The Simple Arithmetic of Employment: Job Growth Is Always Higher When a Democrat Is In The White House

"For the eighth consecutive month, the nation's employers shed jobs, 84,000 last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday." The New York Times, September 6, 2008

"As President, I will enact a Jobs for America economic plan that creates jobs." John McCain, September 5, 2008

Remember the last time the number of jobs grew more rapidly under an Republican president? John McCain can't. Because he wasn't born yet. Over the past 75 years, one trend has held constant. Rapid job growth only occurs when there's a Democrat in The White House.

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations. Check it out for yourself:

Millions of Jobs Added
Truman 1949 -1952 5.2
Eisenhower 1953 - 1956 2.7
Eisenhower 1957 - 1960 0.8
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 - 1964 5.7
Johnson 1965 - 1968 9.8
Nixon 1969 - 1972 6.1
Nixon/Ford 1972 - 1976 5.2
Carter 1977 - 1980 10.4
Reagan 1981 - 1984 5.2
Reagan 1985 - 1988 10.8
Bush 1989 - 1992 2.5
Clinton 1993 - 1996 11.6
Clinton 1997 - 2000 11.5
Bush 2001 - 2004 (0.1)
Bush 2005 - 2008 5.1

Of course, business cycles aren't timed to coincide with presidential inaugurals. But after 60 years it's hard to argue that the Democratic presidents are just lucky.

Republicans consistently dwell on the outlier of the trend, Reagan's second four-year term, when jobs grew at a robust rate of 2.7 million a year. But that four-year spurt is balanced out by the anemic rate of job expansion during Reagan's first term and during the first Bush Administration. As the financial experts always say, you should never lose sight of the big picture and always think about the long term.

One final point. You also have to wonder if John McCain ever seriously focused on job growth. Since his grandfather owned an oil company, his family seems to have been unaffected by the Great Depression.

Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, seasonally adjusted non-farm payrolls. [Job increases for G.W. Bush are through August 2008. Most economists expect more job losses before the end of this year.]

Comments

[apoyo]

But, the people don't care. They like Sarah!

[Profbsmart]

Fine Article:
But here is what you, Barack and everyone else is missing: WHY DOES THIS HAPPENS?... Why the difference between a Republican President and a Democrat. Why do the Republicans have never and will never be good for the economy. How a Democrat President can reverse the Republican damage to our economy.

Very simple:

Our economy has three principal key players: 1) Local Consumers 2) Local Investors 3) International Investors.

If one of these players is affected, it will influence the others behavior and therefore a Domino effect will be produced; for the good or for the bad.

As you know, everything in economy is based on Trust, Faith, Leadership, Behavior of the Management, etc.

As soon as you bring a Republican Leader to power the 3rd key player (International Investors) will start moving their monies out of our economy. (a clear example of this was the "supposely" 2000 Clinton Recession were as the elections outcome was unclear, they started pulling their monies out of our economy a few months before November as a precautionary move and triggered the Domino effect that I already mentioned). So, what should have been a "temporary contraction of the economy", became a real damaging recession when a Republican Presidency was awarded by the Supreme Court.

How to reverse the damage? Simple: elect a Democrat President and the reverse Domino effect will take place.

Best regards,

B. Smart

[KillTheMessenger]

People, you don't understand.

Reality does not matter if people believe your lies.

:-)

[DuganS1]

The party the President is from has often meant little as far as job growth over the past 60 years. First, the fact that Windows 95 and the internet were invented and that there was a massive proliferation of cell phones and computer in the 1990s had infinitely more to do with job growth than the fact there was a Democratic President (plus the Republicans controlled congress too). Also, the economic policies of President George W Bush and Clinton were relatively the same except for the Bush tax cuts -- and Bush cut taxes on the top bracket only from 39.6% to 35% by the way - and increased military spending (although that is stimulative). Most people also probably don't realize that the Kennedy supply side tax cuts were highly responsible for the tremendous growth in the 1960s, much like Reagan's policies were in the 1980s - so it wasn't the party that was important but rather the policy. You also can't blame George W Bush for the low job growth early in his Presidency because a recession started almost exactly the same day he was inaugurated; and it took about two and a half years to recover from.

