Skip to main content

Jobs Numbers Breakdown From 1992-2018

Since Donald Trump has enjoyed talking up the economy since he entered the Oval Office, often declaring he's done a great job and the economy is the best it's ever been due to him, I thought I'd dig a little deeper into such claims. I looked at the beginning and end of terms for each of the past four presidents, three of which spent eight years as Commander-in-Chief. Only time will tell if Trump joins that club alongside Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

First, I looked at the average number of monthly jobs each of the four presidents created in their first two and last two years of their 8-year tenures, with the only exception being Trump, as he's been in office for just a little over 2 years to this point. Here's how those numbers break down, from the most average number of monthly jobs gained to the most average number of monthly jobs lost.

Jobs Per Month
1) Clinton (01/94 - 12/94): +321,000
2) Clinton (02/99 - 12/99): +279,364
3) Clinton (02/93 - 12/93): +229,091
4) Obama (02/15 - 12/15): +228,727
5) Trump (01/18 - 12/18): +222,833
6) Obama (01/16 - 12/16): +193,167
7) Trump: (02/17 - 12/17): +172,818
8) Clinton (01/00 - 12/00): +161,333
9) Obama (01/10 - 12/10): +86,250
10) W. Bush (02/07 - 12/07): +83,273
11) W. Bush (01/02 - 12/02): -42,417
12) W. Bush (02/01 - 12/01): -155,909
13) W. Bush (01/08 - 12/08): -296,000
14) Obama (02/09 - 12/09): -388,182

Next I looked at the net gain/loss of jobs presidents had between their first 2 and final 2 years in office, as well as the net/gain loss of jobs in the transition years between presidents.

Change
1) Obama (02/09 - 12/09 to 01/10 - 12/10): +474,432
2) H.W. Bush (01/92 - 12/92) to Clinton (02/93 - 12/93): +179,626
3) W. Bush (02/01 - 12/01 to 01/02 - 12/02): +113,492
4) Clinton (02/93 - 12/93 to 01/94 - 12/94): +91,909
5) Trump (02/17 - 12/17 to 01/18 - 12/18): +50,015
6) Obama (01/16 - 12/16) to Trump (02/17 - 12/17): -20,349
7) Obama (02/15 - 12/15 to 01/16 - 12/16): -35,560
8) W. Bush (01/08 - 12/08) to Obama (02/09 - 12/09): -92,000
9) Clinton (02/99 - 12/99 to 01/00 to 12/00): -118,031
10) Clinton (01/00 - 12/00) to W. Bush (02/01 - 12/01): -258,029
11) W. Bush (02/07 - 12/07 to 01/08 - 12/08): -379,273

Trump's highest ranking on either list is 5th and that middle-of-the-road ranking has more to do with the economy he inherited than one he created. We ultimately won't know his impact on the economy until this year at the very earliest. It'll be more likely we start to see the aftereffects in 2020 and beyond. In any case, Barack Obama helped create an average of 228,727 and 193,167 jobs per month, respectively, in his final two years in office. In those 2 years, a total of 4,834,000 jobs were created. That's nearly 300,000 more than Donald Trump has helped create in his first 2 years on the job (4,575,000). With those consistent job-creation numbers, it's fairly safe to say that Trump has been riding Obama's coattails. He'll never admit to that, but I'll let the numbers and trends speak for themselves.

Looking beyond Trump, four things really stand out to me when studying the before-mentioned numbers:

1) Bill Clinton was a job-creating machine
2) Job creation was a foreign language to George W. Bush
3) Barack Obama inherited a "bigly" mess
4) Obama righted the ship rather quickly and in a "yuge" fashion

1) Bill Clinton owns the top three spots in the job-creation-by-month rankings. His worst year was in 2000 when an average of over 161,000 jobs were created per month. In the four noted years, Clinton helped create 11,381,001 jobs in this country, an average of 247,413 per month.

2) For as much as I criticize Donald Trump, I can't lose sight of how bad George W. Bush was during his time in the Oval Office, especially on an economic front. In the four noted years, just once were jobs actually gained. We lost 4,860,000 jobs in those four years, an average of 105,652 per month. The difference between the four noted Clinton years and the four noted Bush years was 16,241,001 jobs, or 353,065 per month.

3) If we want to credit Bush with Obama's first year of job numbers due to the fact the former handed the latter the greatest recession since the Great Depression, Barack Obama would have been handed the presidency having seen the country lose 9,537,001 jobs combined over the previous 3 years.

4) Since Barack Obama was technically the president when the Great Recession hit its peak in this country, he's often credited with the country losing an average of 388,182 jobs per month in his first year on the job. In his second year on the job, however, we started to see signs of a rebound, as an average of 86,250 jobs were created per month, an astounding differential of 474,432 jobs over the course of those two years. The next best year-to-year change was when George H.W. Bush handed over the reigns to Bill Clinton and we saw an increase of 179,626 jobs per month that year as a result.

Donald Trump may like to toot his own horn when it comes to the economy, but he's simply been riding the coattails of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and we still don't know the ultimate impact he will have on it for some time. It can't be debated that George W. Bush was an awful president economically. The only real debate we can have from studying this breakdown in numbers is which president was better for this country's economy, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? Clinton generated more jobs overall, yet Obama helped the economy rebound from the worst recession in 75 years.In any case, for as much as he may want to believe the contrary, Donald Trump hasn't done anything remotely as impressive as either Democrat to this point and chances are he never will.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"