Green Room

WH Chart of the day: Job-creation stagnation

posted at 1:56 pm on September 10, 2013 by

If you feel as though the US is doing nothing but treading water on employment over the last couple of years, well …. the White House agrees with you.  A new chart from the Obama administration shows that job creation and employment have essentially remained stagnant for the last 30+ months (via Taegan Goddard):

yoy-employment

Business Insider’s Josh Barro is unimpressed, but perhaps not as unimpressed as he should be:

Adding jobs at a pace of about 2 million per year. August’s disappointing report doesn’t materially change that… The problem with the August report isn’t that it was bad; it’s that it wasn’t good. For the past few months, it had looked like the job situation was maybe getting better, with the pace of job growth speeding up to around 2.5 million a year. Now it’s becoming clear that we haven’t broken out of the funk.

The problem with that analysis is that it leaves out a critical context — population growth (as does the chart itself).  We need to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth, which comes to 1.8 million jobs a year.  At a pace of 2 million a year, it would take us 25 years to create enough jobs to catch up to the 5 million who have left the work force since January 2011, when the stagnation curve starts in this chart.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ed, can we share this information from the Heritage Foundation somewhere? We have about three weeks to defund Obamacare.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/09/10/morning-bell-obamacare-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013general&utm_content=091013_billboard_a

onlineanalyst on September 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM

That chart is the White House’s attempt to make Obama look better than bush.

But note well how that chart ignores population growth (as Ed points out), ignores Bush’s track record from Jan 2001 – Jan 2008, ignores the fact that Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate on January 3, 2007, so that economy (not shown on the graph above) is what Pelosi, Reid, and then-Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc. truly “inherited”.

Try looking at the Employment-Population Ratio, correlated with Majority Party

That paints a very different picture, and you can understand why the current White House doesn’t want to show you the job growth that took place from the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts until the Democrats took majority control in 2007…

ITguy on September 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Hey, no worries… the medical-device tax in O-care will fix everything.
/s

Marcola on September 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM

How many of those jobs being created are part-time?

hawksruleva on September 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM

How many of those jobs being created are part-time?

hawksruleva on September 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Short answer – a whole lot of them, and a whole lot more than before the Era (or is that Error?) of SCOAMT.

Steve Eggleston on September 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Hawks , as you likely know, about 2/3.

CW on September 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM

If the Progressives/Leftists actually cared about “working families” as they claim the real economic stats would be causing sheer panic and concern, which they would openly admit (because they “care”). But instead they push misleading charts, data, lies, and other BS just to cover their failed ideology and maintain power. Disgusting.

visions on September 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM

If the Progressives/Leftists actually cared about “working families” as they claim the real economic stats would be causing sheer panic and concern, which they would openly admit (because they “care”). But instead they push misleading charts, data, lies, and other BS just to cover their failed ideology and maintain power. Disgusting.

visions on September 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM

..you mean like this.

The War Planner on September 10, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Counter-chart of the day, courtesy the St. Louis Federal Reserve, showing the year-over-year non-seasonally-adjusted percentage changes in nonfarm payrolls, total household employment and civilian non-institutional population.

Pay special attention to the time frame after the first shown recession and the last shown recession.

Steve Eggleston on September 10, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Steve Eggleston on September 10, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Excellent. Thank you very much for sharing both that graph and that observation/insight.

ITguy on September 10, 2013 at 9:08 PM

We owe a lot of thanks to the Federal Reserve, which has eased aggressively to offset fiscal tightening and dysfunction.

You are nuts, Barro. I can’t believe the “experts” out there that believe inflation is a positive for an economy.

rickv404 on September 10, 2013 at 9:21 PM

WEEE, CHOO-CHOO!
Future President Joey Biden

jukin3 on September 10, 2013 at 10:11 PM

…part-time putts!

KOOLAID2 on September 10, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Not sure if anyone has pointed out (or fully appreciated) just how misleading this graph is.

What it is actually saying is that job creation in July ’09 is the same as it was in July ’10. July ’11 was slightly better, July ’12 was slightly better still, and then July ’13 was pretty much the same as July ’12.

Remember each point on the graph is a RELATIVE value. In this case relative to the year previous. So each point is telling you how much above or below the value at that time is relative to where we were 1 year prior.

So what this graph is really showing is stagnation (and WH ignorance about how graphs work). If there was growth (or recovery) the graph would dip low during the recession and then climb high during the recovery. The lack of climbing high after the recession tells us things are remaining roughly as bad as they were at the low point (especially taking into account population growth).

Sqrl on September 10, 2013 at 11:20 PM

The lack of climbing high after the recession tells us things are remaining roughly as bad as they were at the low point (especially taking into account population growth).

Sqrl on September 10, 2013 at 11:20 PM

Exactly.

ITguy on September 10, 2013 at 11:56 PM

The lack of climbing high after the recession tells us things are remaining roughly as bad as they were at the low point (especially taking into account population growth).

Sqrl on September 10, 2013 at 11:20 PM

That’s why I included civilian noninstitutional population in the FRED chart I linked to, and went all the way back to 1949.

Up until the Great Recession, every single post-WWII recovery had a higher peak of both job growth and employment growth than trough of job/employment shrinkage. Even the entrepeneur-led recovery after the 2001 recession (the third-mildest recession in the dataset), delayed as it was by the refusal of Big Business to rehire until after the 2004 election, saw that peak higher than the preceding trough.

Now, not so much.

Steve Eggleston on September 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM