HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Romney justifies virtuall...

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:10 PM

Romney justifies virtually no job growth at his 3 1/2 year point in Mass.

Probably your crazy uncle is telling you that he's tired of hearing "Oblamer" blame Bush for the poor state of the economy and essentially zero job growth since he took office (since January 31, 2009 thru August 31, 2012, under Obama 261,000 jobs have been lost, although he is in positive territory in private sector jobs).

Your crazy uncle also pooh poohs you when you tell him that in the last 30 months, under Obama 4.6 million private sector jobs and 4.1 million total jobs (actually civilian non-farm payroll jobs), have been created, telling you that you are cherry-picking Obama's best months blah dee blah.

# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001

Well, Romney in his June 24, 2006 press conference (nearly 3 1/2 years into his governorship of Massachusetts), blamed the economy he inherited for his woeful job record over his entire term, and touted the 50,000 jobs created since the turnaround. Exactly the sort of argument that the righties are criticizing us for making regarding Obama.

Transcript and press-conference video (1:50): http://www.youtube{DOT}com/watch?v=ArRj-dQXX3Y
(replace the {DOT} with . in the above URL. I don't know why it is fighting with me)


TRANSCRIPT:"You guys are bright enough to look at the numbers. I came in and the jobs had been just falling right off a cliff, I came in and they kept falling for 11 months. And then we turned around and we're coming back and that's progress. And if you are going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected, somehow jobs should have immediately turned around, well that would be silly. It takes awhile to get things turned around. We were in a recession, we were losing jobs every month. We've turned around and since the turnaround we've added 50,000 jobs. That's progress. And there will be some people who try and say, 'well Governor, net-net, you've only added a few thousand jobs since you've been in.' Yeah but I helped stop, I didn't do it alone, the economy is a big part of that, the private sector's what drives that -- up and down -- But we were in free fall for three years. And the last year that I happened to be here, and then we turned it around, as a state, private sector, government sector, turned it around. And now we're adding jobs. We wanna keep that going, to the extent we can. We're the, you know, we're one part of that equation, but not the whole equation. A lot of it is outside of our control, it's federal, it's international, it's private sector. But I'm very pleased that over the last a 2, 2 and a half, years we've seen pretty consistent job growth. 50,000 new jobs created, some great companies, we just had, last week, Samsonite announced their headquarters moving here. Companies outside Massachusetts moving in to Massachusetts. That kind of commitment, that kind of decision, says something about what they feel about the future of our state."

Well, then I wondered, is 50,000 jobs so great for a state the size of Massachusetts? Using July 2011 data, Massachusett's share of the USA population is 6.587 Million / 311.6 Million = 2.1139%. (It would have been better to dig up population numbers more around the 2003-2006 time frame but I doubt that the percentage would be more than slightly different). So on a per-capita basis, 50,000 jobs in Massachusetts is equivalent to 50,000 / 2.1139% = 2.366 Million nationwide jobs.

I'm assuming since the press conference was held in June 24, 2006, that the 50,000 jobs is through the end of May 2006 since they wouldn't have end-of-June numbers in yet.

Well, Obama in a similar point of his presidency -- the end of May 2012, had presided over the creation of 3.744 Million jobs.

So on a per-capita basis since their respective job turnaround points, Obama's job creation record is 3.744 / 2.366 = 1.58 X better (58% better) than Romney's.

And since Romney is "very pleased" with his job creation record in Massachusetts since the turnaround, he should be 1.58 times "very pleased" with Obama's record.


(Note that since Obama took office January 20 (2009) and Romney took office January 2 (2003), I could have moved Obama forward by a month to the end of June. If so, Obama's job creation record through the end of June 2012 is 3.819 Million jobs, and his per-capita record is 3.819 / 2.366 = 1.61 X better (61% better). But I'll settle for the end of May figures. )

8 replies, 1539 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to progree (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:19 PM

1. I believe the population of MA has increased a bit since fuckhead left. From 6.3m to 6.5m.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:24 PM

3. Probably. But the U.S. population also grew. So I doubt that Mass. percentage of the population

changed to affect the results to 2 or 3 significant figures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)


Response to progree (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:31 PM

4. On behalf of everybody with a lousy connection, thank you very much for the transcript.

It's really considerate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:44 PM

6. You're welcome. I mostly did it so we could use bits of it to beat over the heads of righties in

the message board wars. In news.yahoo.com news article comments sections, I'm constantly getting beaten over the head for touting Obama's job creation record of the last 30 months (4.6 million private sector jobs), rather than his whole term, and I'm being bashed when I compare his job record to Bush's entire 8-year presidency (MINUS 0.7 million private sector jobs) because I'm comparing Obama's best months to Bush's entire presidency. So it was great when Norman Goldman (progressive talk radio host) alerted his listeners to this clip where Romney made exactly the same argument about his job creation record -- "sure it's minimal but it is my predecessor's fault, but lookie here now, I got things turned around, and since the turnaround, look how great I did" (wildly paraphrasing of course).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:55 PM

7. The greatest thing about Nor-Man is his enthusiasm. The guy is all on board.

Anyway, thanks again. You're fighting the good fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:36 PM

5. Weren't the Clinton years creating a lot of jobs. why wasn't Rmoney?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to julian09 (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:05 AM

8. Clinton: 22.7 Million jobs. But Clinton's presidency ended 1/2001. Romney was governor 1/2/03 to

1/4/07, solidly in the Bush era. Nationally, 2003 was a tough year -- a net 450,000 jobs lost between 2/1/03 and 8/31/03. But looking at the entire period of Romney's governorship up until the 6/24/06 press conference -- from 2/1/03 thru 5/31/06 -- (June's numbers wouldn't be in yet), the U.S. as a whole created 5.621 Million jobs. On a per-capita basis, Massachusett's share should be 2.1139% * 5.621 M = 119,000. Whereas Romney's record in his words was "a few thousand". And he is touting 50,000 jobs since the turnaround began (i.e. not counting the job losses in his first year).

No wonder Romney (over his entire 4 year term) was 47th out of 50th in job creation. Yes, only 3 states had worse records.

Some people argue that his ranking relative to the other 49 states improved throughout his 4-year term, to 28th or something like that, but so what? We are comparing his 4 year record with other governors' 4 year records, and he's coming out 47th out of 50th. Would we say that if we had 50 people running a foot race, and one person started out crawling and ran pretty well at the end (almost average) deserves some kind of extra points compared to 46 others that ran the entire race faster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread