Talk:Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms

Definition

Why are we defining 'jobs' to mean only nonfarm payrolls instead of total employment (i.e., all jobs)? Tim Shell

Something isn't right here. I think the jobs data has some unit problems. Example: FDR's "start jobs" number is 34,480 and the footnote to this column says "in millions." This seems unlikely. Perhaps the start and end jobs columns are measured in thousands? alodyne

The Department of Labor website has stats going back to 1939. Where were the job stats prior to 1939 cited from.

The statement by the author regarding the section - Controversial Bush Tax Cuts by numbers - doesn't make sense. The author states: From December 2002 with 133952 thousand jobs to December 2007 with 146211 thousand jobs there was one of the biggest growth of jobs in US history. In 5 years there was 12,3 mil jobs "created".

However, the chart clearly shows that only 6.1 million jobs were created during Bush's entire administration. I don't know if the author's statement is correct or if the chart is correct but one of them is obviously wrong. According to the chart, more total jobs were created during Carter's FOUR years (10.3 M) than the 6.1 M during Bush's EIGHT years. 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdug (talk • contribs)

There's no citation anyway, and the math doesn't even add up. 146211 - 133952 does not = 123000 no matter how many decibal places each number has. The grammar and punctuation are both pretty sad too. I think it should be treated as vandalism or perhaps a meddling 6 year old. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: This tells all. "...meddling 6 year old..." Funny. You are probably 6 year old, because 7 year old would know how to subtract two numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.253.154 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In the first chart, "Total Jobs added (millions)" divided by "Months in Office" multiplied by 1,000 = "Jobs added per month (avg. in thousands)". The math works for Carter, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush. Clinton, and G. W. Bush. It does not work for Obama and Trump. For Obama, the chart says 130, the calculation is 120. For Trump, the chart says -67, the calculation is -61. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpvogel1969 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

for the purposes of jobs calculations, each new president starts in Feb, not Jan, because the Jan BLS surveys are completed while the outgoing president is still in office. Trump was in office 48 months, not 47, and his average was -56, while Obama's was +121. I will fix those. soibangla (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Section - "2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts by the numbers"

Note: The author changed the title of this section from it's previous title of "The Controversial Bush Tax Cuts", but has failed to address (and shows no inclination of doing so) the fundamental points of the NPOV challenge as outlined below. Therefore, I believe it's reasonable to keep the NPOV challenge in place.

The author who added this section clearly cherry-picked a range of dates to state a maximum number of jobs were created - conveniently ending in the year 2007, before a 3 Million job loss in 2008. The bias seems obvious and apparent to me.

The main title of this page implies a granularity of "Presidential Term", therefore I believe it is inconsistent to be stating ANY conclusions on this page that don't conform with that granularity, i.e. ending a computation in 2007. That of course would make the statement in this section redundant as the jobs creation during the G.W. Bush years are already covered in the section above. Therefore, this section serves as nothing but political commentary and should be removed in my opinion.

The author's only defense to selecting a subset of years rather than address job creation during the *entire* time frame the tax cuts have been in effect or even during the *complete* G.W. Bush term, is their assertion that effects of tax cuts "expire" after 5 years. The author once again provides no authoritative cite for this claim. Such an arbitrary claim also seems to run contradictory to the statutory time frame of the tax cuts themselves, as the tax cuts were authorized for a much longer period than 5 years - and indeed an on going effort is being made to make them *permanent*. Clearly, the author's assertion that the effects of these tax cuts "ran out" in 2007 is not consistent with the views of those in Congress who enacted them, nor the ones who are lobbying for their permanence.

Furthermore, if the subject is the "Bush Tax Cuts", it belongs on it's own page where the author can provide authoritative and non-controversial references that establish a definite linkage between tax cuts and employment, and the topic can be expanded fully and appropriately with a neutral point of view.

