Hope and History on the Issue of Jobs

A McCain campaign "Economic Communications Plan" leaked to the Huffington Post Thursday offers talking points and tactics for portraying Senator Barack Obama as a "job killing machine." That seems like a lot to expect from cheese aisle photo-ops and "family budget roundtables," given the striking historical record of Democrats and Republicans on the issue of jobs.

Over the past 60 years, when Democrats have held the White House unemployment has averaged 4.8%. Under Republicans, the average has been significantly higher, 6.2%. The current rate is 5.7% -- a bit below the historical Republican average, but more than a point higher than when President Bush took office. (The official unemployment rate takes no account of people who have given up looking for work, or of people who have taken substantial pay cuts to stay in the labor force.)

Lower unemployment under Democratic presidents has contributed substantially to greater income growth for American families. Statistical analyses suggest that every percentage point of unemployment reduces real income growth among middle-class families by about 0.6%. Currently, that's about $350 per family per year. And the effects are long-term, unlike the temporary boost in income from a stimulus check. Compounded over an eight-year period, a persistent one-point difference in unemployment is worth about $12,000 to a middle-class family. The dollar values are smaller for working poor families, but in relative terms their incomes are even more sensitive to unemployment. (In contrast, income growth for affluent people is much more sensitive to inflation, a traditional Republican priority.)

The partisan difference in unemployment records persists even after allowing for broader historical trends in the economy. For example, while the unemployment rate has generally been higher since the OPEC oil shocks of the 1970s than it was in the 1950s and 1960s, Democrats have presided over lower unemployment rates in both periods. From 1947 through 1974, the average unemployment rate was 1.1 points higher under Republican presidents than it was under Democrats. From 1975 through 2007, the average unemployment rate was 1.2 points higher under Republican presidents than under Democrats. Unemployment was high under Jimmy Carter, but even higher under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. It dropped substantially under Bill Clinton, but increased again under the current President Bush.

Of course, past performance is no guarantee of what will happen when the next president takes office. Still, in a contest between a fairly conventional Republican -- McCain -- and a fairly conventional Democrat -- Obama -- on the issue of jobs, betting on the Republican is a vote for hope over history.

Larry M. Bartels directs the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics in Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is the author of Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.

Comments

[Al4Music]

Since 1970 the incomes of those at the very top of the economic ladder and everyone else have dramatically diverged. Janet L. Yellen (President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco), pointed out that between 1973 and 2005 the highest 5% wage earners increased their earning at a rate almost 7 times that of the lowest 10% of earners.

The US Census Bureau charted the median annual family incomes for the six economic expansion periods between 1960 and 2007. The only period where the median income was flat was between 2000 and 2007"the reason, only those in the top 25% income bracket experienced growth, everyone else either stayed where they were or lost income.

Professor Larry Martles makes two important points in a recent New York Times article; first, "¦80 percent of net income gains since 1980 went to people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution¦" and second, "¦the real incomes of working-poor families (at the lowest 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House¦"

This country"s long term economic health will only be realized if we have a large and vibrant middle class. Re-building that middle class will require closing the economic divide between the very wealthy and the rest of us"assuring empoyment and moving people out of poverty. Republican administrations are not up to this task. McCain"s insistence on keeping in place Bush"s tax cuts for the wealthy will only hurt our economy.

[HHarvey]

I think this article was well explained, but republicans that vote against their own economic interest will still continue to do so. Why? Because of a perceived values. There are still those values voters out there who are still to this day voting values first economy second. However, there are a percentage that have come to face that they can't simply vote on values this year because the economy has hurt them so badly. They are in a quandry, confused and still undecided. They want to vote McCain but know it will not benefit them. It has been something that they have not had to deal with ever before. It would be nice if they could come to some difficult decisions and stick with it or just stay home and don't vote this year.

[Torus34]

As much political rhetoric seems to center around Clinton/Bush bashing [Who gets bashed depends on the political leanings of the basher,] it might be instructive to also note the annual job creation statistics for both Mr. Clinton and President Bush.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Those of us who've been around awhile "know" in a general way that hard times for working people seem to coincide with Republican administrations.
I think our compadre "Montanus" is really on to something with his/her suggestion regarding repetition of a simple POWERFUL slogan to that effect.

Now along come Larry Bartells with simple, easily understandable, EMPIRICAL evidence that not only is this true in a general sense......but it is specifically, documentably true and has EVER been so!

There's been some talk about how to reach the "low information " voter this year.

Who's got a better heath care plan? The arcane minutiae of tax policy? Timetables, benchmarks, force levels in Iraq?

