Let's lock in Obama's record - low bar - high bar, good or bad - take your pick - but, lock it in and stick with it. Now, Mr. Irwin I challenge you to compare Trump's days in office (week by week, blow by blow) using the same metrics, the same methodology and provide factual context, like you've done with Obama.
My money is on the complete meltdown of the economy, net job losses, lower wages and more people living in poverty, more suffering, and more people prematurely dying. This is the most important part - make every Republican and their voters own it - 100%!!! Hey, if I'm wrong - great! I'll graciously accept defeat as long as we compare apples to apples.
My money is on the complete meltdown of the economy, net job losses, lower wages and more people living in poverty, more suffering, and more people prematurely dying. This is the most important part - make every Republican and their voters own it - 100%!!! Hey, if I'm wrong - great! I'll graciously accept defeat as long as we compare apples to apples.
8
Gotta love ol' Neil. Not one mention of the fact that most of the Obama jobs created were minimum wage, part-time jobs. I'll betcha that if this trend continues during a Trump administration, Neil will suddenly discover it and wail about it.
2
This is a more interesting ranking than the NCAA finals. Too bad it's not televised.
1
Obama wasn't the greatest President ever, but he was pretty good on the economy. Given what he started with, he did just fine. Trump starts with a solid economy. He will be hard-pressed to keep all of his Twitter promises; the crowd that elected him, I would bet, will end up disappointed, not that they will admit that Trump couldn't deliver. Trump, in his inaugural, er, address (I started to say "tweet") should say, as we all should:
"The economy is on stable ground as we enter a new administration. Thanks, Obama."
"The economy is on stable ground as we enter a new administration. Thanks, Obama."
2
This article doesn't seem to present the whole picture properly and it seems skewed to compare job growth when Obama inherited the economic freefall that you describe. Also, you missed how many of Obama's jobs bills were killed by Congress; his success was restricted by lack of action from our legislative branch. It would be great for you to outline each of these job-related bills and what their fate was in Congress. And you should not place all job growth accountability on the "Obama legacy."
6
Let's put these job gains under President Obama into perspective.
Trump makes a big to-do over "saving" 1000 jobs at Carrier after a $7,000,000 hand-out from Indiana's citizens to Carrier. (So Indiana's citizens, not Trump, saved these jobs).
Whereas President Obama created 27,163 jobs Every Single Week on average - for eight years.
Trump makes a big to-do over "saving" 1000 jobs at Carrier after a $7,000,000 hand-out from Indiana's citizens to Carrier. (So Indiana's citizens, not Trump, saved these jobs).
Whereas President Obama created 27,163 jobs Every Single Week on average - for eight years.
9
It is important to look at the change in the unemployment rate (U3) and the underemployment rate (U6, which is NOT an unemployment rate because it includes people who have part-time jobs). Notice the sharp drop in both under Obama:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
13
Any discussion of results, etc is worthless without facts on the paying income of the new jobs.
Are these second jobs to make ends meet, or good paying jobs that people have a chance of surviving on?
Not claiming any Republican did any better or worse, just looking for facts to form my own opinions.
Are these second jobs to make ends meet, or good paying jobs that people have a chance of surviving on?
Not claiming any Republican did any better or worse, just looking for facts to form my own opinions.
10
Obama did an amazing job in the face of considerable obstructionism from the Republican party. Unfortunately, Obama was never good at public relations and too many Americans did not recognize (or remember) what he did for this country. The Republicans were louder and bolder, and too often with lies about the economy, but again, Obama is to blame... he failed to address those lies head on.
28
It sure would have been nice if you put had put things in a manner more to the point:
Bush job creation after 8 years: negative 250,000.
Obama job creation after 8 years: 11,000,000 and counting.
(Yes, that's millions.)
Dow Jones Industrilals under Bush: Stagnant, no growth.
Dow Jones Industrials under Obama: the Dow tripled to 19,900's.
Now, was that so hard.
Bush job creation after 8 years: negative 250,000.
Obama job creation after 8 years: 11,000,000 and counting.
(Yes, that's millions.)
Dow Jones Industrilals under Bush: Stagnant, no growth.
Dow Jones Industrials under Obama: the Dow tripled to 19,900's.
Now, was that so hard.
37
"Bill Clinton didn’t invent the internet, but its advent helped drive a jobs boom during his presidency."
Is this the first time ever NYT acknowledged this fact?
Joblessness also should be looked at regionally. For instance, the coal country joblessness can be explained with the country moving away from coal during Obama years.
Furthermore, we didn't export our jobs during Reagan or even GHW years. It started during Clinton era and accelerated from there.
We can find many more contextual reasons that makes comparison of various Presidents less meaningful.
Is this the first time ever NYT acknowledged this fact?
Joblessness also should be looked at regionally. For instance, the coal country joblessness can be explained with the country moving away from coal during Obama years.
Furthermore, we didn't export our jobs during Reagan or even GHW years. It started during Clinton era and accelerated from there.
We can find many more contextual reasons that makes comparison of various Presidents less meaningful.
7
Our president was faced with a moribund economy, and he brought it roaring back, but the Repubs never gave him the credit he deserves, and he did this with the Repubs fighting him tooth and nail for 4 years. He found the energy to create the ACA without a bit of help from them; it saved my wife's life, and that of many others. The more we get to know Mr. T, the more we'll miss Mr. O.
26
Obama will be in the pantheon along with FDR and Lincoln. Trump will not last a term (It's so obvious that he is tired, full of vinegar, and old beyond his years, and he never really wanted the job.) And maybe Trump is doing us all a favor in the long run by providing the context against which the fibers of our profound Constitution can be shown as never before. Place your bets.
16
this economy is no where near full employment....you are playing pretty loose with the numbers...
8
Millions more on food stamps and welfare.....millions more out of the workforce.....that's not a good record. You can claim you created millions of jobs, but when millions more left the workforce, it's common core math to say millions of jobs were created.
7
People read the headlines, and then decide on which story to click. Perhaps this headline should have read, "Obama's Job Record Stacked Up Well," or "Obama Created xyz Jobs in xyz years and decreased unemployment by x%." Naysayers will just ignore the headline you posted, not read the story, and happily digest bad information.
I completely understand the delicate position true journalists are in at this time. But it seems to me, from old school journalism, the headline should tell the story. Actually it's even more important now in the digital age. If you are writing based on facts, put the facts in the headline. Go for it.
I completely understand the delicate position true journalists are in at this time. But it seems to me, from old school journalism, the headline should tell the story. Actually it's even more important now in the digital age. If you are writing based on facts, put the facts in the headline. Go for it.
11
Thank you, Obama.
13
One thing with worth noticing is that every Democrat President left office with the same or, most with, a better rate than the one they entered with and every Republican had the opposite impact, save Reagan, who still had the second highest rate overall. Now the Trump presidency is poised to continue this pattern, not because he is Donald Trump, who all his personality flaws but because he is a Republican with all its ideology.
11
Looking forward, our new president inherits a stable political-economic situation. Trump is not facing stiff favorable nor unfavorable winds, he is in a position to immediately influence the economy. The country is at a crossroads. Many yearn for our past glory as near rulers of the world. Most understand those times are fifty years past. Americans do not want to rule, but to engage their world in an economy that provides health, liberty, and happiness. This life is not based on ever larger home sq foot, TV sq inch, or auto horsepower. Today Americans are voting for policies that provide jobs with good health, and income to provide education for children and themselves and clean affordable living. How to accomplish these objectives ?
11
This essay is a notable example of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc -- what follows an act is caused by that act .Job creation during any particular presidency is often unrelated to a President's policies. Savings and loan crises, home mortgage policies, foreign policy, and technological change often affect job growth much more than presidential policies.
"Savings and loan crises, home mortgage policies, foreign policy, and technological change...."
Actually, all of those things are affected by executive branch policies, especially the first three. The savings and loan and mortgage crises could have been minimized, at least, by better oversight (Executive, Federal Reserve and Congressional) when these crises developed.
Actually, all of those things are affected by executive branch policies, especially the first three. The savings and loan and mortgage crises could have been minimized, at least, by better oversight (Executive, Federal Reserve and Congressional) when these crises developed.
10
So our soon to be President, the one who lies about his desire to create jobs and save the little people, is bragging at the moment about forcing Macy's to lay off 10,000 people and close many stores.
His followers, if they were awake, would need to balance this heinous act of egotism against the $7,000,000 he paid for a couple hundred still insecure jobs in Indiana, and his ludicrous claims of responsibility for a decision Ford made months before the great orange toad stole the election.
So far the score: US: down 9,000 jobs and $7 million. Trump: looking excellent. Trump followers: still simple minded cowards.
I'm sure those 10,000 Macy's employees bless all you fools, and Trump, from the bottom of their unemployed hearts.
His followers, if they were awake, would need to balance this heinous act of egotism against the $7,000,000 he paid for a couple hundred still insecure jobs in Indiana, and his ludicrous claims of responsibility for a decision Ford made months before the great orange toad stole the election.
So far the score: US: down 9,000 jobs and $7 million. Trump: looking excellent. Trump followers: still simple minded cowards.
I'm sure those 10,000 Macy's employees bless all you fools, and Trump, from the bottom of their unemployed hearts.
14
The Upshot tells us that job growth is not a good measure of the economic policies of a President because it is often attributable to factors that have nothing to do with presidential policies. To remedy this problem, it offers more statistics that end to judge the President based upon factors out of his control. In the end, we are given a slew of statistics that do little to reveal Obama's legacy. This is not helpful. Factors beyond the control of a President do not measure his legacy.
Policies that create jobs include interest rate reductions and government hiring and spending. Interest rates are controlled by the Fed, which has kept them at record lows. Bernanke -- appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama -- gets the credit for sound monetary policy. As for Obama's government hiring policies, they were inadequate. In fact. such hiring was higher under Bush. This is generally viewed as a lost opportunity in job creation which is pretty much indefensible. By contrast, government spending under Obama was consistently well beyond amounts favored by Republicans, starting with the stimulus and continuing with Obama's annual budgets. Republican opposition to this spending was counterproductive and helps explain why statistical analysis of what happened is not as revealing as policy analysis. To properly evaluate Obama's legacy a detailed analysis of his policies explains far more than a bevy of statistics. Obama did well. He could have done better.
Policies that create jobs include interest rate reductions and government hiring and spending. Interest rates are controlled by the Fed, which has kept them at record lows. Bernanke -- appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama -- gets the credit for sound monetary policy. As for Obama's government hiring policies, they were inadequate. In fact. such hiring was higher under Bush. This is generally viewed as a lost opportunity in job creation which is pretty much indefensible. By contrast, government spending under Obama was consistently well beyond amounts favored by Republicans, starting with the stimulus and continuing with Obama's annual budgets. Republican opposition to this spending was counterproductive and helps explain why statistical analysis of what happened is not as revealing as policy analysis. To properly evaluate Obama's legacy a detailed analysis of his policies explains far more than a bevy of statistics. Obama did well. He could have done better.
4
The politics of division will be the downfall of this country yet. The founding fathers knew that from the start and forewarned of the dangers that lay ahead for the fledgling republic. It's a shame that special interests have become empowered to split this country right down the middle, politically that is. The President can only do his level best under these circumstances, and Obama did just that.
6
President Obama was left with an economy and country falling off a cliff. The worst since the depression. He has done a good job in bringing it back. But he also put 10 trillion into the economy that doubled the deficit to 20 trillion. That's why the comparison between Clinton and Reagan is not right. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. Leaving a deficit of 400 billion that was 40 billion when he took office. Primarily by building up the military he created jobs. Bill Clinton on the other hand created 22 million jobs, got rid of the Reagan deficit and left a 400 billion surplus. Which the Bush administration promptly destroyed.
Orange, NJ
Orange, NJ
14
Obama inherited a deficit equal to 9.8% of GDP (8.8% or so if you want to be generous to Bush). The deficit was down to 3.2% of GDP last fiscal year and 2.5% of GDP the year before. That's the fastest deficit reduction since the demobilization following WW2, far greater than Clinton era deficit reduction. This rapid deficit reduction harmed the economic recovery, but blaming Obama for such rapid deficit reduction is clearly ludicrous. A president doesn't start with a clean slate. All he can do is move the ball in the right direction.
9
Jon do you know that "deficit" and "debt" are two different things?
I didn't think so.
I didn't think so.
1
I am not blaming anyone. I am stating that the deficit was around 10 trillion when he took office, it is now over 20 billion. If you put 10 trillion dollars into the economy you are bound to create jobs. I also said he has done a good job. But you are delusional if you think he was better for the economy than Clinton.
1
Obama's jobs record was abysmal. The people who have left the labor force added to the unemployment rate is more than 10%. Wages are stagnant. Regulations and Obamacare have strangled free enterprise. Obama has left an economy and a world in utter shambles. His legacy is one of abject destruction.
7
President Obama's record on jobs is a major disappointment. When he came into office in 2008 he should have pushed major infrastructure spending and that effort should have targeted rural poverty/unemployment as well as urban/Black unemployment. I strongly approve of him saving the automobile industry and had he been more proactive in protecting those types of jobs we would not be seeing the chronic unemployment and underemployment that exists in the rust belt. After he was re-elected in 2012 he should have done more to assist inner city Blacks in places like Chicago and Baltimore these are areas of the country that have been left behind because of purposeful systemic neglect. A major jobs/light manufacturing/apprenticeship initiative would have probably gone a long way to help those communities(poor and Black) turn the corner. At this point most Americans are now working class or below and that is not necessarily Obama's fault but rebuilding the middle class requires restoration of the economic ladder that elevates the working class to middle class. He never addressed that. All in all I would give him a C minus on jobs. I do hope he utilizes his considerable influence after he leaves office to advocate for the working poor and the working class of this country.
5
Mr Obama advocated for much of what you suggested he do. Unfortunately he was stonewalled by a hostile Congress especially when trying to get shovel-ready infrastructure jobs into the pipeline.
1
Obama inherited the worst economy since the great depression. FDR is recognized as one of our greatest Presidents. It took FDR 12 years and a World War to recover from the great depression; and he had the full support of both the Senate and the Congress throughout his tenure.
21
Economists report that FDR actually made the Depression worse. His Treasury Secretary later said that all the spending did little good for anyone.
It took a spending reduction by Harry Truman to end the Great Depression.
It took a spending reduction by Harry Truman to end the Great Depression.
5
Spitzer *** And the legalization of alcohol.
Government jobs fell during Obama's tenure, at least partly due to GOP unwillingness to support governmental infrastructure. Beyond that, the influence of a president on the economy is largely symbolic. I'm sure that all presidents who have a net positive in jobs created will take credit for it. But, outside of government jobs (and government grant funded jobs), there is little direct influence exerted on jobs by a president. Tax and trade policy can be proposed by a president and/or his party but it has to be approved by the congress and it has to be accepted by business leadership (which often has the option to relocate overseas).
3
One of the best ways to look at the labor force participation issue is to compare the number of people counted by the BLS as "not in the labor force, want a job now" (series ID LNS15026639) to the Civilian Noninstitutional Population (CNP), which is the denominator in the labor force participation rate. Why count people like me (I retired at 60) who don't want a job? Then, one should compare that accordingly.
That ratio, the percentage of CNP counted as "not in the labor force, want a job now" is presently 2.2%. Currently, we are 82 months past the trough in total payroll employment. 82 months after the trough following the 1990-91 recession, which was much milder than the Great Recession, that ratio stood at 2.4%, even during a booming economy. This ratio was never lower than 2.7% under Reagan. Yes, there are a lot of people who aren't in the labor force, even though they want a job. There always are. But, all things considered, the percentage of people who fit that description is lower than one might expect.
That ratio, the percentage of CNP counted as "not in the labor force, want a job now" is presently 2.2%. Currently, we are 82 months past the trough in total payroll employment. 82 months after the trough following the 1990-91 recession, which was much milder than the Great Recession, that ratio stood at 2.4%, even during a booming economy. This ratio was never lower than 2.7% under Reagan. Yes, there are a lot of people who aren't in the labor force, even though they want a job. There always are. But, all things considered, the percentage of people who fit that description is lower than one might expect.
11
".... that [8.4% increase in payroll jobs under Obama] falls considerably short of the levels reached by Presidents Reagan (17.7 percent) and Clinton (20.9 percent)...."
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Based on the latest employment report, that would entail an unemployment rate equal to a negative 3.5%, an impossibility, if Obama had achieved a 17.7% increase in payroll jobs. More than 5.5 million more people would have jobs than are in the labor force today.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Based on the latest employment report, that would entail an unemployment rate equal to a negative 3.5%, an impossibility, if Obama had achieved a 17.7% increase in payroll jobs. More than 5.5 million more people would have jobs than are in the labor force today.
4
I think it is not a fair comparison of job growth between Obama and other presidents without showing the difference in government job and private job growth. Obama was saddled with a congress that continually cut government spending and reduced government jobs while other presidents saw government job growth. Add that to the picture and see how they compare
19
Trump made campaign promises to increase jobs and growth in GDP to unprecedented levels.
It is vital that the economic and media community compare his actual outcomes to those campaign promises that he made.
It is vital that the economic and media community compare his actual outcomes to those campaign promises that he made.
8
I have followed the activity of U.S. Presidents since Nixon. While Obama had his flaws, he was probably the best President in my lifetime. Certainly among the top and I will dearly miss his poise, dignity, intelligence, and humor.
46
I completely agree. I add that he was also the president we needed at a time we needed him.
2
I've been involved in economic development, aka job creation, for 30+ years. The key is to understand the locus of control over business and government decisions that create or destroy jobs. As J. M. Keynes said in 1935, economic health depends on business investment, which depends on the animal instincts of businesspeople. Those animal instincts are about whether an investment will be profitable, which can be very hard to predict in advance. So does the president have any control over private sector decisionmaking? Next to none, partly because the president has so little direct control over the business climate in the US, mostly controlled by Congress, and state/local governments, and lending institutions, and training institutions, etc. The president's ideas and policies are very tiny factor in it all. But we wish to focus on a single leader (paternalistic style) in our thinking, so we create analyses like this attributing job growth or decline to a single leader. It is bogus, like attributing a sports game's outcome to one player or the coach. That said, Pres. Obama was an outstanding president and the economic policies he forwarded were right for the times. Much of the business community's "animal instincts" are rooted, in confidence in the future, especially the stability of the future. Pres. Obama brought a lot of stability to his approach while continuing to address 21st century challenges like climate chaos. Bravo Obama.
32
Conservative talking points revolve around 2 baseless points, first the participation rate is low because people have given up finding work and second people work part time because they can't find full time work. It is clear the participation rate is down primarily because baby boomers are retiring, something Donald Trump will be unable to turn around. Second, people working part time because they couldn't find full time work has dropped from 6M to about 4.5M since Obama came into office.
A legitimate concern is wages are not increasing. Perhaps if the republicans got on the bandwagon and increased the minimum wage to $15 per hour this would not be such a major issue.
A legitimate concern is wages are not increasing. Perhaps if the republicans got on the bandwagon and increased the minimum wage to $15 per hour this would not be such a major issue.
17
Maybe you should do an analysis of what kind of jobs were created. Duriig the past 8 years, you have a majority of jobs being minimum wage or temporary work. Also, your analysis should include the labor market participation rate. Finally, show the real unemployment rate. The one that shows people who are employed, but are in temporary or low paying jobs.
Pu all of this together, and Mr. Obama's record is poor on jobs. Just like it was mediocre for just about anything else over the past right years. Under his "leadership" the income gap had widen significantly, and real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined to levels not seen since the early 1970s. While at the same time, rend and home affordability has declined. And on his "signature achievement", the ACA, health care costs, as well as premiums, are rising at the same rate, before he tinkered with the broken system. His legacy will put him in the bottom third of the 43 people who preceded him.
And to think, Hillary Clinton wanted to continue where Mr. Obama left off. Another reason why she lost. Only those who made good supported teh status quo, but for million of americans, teh status quo is a failure.
Pu all of this together, and Mr. Obama's record is poor on jobs. Just like it was mediocre for just about anything else over the past right years. Under his "leadership" the income gap had widen significantly, and real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined to levels not seen since the early 1970s. While at the same time, rend and home affordability has declined. And on his "signature achievement", the ACA, health care costs, as well as premiums, are rising at the same rate, before he tinkered with the broken system. His legacy will put him in the bottom third of the 43 people who preceded him.
And to think, Hillary Clinton wanted to continue where Mr. Obama left off. Another reason why she lost. Only those who made good supported teh status quo, but for million of americans, teh status quo is a failure.
16
What most of these criticisms boil down to is claiming that Obama didn't do a good enough job of cleaning up GW Bush's mess, while failing to assign any of the blame to the Republican congresses that opposed him almost every step of the way. The most notable thing about Obama's legacy may well be the reminder of how hard the Republicans worked to hold back the country.
7
I would love to see the numbers of people now on SS Disability now and pre 2008. And where is a deep discussion about our now having the lowest labor participation rate ever. Where are these people? On SSD? Living off Medicaid and SNAP?
6
This information is available on the SSA web site and shows the number on disability increased by about 1.4M under Obama and over 2M under W Bush. The numbers have been decreasing in 2016 as the unemployment rate drops. Considering the workforce is about 160M, this would explain about less than a 1% drop in the participation rate. The biggest impact in the reduction in the participation rate is of course baby boomers retiring.
What is interesting is it is the red states like West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi that have the highest percent on disability.
What is interesting is it is the red states like West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi that have the highest percent on disability.
16
The labor participation rate was steadily dropping when Obama took office. The baby boomers are retiring and that is the driving force of the drop in the LPR.
1
Anita, there was an extensive discussion in this article about the participation rate. I can only conclude that you did not read the article but had your mind made up in advance and decided to regurgitate the usual right-wing talking points.
Read the article... thoroughly. Ronald Reagan is no longer President and no longer talking about welfare queens, which you evidently conflate as SSD and Medicaid recipients. That is so not right.
Read the article... thoroughly. Ronald Reagan is no longer President and no longer talking about welfare queens, which you evidently conflate as SSD and Medicaid recipients. That is so not right.
Obama's job creation record is stellar. If he had a supportive congress including a House that did not try to subvert his every move, he would have created even more jobs than he did. Period. Full stop.
40
Imagine if the Republican Party, which controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years, had decided to work with the President instead of using all their power to undermine the recovery. The Republican Party is a cancer on our body politic.
53
Neither party cares about the average US citizen. Most of the dc stooges are focused on packing their own pockets with as many perks and taxpayer money as possible.
1
Looks as if most Republicans have little to crow about.
8
You don't mention the number of older working people. They surely have an impact on the prime age participation rate. And while we're at it we should drop this as a measure. It gives the impression that only men of a certain age matter. Women and older men do too.
6
You are right! Women out live men, and many more women than men, when they pass that certain age, are the primary wage earner until the end.
You have to wonder about the women that support Trump and the Republicans - they must be gluttons for punishment.
You have to wonder about the women that support Trump and the Republicans - they must be gluttons for punishment.
1
In the effort to aggrandize Obama and to rationalize anti-growth progressivism, you contradict yourself in your own article. You congratulate Obama for leaving office with the economy near "full employment," yet you readily admit that the unemployment rate is cooked downward by the huge number of people who have left the workforce. And nowhere in your article do you address the subject of under-employment. You cannot equate many of the jobs that once existed with part-time jobs and contractor employment in the service sector.
As President, Obama spent four years attempting to turn America into France, a country whose economy must daily "withstand" the adverse effects of its government policies. Obama retarded jobs growth in the energy sector with his war on coal and opposition to exploration and fracking. He displaced jobs throughout the economy with the costs of his endless regulations, including the ACA. He used his FCC to deter broadband investment and innovation. The list could go on and on.
Progressives are quick to say that regulation actually improves the economy. Yet we have seen an unprecedented post-election stock rally on the mere promise that Trump will deregulate and elevate economic growth over the antibusiness progressive priorities of the last eight years.
You cannot paint the Obama years as an economic success. The growth and jobs numbers won't allow it. More importantly, the people don't believe it and voted to say so in November.
As President, Obama spent four years attempting to turn America into France, a country whose economy must daily "withstand" the adverse effects of its government policies. Obama retarded jobs growth in the energy sector with his war on coal and opposition to exploration and fracking. He displaced jobs throughout the economy with the costs of his endless regulations, including the ACA. He used his FCC to deter broadband investment and innovation. The list could go on and on.
Progressives are quick to say that regulation actually improves the economy. Yet we have seen an unprecedented post-election stock rally on the mere promise that Trump will deregulate and elevate economic growth over the antibusiness progressive priorities of the last eight years.
You cannot paint the Obama years as an economic success. The growth and jobs numbers won't allow it. More importantly, the people don't believe it and voted to say so in November.
8
If voting reflects an attitude about Obama's economic accomplishments then most voters seem to have rated him a success.
You mention some important concerns but neglect the effects of starting from the worst economic calamity in 80+ years and having to fight the headwinds of a Republican congress through most of his administration.
Jobs in the energy sector are down but jobs overall are up. We'll see if Trump can make the energy-sector jobs magically reappear. (I don't think the economy will sustain that.) The ACA may have introduced regulation but it has slowed the growth of healthcare costs. Will Trump slow the decline further or allow the rate of increase to rise again? (I doubt that Republicans will put together a plan that will both reduce regulations and further bring down costs.)
It's a complicated subject. You can pick one side and hammer on those points but there are points on the other side on which people can hammer back.
You mention some important concerns but neglect the effects of starting from the worst economic calamity in 80+ years and having to fight the headwinds of a Republican congress through most of his administration.
Jobs in the energy sector are down but jobs overall are up. We'll see if Trump can make the energy-sector jobs magically reappear. (I don't think the economy will sustain that.) The ACA may have introduced regulation but it has slowed the growth of healthcare costs. Will Trump slow the decline further or allow the rate of increase to rise again? (I doubt that Republicans will put together a plan that will both reduce regulations and further bring down costs.)
It's a complicated subject. You can pick one side and hammer on those points but there are points on the other side on which people can hammer back.
6
These are the talking points of the right wing media to discredit Obama's outstanding record in reducing unemployment. The facts don't support these claims. First, people working part time because they couldn't find full time work dropped during Obama's 2 terms from over 6M to about 4.5M. Second, the reason the participation rate is dropping is primarily due to baby boomers retiring.
Donald Trump is unlikely to be able to increase the participation rate, nor is it likely he will bring down the unemployment rate under the current 4.7% which is full employment.
Donald Trump is unlikely to be able to increase the participation rate, nor is it likely he will bring down the unemployment rate under the current 4.7% which is full employment.
10
You're spewing a lot of information, but I don't see any facts to back it up. He inherited an economy in a freefall. My retirement portfolio had cratered. Now it's worth four times what it was in 2009.
It's easy to toss out catchy little phrases like Obama tried turning America into France, but that's based on nonsense. If you look at the latest estimates, dismantling the ACA would eliminate 1.5 million jobs. You can read that in the NY Times. Please show me how transitioning to a 21st century green economy is hurting us. Maybe there are less jobs in the coal industry, but there are more in solar and wind. The problem isn't shutting down coal plants, it's that the workers and companies aren't accepting the reality that those jobs are simply going away forever because technology changes. And they're not adjusting to it by re-training.
As for the current rally; that's more about knowing who was going to be our next president than who actually won. The removal of the uncertainty. But of course big oil and banks love Trump and it's a smart play for investors right now. Because who needs clean air and bank regulations that might prevent another Great Recession when we can make a quick buck in the market?
It's easy to toss out catchy little phrases like Obama tried turning America into France, but that's based on nonsense. If you look at the latest estimates, dismantling the ACA would eliminate 1.5 million jobs. You can read that in the NY Times. Please show me how transitioning to a 21st century green economy is hurting us. Maybe there are less jobs in the coal industry, but there are more in solar and wind. The problem isn't shutting down coal plants, it's that the workers and companies aren't accepting the reality that those jobs are simply going away forever because technology changes. And they're not adjusting to it by re-training.
As for the current rally; that's more about knowing who was going to be our next president than who actually won. The removal of the uncertainty. But of course big oil and banks love Trump and it's a smart play for investors right now. Because who needs clean air and bank regulations that might prevent another Great Recession when we can make a quick buck in the market?
What effect on the Economy has Obama wrought with 8 years of intractable wars he chose to tap dance around?
2
Charles
Bush's wars, you mean?
Republican wars of choice?
Good question.
Bush's wars, you mean?
Republican wars of choice?
Good question.
3
My guess is ... less than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were started by his predecessor.
I'm sure this fact is obvious to everyone, but it bears repeating:
Of the four presidents who handed their successors unemployment rates above 7%, three were Republicans, and all of those ended with rates higher than when they entered the White House.
Of the three presidents who left their successors with rates between 5% and 7%, two were Republican.
Of the three presidents who left office with rates below 5%, all were Democrats, and in every case left office with a rate lower than when they started.
The Republican claim of being better and smarter on the economy has been proven false time and again, yet still they get away with it. I think three factors dominate the cause of this:
1. The woefully short attention span and memory of voters.
2. The corporate ownership of news media has become ever more concentrated.
3. Democrats are simply the worst PR people in the history of humankind.
I think #3 is actually the #1 cause. Good PR can overcome any obstacle - as Republicans have repeatedly proven with that pesky obstacle called truth.
Of the four presidents who handed their successors unemployment rates above 7%, three were Republicans, and all of those ended with rates higher than when they entered the White House.
Of the three presidents who left their successors with rates between 5% and 7%, two were Republican.
Of the three presidents who left office with rates below 5%, all were Democrats, and in every case left office with a rate lower than when they started.
The Republican claim of being better and smarter on the economy has been proven false time and again, yet still they get away with it. I think three factors dominate the cause of this:
1. The woefully short attention span and memory of voters.
2. The corporate ownership of news media has become ever more concentrated.
3. Democrats are simply the worst PR people in the history of humankind.
I think #3 is actually the #1 cause. Good PR can overcome any obstacle - as Republicans have repeatedly proven with that pesky obstacle called truth.
28
You said it. Why the GOP continually claims to be superior in economic matters is a mystery, until you realize they are saying that to sway uninformed voters, but it is really a "wink and a nudge" to the 1% who know they mean "much lower taxes on you."
1
Dems aren't narcissists by nature, so Obama didn't get on a soapbox and crow about his job numbers the way Trump is already doing about this market rally. Dems need to become louder and ruder and tougher when it comes to letting people know who has their backs. Period.
2
Spot on! I offer number 4 - Republican voters are rubes (NYT's moderators please don't censor me again - this word was used by Krugman - you published his op-ed - please publish my comment) and I looked the word up and I find it to be an accurate description of the type of voter that votes Republican (as documented herein by the NYT's.)
1
Now, just to be clear: all Republican presidents have high unemployment that they pass on to Democrats who then make things much better.
So... why did people vote for Trump and the pubs?
So... why did people vote for Trump and the pubs?
9
There are many reasons why people voted for Trump and the employment rate is probably not in the top five (I would guess).
Bear in mind that more people voted for Clinton than Trump in the general election, and most Republicans voted for candidates other than Trump.
So Trump won the election but it's hard to make a case that he won the vote.
Bear in mind that more people voted for Clinton than Trump in the general election, and most Republicans voted for candidates other than Trump.
So Trump won the election but it's hard to make a case that he won the vote.
5
Just imagine what might have been achieved if the GOP would have really worked with this twice-elected President! Our country could have used hyper-low interest rates to agree on rebuilding aging national infrastructure, for example. A great President, too bad the GOP put party over country, and now, no surprise, it turns out that two can play that game.
18
I hope that after Obama takes a long, well-deserved vacation that he will continue, as a private citizen, to guide us through these next four perilous years with his calm, cool and collected character. We'll need some sanity when those Greedy Old Pirates run amok.
16
Obama's legacy = Serenity.
9
Perpetuating the myth that Presidential Administrations have a direct measureable effect on the economy is wrong. While some actions of the executive may influence the economy, there are so many other variables that one cannot draw an absolute correlation to any administration. For example, Clinton got the benefit of the Dot-Com bubble which had nothing to do with any Clinton initiatives.
This also gives rise to the various "reasons" proposed for increases in the economy, GDP, employment, et cetera that cannot be linked. So, we get the claim that lowering taxes creates jobs or that raising them eliminates them. If there is a profit to be made there will be more jobs, if not there will be less regardless of taxes and regulations.
The reality is that consumers create jobs or eliminate them by their purchasing patterns. Anything that causes consumers to stop spending, even just being afraid or cautious, kills spending which eliminates jobs.
As with all things: success has a million parents and failures are all orphans blamed on "the other guy."
This also gives rise to the various "reasons" proposed for increases in the economy, GDP, employment, et cetera that cannot be linked. So, we get the claim that lowering taxes creates jobs or that raising them eliminates them. If there is a profit to be made there will be more jobs, if not there will be less regardless of taxes and regulations.
The reality is that consumers create jobs or eliminate them by their purchasing patterns. Anything that causes consumers to stop spending, even just being afraid or cautious, kills spending which eliminates jobs.
As with all things: success has a million parents and failures are all orphans blamed on "the other guy."
1
Comparing the 8 years from 2000-2008 with 2008 to present is enough. Republicans had control for the first 8 years and drove us into a ditch. Obama had democratic control for 2 years and 6 years of relentless opposition and pulled us out of the ditch. That was enough. Now, the incoming administration with Republican control will be able to drive us into a ditch again. Woe unto the blue collar worker. Your next four years are going to be dismal.
22
They deserve it for voting for Trump. I'll still have my employer health insurance, too bad for them.
6
Think of how many jobs that weren't created as a result of ill-fated policies and over regulation. Still, not one crook went to jail.
You do have give him credit, McDonald's continues to hire and expand.
You do have give him credit, McDonald's continues to hire and expand.
2
There is simply no reasoning with fools that believe there is too much regulation in government. The economic disaster Obama inherited wouldn't have transpired if there was adequate regulation of the financial sector. Flint wouldn't require a replacement fresh water infrastructure if municipalities adhered to regulations.
I'd be surprised if Tony doesn't believe there is over regulation of drivers and gun owners.
FYI - McDonalds is not a stellar example of growth.
I'd be surprised if Tony doesn't believe there is over regulation of drivers and gun owners.
FYI - McDonalds is not a stellar example of growth.
7
"over regulation....is a great boogeyman. Why don't you give us some examples to support your argument?
6
Over regfulation?
Let's eview (just the highlighyts):
Let's eview (just the highlighyts):
This article is very good at explaining where we are and giving the historical context for the figures. It should come as no surprise that unemployment always improves with a Democrat in the White House. Let's return to this article in a year or 4 and see where we are. We all want Trump to succeed, but from what I've seen in the transition I'm not optimistic. He's re-stocking the swamp, not cleaning it. And he wants to appoint to his cabinet people who were responsible for the recession in the first place (banking and other financial sector players) and wants to appoint as secretary of labor the man who wants to introduce complete automation to his Carl's Jr. Restaurants. So those people in out of coal mining jobs will not even be able to flip burgers when the mining jobs don't come back. If Trump doesn't resort to the Democratic tactic of protectionism (like he already has during the transition), he's not going to be able to bring back many jobs.
6
The poor jobs growth is reflective of the penal provisions imposed on employers and potential employers. I have several small businesses (real estate related) as well as being a lawyer, and it is impossible for any normal human being to comply with all of the various Federal and State regulations of employers. That being the case, I have resolved to avoid any projects where I would have to hire employees. The reason is twofold. First, the regulatory environment is horrible if you really understand how severe the penalties can be. Second, I simply choose not to live my life as a clerk for the government filling out forms. (For example, workers compensation, minimum wage records, unemployment records, EE0 records, tax records, MSDS records, Family and Medical Leave records and on and on.)
The onerous requirements imposed upon employers are, in my belief, a substantial reason why there has been such small job growth over the last 10 years and why much of the job growth is in lower-paying jobs. Even if one is small enough to be exempt from some of the requirements, the effort in determining whether you are exempt and the knowledge that if your business grows, you will be non-exempt is a very substantial deterrent to moving businesses to areas where employees are required.
JD
The onerous requirements imposed upon employers are, in my belief, a substantial reason why there has been such small job growth over the last 10 years and why much of the job growth is in lower-paying jobs. Even if one is small enough to be exempt from some of the requirements, the effort in determining whether you are exempt and the knowledge that if your business grows, you will be non-exempt is a very substantial deterrent to moving businesses to areas where employees are required.
JD
5
The data suggests that economic conditions, not regulatory regimes, are the dominant factor in new business formation. The rate of new business formation rose until 2006, when 550,000 new businesses were formed, but then it collapsed along with the rest of the economy. The nadir was 2010, when less than 400,000 new businesses were formed. It has climbed slowly since. Still, half a million people a year brave the thicket of regulation, more when times are good, less when times are not. Some good data and perspectives here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-...
5
A very good story, but I would like to see you break down public and private employment across presidents. Bill McBride, in his blog Calculated Risk, has done this regularly, and the results are both interesting and important; to wit, while public employment has languished during the Obama administration, private employment has outstripped every recent presidency except Clinton's. Given the GOP's ritualistic damnation of Big Government, this particular feature of employment in the U.S. since the 1970s bears serious consideration.
39
More highly skilled urban workers had often made moves across the country, or across the world, as they earned their various degrees and chased opportunities. They have no identity of place – they don’t live anywhere other than an abstract safe neighborhood with good schools and an acceptable commute.
To tell a person who still enjoys the support of a specific community that it needs to be sacrificed in order to participate in the recovery? There are many people in the country, a lot of them educated, that have little experience with that kind of movement. There is no assurance that they will be valued as workers afterward, and a certainty that they will lose their value as members of their current specific community. their community is in recession, they remain.
It’s a hard problem to address. The Obama administration didn’t see it as a priority. Many people on the liberal nomadic side see it as a problem to be solved on the conservative parochial side. The election shows that the problem will be addressed by the nation as a whole, with the guidance of liberal voices, or without them.
That is one lesson. When you’re getting ahead, if you dismiss the fate of the people who are behind, you will find power taken from you. That is a continuing lesson for every aristocracy.
To tell a person who still enjoys the support of a specific community that it needs to be sacrificed in order to participate in the recovery? There are many people in the country, a lot of them educated, that have little experience with that kind of movement. There is no assurance that they will be valued as workers afterward, and a certainty that they will lose their value as members of their current specific community. their community is in recession, they remain.
It’s a hard problem to address. The Obama administration didn’t see it as a priority. Many people on the liberal nomadic side see it as a problem to be solved on the conservative parochial side. The election shows that the problem will be addressed by the nation as a whole, with the guidance of liberal voices, or without them.
That is one lesson. When you’re getting ahead, if you dismiss the fate of the people who are behind, you will find power taken from you. That is a continuing lesson for every aristocracy.
1
I don't think any of the Presidents listed had a Congress so intent on sabotage as Obama had. The Republicans not only blocked much needed infrastructure spending, but the sequester also had a dampening effect. Even during Clinton's impeachment and that era's shutdown of the government, I never felt the GOP was recklessly willing to bring the entire country to its knees in order to reclaim executive power, as the Mitch McConnell gang has been. Imagine how much better off our country would have been with an infrastructure bill. Imagine how much better things would have been if Obama hadn't done the calculation that an aggressive public relations campaign confronting the GOP on this issue would have been fruitless, given the fact free world we live in.
26
Obama and Reid and Pelosi had total control of all 3 branches rom 2008-10. Find a better excuse.
3
Charles....I have followed politics closely all my life. There has never been any where near the deliberate obstruction that the Obama Administration has endured. Congress has voted 60 times to overturn Obamacare, and six years later they still don't have a healthcare plan to replace it. For the first time in history the Senate refused to hold hearings and a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Wake up call.
4
Dude, you don't recall McConnel stating from day one that he had a single aim and that was to make sure that Obama did NOT succeed? It didn't matter that the Dems had the House and Senate and Executive branch. It took all that to get Health Care reforms made - and right the wrong that was done to the economy through a limited infrastructure budget. Obama inherited stupid wars and had to pay for them after all those tax cuts that Bush gave the wealthy. Seriously, what a mess he was handed. He and the Dems acted in good faith while Repugnicans just said no no no no no. And it is they who are majorly responsible for the divisiveness in the country due to their disrespectful and hateful rhetoric against Obama.
A more complete comparison would normalize these comparisons by accounting for the health of the global economy. One way to do this would be to compare the US economy to other major countries at the end of each presidency. At this moment, the US is the envy of the world in terms of stability, employment and asset values. Arguably only Germany has outperformed the US in recovering from the recession. China has sacrificed stability for GDP growth, teetering on the edge of recession, Japan is finlly pulling out of a decade of doldrums and Russia is a non-issue, economically, anyway.
14
The catastrophic failure of the Obama administration to do everything they could to make the public aware of its accomplishments have directly lead to the difficulties the Democrats must now confront.
From Obamacare to the economy, either the Obama administration was unwilling, unable, or thought unnecessary to educate the public has been a unequivocal disaster for Democrats and a boon for Republicans.
Democrats seem to be unable to understand that "All politics is local" is causing them unceasing defeat. Every election from dog-catcher up is now an NATIONAL election due to the internet and social media. Sure, there are local issues that need addressing, but the issues that get most Americans to the polls are NATIONAL is scope, and not local.
Words to the wise, that are sure to fall on the deafest ears in the universe.
From Obamacare to the economy, either the Obama administration was unwilling, unable, or thought unnecessary to educate the public has been a unequivocal disaster for Democrats and a boon for Republicans.
Democrats seem to be unable to understand that "All politics is local" is causing them unceasing defeat. Every election from dog-catcher up is now an NATIONAL election due to the internet and social media. Sure, there are local issues that need addressing, but the issues that get most Americans to the polls are NATIONAL is scope, and not local.
Words to the wise, that are sure to fall on the deafest ears in the universe.
7
Um, something that didn't seem to be discussed is that the first 9 months of any presidency is still based on the budget of the previous president. Not until October 1 is the new president responsible for his budget, etc.. Now, let us all remember clearly that the republicans wanted to go with austerity after their party's control threw us into the worst economy outside of the great depression. However, Obama went with stimulus instead thankfully because he had a filabuster proof senate. So, how did the austerity go for Europe, Australia, Japan, etc..? Their economies suffered for years before they realized austerity was not the answer & they have gone to stimulus &are now starting to do a bit better. But thank god we had Obama who knew what to do & ignored republicans calls for austerity (saving us years of recession) because he had an advisor who wasn't crooked & they were actually looking out for Americans, not trying to enrich themselves off of the US taxpayer. Anyway, counting those first 9 months where millions of jobs were lost is VERY MISLEADING. Also, they are not factoring in population growth & the baby boomer generation will is resulting in a huge generation all retiring around the same time. And how can anyone doubt Obama's jobs record? He has created more than any other president in history. We have a record streak of private sector job growth that is insane thanks to Obama. Is this a joke or something?
31
Hoover tried austerity during the Great Depression, and we know how that worked for him.
1
Hoover ran deficits during his term after the Depression became full blown. For FY 1932 the fed took in USD 25bn and spent about USD 62bn. It's where the money went that made the difference and so did little to ameliorate the crisis, especially among the unemployed. The deficits were so shocking and unprecedented that FDR campaigned on such alleged irresponsibility. Really, he did.
Each municipality needs to take responsibility for their town, village and city. You can't blame everything on Obama like tea bag Republicans do. Statistically you can't find any kind of job creation by Repubicans. Just look @ New York and what have the County Executives done to create jobs or assist businesses to move to Westchester, Nassau, Rockland? Show me some numbers of job creation by County Exec Astorino, besides the cronies in his own office?
4
Very insightful. These officials could be trying to get renewables and green agriculture in such a resource rich state like New York.
Thank you for pointing out that Astorino, despite his clearly national aspirations, is essentially a union-busting friend of the one percent. I lived in Westchester for 40 years and found him to be the worst of the worst.
1
Considering the circumstances that President Obama inherited, when he came into office, I'd say his jobs record was very solid! He will 'own' this for another year and then any change (positive or negative) will be on the record of Trump. Personally, I don't see how the unemployment rate drops much below 4.5% (5% is generally considered 'full' employment), so the true measure will be GDP and wage growth. Given some of the Republican's and Trump's priorities I am somewhat skeptical...
8
Regardless- Trump will accept responsibility for job growth over the past 4 years- and his minions will believe him.
22
The point about the long term decline in labor force participation among prime age men is particularly interesting. One plausible explanation for that to me is the increase in people going on to higher education, particularly people who are going on to graduate programs. I wonder if you could look to see whether there is a correlation between the prime age labor force participation rate for men and the percentage of the population earning advanced degrees.
1
It's clear to me that the Obama administration did a pretty solid job and recovered well from the great depression - leaving a legacy of a low employment rate and many new jobs. However, a wider context of also leaving the country with: over $14 trillion in Federal debt (excl. intra-government); a shrunken middle class; income inequality, gun murder rate and % in poverty line the highest in the developed world, and still 10% of the population without health care coverage... suggests to me there is still much to be done to truly make America Great, for ALL its citizens. No sign to me that the Trump administration will fix many, if any, of these issues.
3
The percentage of increase of payroll jobs can be misleading, a percentage increase of what? For example, if the base amount is 100, an increase of 10 registers as a 10% increase, but if the base is 1000, that increase of 10 is only 1%.
In other words, when the number of payroll jobs dramatically decreases, a small gain will register as a larger percentage. The Reagan presidency is a good example. The economy sunk so low that a small increase in numbers registered as a high percentage.
In other words, when the number of payroll jobs dramatically decreases, a small gain will register as a larger percentage. The Reagan presidency is a good example. The economy sunk so low that a small increase in numbers registered as a high percentage.
1
Anyone else remember how Reagan enacted huge tax cuts on the rich right at the beginning of his first term and the economy tanked, only recovering when he increased taxes at the end of 1982?
I'm willing to bet that - if the economy tanks because of Trump's tax cuts - he'll double down with even more tax giveaways to the wealthy. Of course, I could be wrong. He might give away so much the first time, there's nothing left to give.
I'm willing to bet that - if the economy tanks because of Trump's tax cuts - he'll double down with even more tax giveaways to the wealthy. Of course, I could be wrong. He might give away so much the first time, there's nothing left to give.
10
You seem to be forgetting Black Monday in 1987. It occurred during my prime earning years and I lost a huge percentage of my profit sharing and retirement money, which I never fully recovered. Reagan was the father of all that, and those who would idolize him need to be reminded of it.
2
How would the percent change in employment by month figure look if you separated private sector and public sector employment? My impression is that public sector employment has been pretty flat the last 8 years. Who gets the credit for that? Probably not Obama.
2
Benchmarking job performance under President Obama to January 2009 drastically understates the crisis he was dealing with. Employment figures are lagging indicators. This was never more evident than in 2009, because layoffs from the Great Recession were rising dramatically during his first few months in office. While it's true that the President gets blamed or credited in the political media for what happens "under his watch," this fundamental analytical point might be a useful one to make on a data journalism blog.
It would be more accurate and fair to consider the unemployment rate and payroll numbers at the start of the first fiscal year in which a president is in office. Any economist would concur that the impact of a president's policies are unlikely to show up in actual employment in a meaningful way before then.
By this measure — and assuming that Donald Trump doesn't drive the economy into a ditch even sooner than expected — both the percent change in payroll employment during Obama's presidency will yield a far steeper and more impressive graph line.
It would be more accurate and fair to consider the unemployment rate and payroll numbers at the start of the first fiscal year in which a president is in office. Any economist would concur that the impact of a president's policies are unlikely to show up in actual employment in a meaningful way before then.
By this measure — and assuming that Donald Trump doesn't drive the economy into a ditch even sooner than expected — both the percent change in payroll employment during Obama's presidency will yield a far steeper and more impressive graph line.
4
With over 6,000 homeless people in elysian San Francisco, the Democrat government there provides only 1,200 or so beds in homeless shelters, TV news showed re: the current sold snap. The self-ennobled Democrats there wonder if suicide barriers are really needed on the Golden Gate Bridge? The aesthetics, you know. If the homeless can survive till the spring thaw, they can sleep rough in Golden Gate Park / Presidio till next winter. They make the city so colorful!
It's not the GOP, boys and girls, who've made San Francisco a larger version of Versailles under its Sun King, Nancy Pelosi. The class divisions in "Upstairs Downstairs" on PBS were not more acute than in Baghdad by the Bay, a Democrat fiefdom. Over-regulation, special San Fran employment strictures, and niggling environmental strictures make affordable housing there a chimera.
It's not the GOP, boys and girls, who've made San Francisco a larger version of Versailles under its Sun King, Nancy Pelosi. The class divisions in "Upstairs Downstairs" on PBS were not more acute than in Baghdad by the Bay, a Democrat fiefdom. Over-regulation, special San Fran employment strictures, and niggling environmental strictures make affordable housing there a chimera.
3
Dear Charles in San Jose, you seem to be confused. Nancy Pelosi serves in the House of Representatives in the federal government, not the City of San Francisco. Therefore, she makes no decisions about homeless shelter three. If you want to be critical of her, fine, but stick to facts and preferably, relevant facts.
11
But does she not represent San francisco? She just goes to Washington and has no responsibility for the homeless of San francisco?
Undoubtably the numbers will be down next month, because Macy's just laid off 10,000 people, primarily due to Trumps tweet of January 5, 2017, for Americans to boycott Macy's, for whatever insane narcissistic reason Trump may have. These tweets must stop! He is doing damage to the economy by his insanity. Saving 650-700 Carrier jobs only to lose 10,000 jobs at Macy's is irresponsible!
19
Mary do you seriously believe Trump had anything to do with it?- see this article-http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterloeb/2017/01/06/macys-bites-the-bullet...
The internet and e-tailing have drastically affected the financial fortunes of all brick and mortar retailers- how have your own shopping habits changed?
As far as the effect on next months numbers 10,000 jobs will affect the unemployment rate by .0063%
The internet and e-tailing have drastically affected the financial fortunes of all brick and mortar retailers- how have your own shopping habits changed?
As far as the effect on next months numbers 10,000 jobs will affect the unemployment rate by .0063%
3
There's another current story -- about shopping malls -- in the Times that explains more about Macy's demise.
1
Of course there are millions of Americans that do not agree with the comments here. Why you may ask? Most Americans now do nottrust Government reports. These reports are like a student filling out their own report card. What would you expect? Take a ride through any big city in the USA outside of the financial, business and one will see large areas of poor people with no hope. These folks are forced to send your children to the worst schools in our country. If the children graduate most of them have learned little to help them get a decent job if the job is even available to them. millions of people in those situation have given up looking for work and are not counted. Everybody knows that. Sure some people have done well in the last eight years, the rich are Richer again. I would encourage those commenting here take a ride through our inner cities before being so satisfied with our economy. You may be comfortable sitting at your computer typing but there are millions of Americans struggling for every day Existence.
3
I do not think that Obama has done well for creating jobs as I have been unemployed everyday that he has been president. I am an education black woman and I cannot find a job. I live in rural America and there are no jobs where I live. My son says that I am not the litmus test for an Obama presidency. I disagree because these last 8 years have been horrible for me. I am a cancer survivor and I do not remember this kind of struggle while battling cancer. I just want a job, a decent place to live and a decent car to drive an an air conditioner and a radio. I do not believe that is too much to ask. As our first Black president. I do not believe that Obama did a very good job for us. I do not know if a Trump presidency will be any better. I guess someone like me who grew up in the Jim Crow South doesn't expect much from white presidents but our first Black president did not deliver on his promise of hope and change. I had a good paying job at an Ivy League College and I was laid off in 2008 and I have not been able to recover. No one reports or writes about people like me. We are forgotten in the media as President Obama campaigned to preserve his legacy. What about me, I have not had a job in 8 years?
8
Sounds like you should move.
7
I'm hard pressed to uncover WHAT Obama cared about.
His health care bill could have been much stronger and better if he had tried working across the aisle (selling premiums across state lines, tort reform etc). Instead, he set the tone for his entire presidency with his "my way or the highway" attitude.
He could have made a great difference in the inner cities racked with violence by making weekend visits to Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis etc. to hold rallies and challenge black youth to stay in school and be a good part of their communities. He chose golf games and living the high life with Hollywood elites instead.