The author acknowledges that this subject is controversial in the very title that they selected, THAT alone should raise serious doubt as to whether it belongs on Wikipedia at all. Even if it should be deemed acceptable, it certainly deserves a more thorough treatment than an author selecting a narrow subset of dates and then declaring broad politically based conclusions from that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinci56 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Section deleted as per the arguments here and below. Brendtron5000 (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Section - "The Controversial Bush Tax Cuts" REPLY

What is biased? Math does not make any sense? "BUSH tax cuts" were actually enacted in 2001 and 2003. SO starting to calculate its effect from Dec 2002 is not biased. It can be discussed if more fair would be Jun 2002 or Jun 2003, but the impact would not be significant. And measuring its impact for 5 years is cherry-picking? Why? After 5 years any effect of tax change will disappear. Actually measuring it over the longer period is biased. In 5 years there were so many changes in tax laws around the world (e.g. in EU with tax changes from progressive rates up to 39% to 15% flat tax in many countries), that it is surprising, that the effects of such "tax cuts" did not run out of steam sooner. Explanation of the math for people who have trouble with math: Jobs Dec 2007-Jobs Dec 2002 = "Jobs Created" so 146211000-133952000=12259000 which is above mentioned 12,3 mil jobs. Everybody talks about this subject without the actual knowledge. So I do not think, that this section explaining with numbers heavily discussed subject does not belong to this article. It can be erased in 10 years, when such subject connected with "jobs creation" is no longer hot. I do understand, that some people hate numbers if they are not saying what their own political agenda broadcasts. Numbers are very rarely biased! AND i am not concluding anything, just stating the facts. People who are stating that facts are biased do not know what they are talking about.

But you are right about one thing, there is nothing controversial about the tax cuts. Some people call them "controversial Bush..." or even "tax cuts for the rich" etc. It is just bogus. We do not call tax cuts made by Kennedy "controversial Kennedy tax cuts" nor other presidents. Nor are the tax cuts from after 9/11 tax cuts for rich. BTW the tax rate for the rich was reduced less than for the poor, so if somebody would like to call it a name, more factually correct would be "the tax cuts for the poor". Interesting eh?

One more thing, if we are talking controversial, than really controversial is measuring "jobs created" because it does not include people who start their own small business and are not "employed" any more. I hope that the conclusion, that lower tax rates promote new business is quite clear even to the crazy spinners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.253.154 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC) --108.16.253.154 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if the starting numbers are accurate but the arithmetic is OK. 146,211,000 - 133,952,000 = 12,259,000, rounds to 12.3 million. A 12.3 million increase over a five year period is compatible with a 6.1 million increase over 8 years IF there was a total job loss of 6 million before and after this glorious 5 year period. However, the conclusion that the 12 mil job gain can be ascribed to the tax cuts is not logical. If there really was such an increase, it was at least partly due to recovery from a recession. This would have happened with or without an tax cut. Further, we saw big job loss at the end of the Bush term. Any effect of the tax cuts didn't last. David C9 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant to add that taxes were increased in the first couple of years of the Clinton term. Jobs increased by 26.3 million. To use 108.16.253.154's logic, I hope that the conclusion, that higher tax rates promote job creation is quite clear even to the crazy spinners. Post hoc, propter hoc arguments are not logically valid. David C9 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Several points:

I agree with the above comment that ascribing 100% of the job gains under Bush to his tax cuts is not logically sound. Some number of jobs would likely have been created with or without the tax cuts. Since this is not mentioned and no attempt is made to correct for jobs that would have been created anyway, I say that this section is either not NPOV or is just wrong.

The statement "After 5 years any effect of tax change will disappear" should be backed up with a reference from a reputable economist. Why not four or six years?

I also dispute that this section should be included in this article at all. I suggest that if it must be somewhere it should be in Bush Tax Cuts. This page is raw statistics with no qualifiers. The tax cuts section here is highly qualified with no justification of parameters.