[Brain Scientist]

So why has the trend so strong over more than 50 years?

The explanation for the recession starting when George W. started was because the smart money started pulling their capital out of stocks and into government securities anticipating a larger defict based on the tax cuts. The same thing happened to Reagan the day after his tax cut bill was passed. Apparently, enough investors learned from the first time.

[DuganS1]

The 2001-early 2003 recession had absolutely nothing to do with people puling out of stock in anticipation of a larger deficit. How did you even come up with that? The tax cuts in 2003 was a big reason the market went up in that year. About the "trend", even though many of these Presidents were of the same party they hardly had the same policies and the economy at different periods was much different. The policies of John F Kennedy resembled Ronald Reagan more than Bill Clinton. And the policies of R Nixon in no way resembled those of Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. Plus, timing (due to the cyclicality of the business cycle) and natural economic developments (i.e. internet and computers) had a thousand times more to do with the resulting economic growth than Presidential policies. I would hope that would be clear to everybody.

[colette]

this should be a Obama or moveon.org ad! Pure, simple, and impactful.

[Soothsayer08]

Very good informative post. It's to bad that the idiots in the electorate that need to made aware of these figures, either can't or don't read much and are fixated on American Idol. They continue to watch MSM newscasts like Fox who tell them what to think. Fox isn't concerned that these voters will like sheep, vote against their own best interests. They are aiding and abetting the right wing.

[PresidentJoe]

Good article. I very much agree that whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. I looked at the average monthly change in various measures of employment and the unemployment rate over every presidential term since 1949 and posted the results on my blog. I had very similar results.

[SOFOROBAMA]

The economy is better under Democratic administrations. Why can't we get this across to Americans? Republicans won't fix this; can't fix this. Trickle down economics doesn't work. Even Reagan and Bush 1 raised taxes on the wealthiest of Americans in order to get the economy back on track. These are the facts. We should be able to win this on the facts.

[smed]

Please MSM -- pick this story up.

It is time to start talking about facts instead of the latest Britney, Paris, Anna Nicole, (Palin) distraction.

[mbh78213]

Republican presidents are on the side of the employers, who, even if they don't openly admit it, welcome a certain percentage of unemployment because if gives them leverage ("You want a raise? Well, if you don't like working for me, there are millions out there who would love to take your job").

[pockets67]

Democrats are the ones that wants tax payers to pay the salaries of all the people they hire to lean on the shovels that the tax payer has to buy to do a job that wasn't needed in the first place.

[HegemonyCricket]

Good point! Who needs highways, hydro-electric power, national park infrastructure, and a host of things we take for granted today!

Please, do not believe that the Republican agenda supports working Americans.

How many years of collective failure are required before folks finally get it?

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

i.e. Immigration = cheap labor

[LoadedDice]

The evidence is overwhelming. Add in Michael Kinsley's report of 2004, for example:

From 1960 through 2002, "Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent on average under Republican presidents and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the Republicans). (cf. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29205-2004Jul30?)

There still remains, at least for the record, one Trojan Horse to demolish: supply-side [sic] economics--the Plutocracts last bastion of presumptive scientific legitimacy. Its already in tatters professionally, but since the "faithful" prefer denial to doubt and fantasy to fact, it's still hanging on by thread. To put that myth at long last to rest, I recommend Norton Garfinkle's "Supply-Side vs. Demand-Side Tax Cuts and U.S. Economic Growth, 1951-2004," ("Critical Review", Vol. 17, 2005, p. 427-448). ...Sorry, there's no archive link but a trek to the library should do it. To paraphrase an excerpt--in case motivation is needed: "Adding supply without demand is like trying to push a string." ...So much for the Emperor's Clothes.