He played the race card way too often. He divided good cops and black youth.
He did nothing for creating GOOD PAYING middle class jobs. Instead he piled on regulations and unaffordable health care premiums to struggling small businesses.
The press pays way too much attention to the unemployment numbers. They should look much more closely at the underemployed, those having to work two jobs to make it, and those who have given up.
His health care bill could have been much stronger and better if he had tried working across the aisle (selling premiums across state lines, tort reform etc). Instead, he set the tone for his entire presidency with his "my way or the highway" attitude.
He could have made a great difference in the inner cities racked with violence by making weekend visits to Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis etc. to hold rallies and challenge black youth to stay in school and be a good part of their communities. He chose golf games and living the high life with Hollywood elites instead.
He played the race card way too often. He divided good cops and black youth.
He did nothing for creating GOOD PAYING middle class jobs. Instead he piled on regulations and unaffordable health care premiums to struggling small businesses.
The press pays way too much attention to the unemployment numbers. They should look much more closely at the underemployed, those having to work two jobs to make it, and those who have given up.
5
You're lying.
It's obvious that you're lying.
It's obvious that you're lying.
1
A stylistic comment.
If you examine the rhetoric of Mr. Irwin presentation, you'll see it almost always follows the pattern:
Obama turned in a bad, not so great, [you fill in the negative or glass half full adjectives set against some implicit, but, in reality, non-existent absolute standard]
followed by:
But if you compare him with other Presidents and emphasize the fact that he began in the biggest trough since the Depression, he turned in a pretty good performance.
The correct judgment -- since all such judgments should, if they are intellectually fair-minded, be the comparative one -- should be the second one.
So why the disproportionate lede-ing with the glass half full view?
I am reminded of Krugman's column today about the journalism which leads with the fluff, typically of a Trump tweet and supposed economic accomplishment, and only gets to the correct presentation "below the fold."
Irwin should consider working on his ledes, just for intellectual fairness purposes.
I'm reminded of a story I heard from a famous NYT obit writer of about 40 year ago, whose name I now forget!
The NYT Editor was trying to get his obit writer to be more concise. After having had multiple attempts rejected, the writer finally came back with the lede:
"Dead. That's how he was ...."
If you examine the rhetoric of Mr. Irwin presentation, you'll see it almost always follows the pattern:
Obama turned in a bad, not so great, [you fill in the negative or glass half full adjectives set against some implicit, but, in reality, non-existent absolute standard]
followed by:
But if you compare him with other Presidents and emphasize the fact that he began in the biggest trough since the Depression, he turned in a pretty good performance.
The correct judgment -- since all such judgments should, if they are intellectually fair-minded, be the comparative one -- should be the second one.
So why the disproportionate lede-ing with the glass half full view?
I am reminded of Krugman's column today about the journalism which leads with the fluff, typically of a Trump tweet and supposed economic accomplishment, and only gets to the correct presentation "below the fold."
Irwin should consider working on his ledes, just for intellectual fairness purposes.
I'm reminded of a story I heard from a famous NYT obit writer of about 40 year ago, whose name I now forget!
The NYT Editor was trying to get his obit writer to be more concise. After having had multiple attempts rejected, the writer finally came back with the lede:
"Dead. That's how he was ...."
3
"Just the facts, ma'am": Headless Corpse Found in Topless Bar.
2
This article omits some important factors.
1. The free fall of the U. S. economy did not stop the day President Obama took office. It took more than a year to turn things around. So the percent change in payroll employment for Obama should start about 12 months after his inauguration. Figured this way his rate would be more like 11% to 12%.
2. No mention is made of Republican obstruction. President Obama would certainly have spent much more on infrastructure, education and research. He also might have provided another stimulus package with help for state and local governments. These actions would have resulted in a huge number of jobs.
3. Let's not forget that President Obama saved the U. S. auto industry — which today is thriving. The article says that a President can't do much to change the economy, but President Obama made an impact here.
4. The Affordable Care Act has reshuffled the employment deck. During the Obama administration it has been possible for individuals to strike off on their own without fear of no medical insurance. The expansion of Medicaid has given a kind of security to low wage workers they have not had for decades.
The George W. Bush administration and the Republican Party dug a very deep hole for our nation to crawl out of. Although some of our citizens are still suffering and have been left behind, in general President Obama has pulled off a huge economic victory. He hands our nation to President-Elect Donald Trump in good economic condition.
1. The free fall of the U. S. economy did not stop the day President Obama took office. It took more than a year to turn things around. So the percent change in payroll employment for Obama should start about 12 months after his inauguration. Figured this way his rate would be more like 11% to 12%.
2. No mention is made of Republican obstruction. President Obama would certainly have spent much more on infrastructure, education and research. He also might have provided another stimulus package with help for state and local governments. These actions would have resulted in a huge number of jobs.
3. Let's not forget that President Obama saved the U. S. auto industry — which today is thriving. The article says that a President can't do much to change the economy, but President Obama made an impact here.
4. The Affordable Care Act has reshuffled the employment deck. During the Obama administration it has been possible for individuals to strike off on their own without fear of no medical insurance. The expansion of Medicaid has given a kind of security to low wage workers they have not had for decades.
The George W. Bush administration and the Republican Party dug a very deep hole for our nation to crawl out of. Although some of our citizens are still suffering and have been left behind, in general President Obama has pulled off a huge economic victory. He hands our nation to President-Elect Donald Trump in good economic condition.
51
As this author notes, the statistics can be formatted to capture a variety of different realities.
What is known, is the Federal Reserve, these past 8 years, has deemed the economy sufficiently weak to preclude increases in interest rates. There was a .25 rate increase after Trump's election, and there may have been a similar increase earlier in the Obama years.
It would be interesting to compare The Fed's view of the economy under the succession of Presidents holding office during the last several decades.
What is known, is the Federal Reserve, these past 8 years, has deemed the economy sufficiently weak to preclude increases in interest rates. There was a .25 rate increase after Trump's election, and there may have been a similar increase earlier in the Obama years.
It would be interesting to compare The Fed's view of the economy under the succession of Presidents holding office during the last several decades.
I would suggest that the "stay-at-home dad" is becoming a factor in the portion of men not seeking work. In my circle of colleagues I know of three men who are married to professional women and who opted to stay at home. As an increasing number of women work their way into better, higher paying, jobs more and more men will have the stay at home option open to them. And as we see more stay at home dads, stigma associated with this role could also decrease, thus boosting their numbers more.
3
It's also worth mentioning that the two eight year Republican administrations started off with tax cuts, and the two eight year Democratic administrations started with tax increases; increases, in fact, on the wealthy. (In Obama's case, it was the expiration of Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, rather than the imposition of a new tax.)
With job creation rates under Democrats at least as good as --if not better than--their Republican counterparts, can we finally put the caveat that "tax cuts spur economic growth" to rest? Can we also please take an objective look at how much federal revenue was lost when the Republicans instituted their tax cuts so that we can also put the fantasy of the Laffer Curve to death at the same time?
With job creation rates under Democrats at least as good as --if not better than--their Republican counterparts, can we finally put the caveat that "tax cuts spur economic growth" to rest? Can we also please take an objective look at how much federal revenue was lost when the Republicans instituted their tax cuts so that we can also put the fantasy of the Laffer Curve to death at the same time?
9
Another thing to keep in mind is that every 1/4 point of a percentage drop in the fed interest rate helps create thousands of jobs. The rate dropped from 18% to 8% during the Reagan administration, bounced around a bit through GHWB and Clinton but ended at 8%, then fell to 0% under GWB. That's a big advantage that Obama didn't have, and we still had the longest consecutive job growth by month under him.
I'll also point out that veto power gives a prez a fair amount of influence over economic negotiations with congress.
I'll also point out that veto power gives a prez a fair amount of influence over economic negotiations with congress.
3
It is also true that the larger the recession the stronger should be the recovery. Obama's recovery should have been much bigger than Regan's and Clinton's not smaller. What did Obama do to create private sector jobs? Million of jobs were lost due to the recession so of course after the recession those jobs would come back. If the labor market was truly great, wages would have gone up significantly and they were flat under Obama. Under Reagan and Clinton the wages went way up. You cannot spin the facts. Obama did not increase the labor participation rate and since 2009 has declined faster among all people not just white males. Historically participation rates decline for several reasons. Either the jobs are not available, aging population, or the jobs are so low paying they are not worth it. The aging population is certainly the cause of some of the decline but much of the decline is coming from people who are well below retirement age.
1
and how did the GOP obstuctionism for the past 8 years impact this??
3
"What did Obama do to create private sector jobs?"
The President doesn't "create" jobs. I'm surprised you don't know that.
The President doesn't "create" jobs. I'm surprised you don't know that.
1
"wages would have gone up significantly and they were flat under Obama."
Wages have stagnated, except for the 1% ceo's, since the late 1970s.
I'm surprised you don't know that.
THAT is a fact.
Your "facts" are mere opinions.
Wages have stagnated, except for the 1% ceo's, since the late 1970s.
I'm surprised you don't know that.
THAT is a fact.
Your "facts" are mere opinions.
2
Considering the fact that the GOP-controlled Congress set an explicit goal of obstructing President Obama, even if that meant harming American workers and the nation as a whole, the fact that he was able to perform so well economically is astounding. With interest rates at the zero-lower bound, monetary policy was neutered, leaving only fiscal policy to jump-start a broken economy. With the GOP refusing to allow any stimulus on their watch, it's little wonder the recovery was so slow.
And yet, the corporate press will refuse to give President Obama his due even while they continue to play up the results under Reagan, which were actually worse during his first term than those achieved by Jimmy Carter under more trying circumstances (oil embargo).
And yet, the corporate press will refuse to give President Obama his due even while they continue to play up the results under Reagan, which were actually worse during his first term than those achieved by Jimmy Carter under more trying circumstances (oil embargo).
12
With the exception of the term of GWB, the jobs performance is remarkably similar after one eliminates the differences in starting point. The slope of each line is somewhat consistent across the various presidencies, although Obama's line is slightly shallower.
GHWB began with the S&L crisis, followed by the Gulf War and end of the Cold War. His bad luck to have to deal with the negative economic fallout of these historical events. Maybe we can blame him for part of the S&L crisis.
Obama and Reagan started with weak economies, although Obama had the worst deal of all. Still the slopes of those curves are not that different. GWB can assume blame for whatever happened after 2002 or so - mostly self-inflicted damage.
The US economy is largely private and it adjusts to differing policies and the net result is pretty similar. The presidential term averages obscure the fact that most differences are the result of interval bias where the starting point is the major driver of the overall average.
GHWB began with the S&L crisis, followed by the Gulf War and end of the Cold War. His bad luck to have to deal with the negative economic fallout of these historical events. Maybe we can blame him for part of the S&L crisis.
Obama and Reagan started with weak economies, although Obama had the worst deal of all. Still the slopes of those curves are not that different. GWB can assume blame for whatever happened after 2002 or so - mostly self-inflicted damage.
The US economy is largely private and it adjusts to differing policies and the net result is pretty similar. The presidential term averages obscure the fact that most differences are the result of interval bias where the starting point is the major driver of the overall average.
1
Obama's team took a country on the verge of financial ruin and turned it around, despite all of the naysayers on the GOP side.
One of the most impressive economic feats by any administration, anywhere, ever.
One of the most impressive economic feats by any administration, anywhere, ever.
31
Over 50 other comments contradict your paean. Less than 3% GDP growth year after year is not a "most impressive economic feat," except in North Korea.
3
Easy Hoss,
Appealing to the numbers of comments with opinions "contradicting" another opinion do not make facts. That is a fallacy, A classical fallacy.
Less than 3% growth is the new norm.
Appealing to the numbers of comments with opinions "contradicting" another opinion do not make facts. That is a fallacy, A classical fallacy.
Less than 3% growth is the new norm.
3
Unfortunately the people saying otherwise either don't know the truth or are lying. Just because they have a differing opinion doesn't make it a fact. The truth is Bush tanked the economy as bad as the great depression. The recovery from that republican disaster took over 15 yrs to recover from. So the fact that in 8 yrs we have a better economy faster than that recovery is remarkable.
Could it have been better, maybe, if the republicans hadn't done everything they could to make him a 1 term president.
The laughable thing is that Trump is proposing to do the same things to get a better economy as Obama proposed. Big infrastructure bill of 1 trillion dollars (Obama wanted at least half of that, but was denied by the republicans.).
Considering the history of republicans crashing the economy, losing jobs, lower GDP, we can expect that the economy will get worse with Trump and the republicans. Bush couldn't even get 2% GDP during good times, so yes a 3% after a terrible crash is great.
Could it have been better, maybe, if the republicans hadn't done everything they could to make him a 1 term president.
The laughable thing is that Trump is proposing to do the same things to get a better economy as Obama proposed. Big infrastructure bill of 1 trillion dollars (Obama wanted at least half of that, but was denied by the republicans.).
Considering the history of republicans crashing the economy, losing jobs, lower GDP, we can expect that the economy will get worse with Trump and the republicans. Bush couldn't even get 2% GDP during good times, so yes a 3% after a terrible crash is great.
2
Anyone else notice this:
- 4 out of 5 previous Dem presidents left office with lower unemployment than they inherited. 1, Carter, remained the same.
- 4 our of 5 previous Rep presidents left office with higher unemployment. 1, Reagan, left with an improved number.
- The only presidents who left office with a number under 5% were all Democrats.
- The only president who left with it under 4% was a Democrat (LBJ).
While job growth may always be an up and down process, it doesn't take a genius to realize that most Democratic presidents in the past half century have consistently left improved economies for their successors. Republicans, meanwhile, rather than building upon these strong economies and keeping safety checks (think regulations) in place, have consistently allowed bubbles to form and burst and have left office with high unemployment.
Tell me again how the Democratic agenda hurts jobs.
- 4 out of 5 previous Dem presidents left office with lower unemployment than they inherited. 1, Carter, remained the same.
- 4 our of 5 previous Rep presidents left office with higher unemployment. 1, Reagan, left with an improved number.
- The only presidents who left office with a number under 5% were all Democrats.
- The only president who left with it under 4% was a Democrat (LBJ).
While job growth may always be an up and down process, it doesn't take a genius to realize that most Democratic presidents in the past half century have consistently left improved economies for their successors. Republicans, meanwhile, rather than building upon these strong economies and keeping safety checks (think regulations) in place, have consistently allowed bubbles to form and burst and have left office with high unemployment.
Tell me again how the Democratic agenda hurts jobs.
87
So you're saying that because things were so much worse when President Obama took office that he had an advantage? Hilarious. Nice word play but nah....doesn't pass the smell test.
1
Actually no, you're saying that is what he's saying. Nice try. Please try again,
4
"Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine started under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats."
- Alan Blinder
Imagine how rich we'd all be if there were no Republicans in the country, just Democrats everywhere.
- Alan Blinder
Imagine how rich we'd all be if there were no Republicans in the country, just Democrats everywhere.
How do those change if one only looks at private sector jobs? My look at a few charts seems to indicate that Reagan's numbers benefited from some growth in government jobs whereas Obama's, at least early on, was negative for government jobs.
9
The number of civilian Federal employees per thousand population is lower under Obama than it was in 1950. Further, a cut in State government jobs (as they tried to balance their budgets during the recession) made a major contribution to the unemployment number. The Federal and State government jobs have not returned to their prerecession levels.
3
This article contains the kind of analysis that explains a lot. The section about the decline of men participating in the workforce since the post-WWII era, was something I was not aware of before this article. The idea of a reduction in male participation in the workforce is part of the mysogynistic myth of conservatives. The reality of this decline since 1945, long before the rise of the women's rights movement, speaks to a sociological phenomenon. The populist trope of white men having to compete against women and people of color as the driving force behind this group's rage is a case of denial of reality. If this has been going on for 70 years then this data needs to be presented and dealt with.
5
You can't look at percentage growth in employment to make this assessment. The percentage increase is based on the base year number of people employed. The base number of people employed when Obama took office should be considered an aberration because so many people had lost their jobs to cause the base number to be much lower than it was before the recession started. If the base is artificially low, then the percentage increase cannot be a valid comparable measure of performance for Obama. To illustrate, if the based is 100 and you add ten jobs, then you have a 10% increase. If your base is 160 and you add ten jobs, then you have a 6.25% increase. So, because the base was at one of the lowest points in many, many years, it looks like Obama did a better job but in reality his anti-employment policies resulted in a much slower job growth rate than what should have been accomplished.
Also, the new jobs created included part time-workers and workers that found new jobs at a substantially lower annual salary. This is especially true of the suffering middle class, myself included. What we really need is growth in disposable income for the entire middle class and effective new programs to help a substantial number of people to climb out of the lower class and into the middle class. I for one, am not buying into the fallacy that Obama's performance can be looked at as even a tepid performance. That is the primary and one of the few real reasons why HRC.
Also, the new jobs created included part time-workers and workers that found new jobs at a substantially lower annual salary. This is especially true of the suffering middle class, myself included. What we really need is growth in disposable income for the entire middle class and effective new programs to help a substantial number of people to climb out of the lower class and into the middle class. I for one, am not buying into the fallacy that Obama's performance can be looked at as even a tepid performance. That is the primary and one of the few real reasons why HRC.
4
"his anti-employment policies resulted in a much slower job growth rate than what should have been accomplished.".....You blissfully ignore three facts. First, from 2010 forward Congress refused to fund any of Obama's job programs. Second, a disproportionate number of baby boomers retired during the course of the Obama Administration (making the per cent of unemployed appear to be higher than it otherwise would have been). Third, the recovery from the recession has been significantly stronger in the U.S as compared to the recovery in other industrialized countries.
4
The President has done a phenomenal job considering the hand he was dealt. We're up 15 million jobs from the trough in 2010, 7 million from pre-crisis in 2008.
During much of his tenure, households were cutting their debt level relative to the size of the economy (a headwind), while during the Bush and Clinton eras households were adding debt (a tail-wind).
As a bonus, we've got 24 million more with health insurance leading to a record low uninsured rate, higher taxes on the top 1% to help address income inequality, household net worth is up $36 trillion since his inauguration, the deficit was below historical average relative to the size of GDP by 2014, and both the stock market and corporate profits are at record levels.
Not bad, considering the Republicans left the economy in a shambles.
During much of his tenure, households were cutting their debt level relative to the size of the economy (a headwind), while during the Bush and Clinton eras households were adding debt (a tail-wind).
As a bonus, we've got 24 million more with health insurance leading to a record low uninsured rate, higher taxes on the top 1% to help address income inequality, household net worth is up $36 trillion since his inauguration, the deficit was below historical average relative to the size of GDP by 2014, and both the stock market and corporate profits are at record levels.
Not bad, considering the Republicans left the economy in a shambles.
21
Here's a more important stat:
Private sector job growth percentage increase year over year. This allows comparing one term to two term presidents.
The best in the 20th century was FDR, but that may not be the fairest comparison.
LBJ had the best percentage job increase year over year. Second was Jimmy Carter.
Private sector job growth percentage increase year over year. This allows comparing one term to two term presidents.
The best in the 20th century was FDR, but that may not be the fairest comparison.
LBJ had the best percentage job increase year over year. Second was Jimmy Carter.
2
A great column, but a little more context is necessary.
Unemployment spikes occur most often under Republican presidents and that can be proven empirically. Under Eisenhower, it was 6.8 percent in 1958, the highest rate in that decade. Under Ford, 8.5 percent in 1975, the highest rate in the decade. Under Reagan, 9.7 and 9.6 percent in 1981 and 1982, respectively, the highest rates in the decade. Under Bush Sr., 7.5 percent in 1992, ditto. Under Bush Jr., unemployment rose from 4.7 percent in 2001 to 6.0 percent in 2002, fell, then rose to 5.8 percent in 2008 before jumping to 9.3 percent in 2009 and 9.6 in 2010. While those spikes occurred under Obama’s watch, most reasonable people contend this was fallout from the previous administration, like the Great Recession.
Unemployment spikes occur most often under Republican presidents and that can be proven empirically. Under Eisenhower, it was 6.8 percent in 1958, the highest rate in that decade. Under Ford, 8.5 percent in 1975, the highest rate in the decade. Under Reagan, 9.7 and 9.6 percent in 1981 and 1982, respectively, the highest rates in the decade. Under Bush Sr., 7.5 percent in 1992, ditto. Under Bush Jr., unemployment rose from 4.7 percent in 2001 to 6.0 percent in 2002, fell, then rose to 5.8 percent in 2008 before jumping to 9.3 percent in 2009 and 9.6 in 2010. While those spikes occurred under Obama’s watch, most reasonable people contend this was fallout from the previous administration, like the Great Recession.
3
President Obama and his private job creation record is the tops in history.
Especially when republicans obstructed him at every possible turn.
Especially when republicans obstructed him at every possible turn.
55
If I'm not mistaken, immigrants were entering the labor force during the Clinton/Bush years at a faster rate than during the Obama years.
I didn't see anything about private vs public sector job growth. As I understand, this has all been accomplished with all private sector, with a reduction in public sector jobs.
How many presidents have worked under those conditions?
How many presidents have worked under those conditions?
21
While it's true that Obama had to deal with an obstructionist Congress for most of his tenure, he did squander the first two years that he had full Democratic control. Instead of focusing completely on making sure the working and middle class were rescued, they made sure those who triggered the Crash were made whole, and adopted a doomed health care "reform". Yes, his record is far better than anything the Republicans would have done, but if fell far short of what it should have been, and ultimately, the failure to help the middle and working class, after all those loud "Hope and change" promises, paved the way for Trump.
Sadly, the new Trump/Republican hegemony will quickly prove the faith placed in them misdirected, and whatever meager gains made under Obama will quickly vanish, perhaps even leading to another Crash or worse. We are in for some very dark times that will make many long for the "good old days under Obama".
Sadly, the new Trump/Republican hegemony will quickly prove the faith placed in them misdirected, and whatever meager gains made under Obama will quickly vanish, perhaps even leading to another Crash or worse. We are in for some very dark times that will make many long for the "good old days under Obama".
5
The Stimulus plan was passed in the first months of 2009, and, because of bi-partisan resistance to "increasing the deficit," the Stimulus came in at a level that the President's economists (and outsiders like Paul Krugman) said was insufficient. Since stimulus takes a while to phase in, it was not unreasonable to see what the condition of the economy was in late 2010 or 2011. By then the Tea Party panic about helping the unworthy had set in, along with insistence by Deficit Hawks about the need to cut spending. In retrospect the Stimulus should have been bigger, should have an automatic expansionary trigger conditioned on economic conditions, and should have included a revenue-sharing component that would have reduced public sector layoffs by states that were constrained by declining tax receipts. After Republican successes in the 2010 mid-terms, fiscal policy became contractionary.
6
Trump has already saved and/or created more jobs in ONE MONTH than Obama did in his first YEAR. Dollar is at a 14-year high. Consumer Confidence Index is wayyy beyond what Obama produced. That's why Donald was elected.
Agreed. Instead of crawling across the finish line with the ACA, he should have spent his huge pile of political capital by putting forward a huge infrastructure spending bill, and spending every day yelling "why are Republicans not borrowing money for free and putting YOU back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges?!?"
Joe Cool wanted to avoid the drama. That's why history will judge him mediocre at best.
Joe Cool wanted to avoid the drama. That's why history will judge him mediocre at best.
3
I'm sorry, but in spite of all these objective statistics showing a much improved economy and labor picture as a result of Obama's policies, I'm inclined to believe Donald Trump that things have never been worse.
Oh, and don't try to convince me otherwise, because I am impervious to your facts.
Oh, and don't try to convince me otherwise, because I am impervious to your facts.
5
You present the perfect description of a Trumpian: impervious to facts.
4
Too bad this information wasn't making headlines the past few years. Info. such as this, repeated ad nauseam (couldn't they have been buying commercials on Fox 24/7?--maybe they did- I don't watch Fox), would certainly have helped the Dems. across the board.
The Dems really need to learn how to promote their causes and toot their own horns about their successes--preferably in sound bites.
The Dems really need to learn how to promote their causes and toot their own horns about their successes--preferably in sound bites.
8
94 million no longer in the work force.
Speaks for itself.
Speaks for itself.
9
There are 46.2 million retirees in the U.S. with 10,000 more baby boomers joining the retired every day....and since the started of the Obama Administration approximately 21 Americans have died. There are all kinds of non-relavant ways to leave the work force.
2
Wakan, over half of that 94 million are retirees including new ones like myself.
1
Yes, do you want vets with limps amputated to work? They, like retirees are part of that 94 million. Then you have stay at home parents raising children. By the time you add in all the people who either can't work or don't want to because of age or situation, your 94 million is non-existent.
The real unemployment is about 19 million using the unadjusted employment rate. Using your fake amount, we would have unemployment of over 37%, over 1 in 3 americans unable to find a job. The highest the US ever had was 25% during the great depression. Bush had 9.5%. Those are adjusted rates, the ones that do not include part timers and those who stopped looking. Bush's unadjusted went to about 15%. About 5% points higher than Obama.
That 94 million is a great but fake talking point. Do yourself a favor and stop using it, it makes you look ignorant.
The real unemployment is about 19 million using the unadjusted employment rate. Using your fake amount, we would have unemployment of over 37%, over 1 in 3 americans unable to find a job. The highest the US ever had was 25% during the great depression. Bush had 9.5%. Those are adjusted rates, the ones that do not include part timers and those who stopped looking. Bush's unadjusted went to about 15%. About 5% points higher than Obama.
That 94 million is a great but fake talking point. Do yourself a favor and stop using it, it makes you look ignorant.
1
94,500,000 Americans are out of work, after 8 years of "Change you can believe in." Yeah, chump change. Best not to even mention the Mideast, and Africa. Or Chicago.
9
If you include kids and those over 65 its actually 175,000,000 Americans out of work.
Well let's see now. Population of U.S. is 324,000,000. The adult population is about 248,000,000. The retired population is about 47,000,000. So thus you have a working-age population of about 201,000,000. And you are claiming that 47% of them are "out of work". If that were even close to being true the country would be in utter collapse. People would be starving in the streets.
Shameful you can be so dishonest.
Shameful you can be so dishonest.
6
Does your tongue get numbed from lying? That 94 million, include retirees and the disabled.
Now in my sane world, I don't expect any of those 2 to be working.
Right now the unadjusted rate of employment is 9.7 That includes part timers looking for full time, those who gave up, and those still looking and are unemployed. That is just over 19 million unemployed, a far cry from 94 million.
Now it would be great to have full employment, but that would never happen. You see, businesses fear full employment, they don't want us anywhere near full employment. So they make sure, using republicans to stop it.
Now this was a surprise to me back in the 70s' when I first heard the conservatives talk about it. And I didn't understand it then. But then under reagan I heard conservatives issue the same warning about full employment. This time I understood it.
Full employment means workers can choose their jobs and wages and businesses don't like that. Businesses want to dictate the wages and benefits for workers. In order to do that, there has to be permanent unemployed people. That way people will be desperate for jobs and will accept whatever the business offers.
It is why the rich are doing so well, they have the economy they like, people desperate for jobs and the rich making huge profits by depressing wages and benefits. And that is the conservative mantra, profit above all else.
Now in my sane world, I don't expect any of those 2 to be working.
Right now the unadjusted rate of employment is 9.7 That includes part timers looking for full time, those who gave up, and those still looking and are unemployed. That is just over 19 million unemployed, a far cry from 94 million.
Now it would be great to have full employment, but that would never happen. You see, businesses fear full employment, they don't want us anywhere near full employment. So they make sure, using republicans to stop it.
Now this was a surprise to me back in the 70s' when I first heard the conservatives talk about it. And I didn't understand it then. But then under reagan I heard conservatives issue the same warning about full employment. This time I understood it.
Full employment means workers can choose their jobs and wages and businesses don't like that. Businesses want to dictate the wages and benefits for workers. In order to do that, there has to be permanent unemployed people. That way people will be desperate for jobs and will accept whatever the business offers.
It is why the rich are doing so well, they have the economy they like, people desperate for jobs and the rich making huge profits by depressing wages and benefits. And that is the conservative mantra, profit above all else.
1
It helps to serve two full terms. (George W. Bush is the exception). The thing you always wonder is whether if every President had served eight years whether we’d think of them differently in terms of economic stewardship. (And, of course, we don’t know what would have happened if others had been elected.) Looked at this way, LBJ may have the most impressive record on headline unemployment of those cited.
It didn't help George W. Only made it worse.
"We sent 432 pieces of legislation to Harry Reid for review, and Obama's signature. Only a few of them left Harry Reid's desk." -- Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to Scott Pelley on "60 Minutes," late January, 2015.
Old belligerent Harry Reid, the pugilist obstructionist from Searchlight, NV.
Old belligerent Harry Reid, the pugilist obstructionist from Searchlight, NV.
4
Republicans sent a never-ending stream of absurd bills to Harry Reid just so they could tell the voters at home they had voted for a certain bill.
It was all an incredibly childish waste of time. And now the children are about to take the reins of power.
Trump will already be on the worst Presidents ever list before taking office.
It was all an incredibly childish waste of time. And now the children are about to take the reins of power.
Trump will already be on the worst Presidents ever list before taking office.
3
Haven't read the article, but I'm about to. Let me guess:
1. It will not discuss the quality of the jobs "created" during the Obama administration.
2. It will not discuss how difficult it would be to "break in" to a new career at the age of 30, 40 or 50 in a world where 25 is considered middle-aged by hiring managers.
3. It will not discuss the lack of discussion about the U-6 or the overall workforce participation rate.
Let's see how many I got right. ...
1. It will not discuss the quality of the jobs "created" during the Obama administration.
2. It will not discuss how difficult it would be to "break in" to a new career at the age of 30, 40 or 50 in a world where 25 is considered middle-aged by hiring managers.
3. It will not discuss the lack of discussion about the U-6 or the overall workforce participation rate.
Let's see how many I got right. ...
7
FYI, I changed careers at 46. Went back to school 2009-2011. All is well.
The president does not create public sector jobs. That would be Socialism. If employers don't want to hire fulltime people, that's their business. It's better than nothing (or Venezuela), and upward wage pressure is evident now. You don't have much of case, sir.
Keep seeing the glass as half empty. We need more of that pessimism.
The president does not create public sector jobs. That would be Socialism. If employers don't want to hire fulltime people, that's their business. It's better than nothing (or Venezuela), and upward wage pressure is evident now. You don't have much of case, sir.
Keep seeing the glass as half empty. We need more of that pessimism.
3
"But Mr. Obama’s record looks much better if you make adjustment for the fact that he took office in the middle of an economic free fall, or if you compare him with either President Bush" -- or if you take into account the unprecedented eight-year long obstruction by the Republicans !!
Like so many, this article is emblematic of the unwillingness of even the NYT reporters (as opposed to columnists) to spell out facts that are absolutely true but sound partisan. With the election to POTUS of a person like Donald Trump, isn't it high time for serious journalism to stop distorting reality in the name of supposed "balanced reporting"??
Like so many, this article is emblematic of the unwillingness of even the NYT reporters (as opposed to columnists) to spell out facts that are absolutely true but sound partisan. With the election to POTUS of a person like Donald Trump, isn't it high time for serious journalism to stop distorting reality in the name of supposed "balanced reporting"??
40
In 14 of the last 17 presidential elections, West Virginia voted Democrat, even for Mondale and Carter. But years of despair and Democrats' promises to extinguish the coal mining industry -- led by Obama's REVOCATION of a massive coal project in Kentucky as soon as he took office -- drove West Virginia into the embrace of Trump. So easy even a caveman can do it.
But of course Solyndra, the fantasy solar solution, got $535,000,000.00 after just one (1) meeting in the White House. Solyndra's now a Seagate disk drive plant.
But of course Solyndra, the fantasy solar solution, got $535,000,000.00 after just one (1) meeting in the White House. Solyndra's now a Seagate disk drive plant.
5
Employment in the coal industry peaked in 1923 and has declined every year since, almost a century.
Why not blame Coolidge and Hoover while you are at it.
There are more people employed today in the solar industry than the coal industry, so where should the government support go?
The coal fired power plant on the Navajo Reservation in Page, AZ. may be closing not because of tree huggers but because companies like Exxon Mobil are driving down the cost of natural gas. It is easier for a utility to buy energy from another natural gas utility than to make its own energy with coal.
And that is even using cheaper to mine, cleaner burning western coal.
China still buys a lot of WV and KY dirty coal. But if Trump starts a trade war with them they will buy the coal from Australia and put the last of Trump's white base on SSI and food stamps.
Why not blame Coolidge and Hoover while you are at it.
There are more people employed today in the solar industry than the coal industry, so where should the government support go?
The coal fired power plant on the Navajo Reservation in Page, AZ. may be closing not because of tree huggers but because companies like Exxon Mobil are driving down the cost of natural gas. It is easier for a utility to buy energy from another natural gas utility than to make its own energy with coal.
And that is even using cheaper to mine, cleaner burning western coal.
China still buys a lot of WV and KY dirty coal. But if Trump starts a trade war with them they will buy the coal from Australia and put the last of Trump's white base on SSI and food stamps.
12
You overlook the big picture of government investments in sustainable energy which, on the whole, has brought far more in positive returns than the Solyndra failure. That is the nature of venture capital.
Coal is dead. If WV governors had the courage to say this openly while working to build more sustainable replacements, there'd be nothing to say here.
Coal is dead. If WV governors had the courage to say this openly while working to build more sustainable replacements, there'd be nothing to say here.
4
Coal failed of it's own accord. It can't compete with natural gas, wind, or solar.
Republicans complain of subsidies to solar and wind while supplying massive subsidies to coal, oil and natural gas.
They would be giving subsidies to horse and buggies when the automobile came out. Technical advances always doom outdated technology and energy sources. It is why we don't depend on wood and coal powered locomotives anymore. Coal is so last 20th century. We have grown beyond it.
Republicans complain of subsidies to solar and wind while supplying massive subsidies to coal, oil and natural gas.
They would be giving subsidies to horse and buggies when the automobile came out. Technical advances always doom outdated technology and energy sources. It is why we don't depend on wood and coal powered locomotives anymore. Coal is so last 20th century. We have grown beyond it.
2
Bottom line Obama was handed the greatest economic disaster since the great depression from the admitted war criminal Bush 2 and completely turned it around.
I think that is pretty impressive.
I think that is pretty impressive.
84
To reply to my own post....Obama was no Lincoln who was near perfection...not even a Roosevelt who were quite a few steps lower than Lincoln but nevertheless a statesman, a student of Lincoln and MLK among others and rose to the occasion to put him at or near the top of post FDR Presidents imo.
Luckily, he is young and hopefully will have him around for a long time to teach us (and every now and then for us to teach him....)...
One other critical point, Obama pulled a JFK....in 1960 as a Catholic kid, I had to see some, not a lot of opposition to him because he was a Catholic.
Although I am a progressive person, nevertheless I still harbor a subconscious 10% racist feelings towards black. It is the nature of the beast. My better 90% comes thru thank God...
Obama brought that 10% down to near zero...
Luckily, he is young and hopefully will have him around for a long time to teach us (and every now and then for us to teach him....)...
One other critical point, Obama pulled a JFK....in 1960 as a Catholic kid, I had to see some, not a lot of opposition to him because he was a Catholic.
Although I am a progressive person, nevertheless I still harbor a subconscious 10% racist feelings towards black. It is the nature of the beast. My better 90% comes thru thank God...
Obama brought that 10% down to near zero...
1
In any other field we would call this mediocre to average.
5
Not if you lived through it, you would not.
2
You mean like job growth in Europe?
I'm laughing.
I'm laughing.
3
Reagan and Obama were coming off recessions and Clinton had the tech bubble. You cant ignore this when looking at the graphs.
8
This is why so many Times readers are giving up on The Times. Conservative pundit Neil Irwin claims that "The Obama Era Falls Short" in job growth.
Let's get this straight: Barack Obama came into office in the middle of the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. And he governed with a Republican congress that refused to approve stimulus measures. Yet he leaves office with the longest string of monthly job growth since 1939. That is not "falling short," that is amazing!
Reagan was boosted by unprecedented fiscal stimulus, which led to the biggest deficits of any period in American history outside of war.
Obama's record of saving the economy, then creating strong growth in jobs as we came out of it, all while being blocked at every turn by the obstructionist Republicans in congress, is worthy of praise, not snark.
Let's tell the truth.
Let's get this straight: Barack Obama came into office in the middle of the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. And he governed with a Republican congress that refused to approve stimulus measures. Yet he leaves office with the longest string of monthly job growth since 1939. That is not "falling short," that is amazing!
Reagan was boosted by unprecedented fiscal stimulus, which led to the biggest deficits of any period in American history outside of war.
Obama's record of saving the economy, then creating strong growth in jobs as we came out of it, all while being blocked at every turn by the obstructionist Republicans in congress, is worthy of praise, not snark.
Let's tell the truth.
167
It isn't "amazing" if all the jobs that were created pay less, have fewer benefits, less security, etc.
6
@ John Smith: The president doesn't control those factors, and the apprehension of employers to go full-blown into industrial era union scale wages right after the worst recession ever chilled any possibility of restoring things.
Instead, employers were reasonably cautious but steady. Our economy emerged stronger than anyone else's in the world which sustained and improved employer confidence year after year.
You have to give credit to Obama for that.
Instead, employers were reasonably cautious but steady. Our economy emerged stronger than anyone else's in the world which sustained and improved employer confidence year after year.
You have to give credit to Obama for that.
5
That is true, but let's tell the whole truth: fiscal austerity imposed largely by Republicans who brought on the original damage was largely responsible for the anemic growth of wages.
I'll give Obama some blame as well, but only to the extent that he didn't aggressively push for more spending by explaining the situation to the voters, instead of just lobbying Washington.
I'll give Obama some blame as well, but only to the extent that he didn't aggressively push for more spending by explaining the situation to the voters, instead of just lobbying Washington.
4
I remember the fear and despair that was collectively felt by all Americans when he took office. Jobs were being lost at unprecedented levels and finding a new one was virtually impossible. Obama made many unpopular decisions that ultimately stabilized the economy.
Could he have done more; probably. Focusing on healthcare before pushing out investment in infrastructure that would have created jobs was a misstep. Sadly it cost him in the midterms.
People don't see it yet but we are better off than we were eight years ago. Hopefully both parties will work together for the good of the American people. Time will tell.
Could he have done more; probably. Focusing on healthcare before pushing out investment in infrastructure that would have created jobs was a misstep. Sadly it cost him in the midterms.
People don't see it yet but we are better off than we were eight years ago. Hopefully both parties will work together for the good of the American people. Time will tell.
4
Can't help but observe the change in the joblessness rate during the Republican Presidents and during the Democrat Presidents.
The cumulative change in the joblessness rate during the 5 Republican Presidents is +7.5 percent. During the 5 Democrat Presidents -9.4%.
The cumulative change in the joblessness rate during the 5 Republican Presidents is +7.5 percent. During the 5 Democrat Presidents -9.4%.
15
It should be noted that in 2011, the limit for the period someone was considered jobless and actively seeking work was raised from 2 years to 5 years. Therefore, as of 2011, the unemployment rates attributed to Obama are higher than what they would have been otherwise. In other words, the Obama administration made it harder on themselves to post lower unemployment rates. It will be interesting to keep an eye on whether the Trump administration keeps the 5-year threshold or moves it back down to 2 years.
