Pethokoukis

Sorry, Stephanie Cutter, the Obama recovery hasn’t created more jobs than the Reagan recovery

8.23.12 Ronald Reagan

This is stunning:

Willie Geist, MSNBC: What would you say to that same person that said, ‘Well, that hasn’t worked for four years. I haven’t had the job over time, it’s time for a change.’
Stephanie Cutter, Obama deputy campaign manager: Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what’s happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there’s obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that’s the president.

Team Obama, shorter: You didn’t build that, Reagan!

Just how do the Obama and Reagan recoveries stack up in terms of jobs?

• From the end of the recession in June 2009 through July 2012 — the first 37 months of the Obama recovery — the U.S. economy has generated 2.7 million net new jobs. From the jobs low point in February 2010, the U.S. economy has generated 4 million net new jobs.

From the end of the 1981-82 recession through the end of of 1985 —  the first 37 months of the Reagan recovery — the U.S.created 9.8 million net new jobs. And if you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the comparable figure is more than 12 million jobs.

Score one for Reagan.

• Another of way of assessing the U.S. labor market is by looking at the employment-population ratio, a simple measure that looks how many Americans are working as a share of the population (or what the Labor Department calls the civilian, non-institutional population.)

During the Reagan Recovery, that ratio increased. During the Obama Recovery, that ratio has been dead in the water.

Score one for Reagan.

 

• One more way of looking at the health of the labor market is by examining labor force participation. During the Obama recovery, that rate has fallen as the Labor Department has stopped counting discouraged workers who’ve given up looking for work. During the Reagan Recovery, that rate rose as the unemployed flooded back into the job market..

Score one for Reagan.

 In fact, if the labor force participation rate was as high today as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11%, not 8.3%.

No matter how tricksy Team Obama is, there is really no argument here. The Reagan Recovery created far more jobs and a far healthier labor market than the Obama

18 thoughts on “Sorry, Stephanie Cutter, the Obama recovery hasn’t created more jobs than the Reagan recovery

    • During Reagan’s first term, from Feb. 1981 to Jan. 1985, private sector employment increased by 5.35 million. During Obama’s term, from Feb. 1981 to July 2012, private sector employment declined by 330,000. Cutter and you are wrong. Growth under Reagan was better.

      During Reagan’s first term, from the trough of the private employment number in December 1982 to July 1984, 19 months, private sector employment grew by 5.83 million jobs. During Obama’s term, from the trough of the private employment number in Feb. 2010 to July 2012, 29 months, private employment grew by 4.54 million jobs. You and Cutter are wrong. Reagan was better.

      During Reagan’s first term, in the 27 months to July 1984, private sector employment grew by 4.47 million jobs. During Obama’s term, the time in which Cutter says 4.5 million jobs were created, private employment increased by 4.21 million jobs. You and Cutter are wrong. Reagan was better.

      Now, put in the population context, of course, Reagan’s numbers look even better, and Obama’s even worse. But even dropping the population context, by Obama’s own criteria, you and Cutter are wrong, Reagan’s numbers are better, and Obama’s numbers are worse.

  1. Obama’s minions won’t be hindered by truth or facts when plumping for their candidate, and the news media won’t expose their lies. This gives our side lots to do as well as an opportunity to present ourselves to news consumers as a far more reliable source for information.

  2. Cutter said “private sector jobs.” Care to make the comparison with private sector job growth during the Reagan Recovery? I’d sure be interested in the results.

    • Looks top me as that is what is being compared, public sector jobs would probably be even worse, at lease that would be the case in my part of the country where government agencies are needing to cut positions every year to operate within their budgets.

      • “Public sector jobs would probably be even worse.” Huh. It’s almost as if you’re saying the size of government under Obama is shrinking, while it grew under Reagan. Surely not!

  3. Since the Obama administration has expanded the public sector, most of its jobs have been created in the public sector –state and federal. Therefore, if she focused only on private sector jobs, well, her comparison would have been even worse vis a vis Reagan. Just to short circuit the debate here because the comparison really is a waste of time — with the Reagan recovery so outstripping the Obama version from a growth percentage standpoint, it would be virtually impossible for her claim to be true.

  4. Ms Cutter has already been caught in an open blatant lie regarding the ad where they were accusing Gov Romney of killing a woman who died of cancer. Now she’s blatantly lied again. The Obama campaign isn’t just playing fast and loose with the fact like political campaigns do its just lying, and lying. Ms Cutter should be fired!

  5. Stephanie Cutter has been caught lying several times already..Obama has nothing to show for so his surrogates continues to lie and lie… This woman earns her living by LYING…

  6. Even accepting Cutter’s #’s at face value, that yields roughly only about 150k net new jobs gained per month, a level barely keeping up with workforce/population growth. That leaves us essentially “running in place at the bottom of the well” so to speak.

  7. She used private sector job growth to reflect the fact that the government sector has shrunk under Obama by about 500K jobs. As the Brookings Institute has shown, unemployment would be at 7.1% and the # of jobs created under Obama would be about 5 million if this were not the case. Yes, shrinking government has hurt the economy.

    Second, nice try on the bogus comparison. When Obama took office, the recession was already in place, and from the point the stimulus bill took hold, the 4M jobs were created. In January 1980, the Fed caused a recession by ratching up interest rates to control inflation, but the Carter administration put in budget cuts and credit controls to help, the Fed lowered its rates, and that recession ended in July 1980.

    In July 1981, 6 months AFTER Reagan took office, another recession took hold. Reagan’s economic recovery act in August 1981 failed to reverse the trend, and the recession continued through November 1982. So, no, you don’t get to count from the end of the recession when, for 14 months, Reagan’s policies did nothing. And, you certainly don’t get to count through the end of 1985, giving Reagan 5 years to Obama’s 3.5 years.

    During Reagan’s first term, the net jobs gain was about 6.4 million. But, remember, Cutter said private sector. The gov’t sector grew by 2 million jobs during this time, so private sector growth was 4.4M jobs.

    Cutter was right.

    • During Reagan’s first term, from Feb. 1981 to Jan. 1985, private sector employment increased by 5.35 million. During Obama’s term, from Feb. 1981 to July 2012, private sector employment declined by 330,000. Cutter and you are wrong. Growth under Reagan was better.

      During Reagan’s first term, from the trough of the private employment number in December 1982 to July 1984, 19 months, private sector employment grew by 5.83 million jobs. During Obama’s term, from the trough of the private employment number in Feb. 2010 to July 2012, 29 months, private employment grew by 4.54 million jobs. You and Cutter are wrong. Reagan was better.

      During Reagan’s first term, in the 27 months to July 1984, private sector employment grew by 4.47 million jobs. During Obama’s term, the time in which Cutter says 4.5 million jobs were created, private employment increased by 4.21 million jobs. You and Cutter are wrong. Reagan was better.

      Now, put in the population context, of course, Reagan’s numbers look even better, and Obama’s even worse. But even dropping the population context, by Obama’s own criteria, you and Cutter are wrong, Reagan’s numbers are better, and Obama’s numbers are worse.

      Your history is also incorrect, and I suspect you know that too. Reagan’s economic recovery act was legislated in August but did not take effect until the new fiscal year, which started in October 1981, not as soon as it was passed in August. It was a phased-in tax cut, not immediate. But when it was fully phased in, immediately, the economy turned around (it was improving all along, despite the employment number, as interest rates declined sharply) and employment began increasing.

    • In Jan. 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. In July 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. In Jan. 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8%. In July 2012, it was 8.3%. You and Cutter are wrong, Reagan did better than Obama.

      In 27 months prior to July 1984, the unemployment rate was 9.3%, and 7.5% in July ’84. In 27 months prior to July 2012, the unemployment rate was 9.9%, and 7.8% in July 2012. You and Cutter are wrong, Reagan did better than Obama.

      From the peak unemployment rate, in November 1982, of 10.8%, to July 1984, unemployment declined by 3 points under Reagan. From the peak unemployment rate, in October 2009, of 10%, unemployment declined by 2.5 points under Obama. You and Cutter are wrong, Reagan did better than Obama.

      The Labor Force Participation Rate was 63.9% when Reagan was inaugurated, and by July 1984 it was 64.6%, an increase of .7 points. The labor force was 65.7% when Obama was inaugurated, and by July 2012 it was 63.7%, a decline of 2 points. That is also lower than it was in all but two months of Reagan’s first term. The numbers are the same using Cutter’s 27-month benchmark for Reagan, but Obama’s decline is from 65.1% to 63.7%. You and Cutter are wrong. Reagan’s numbers are better than Obama’s numbers.

      In local government, under Reagan, employment declined by 281,000 from Jan. 9.76 million in 1981 to 9.48 million in July 1984. Under Obama, local government declined by 516,000, from 14.59 million in Jan. 2009 to 14.06 million in July 2012. I’ll agree that in this case, Obama’s numbers are better (though, of course, they’re not his numbers at all). Making Cutter and you wrong, still, but it’s still a good thing.

      In all government, employment was 16.36 million in Jan. 1981, and 16.17 million in July 1984, while Reagan was president. A decline of 190,000. All-government employment was 22.57 million in Jan. 2009, and 21.93 million in July 2012, a decline of 640,000.

      Etc., etc. Choose the criteria you wish: Reagan did better, Obama did worse.

  8. Stephanie lies every time her mouth opens. You’d think she’d be better at it by now.

    I’ll bet any amount of money she means jobs created “or saved,” and they have a huge, unprovable number in the “saved” portion.

  9. To bad so many have to go to name calling rather than give facts to back up there opinion. I’ve learned over the years usually if you have to use name calling, yelling, or lying then you’ve already lost debate/discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>