[DuganS1]

The "stronger growth during Democratic Presidents' is also very misleading statement because the time of the business cycle had more to do with this much of the time than Presidential policy. George H.W. Bush, for example, inherited the entire recession of the 1980s and it ended right before Clinton became President. Then George W Bush inherited the recession of the 90s which started on virtually the same day he was inaugurated President. Since 1990, timing has had a much more important impact than policy. Plus the economic policies in the 1960s were strongly supply side; those of the 1970s were dominated by unions and wage/price inflation where Democrats controlled congress while Republican President Nixon pursued policies of governmental control, and President Carter actually pursued deregulation and free trade.

[lylo]

Yet there are still rethuglicans. Why?
Are they just stupid? Maybe they never bother to read ANYTHING. Or leave their house. Or turn on the television. Seriously, are they all catatonic?!
It's terribly embarassing that rethugs even exist.

[olephart]

The traditional Gaussian distribution of people"s abilities yields the familiar bell shaped curve. Statistically half must possess lower abilities while half must possess higher abilities. If these abilities are based on knowledge, cognitive and analytical skills, the Republicans will occupy the lower half of the curve. If they are based on blind obedience, ignorance and denial of reality they will occupy the higher half of the curve. Thus all in all things will tend to even out. Being wrong all of the time would be very difficult for non Republicans to deal with. This is why Republicans are so comfortable at being wrong, they"re blind, ignorant and in denial.

[Maury66]

Read Brave New World, 1984 and Animal Farm, then get back to us.

[Ramirez]

Why is that? Seriously.

[BrettnCalgary]

It probably isn't something specific that can be easily pinned down. I suspect it has to do with basic mindsets, conservatives look to the past, liberals and progressives look to the future. The President possibly has an effect on the national worldview. By its' nature liberalism is more optimistic.

[KillTheMessenger]

Conservatives don't even look to the past. If they did, they would be horrified about what they have done to the nation.

[JimR]

Actually, the president, whoever it is at the time, plays a limited role in the performance of the economy:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143513

[lylo]

Maybe it has nothing to do with the president (duh) and everything to do with who they appoint (again, duh).
Regardless, one can not ignore that Dems are WAY better managers. These statistics prove that they can appoint the right people to the right positions within their administration.
If you agree with that article you posted, then you believe we would be headed straight to a depression under Gore as well. You are very, very wrong. I really doubt he would have led this country in to two wars, ignored infrastructure, cut taxes for the wealthy, etc.
If you don't think the current administration and rethug congress are responsible for the mess we are in now, then you need to read the news.

[JimR]

"Maybe it has nothing to do with the president (duh) and everything to do with who they appoint (again, duh)."

As I said, the president plays a LIMITED role, and that is one way he can have an effect, though not in the short-term.

The current administration and the Republican Congress were a disaster (DUH). But last I checked, the Democrats held the majority in Congress and have done NOTHING to try to improve things. In the past 8 years they have proven themselves to be spineless, pathetic weasels who rolled over for this administration and did their bidding.

No doubt, Gore would have been a better president (again, DUH). But if you want to believe he possesses some sort of magical healing powers and control over ALL economic matters, including business trends, changing market conditions and supply and demand, hey, that is your right.

[LeftRight]

And if you honestly believe that I've got a bridge to sell you! GREAT view of Brooklyn! I also have some ocean front property, in Arizona!

[wmfor]

Not as good as the one in Alaska. I mean, Sarah was soo against a boondoggle like the Bridge to Nowhere that she canceled it BUT 1. Took all the Federal money anyway; 2. Built a highway to the base of the non-existent bridge.

So this is her policy on pork: Spend the money anyway, but cut the project it was supposed to pay for.

[Egalitare]

Weee Doggeee!

Oil profiteering is deeply rooted in McCain's DNA.

[Maury66]

Those steering the Republican, conservative ship care about money and power, not jobs. The corporation has to increase revenue. Jobs are a side issue at best. These people, if they could make theirs without employing anyone, the rest of us could be spending our days scratching in the dirt with sticks for all they care. This will continue until enough people are hurt by it, at which point it will end, not before..