3
This article fails to consider the difference between private sector and public sector jobs.
Private sector employment grew substantially over the Obama presidency. But the government at all levels (local, state, and federal) pursued austerity policies that kept public sector employment down. Downsizing the government is a long-standing Republican priority, and the Republicans in Congress used the federal deficit as an excuse to push these policies even while they refused to consider any increase in federal revenue.
It makes no sense to blame Obama for Republican policies regarding public sector employment. And it is misleading to discuss employment during the Obama years without distinguishing between the private and public sectors.
Private sector employment grew substantially over the Obama presidency. But the government at all levels (local, state, and federal) pursued austerity policies that kept public sector employment down. Downsizing the government is a long-standing Republican priority, and the Republicans in Congress used the federal deficit as an excuse to push these policies even while they refused to consider any increase in federal revenue.
It makes no sense to blame Obama for Republican policies regarding public sector employment. And it is misleading to discuss employment during the Obama years without distinguishing between the private and public sectors.
37
Prior to Clinton the economy also benefitted by better wages for the median workers, driven largely by union wages. The amount of discretionary income, the ratio of wages to business revenues is rarely discussed in article such as this.
6
This is the way it always works: Republican presidents lay waste to the budget, creating an enormous deficit through tax cuts for the rich and big business and illegal wars, then a Democratic president comes into office and completely turns the economy around, with zero help from the worthless Republicans. Then another Republican gets elected president, and we're right back where we started.
67
This is the way it always works: Republican president comes into office, creating an enormous deficit through tax cuts for the rich and big business, starts a *legal* quagmire of a war, then a Democratic president comes into office and lays waste to the budget by creating an enormous deficit through wasteful social programs for the poor, illegal aliens, and refugees, gets pulled into ludicrous identity politic issues that affect a miniscule percentage of the population, and continues the quagmire of a war.
There is no difference between the parties when it comes to wasting money.
One side cares only about the rich, the other side cares only about the poor, neither cares about the middle class until the bills come due.
There is no difference between the parties when it comes to wasting money.
One side cares only about the rich, the other side cares only about the poor, neither cares about the middle class until the bills come due.
1
The President turned the economy around, it was headed off the cliff on the day he was sworn in. Jobs were hemorrhaging and the stock market was tanking. Things are much better now. The charts in this article show how Democratic economies and Republican economies compare. I prefer life under Democratic rule, but then again, I am middle class and frequently suffer when Republicans pass laws.
83
He turned it around so much that GDP in 8 years never reached 3%. Some turnaround, eh?
5
Those are not Republicans passing the laws in Sacramento that attenuate the once-Golden State's middle class, Joe.
4
If you restrict attention to the part of the picture comparing presidents to months 30 through 96, then the Clinton and Obama graphs are nearly parallel. This means nearly equal rates of growth after month 30. (Reagan beats both after month 30.) It's hard to imagine that a President's policies have any effect until two years out if at all. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this comparison.
Reagan had a massive stimulus from Congress as the republicans and Reagan were trying to out build the Soviets. Obama had no stimulus from Congress after the first one that stemmed the freewill that our economy was in. However, the public sector jobs that went significantly up under Reagan went slightly down or stayed the same under Obama. In other words, Obama accomplished more w less.
5
Why does Obama blame automation for all job loss but fails to propose a solution to the job losses?
Thomas Piketty pointed out "service jobs" have zero wage growth. Yet all our leaders push for globalization because it makes them rich. Globalization impoverishes the workers in the higher wage nations.
We are in a race to the bottom.
Think about the globalization lie that it "increases all wages". If that's true, why is the median income lower today than it was in 1997?
We have millions in America who live on less than $2 per day. Capitalism is failing us.
Thomas Piketty pointed out "service jobs" have zero wage growth. Yet all our leaders push for globalization because it makes them rich. Globalization impoverishes the workers in the higher wage nations.
We are in a race to the bottom.
Think about the globalization lie that it "increases all wages". If that's true, why is the median income lower today than it was in 1997?
We have millions in America who live on less than $2 per day. Capitalism is failing us.
9
Economists claim that 2/3rds of job losses are due to technology. And American public schools are so poorly financed that millions of Americans lack the educational training to fill the jobs left over.
3
"Why does Obama blame automation for all job loss but fails to propose a solution to the job losses?"
One solution would be more technical training. Obstructed by the GOP.
One solution would be more technical training. Obstructed by the GOP.
3
The most-frequent visitor to the WH in Obama's first term was Andy Stein, #1 honcho for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Obviously Prof. Obama thought that Service jobs were excellent pathways for the working poor who elected him. Many Harvard Faculty would agree.
Obviously Prof. Obama thought that Service jobs were excellent pathways for the working poor who elected him. Many Harvard Faculty would agree.
Everyone debates how much influence a President has over employment and the economy. I'd say it's mixed on a macro level.
A President can not control automation of jobs or Globalism (perhaps to a certain extent.) And shifting skill sets for employment may take longer than 8 years to be realized.
However, a President can create an environment that fosters job growth and has stability. Encouraging innovation, education, and research helps. Starting wars creates instability and does not help.
Obama did a great job of creating an environment for job growth and preventing instability during his term.
A President can not control automation of jobs or Globalism (perhaps to a certain extent.) And shifting skill sets for employment may take longer than 8 years to be realized.
However, a President can create an environment that fosters job growth and has stability. Encouraging innovation, education, and research helps. Starting wars creates instability and does not help.
Obama did a great job of creating an environment for job growth and preventing instability during his term.
43
The magnitude of President Obama's achievement is not presented in this article. While the unemployment rate was 7.9% when he took office it continued to peak due to the effects of the Great Recession that he inherited. In October, 2009 the unemployment rate peaked at 10%! So the true drop in the unemployment rate was from 10% to 4.7% during his Presidency a feat of enormous magnitude further enhanced by the difficulty of recovering from the bitter grip of a financial collapse. History will treat President Obama's achievement with very kind eyes especially after we experience the disaster we are about to witness.
140
And President Obama did it with one hand (or maybe 2) tied behind his back. Despite having a Democratic congress to start all of the Dems were not progressive and ALL of the Republicans refused to work for the better of the country. Unfortunately as the President has conceded he wasn't a great salesman for his agenda and accomplishments. Trump is better at only one thing, selling himself as a success. The reality is the only thing Trump has done well is be a reality TV character.
6
I thought that Obamacare, oppressive environmental regulations, and the first black Muslim President from Kenya were all supposed to destroy the economy. And yet Republicans at all levels – federal, state, and local – won so much power in the last four elections with these Big Lies.
Imagine how much stronger the recovery could have been had Republicans actually cooperated with Pres. Obama rather than trying to destroy him just so that they could accumulate power for themselves and their party.
And now we are about to inaugurate a Pres. Trump who denies all this success and will enact policies that will lead in precisely the opposite direction - as proven by Republican governors Bobby Jindal, Sam Brownback, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie.
Thanks, Donald voters. You voted for him and his "policies" over Hillary and her policies out of some combination of willful ignorance, misdirected spite, irrational hatred, and self-pity. You now get what you deserve.
Imagine how much stronger the recovery could have been had Republicans actually cooperated with Pres. Obama rather than trying to destroy him just so that they could accumulate power for themselves and their party.
And now we are about to inaugurate a Pres. Trump who denies all this success and will enact policies that will lead in precisely the opposite direction - as proven by Republican governors Bobby Jindal, Sam Brownback, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie.
Thanks, Donald voters. You voted for him and his "policies" over Hillary and her policies out of some combination of willful ignorance, misdirected spite, irrational hatred, and self-pity. You now get what you deserve.
191
But Trump was smart enough to be born to a multimillionaire real estate baron father.
7
Mr. Levy, Obama was not born in Kenya.
1
Agree, Ken Levy, except that even those of us who didn't vote for Trump will now get what the Trump voters deserve....
2
Within his abilities, I think he did a fine job. The situation that unfolded as he was taking office was a major challenge. It was the only time in my life I was honestly worried about losing everything without any hope of recovering. Yes, I consider myself lucky, others weren't.
I believe his steady, calm, cool and collected hand, even with the all the obstacles thrown in his way, kept the situation from becoming much worse.
The job market will continue to be a significant challenge, particularly as all jobs are not equal. "Good" jobs will get scarcer and be much more competitive. The income rift will continue to widen as it looks now.
As I head into retirement, my concern is for those coming behind me who will not have the same opportunities I did when they need it most.
My thanks to President Obama for keeping the ship afloat.
I believe his steady, calm, cool and collected hand, even with the all the obstacles thrown in his way, kept the situation from becoming much worse.
The job market will continue to be a significant challenge, particularly as all jobs are not equal. "Good" jobs will get scarcer and be much more competitive. The income rift will continue to widen as it looks now.
As I head into retirement, my concern is for those coming behind me who will not have the same opportunities I did when they need it most.
My thanks to President Obama for keeping the ship afloat.
75
Let's not forget that Obama had to contend with a Republican congress that sabotaged the economy in and effort to ensure that his would be a failed, one-term Presidency. Congressional insistence on austerity when they should have been spending depressed what could have been much better job numbers.
105
Tell the WHOLE story, Pelosi fan. Under Barry, Harry, and Nancy, and their 2008-10 veto-proof supermajority, the noble Troika got nothing done. They took too many victory laps, and in Midterm 2010 lost the Congress.
5
One observation and a separate comment.
What Obama walked into 8 years ago could hardly be considered a "recession". It was a near depression. Not since 1929 had we seen a near total collapse of the banking/financial sectors, so much so that many in government and business thought we were on the verge of total economic ruin.
My point, if you want to compare anything compare 8 years ago to 1929, as that's a faire analysis. When you do this you'll see that the Great Depression took nearly 14 years before recovery, that we had 25% unemployment for nearly a decade and the stock market was virtually non-existent for that period of time. Here we are 8 years post the Great Recession and unemployment is at near full employment, more jobs have been created than at any other time in our history, the stock market has set more record highs than at any other time in our history, corporations have been reporting record sales and profits for several years and for the vast majority of Americans, they're in a better place today.
My comment. I'll gladly take the last 8 years under Obama vs. reliving the previous 8 under a Republican President, House and Senate.
What Obama walked into 8 years ago could hardly be considered a "recession". It was a near depression. Not since 1929 had we seen a near total collapse of the banking/financial sectors, so much so that many in government and business thought we were on the verge of total economic ruin.
My point, if you want to compare anything compare 8 years ago to 1929, as that's a faire analysis. When you do this you'll see that the Great Depression took nearly 14 years before recovery, that we had 25% unemployment for nearly a decade and the stock market was virtually non-existent for that period of time. Here we are 8 years post the Great Recession and unemployment is at near full employment, more jobs have been created than at any other time in our history, the stock market has set more record highs than at any other time in our history, corporations have been reporting record sales and profits for several years and for the vast majority of Americans, they're in a better place today.
My comment. I'll gladly take the last 8 years under Obama vs. reliving the previous 8 under a Republican President, House and Senate.
212
No matter how dire the situation was in 2008, and no matter how much better the economy is now, Republicans just refuse to see it. They have moved the goal posts for the entire 8 years Obama has been in office.
Remember when Romney promised to get unemployment unde 6%? Well it's under 5% and Republicans will only come up with reasons why that's not good.
Remember when Romney promised to get unemployment unde 6%? Well it's under 5% and Republicans will only come up with reasons why that's not good.
The state of the economy, in reality, has very little to do with who is President at the time. The biggest reason for one President to show stronger growth over any other is luck. That's it.
7
Nonsense. Regulation slightly slows economic growth in exchange for decreased volatility.
Volatility has a material human cost that manifests itself in the unemployment rate (among many other things).
Volatility has a material human cost that manifests itself in the unemployment rate (among many other things).
24
The first problem is, no one conservative or liberal will ever agree to get rid of ALL regulations - we understand that would be complete chaos like Afghanistan or Somalia.
The second problem is, we just can not agree on what is right form of regulation.
Example: Should fracking be allowed at the expense of home owners; should coal burning be allowed at the expense of massive air pollution (forget about global warming). Should we give tax break to oil industry and not renewable energy. Also how about woman's right to choose abortion - what about employment of those doctors performing abortions?
I think talking about regulation generically as something evil is where we are making mistake - we rather should discuss which ones are causing problem and by how much.
The second problem is, we just can not agree on what is right form of regulation.
Example: Should fracking be allowed at the expense of home owners; should coal burning be allowed at the expense of massive air pollution (forget about global warming). Should we give tax break to oil industry and not renewable energy. Also how about woman's right to choose abortion - what about employment of those doctors performing abortions?
I think talking about regulation generically as something evil is where we are making mistake - we rather should discuss which ones are causing problem and by how much.
2
Good luck thinking it is luck. Consider the past 36 years of data. Would you rather have a Republican president or Democratic president?
1
The fact of the matter is that the majority of NYT readers will not be affected negatively by Trump's stupidity. In fact, he will save us thousands (and potentially 100s of thousands) of dollars a year in taxes.
Time to stop caring about the yokels who want to make America great again and instead run up the score as Trump further hollows them out. This is what they wanted. Let them live with it.