If you cannot say why five years is the cutoff for the effect of tax cuts and if you do not have the knowledge of economics to separate the effect of the tax cuts from normal growth, this section must be deleted. I will do so in a couple of days if no response is made.Brendtron5000 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of other factors that affect job growth. Population growth for example, or in this past decade, the huge growth in self-employed people who are not included in job growth figures.. As for the tax cuts, there is no consensus on how long their effects last, but the initial "shock" value of the cuts fades away in less than 5 years, probably closer to only 2 or 3. Even better, there is no way to know how much stronger growth is under tax cuts versus normal growth. All we can do is project averages.. I do agree, that the section should be removed, it is covered on the Bush tax cuts page.--FrankieG123 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think this entire wiki page is valid or sound and is more someone's opinion rather than facts. Here's an example: "Moreover, according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for government spending and thus, regardless of Presidential advocacy, bears constitutional responsibility for such things as spending and tax policy that have enormous effects upon the economy." Sure, there is truth to that, but the author leaves out a very improvident fact, that the President can Veto anything he wants. So the responsibility is always shared, veto or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwdallam (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The table is confusing

By including both the fiscal and annual numbers, the chart is very confusing. I'd suggest using only the fiscal year.

I think most people understand what is a fiscal year and why that is the only relevant data here. A short mention of what is a fiscal year might be helpful, even so. Calan (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I like access to both fiscal and annual numbers at a glance like this. You can reference by administration year and accounting year. I hope to see this become more detailed. I would love to have a link expand the data to show the four fiscal or administrative years - then even further to by month. I like the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.17.204 (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Really! It's not clear if you are saying that the number of jobs was say 133,631 but then it turned out to be really 129,784 or if it was 133,631 PLUS 129,784. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The columns with numbers in them do not sort correctly, either ascending or descending; only columns 1 and 2 sort correctly in ascending or descending order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.72.94 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Make that ' only columns 1, 2 and 3 sort correctly '. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.72.94 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There should be either a correction or footnote/explanation for the 455,000 jobs added between Nixon/Ford's ending jobs and Carter's beginning jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.63.168 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Chart under Controversy section

The chart in the Controversy section should be removed as it is not objective and rather appears biased towards President Obama. jrn0074 —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How so? It shows factual data based upon the BLS statistics.69.243.45.181 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

See section below. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The chart does not reflect the numbers in the table. The chart shows basically very little growth since 2009, where as the table show more than 3 million net jobs created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertswilliams (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Whole article is original research- somebody AfD it

Per my tag. I don't have time or energy (unless somebody gets my gander up :-) but should thought I'd opine. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone break out Private Sector versus Public sector job creation??

Can someone break out Private Sector versus Public sector job creation??

Interesting that GW Bush had no private sector positive job creation, and that expansion came from expansion of government jobs only. At least needs to be checked from official data.

Can someone add in why more jobs created under democratic presidents?

Can someone add in why more jobs created under democratic presidents?

Research is clear that more jobs are created by democratic Presidents. But can we add in why? Is this known, yet. Is it luck or judgement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.9.30 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

can someone add in Private sector job creation, not just total jobs?

Can someone add in Private sector job creation, not just total jobs?

Otherwise President GW Bush jobs record looks too strong - private sector job creation is much weaker?

Total jobs includes government jobs - and data shows that there was large expansion of government in terms of costs and employment under President GW Bush.

Washington Post Methodology

Washington Post is using a February to February computation. Their article says that Barack Obama added 12.503 million jobs. To get that figure: FRED Payems Feb 2009: 133.312 million FRED Payems Feb 2016: 145.815 million Difference: 12.503, cited in WaPo

If you count February 2009 as period 0, Feb 2020 is period 96, which seems right (i.e., 96 periods of job changes).Farcaster (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

numbers are fun

it has been asserted that Biden's job creation has been due only to recovery of jobs lost during the pandemic and that this doesn't count as "real" job creation, and Trump's job creation was better

private sector employment peaked in Feb 2020, then plummeted, then regained that peak in Apr 2022

during the 22 months since Apr 2022, private sector employment has increased 47% more than during the 22 months leading to the Feb 2020 peak

I encourage others to have fun with numbers. one might also find that private job creation during Trump's first three years was considerably lower than during Obama's last three years. just sayin' is all. soibangla (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Biden's numbers have been impressive. 16 million jobs in one term is amazing.

But speaking of numbers, there's something wrong with the percentages. Biden's growth is 11% in 3.5 years, which divides out to about 3.15%/year, not 11.25%/year. Can someone explain the rationale for that growth rate?

Hazelsct (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)