Despite inheriting the Clinton Recession and managing through the corporate scandals and the 9-11 attacks that crippled the US economy, the average monthly unemployment rate during the Bush years now bests the Clinton years:
Through October 2007- US Unemployment Rate History.
Today's encouraging employment news boosted the Bush Administration ahead of the previous administration.
Democrats used to preach that this was a "jobless recovery".
They were wrong.
UPDATE: Larry Kudlow is very optimistic about today's news.
Good news. (Although, when your graph ranges from 5.2047 to 5.2052, it's a little misleading looking.)
ReplyDeleteThe graph was created in Excel.
ReplyDeleteIt was not an attempt to mislead.
It's misleading because all of the jobs created under Bush were either at Starbucks, Walmart or Lee's Deli (a San Francisco landmark).
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeleteDa Man @ 9:52 AM
yeah, they've got some freakin' nerve working at dumps like that when they could be sitting at home collecting Dhimmi welfare checks..
hmm, wonder if those jobs were available & who filled them under the Clinton Administration?? duh!!
==
++
ReplyDeleteoh btw.. a little Rodham trivia..
Hillary Clinton: Walmart Director: 1986 to 1992
shhh, go fig..
==
Oh Jim! Your comment: "The graph was created in Excel"...
ReplyDeleteBoy! Oh boy! Yeah, so I'm not alone in feeling that Excel sometimes doesn't...:-)
So Chen, you say: I am also thinking about opening up a donut shop...
So what's going to be your minimum work requirments? A Phd in economics ala Krugman? How much are YOU going to pay your employees?
Maybe you'll want to pay them MIS type wages, eh?
Did anyone else find it interesting that per his usual style E.J. Dionne missed this? Payrolls Grew by 166,000 in October, Jobless Rate Holds Steady
The graph is indeed visually misleading, because of where the floor is set: it'd be good if they were shown a little closer to context, because the one is clearly not half of the other.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, da man's response is historically-illiterate. People have been griping about the shift to service economy since the end of Bush I ... lots of folks in the 90s experienced the exact same phenomenon.
From the Update, Kudlow link above: "Over the past year, 1.7 million new jobs have been created. The bulk of these, by the way, are coming from high-pay service jobs, including business and professional services, as well as education and health services."
ReplyDeleteAnother Dimmywit talking point down in flames. Not many left, are there.
I like what is going on economically as much as the next Republican (libertarian wing).
ReplyDeleteBut a difference of .0005 is down in the noise level. It implies an accuracy of better than 1 part in 10,000. I don't think unemployment measures are that good.
++
ReplyDeleteM. Simon @ 11:36 PM
i don't think the actual numbers are as significant as being able to debunk the Dems / MSM's blatant false claims..
==
bg,
ReplyDeleteConcur.
difference, 900 jobs in favor of Bush, not really earth shattering
ReplyDelete"difference, 900 jobs in favor of Bush, not really earth shattering" and no advantage at all to Clinton, so there goes another Lefty talking point swirling down the drain.
ReplyDeleteI see now how they're playing up the jobs/population angle. Tell that one to the French. Or, for that matter, to the Japanese who have the problem in the opposite direction.
Hell, we don't even know what our labor force population is, let alone how many of them are actually 'employed' in one manner or another, so trying to insert a new 'benchmark' because the old ones no longer help your argument is just lame.
One thing to keep in mind is that every month below 5.2% improves Bush's numbers relative to Clinton's.
ReplyDeleteAt this point we can say Bush is as good; as time goes on it will be better.
What weird calculations are you using using the Bureau of Labor statistics Jan 1993-Jan 2001 comes out to: 5.092592593. That is a great deal of difference.
