 
The Republican theology of tax giveaways for the wealthy has not yet translated into a recovery for workers, but the combination of these cuts and rising government is likely to generate some job creation along with faster economic growth, Bernstein and Mishel say.

"It will be a long wait before the economy returns to the tight job market and broad-based wage gains that workers benefited from just a few years ago at the end of the 1990s," Bernstein and Mishel write


Ah, you have to read these things very carefully because the left is so good at parcing words.

I put these paragraphs into my superduper democratic de-scrambler and came up with this after .0000000000000000001 seconds.

The tax cuts are working and the unemployment rate is less than when Clinton was re-elected in 1996.
icon10.gif
 
Please explain how and where the tax cuts are working. They aren't working in Michigan.

I get $15,600. more annually at my present salary as a result of the tax cut. However, business is down 33%, over $400,000, in gross sales. In order to keep my business healthy I cut my salary and bonus' by $150,000. That means I have a personal net loss of $135,000 a year for the last three years.

Now, if this is what is happening to small business owners across America, what effect do you think that will have on the economy? Remember, small business creates more jobs than big business.

My costs have skyrocketed. Insurance, health care, and fuel of all types have burdened the business further. What has the tax cut done for me? You know where that $15,600 is sitting? It hasn't been spent. It didn't stimulate anything.

Yeah, I know, Boo-Hoo, the rich guy is crying. I'm crying now. You'll be crying next.

Barry

P.S. This is a fact. The top 1% of wage earners make $1.2 million a year. Any of you make $1.2 million a year? That wage earner kept an additional $78,000 as a result of the Bush tax cut. WTF does someone making $1.2 mil need with another $78K? Is it need or is it greed?
 
My simplistic take on tax cuts is that the more you keep, the more you spend. And the more you spend, the more jobs that are being supported. And the more jobs, the more taxes the government takes in. It's a win-win situation. I'm not about to defend rich millionaires, but I'm also not about to say that I can get a tax cut and they can't, since my extra money for a year I'll probably spend on 4 days in Vegas with my wife, and the extra $78,000 from tax cuts the millionaire spends will probably buy a big Lincoln Navigator or Cadillac Escalade. Like I said, just my simplistic 2 cents worth.
 
The tax cut did not spur people on to buy anything but housing. Artifically low interest rates have actually caused a significant increase in debt. The policies haven't worked. Unfortunately GWB has "stayed the course" to the exclusion of good ideas. Why do we keep doing the same thing if we know it's wrong? "Because we've always done it that way". Not a good answer.
 
I'm not quite sure I follow you, Barry. Someone has to profit from selling a house, and that profit gets put into the economy somehow, and probably most in construction.
 
Apartment vacancy rates are at an all time high. Commercial leasing is at a significant low. Drive through an industrial park. Do you not see all the For Lease signs?

When one sector gains artificially it will always hurt another sector. I say level the playing field by letting interest rates float.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top