In the discussion thread: July payroll employment rises (+163,000); jobless rate essentially unchanged (8.3%) [View all]
Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)
Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:53 PM
alp227 (28,249 posts)
22. Here's the video of Thom's rumble with Judson Phillips when the May numbers came out.
And I'd like to bring up that 1980 had four straight months of job LOSSES (following figures in the 1000s):
April 1980: -145
May 1980: -431
June 1980: -320
July 1980: -263
Total: 1.16 million jobs lost
Compare that with those months of 2012:
April 2012: 68
May 2012: 87
June 2012: 64(P)
July 2012: 163(P)
Total: 382,000 jobs created
Using the BLS job growth table tool, I found that the period from Jan. to Oct. 1980 had a net job loss of 184,000. In contrast, the first 7 months of 2012 have generated 1.06 million jobs.
Expect an extremely desperate, distasteful RATpubliCON dirty trick soon.
It seems that anytime even one month has net job losses, that means the incumbent loses. The first ten months of 1992 had a net gain of 803,000 jobs. Yet George H.W. Bush lost. Why? Not just on breaking his "read my lips: no new taxes" pledge but also the sluggish economy that began the '90s as well as February 1992 having a net loss of 66,000 jobs. Yes, the only month of job losses of that year but still costly nonetheless.
And if this gives you any more hope, Dim Son Bush won in 2004 under a net gain of 1.86 million jobs from Jan. to Oct. 2004.
- 2000 had two months with job losses (June, -47k; October, -12k...hmm OCTOBER SURPRISE???), and the incumbent party lost (yes I know about Florida but let's set that aside due to this general trend I'm noticing about election year job losses.)
- January 1968 had a job loss of 95k but 9 straight months of growth afterwards. Still, a loss for the incumbent party, but more due to the politics surrounding the Vietnam War and post-MLK death urban crime.
In the elections of 1984 and 2004, both in which the incumbent president was re-elected, those years had zero net job losses in any month.
These presidents survived re-election despite any monthly job loss:
- FDR won his fourth election in 1944 despite job losses for the first nine months of the year. Obviously 1944 was during WWII, and wars generally guarantee the incumbent president re-election (and this was before the 22nd amendment limited presidents to two terms in office). Same in 1940 (right before the War).
- Truman in 1948. Three months of that year (including OCTOBER) had job losses. 1948 pre-election gained a meager 672k jobs, but Truman succeeded largely thru a "Do-Nothing Congress" election strategy.
- Eisenhower won re-election in 1956, but two of the first ten months that year had losses. (Total net gain of jobs Jan-Oct 1956: 976k.)
- LBJ, who as vice president became president after the assassination of JFK, won the 1964 election despite a loss of 164k jobs the month before the election. (Total net gain for first 10 months: 1.43m.)
- Nixon won re-election in 1972 despite July 1972 losing 51k jobs. (1972 gained 2.56m jobs before November.)
- Clinton won re-election in 1996 even though the year began with a loss of 21k. (1996 gained 2.33m jobs pre-election.)
In the other elections in which the president was re-elected (Reagan 1984, Dim Son 2004), all the first ten months had net job gains.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|4th law of robotics||Aug 2012||#17|
Here's the video of Thom's rumble with Judson Phillips when the May numbers came out.
|Name removed||Sep 2013||#23|
Please login to view edit histories.