ReplyDeleteThe data in comma delimited format:
Year,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec,Annual,
1993,7.3,7.1,7.0,7.1,7.1,7.0,6.9,6.8,6.7,6.8,6.6,6.5,
1994,6.6,6.6,6.5,6.4,6.1,6.1,6.1,6.0,5.9,5.8,5.6,5.5,
1995,5.6,5.4,5.4,5.8,5.6,5.6,5.7,5.7,5.6,5.5,5.6,5.6,
1996,5.6,5.5,5.5,5.6,5.6,5.3,5.5,5.1,5.2,5.2,5.4,5.4,
1997,5.3,5.2,5.2,5.1,4.9,5.0,4.9,4.8,4.9,4.7,4.6,4.7,
1998,4.6,4.6,4.7,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.5,4.5,4.6,4.5,4.4,4.4,
1999,4.3,4.4,4.2,4.3,4.2,4.3,4.3,4.2,4.2,4.1,4.1,4.0,
2000,4.0,4.1,4.0,3.8,4.0,4.0,4.0,4.1,3.9,3.9,3.9,3.9,
2001,4.2,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.3,4.5,4.6,4.9,5.0,5.3,5.5,5.7,
Sorry forgot to strip off extra months in 2001:
ReplyDeleteYear,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec,Annual,
1993,7.3,7.1,7.0,7.1,7.1,7.0,6.9,6.8,6.7,6.8,6.6,6.5,
1994,6.6,6.6,6.5,6.4,6.1,6.1,6.1,6.0,5.9,5.8,5.6,5.5,
1995,5.6,5.4,5.4,5.8,5.6,5.6,5.7,5.7,5.6,5.5,5.6,5.6,
1996,5.6,5.5,5.5,5.6,5.6,5.3,5.5,5.1,5.2,5.2,5.4,5.4,
1997,5.3,5.2,5.2,5.1,4.9,5.0,4.9,4.8,4.9,4.7,4.6,4.7,
1998,4.6,4.6,4.7,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.5,4.5,4.6,4.5,4.4,4.4,
1999,4.3,4.4,4.2,4.3,4.2,4.3,4.3,4.2,4.2,4.1,4.1,4.0,
2000,4.0,4.1,4.0,3.8,4.0,4.0,4.0,4.1,3.9,3.9,3.9,3.9,
2001,4.2
Noticed a mathematical error in my calculations: the correct value for Clinton is 5.193814433.
ReplyDelete503.8(total)/97 months (including start end end January, removing the first January will end up with a smaller figure)= 5.193814433
Your post is misleading, because Clinton INHERITED a 7.40% unemployment rate from Bush I, and Bush II INHERITED a fabulous 3.90% unemployment rate from Clinton! What did Bush II do with the fabulous 3.90% unemployment rate he INHERITED from Clinton? Bush II took it from 3.90% to 6.10% (the high), and TODAY it's 5.00%. You are misleading, by taking the AVERAGE PERCENTAGE and not taking into account that a president's AVERAGE PERCENTAGE will be higher through no fault of his own, if he INHERITS a BAD unemployment rate from the previous president!
ReplyDeleteIE: Clinton got down his INHERITED unemployment rate from 7.40% to 3.90%, and Bush II RAISED his INHERITED 3.90% unemployment rate to today's 5.00%.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Jobless_rate_hits_5_percent_2_year__01042008.html
Notice on YOUR graph, Clinton's bars go DOWN, and Bush II's go UP!
Minimum wage increase had something to do with the unemployment increase.
ReplyDeleteYeeeehh, Bush 2 has the unemployment almost back up to his daddy's rate. A couple more thousands of jobs lost in the next few months and maybe he can beat his papa.
ReplyDeleteObama's gonna come in, get the economy rolling again, and then all the Bush lovers are gonna say that Bushes economy actually made it good for Obama. Yeah, this economy is just overflowing with potential. Anyone who still votes for Mccain and Bushes tax plan to give money to the rich are just plain stupid. Here's your sign. "I'm Stupid"
ReplyDeleteHey! How's that Bush jobless rate coming along???
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON — The nation’s jobless ranks zoomed past 10 million last month, the most in a quarter-century, as piles of pink slips shut factory gates and office doors to 240,000 more Americans with the holidays nearing. Politicians and economists agreed on a painful bottom line: It’s only going to get worse.
http://www.citizensvoice.com/articles/2008/11/08/news/wb_voice.20081108.t.pg5.cv08cdjobless_s1.2075587_top2.txt
The final stats are in:
ReplyDeleteBush inherited a 3.9% unemployment rate from Clinton in 2000, and in December 2008 unemployment stood at 7.2%.
http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=1158982
Sorry to burst your ballons, but Froomkin wasn't fired!
ReplyDeletehttp://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/dan+froomkin/