There's NO ONE that cannot understand that "a vote for a Republican is a vote for hard times."............not in the abstract, not in general, but literally....and 100% of the time!!

Such a simple idea has tremendous power. Thanks to "Montanus" for keeping it before us....and especially to Mr. Bartells for PROVING it!

I really MUST learn how to post a link....for this post specifically.

If any of my fellow Huffposters would care to direct this bareley literate (computer-wise) lefty to some instruction on that I'd be grateful
Regards
tm

[Coattails]

Jobless rates have gone up recently since the democrats took over in the house and senate 19 months ago correct?

Its no surprise, some jobs are just destined to be outsourced, if you haven't had the joy of speaking to someone on a tech line from another country, or know somebody in a manufacturing sector that has lost their job or had their company downsized, it would be ignorant.

Some jobs are gone and never coming back, heck, some jobs that people complained about going to Mexico, who is on our border, are now going to China, which is 12,000 miles away.

Its the cost of doing business, taxing corporations will only lead to more outsourcing, environmental concerns, lead paint in toys, and losses to the US bottom line.

[TommyMcCarthy]

"Coattails"
While I agree with much of your comment I think you may be leaving out a couple of significant factors in your analysis.


There's an old line that says "Money changes everything" well OIL changes everything.

With the right leadership in the US and the right incentives in our tax, trade, and very importantly, EDUCATION policies the US could EASILY be THE dominant source of a literally LIMITLESS array of new technologies, products, delivery systems, and refinements to existing technologies relating to alternative energy.

I speak not of being "green" from a pc "save the planet" frame of reference (though that is CLEARLY a side benefit)................
No...I speak of a good old capitalist American "GOLD RUSH" to dominate the market in these systems and products that, due to the peak oil situation WILL be developed and WILL be the hottest ticket products on the planet (no pun intended)............and for the well understood American motive of MAKING MONEY!
(sorry...... did I say a dirty word?)

Additionally, scarcity and high energy costs will quickly make a larger number than one might think of more traditional consumer goods competitive to be produced locally or regionally (Particularly Food products)

if our competitor can produce widgets for 50 cents while US widgets cost two dollars to make....where will his advantage lie if it then costs him THREE dollars to ship it 12,000 miles to the widget-hungry US market ?

just some thoughts
Responses welcome
Regards
tm

[BARRISTER]

taxing corporations will only lead to more outsourcing?? What if their outsourced produced products are not permitted into the US without a Customs Excise to make up for the lost jobs??

Why do you people think that Companies should not pay taxes but working people should??

Every job which has been shipped overseas to exploit slave wage labour can be brought back home. Take away ALL incentives to all companies which ship the jobs overseas, and tax their overseas produced products at the ports. Remember, America is STILL their most lucrative market. For how much longer depends, ironically, on the very corporations which are destroying the American middle class and manufacturing base. Unless they reverse the trend, their own outsourced products will soon be un attainable by the downtrodden American workforce, depleted as it continues to be!!

Charity ALWAYS begins at Home!!

[holyhandgrenaid]

Better idea. create a law that states that all imported goods must have been manufactured by employees paid and treated at a minimum on par with American working standards. Suddenly, there would be no need or demand for outsourcing, as it would actually be more expensive to import goods instead of manufacturing them here (as shipping costs and perhaps tariffs would drive the price up). This seems to be an excellent way to do things... sure, corporations still would have the option to outsource, but no incentive.

[MourningDude]

You think 'rattle sabres at Iran, endless war in Afghanistan, tax cuts, and hundreds of billions in new unfunded spending' qualified as a 'fairly conventional Democrat'?

Dems do have some merits, but BHO eschews pretty much all of them.

[Montanus]

Democrats need to establish as a meme the campaign slogan "When you vote Republican, you vote for hard times." It's truth that has been reinforced by direct experience - generation after generation. Democrats needn't stoop to ad hominem attacks. Simple, painful truth will do.

[nellie]

I like your slogan. It's powerful and to the point. You should send it to Move On. Or the DNC.

[BCubedReg]

I agree, it has the potetial to be a very effective tv ad.

[hphoenix]

Got to agree. I'm in Canada where the liberal/conservative govts produce about the same result as democratic/republican ones do there. My greatgrandfater summed it up about right: Tory times are tough times. For Tory, read conservative/Republican. That was 60-odd years ago, and nothing's really changed. GG was a strict Baptist farmer/carpenter, so not exactly a head in the clouds liberal crazy. "Generation after generation" indeed.